Talk:Nat Turner/Archive 2
Latest comment: 9 months ago by IgnatiusofLondon in topic No consensus, non admin closure on a serious topic that requires more indepth discussion, a formal RFC should be started
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nat Turner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
No consensus, non admin closure on a serious topic that requires more indepth discussion, a formal RFC should be started
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Klbrain: and @Steve Quinn:, how was there consensus? BIOPE1 doesn't apply, it's a highly significant event, just like Spartacus. There was absolutely no consensus to merge a serious topic, if so i may have to start a RFC - this deserves wider opinion, this is misuse of a policy meant to contain reality stars, mass murderers and in the news people - Nat Turner is a legitimate historical figure. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Even Britannica, a serious and reputable encyclopedia covers him solo [1]. BIOPE1 has a clause citing significant figures in significant events get their own article, how did the support votes cite policy?
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
Unless Nat Turner didn't have a significant role in "Nat Turner's slave rebellion". Also there's precedent with Dred Scott v. Sandford and Dred Scott, because you know - that significant role exemption of the policy miscited in this nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @GuzzyG: This was only closed by going through the Administrator's notice board (see archived call at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion). 16 months of open discussion was sufficient time for people to air their views. You might note that I voiced an objection, but that objection being over-ruled I completed the merge given that the consensus was against my view, and my reading was that the close was fair. Klbrain (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: How is a rush to close due to being open a long time fair? People were citing a policy that provides a clear exemption that they ignored, why are we above the britannica? Why do on the first two pages of google books do only three books mention "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" and not focus on him? [2] and [3], plenty of historical figures have revolt's like Pemulwuy, Yagan, and Popé. I could name many others, there's no "Pemulwuy's rebellion", if anything the event should be merged here. It should be on the supporting editors to explain why a policy meant for reality stars and mass murderers is being cited for a hugely important significant figure when there's a exemption in that policy for them and why Dred Scott is different, you can't miscite a policy and have it work. That discussion was weak, this will need a formal RFC and a proper admin closure. GuzzyG (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- How about this book, that purely examines his religious role [4], would that not be significant coverage of a figure like what's cited in the exemption of that policy the supports were citing? There's many others like this. GuzzyG (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess the lesson here is not to succeed with your plans or you won't be considered notable, but if you fail you get articles as in Denmark Vesey or Gabriel Prosser or many other failures and every other rebel we cover. Lets redirect articles like Henry Ross and Peter Lalor to Eureka Rebellion, since rebels are not significant figures in their own rebellion. The reason why this needed a proper admin closure is because it fundamentally changes how we write about rebels. That's why a RFC is needed, which i will start when i have free time. GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- How about this book, that purely examines his religious role [4], would that not be significant coverage of a figure like what's cited in the exemption of that policy the supports were citing? There's many others like this. GuzzyG (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: How is a rush to close due to being open a long time fair? People were citing a policy that provides a clear exemption that they ignored, why are we above the britannica? Why do on the first two pages of google books do only three books mention "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" and not focus on him? [2] and [3], plenty of historical figures have revolt's like Pemulwuy, Yagan, and Popé. I could name many others, there's no "Pemulwuy's rebellion", if anything the event should be merged here. It should be on the supporting editors to explain why a policy meant for reality stars and mass murderers is being cited for a hugely important significant figure when there's a exemption in that policy for them and why Dred Scott is different, you can't miscite a policy and have it work. That discussion was weak, this will need a formal RFC and a proper admin closure. GuzzyG (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @GuzzyG: This was only closed by going through the Administrator's notice board (see archived call at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion). 16 months of open discussion was sufficient time for people to air their views. You might note that I voiced an objection, but that objection being over-ruled I completed the merge given that the consensus was against my view, and my reading was that the close was fair. Klbrain (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The main concerns in this RFC were there was significant overlap and that reviewed sourced information on Nat Turner appears to be indistinguishable from this event. For example, the opening of BIOPE1 says:
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.
- The main concerns in this RFC were there was significant overlap and that reviewed sourced information on Nat Turner appears to be indistinguishable from this event. For example, the opening of BIOPE1 says:
- That speaks to the wording of the RFC proposal. This is what the proposal correlated to. And in this instance, Nat Turner's bio is at most equal to the event and vice versa. And if the rebellion hadn't happened, Nat Turner probably would not be currently considered notable. This means there has not been enough in his biography for a separate article. Again, this is what the merge proposal was saying, and this is the consensus that has been reached. Then, the last sentence in the paragraph says
However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
- So, maybe a discussion is needed to see if sources have emerged that specifically enlarge Nat Turner's biography sufficiently. This would seem to entail agreement between concerned editors. I don't think another RFC is necessary nor would it accomplish much regarding this. I think an informal discussion will be more effective, because that would be an offering of sources to support the contention for a different article. I feel I've explained my thinking sufficiently and I'm not going to undo the RFC. If anyone wants to challenge the close itself then please feel free to do so at WP:AN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The reason this requires more in-depth discussion, that you seem to skip over is that it requires that we fundamentally change how we treat rebellion leaders - the majority of which who die or are only notable for the rebellion, since you equate historical and successful examples of rebellion with a rule meant for in the news people, mass murderers, beauty pageant contestants and reality television stars; other professional sources like the britannica choose the bio over the event; the onus is on the supporters to prove why we should fundamentally change encyclopedic convention for a rule for reality stars. Every single rebellion leader would not pass this rule. They're only notable for the event and it would require articles like Pemulwuy and Yagan and many others to be rewritten in focus of the events. This is the rule being established, which you've failed to mention. It's the same with Dred Scott, the discussion did not adequately address any of this, so further discussion is