Talk:James Townsend (abolitionist)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the grandson of abolitionist James Townsend was the first United States man to complete teacher training under the tutelage of Maria Montessori? Source: McGroarty, John Steven (1921). Los Angeles from the Mountains to the Sea. American Historical Society. p. 503.

• ALT-1 (added Jan. 6) ... that, after becoming "convinced of the evils of slavery", James Townsend left Kentucky for Indiana?

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Haewoojae

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 00:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/James Townsend (abolitionist); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This is only a comment rather than a review, but I would suggest proposing a hook about Townsend himself as the current hook is more about his grandson than himself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• @Chetsford: Will you be able to propose additional hooks? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Given that no one else has reviewed this, I am taking the initiative to review this. The article is new enough and the nomination was done on the day the article was created. A QPQ has been found and no close paraphrasing was found.

However, I am not happy with the state of the article. It is very incomplete regarding Townsend's life. For one thing, no reference or context is given for his year of birth as well as his date of death. The date of death is only mentioned in the lead but it is not elaborated on in the article. Indeed, nothing about his life between the Panic of 1837 and his death is explained at all in the article. In addition, about half of the article if not over half of it is actually about his family and descendants, rather than about Townsend himself. Considering that the article is supposed to be about Townsend and much of the article is not about him, I do not think the article as it stands passes WP:DYKCOMPLETE.

Finally, as mentioned above, the hook above is not about Townsend himself but one of his descendants. A hook that is only indirectly about the subject is not ideal. The way I see it, I can see two potential paths forward for this nomination to pass: either the article is expanded with more information about Townsend, perhaps also including information that could be used as a hook, or the article could be renamed and its focus be changed to be more about the Townsend family rather than James Townsend himself. If these issues are not addressed then unfortunately the nomination may have to be failed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, Narutolovehinata5, updated. Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the article is still missing a lot about his later life including information about his death. The sourcing issue for the dates of birth and death also remain unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I thought I'd added the DOB and DOD refs but it looks like they were caught in draft state. They're now added to the infobox. What information would you like me to add about his later life and death? Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything you can find about his later life. Right now the article seems incomplete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions) 04:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I solemnly avow that everything discoverable in RS is included in the article, to the best of my ability. Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps just include his death in the prose, with a reference. Still, I'm really not sure if it's a good idea that about half of the article is about his descendants rather than him himself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. I mean I guess I could delete the section about his descendants and the article would still be over the requisite character count. Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't be necessary, the important think is that the part about his descendants shouldn't be half or over half the length of the article. This can be solved by beefing up the part about James. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that would definitely be great. Chetsford (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Chetsford: Apologies for the delay in responding, but has the expansion been completed yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Narutolovehinata5 - as per above, there is nothing with which to expand, unfortunately. The article, in current form, constitutes the entire universe of information on this person. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Noted. Given that most of the article is about Townsend's relatives and not he himself, unfortunately I still feel that the article is not suitable for DYK given the weight given to the parts not about him, as well as the WP:DYKCOMPLETE concerns. With this in mind, I am marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful.

However, I will not oppose if a different editor disagrees with me and says the article can run under its current state; if this is to be done, for the reasons stated above, only ALT1 is in consideration for review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. While I appreciate the review, I don't believe the insatiability of one's curiosity on undocumented aspects of a subject is grounds for rejection of a DYK under WP:DYKCOMPLETE provided all other criteria are met, which appears to be the case here. DYKCOMPLETE presents that all significant, available information about a subject be included in the article, and does not require us to include information about which no source exists. The fact, for instance, that we don't know the date of birth of Abu Bakr is probably not a reasonable basis to reject it under DYKCOMPLETE. That said, I appreciate your amenability to a second review. Chetsford (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: It really isn't the lack of completeness here, it's more that I'm unhappy that most of the article is not actually about Townsend himself. Maybe WP:DYKCOMPLETE wasn't the best guideline to cite, I only mentioned it because the part about Townsend is actually very short and if the part not about him was split off/removed the article would not meet DYK's criteria. I'm not comfortable approving an article about a subject where over half of the article isn't about the subject himself, which is the reason why I'd rather reject this unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions) 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. This is all voluntary and I don't expect you to approve anything you feel uncomfortable approving. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per a discussion at WT:DYK, the article has been restructured with the other parts not about Townsend being moved to a different article. As such, the article is ready for a fresh look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Lehman source attributes the evils of slavery quote to his grandson, but the way it's presented in the article makes it look like a direct quote. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Paul_012! This is correct now. Chetsford (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the update, but looking again at both the Slavery in the upper Mississippi and History of Putnam sources, I can't verify the statement as worded in the article. (I'm not seeing anything about a specific religious experience, only that he was a man of strong religious convictions. Are there other sources that mention this or was it maybe a misreading of the source?) Anyway, article is still over the 1,500 character mark, so it's new and long enough. Verification of the aforementioned statement is the one main issue that still needs to be addressed. Whether the hook works will depend on how this is reworded. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I'm inclined to believe this is an accurate summary of the source, however, I've changed that sentence to quote it directly, if you prefer. Chetsford (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Looking further at older published sources, this appears to be the entire relevant sentence from the original quote: "In 1830 his father, James Townsend, a successful planter and a man of strong religious convictions, becoming convinced of the evils of slavery, liberated his thirty slaves, gave them homes, and then moved to Putnam county, Ind." My reading is that his religious convictions were pre-existing, before someone or something convinced him of the evils of slavery, which wasn't necessarily religious in nature. I think rewording would be optimal. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I typed the above before your edit went through on the article. It's an improvement, but please allow me to think this over. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've taken the liberty to work the quotation from the original source into the article mostly verbatim; It's old enough so there shouldn't be any copyright concerns. I think it works better, but do say if you disagree. With that out of the way, I don't see other major issues with the article. Alt1 is verified and within length. Not the most interesting TBH, but I think the brevity does work in its favour, piquing one's interest more than if more context was given. QPQ supplied, so approved. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)