Talk:James Madison/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Slavery section neutrality
Does anyone object to me making edits to get the Slavery section back to a neutral tone? I would be using this source: Princeton & Slavery James Madison It is very unbiased and from princeton.edu, Madison's Princeton University alma mater. The author of the article is Paris Amanda Spies-Gans. She has a Ph.D. in History from Princeton University. I think the article would help a lot to make the article neutral. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that Madison's alma mater is the place to find the least egregious bias (as everything written is biased in some way) account, and you probably specify what changes you want to make here, rather than expecting carte blanche. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cmguy777, edit away. That's why we're here...to edit. However, in keeping with Dhtwiki's concern, it might be better to proceed incrementally. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on any one source, especially in a case where sources abound. So the more, the merrier. Allreet (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. My edits would try and make some sense on Madison's views and non actions toward slavery with background information. Other sources could be used on Madison's actual treatment of slaves. The goal is just to make the article neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cmguy777, edit away. That's why we're here...to edit. However, in keeping with Dhtwiki's concern, it might be better to proceed incrementally. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on any one source, especially in a case where sources abound. So the more, the merrier. Allreet (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: — your edits seem fair enough, with one possible exception i.e. . . . and he also sold slaves for profit.
— We have to remember that the entire advent of slavery occurred to make a profit, so saying Madison did so in a stand alone out of context statement presents the idea as something unusual. Madison was not in business to simply sell slaves, and when he did it was to satisfy many of the debts he had acquired. At the time of Madison's death there were many outstanding debts, which soon forced Dolly to sell Montpelier and its slaves to pay them off. The statement as it stands suggests that Madison sold slaves on a regular basis for no other reason than to make a profit. Paying off debts is not exactly making a profit, as the current statement more than suggests. I would recommend that it be removed, as this idea is better covered in that same paragraph. i.e. "During the 1820s and 1830s, Madison sold some of his land and slaves to repay debt."
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am all for making your change and I appreciate your advise Gwillhickers. I was only going by the source. The statement that Madison sold slaves for profit was meant only to be one only of fact, not of judgement, or imply anything was unusual. I hope more editors will get in on the conversation. I did not want to make anymore edits until other editors got involved. Hopefully we can endeavor to get the Madison article back to neutrality. As long as you supply the source feel free to make the change. Also you are free to make any other changes that make the slavery section neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- What should also be mentioned is that Madison freed one slave. Madison sold a slave with a contract the slave would be free after 7 years of servitude. That adds neutrality to the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the Madison sold slaves for profit information in the last part of the sentence. More context is essential. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added information and tweaked the first paragraph. I think it is an improvement. It reads better. Feel free to make any changes. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks. I have reservations about the source that was used. Spies-Gans, 2023. While she certainly is a credentialed historian from Princeton she, imo, comes of a little naive, as she doesn't once mention that Madison sold some of his slaves and land to pay off outstanding debts. The opening heading statement in her essay simply reads...
- I added information and tweaked the first paragraph. I think it is an improvement. It reads better. Feel free to make any changes. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the Madison sold slaves for profit information in the last part of the sentence. More context is essential. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- What should also be mentioned is that Madison freed one slave. Madison sold a slave with a contract the slave would be free after 7 years of servitude. That adds neutrality to the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
James Madison, Princeton alumnus and fourth President of the United States, held contradictory views on slavery throughout his life, arguing that slavery was incompatible with Revolutionary principles even as he owned over one hundred slaves on his Virginia plantation, brought enslaved people to the White House, and ultimately sold them for personal profit.
