Talk:Robert Lewis Dabney

Dabney

[copied from talk pages] Hi, Yakuman. I had deleted the link you added to R. L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia not because I wanted to hide his politics but because on a quick glance, it didn't seem like there was anything but bibliographic information at that link. So that readers don't make the same mistake, I have put a more direct link in its place. I also deleted the other link from UTexas because it adds nothing that is not already mentioned in the article (cf. #1 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and I removed the stub tag because, while the article could be expanded by a knowledgable editor, it would be difficult for someone else to do so (cf. WP:STUB). --Flex 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The stub tag needs to go back. Is theological learning so bad that no one can do a decent write-up on him? I mean, besides someone calling him an evil dead male cracker racist sexist homophobe. Yakuman 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

Yakuman has raised the question of whether this article is properly identified as a stub or not. I say it is not a stub because of the first bullet point under WP:STUB#Case_not_regarded_as_stub. In response to this, Yakuman asked on my talk page, "Is theological learning so bad that no one can do a decent write-up on him?" I answer yes. As far as I know, his views were not all that remarkable or novel when compared to contemporary conservative Calvinists (the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia from which the original entry was drawn didn't make much of a deal about his theology either), except perhaps with regard to politics and slavery. --Flex 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Schaff was heavily influenced by German rationalism and romanticism, so his encyclopedia reflects that. If you don't care about the guy, please don't edit his article. Yakuman 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do care about him and the quality of the article in general (and I don't appreciate your rather uncivil intimations to the contrary), but in comparison to Schaff-Herzog, I'd also add that the 1911 Britannica doesn't have an entry for Dabney at all. I think he deserves a page (I created this one after all!), but I don't think it should be classified as a stub for the reasons mentioned above. What specifically is missing that you think needs to be added that could be done by a man-on-the-street armed with Google or a quick trip to the reference library? --Flex 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Last Word

Other than that poor Dabney's theology and cultural context are almost completely absent, save for my own contributions, there's no problem here. Also, I was not being "uncivil." You yourself said he was irrelevant:

As far as I know, his views were not all that remarkable or novel when compared to contemporary conservative Calvinists...

Furthermore, I find gratuitous use of the WP:CIVIL tag to be itself uncivil. Since I am no fan of policy fights, as my talk page explains, I'll leave the stub tag off. Yakuman 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Remarkable" and "novel" are not the same as "irrelevant." Please tone down your rhetoric. I meant that he was pretty much an orthodox Calvinist, so his theology is already covered at Calvinism etc. No need to repeat that material here unless he has some different take or application on the old doctrines. Also, I don't think the term "Old School Presbyterian" is helpful as it stands. It needs to be replaced, defined in place, or wikilinked to a page that does so (but be careful of WP:NOR). --Flex 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is incomplete

The article could note a few things of interest to historians. The present article appears to be based on Sean Lucas's biography of Jackson. Lucas is a reputable scholar, but as a theologian who works in Dabney's tradition, he emphasizes Dabney's theology and misses parts of the story of interest to historians and Civil War buffs. Dabney played a major role in Stonewall Jackson's disasterous performance in the Seven Day's Battle's and was called by Jackson's leading biographer, James I. Robertson, in Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Life, the Legend (1997) the "worst" appointment Jackson ever made.

Dabney's biography of Jackson is still in print today, and did much to shape early perceptions of Jackson, and that is significant to many historians.

The assertions made above are documented in [1]Wallace Hettle, "The Minister, the Martyr, and the Maxim: Robert Lewis Dabney and Stonewall Jackson Biography" Civil War History - Volume 49, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 353-369.

As the article above shows, it also incorrect to say that Dabney held typical views on race and slavery for his generation. His views are typical in 1855, when he is a young man but he lived until the 1890s. After the Civil War, when most southerners had discarded the theological defense of slavery, he continued to defend the institution.

Sorry I didn't just edit the thing myself, but I'm not sure I want to do that because I don't know how it involves issues close to my heart and my personal research on Jackson and Dabney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.211.105 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to take a stab at it. Provide reliable sources, avoid original research, and try to make it neutral. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tinkling Spring

FYI, Tinkling Spring, Virginia now goes somewhere. I copied and sourced the date from the historical marker, which differs from that given in this article. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Lewis Dabney/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I know some people who think his theology is important, although I don't recall why. I think we need a little more writeup of his theology. -- TimNelson 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Descendant of Huguenot family?

The statement that he was "a descendant of Cornelius d'Aubigné from an extended d'Aubigné (Dabney) Huguenot family" was refuted by extensive research done by his son, Charles William Dabney, published as “The Origin of the Dabney Family of Virginia” in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography in 1937. I would replace this phrase with "a descendant of Cornelius Dabney" (there were variant spellings but that was how he himself signed his name, as shown in Charles' research) and drop the rest of it. There's no need to mention or debate the issue of whether the family came from Huguenots here. BobSundquist (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)