Talk:Martha Jefferson
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Shearonink in topic Recent edits - terminology "slaves" or "enslaved persons" etc.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martha Jefferson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misrepresentations in "slaves" section
editThe article's wording suggests Hemings and her children were included in Martha's dowry. The cited sources do not actually support this claim.
The Hemings were not included in Martha's dowry.
"Ownership" of the Hemings did not pass to Martha until years later upon her father's death. Thomas Jefferson was only named as an executor of her father's will - but Thomas Jefferson himself was not named as a benefactor.
Her father's will explicitly passed ownership of the Hemings solely to Martha.
When Martha died intestate (without a will), her ownership of the Hemings passed by default to her living children. Pimprncess (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Recent edits - terminology "slaves" or "enslaved persons" etc.
editSays it all. It's my understanding that style guides etc states that "enslaved persons" is correct. Let's discuss if we must. Might end up needing a Wikipedis-wide RfC on this... - Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's own page on slavery uses the term "slave" much more than "enslaved person". It only uses it in the terminology section. It also makes no sense that the new term is only used in regards to American slavery. No one is changing the articles on Spartacus or the Ottoman Empire. Clintville (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- While a discussion is taking place it's usually considered a good practice to leave the article alone rather than changing it back to a preferred version. Since two editors have used the enslaved persons terminology that could be considered as the consensus and yet the article has been changed back to slaves...
- Keeping in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS this discussion is only about this article but if we are going to look around Wikipedia to see how other articles treat the terminology rather than Slavery a more-connected candidate would be Slavery in the United States where multiple instances of enslaved persons or enslaved workers etc do occur.
- Re Spartacus/Ottoman Empire...these two concepts/entities didn't enslave peoples based solely on their being black Africans or the descendants of black Africans or being partially a descendant of black Africans. The Ottoman Empire version was based on commerce and not on skin color and was more towards the concept of indentured servants (for instance, the child of a female slave in the Empire was considered free and wasn't enslaved for perpetuity).
- Anyway, I digress, back to this article...the American peculiar institution is charged with emotion for people of color. To insist on terminology that many consider outdated or to be an "othering" of a group of people seems pejorative and dismissive. Perhaps you should open an RfC on the usage of slaves vs. enslaved persons in articles that would fall under Slavery in the United States to see what the editorial consensus is on the matter. - Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- While a discussion is taking place it's usually considered a good practice to leave the article alone rather than changing it back to a preferred version. Since two editors have used the enslaved persons terminology that could be considered as the consensus and yet the article has been changed back to slaves...