- Her essay at no time qualifies this opening statement. Also, her contention that Madison had "conflicting views" about slavery isn't nearly true. Madison's views were consistent, but not in line with the fact that he never freed any of them, the reasons of which are well outline in Gutzman, 2012, pp. 356, and Ketcham, 1990, pp. 626- 628. Madison, like Jefferson and others, had strong reservations about freeing slaves, with nothing but a pat on the back and good luck wishes, as slaves, esp woman and children had no means of support, no shelter, would have to forage or beg for food, etc, and would force many to resort to theft, or worse, to survive. There was also the concern that once freed, many slaves would take on arms and pose a threat to their former masters, encouraging other freed slaves to do the same, resulting in a race war they would likely lose. He also believed that freed Blacks in a biracial society was a situation that would be most harmful to blacks. Madison, however, differed in his views of Jefferson and did not subscribe to the idea that Blacks were of inferior intelligence, and simply recognized that their condition, along with not being able to read and write, not yet westernized, which takes generations to effect, was largely responsible. In any case, the account you've authored looks realistic, but it might do well to add a few other points regarding Madison's views, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwillhickers. I am not disagreeing with any of your statements. But I believe Spies-Gans helps the article get to neutral status. There are other sources used in the section. Also, Spies-Gans said that Madison did free one slave, which I think is a fair statement for the article. Even though we can disagree with Spies-Gans, she is a qualified historian from Princeton, Madison's alma mater. I suppose what she meant by making a profit from slavery is that Madison used them as collateral for loans, such as selling them to pay for a debt. But I did take that part out of the article. She was unclear on that. The first paragraph does mention Madison sold his slaves to get out of his debts. But I agree there was too much conjecture in Spies-Gan's statement on making a profit from slavery, so I removed it from the article. My other concern is that I don't really know why the neutrality tag was placed. Whoever put that there, I hope would tell us why the Madison slavery section is not neutral. My only goal right now is to get rid of the neutrality tag. What is it that makes the section not neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Spies-Gans is acceptable, but her opening paragraph left a lot of open ended assertions, esp about Madison's views. In any case, yes, it appears the section is more balanced out thanks to the other sources, not that it was way off balance in the first place. I noticed above that there are several contentions that are purely a matter of opinion. Like using slave v enslaved person, the former being used in nearly all reliable sources, new and old. i.e. This is not the place to assert personal speculations and opinions. We say what the sources say. (Comment not aimed at you.)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwillhickers. I am not disagreeing with any of your statements. But I believe Spies-Gans helps the article get to neutral status. There are other sources used in the section. Also, Spies-Gans said that Madison did free one slave, which I think is a fair statement for the article. Even though we can disagree with Spies-Gans, she is a qualified historian from Princeton, Madison's alma mater. I suppose what she meant by making a profit from slavery is that Madison used them as collateral for loans, such as selling them to pay for a debt. But I did take that part out of the article. She was unclear on that. The first paragraph does mention Madison sold his slaves to get out of his debts. But I agree there was too much conjecture in Spies-Gan's statement on making a profit from slavery, so I removed it from the article. My other concern is that I don't really know why the neutrality tag was placed. Whoever put that there, I hope would tell us why the Madison slavery section is not neutral. My only goal right now is to get rid of the neutrality tag. What is it that makes the section not neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Her essay at no time qualifies this opening statement. Also, her contention that Madison had "conflicting views" about slavery isn't nearly true. Madison's views were consistent, but not in line with the fact that he never freed any of them, the reasons of which are well outline in Gutzman, 2012, pp. 356, and Ketcham, 1990, pp. 626- 628. Madison, like Jefferson and others, had strong reservations about freeing slaves, with nothing but a pat on the back and good luck wishes, as slaves, esp woman and children had no means of support, no shelter, would have to forage or beg for food, etc, and would force many to resort to theft, or worse, to survive. There was also the concern that once freed, many slaves would take on arms and pose a threat to their former masters, encouraging other freed slaves to do the same, resulting in a race war they would likely lose. He also believed that freed Blacks in a biracial society was a situation that would be most harmful to blacks. Madison, however, differed in his views of Jefferson and did not subscribe to the idea that Blacks were of inferior intelligence, and simply recognized that their condition, along with not being able to read and write, not yet westernized, which takes generations to effect, was largely responsible. In any case, the account you've authored looks realistic, but it might do well to add a few other points regarding Madison's views, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Poll
Changes have been made to the Slavery section. Spies-Gans opinion has been added. Information on Madison freeing a slave has been added. Please point out any neutrality issues. Is this enough to remove the neutrality tag? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vote: Yes I can't find any neutrality issues. The above changes have been made. The neutrality tag should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, imo the tag shouldn't have been added in the first place, and was added by an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk. He is currently under review for this sort of behavior here, and for a good number of other articles, at ANI.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: John Quiggin originally added the tag, and he has since retired from Wikipedia. — Freoh 01:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
POV?
@Cmguy777: — I condensed some text here removing the adjective "overconfident", as this, on retrospect, seemed a bit opinionated, esp since Madison took into account Britain's involvement with Napoleon. If you disagree, go ahead and revert, I won't contest it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- No need to revert. I do believe there was an idea of a quick win. Madison's Generals let him down, at least at the first Canadian invasion. The Indians who helped the British, did not use conventional warfare. It was not a good start to the war, especially the no fight surrender of Fort Detroit. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is everyone ok on this at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)