needed and rebellion leaders need to be placed among mass murderers and reality stars, only notable for one event. What can a biography of Spartacus provide that will not be in the war article? The big name might make it seem not a similar case, but it is. This is what the support votes never addressed, which is why we need more discussion. The ball has started to roll and ignoring it won't help, we can't pick or choose, if Nat Turner is redirected, than the precedent is that most rebel leaders will too, because 99% of their bio is the rebellion - this is why there's the exemption for actual historical figures and again, why this needs more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Britannica describes him as having "led the only effective, sustained slave rebellion (August 1831) in U.S. history" [5], if that's not a clear example of a significant event i do not know what is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I hope it is not "me" as in who you refer to as "you". I closed according to consensus. And I am not going to respond to overgeneralizations. We are editing according to Wikipedia not according to Britannica. Anyway, I previously provided two solutions that can be pursued. After this I will no longer be responding to this thread. G'day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a in general "you", although you skipped over most of my points, how is Spartacus different exactly? It's not adequate consensus when it fundamentally changes how a whole group (rebellion leaders) of biographies are seen and how we treat these subjects on wiki, we can't pick and choose rebellion leaders if they are susceptible to a reality star rule than they all must be reexamined, even Spartacus. Look at how other wikis treat the subject, 28 articles for Nat Turner [6], 5 for the rebellion [7] - which shows this isn't a clear pass. When i have time i will start a RFC, it may be a "waste of time" but if it passes i have hundreds of articles related to rebellion leaders to nominate for redirection into the main article and to turn biographies into event articles, so a more indepth consensus must be achieved - even if it leads to the same result. Do you not see the precedent this decision has made? A site precedent requires more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's also a shame we lose the spoken word audio that someone put 16 minutes into for this article [8] with this move with hardly any proper discussion in a formal setting. GuzzyG (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- one last thing; it's also worth a discussion if Turner doesn't pass this exemption in the cited policy "person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.", which is how most rebllion leaders have been treated Yagan and Pemulwuy etc. Pageviews back this up with 4.8 million for Nat Turner [9] and only 1.4 million for the rebellion [10], i think by now it's worth further discussion atleast, just to be clear, would you not agree? GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's also a shame we lose the spoken word audio that someone put 16 minutes into for this article [8] with this move with hardly any proper discussion in a formal setting. GuzzyG (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a in general "you", although you skipped over most of my points, how is Spartacus different exactly? It's not adequate consensus when it fundamentally changes how a whole group (rebellion leaders) of biographies are seen and how we treat these subjects on wiki, we can't pick and choose rebellion leaders if they are susceptible to a reality star rule than they all must be reexamined, even Spartacus. Look at how other wikis treat the subject, 28 articles for Nat Turner [6], 5 for the rebellion [7] - which shows this isn't a clear pass. When i have time i will start a RFC, it may be a "waste of time" but if it passes i have hundreds of articles related to rebellion leaders to nominate for redirection into the main article and to turn biographies into event articles, so a more indepth consensus must be achieved - even if it leads to the same result. Do you not see the precedent this decision has made? A site precedent requires more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I hope it is not "me" as in who you refer to as "you". I closed according to consensus. And I am not going to respond to overgeneralizations. We are editing according to Wikipedia not according to Britannica. Anyway, I previously provided two solutions that can be pursued. After this I will no longer be responding to this thread. G'day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Britannica describes him as having "led the only effective, sustained slave rebellion (August 1831) in U.S. history" [5], if that's not a clear example of a significant event i do not know what is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The reason this requires more in-depth discussion, that you seem to skip over is that it requires that we fundamentally change how we treat rebellion leaders - the majority of which who die or are only notable for the rebellion, since you equate historical and successful examples of rebellion with a rule meant for in the news people, mass murderers, beauty pageant contestants and reality television stars; other professional sources like the britannica choose the bio over the event; the onus is on the supporters to prove why we should fundamentally change encyclopedic convention for a rule for reality stars. Every single rebellion leader would not pass this rule. They're only notable for the event and it would require articles like Pemulwuy and Yagan and many others to be rewritten in focus of the events. This is the rule being established, which you've failed to mention. It's the same with Dred Scott, the discussion did not adequately address any of this, so further discussion is needed and rebellion leaders need to be placed among mass murderers and reality stars, only notable for one event. What can a biography of Spartacus provide that will not be in the war article? The big name might make it seem not a similar case, but it is. This is what the support votes never addressed, which is why we need more discussion. The ball has started to roll and ignoring it won't help, we can't pick or choose, if Nat Turner is redirected, than the precedent is that most rebel leaders will too, because 99% of their bio is the rebellion - this is why there's the exemption for actual historical figures and again, why this needs more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- That speaks to the wording of the RFC proposal. This is what the proposal correlated to. And in this instance, Nat Turner's bio is at most equal to the event and vice versa. And if the rebellion hadn't happened, Nat Turner probably would not be currently considered notable. This means there has not been enough in his biography for a separate article. Again, this is what the merge proposal was saying, and this is the consensus that has been reached. Then, the last sentence in the paragraph says
- @GuzzyG: I 1000% agree that the wrong decision was made due to a misunderstanding of policy. I have never gotten involved in an RfC but if I can help at all, I would absolutely be willing to pitch in! ― biggins (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merger discussion
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was merge. Rublamb (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I am proposing that this article, Cherry Turner be merged with Nat Turner's slave rebellion (now moved to Nat Turner]]. In 2011, the biographical article for Nat Turner was merged with Nat Turner's slave rebellion under the premise that his notability was strictly limited to the rebellion. Similarly, Cherry Turner's notability seems to be her relationship to her spouse, Nat. The content about her could easily be included in Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Turner's life. Rublamb (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per above. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support as per above. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.