User talk:213.66.204.51

March 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nottoway Plantation, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SunDawn talk 02:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Nottoway Plantation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SunDawn talk 02:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There's no reliable source provided for slaves having built the plantation, so if my source (for now I have only posted one) is not good enough, then I suggest we change it to read "The plantation house is a Greek Revival- and Italianate-styled mansion built by renowned architect Henry Howard for John Hampden Randolph in 1859" Until there's a reliable source proving slaves built it, as well as white professional craftsmen.

I cannot see any reliable source supporting the claim that slaves built it, and not white professional craftsmen.

Best regards /Eric

Here's another source https://americanbutler.ru/en/tours/states/louisiana/places-la/nottoway-plantation

213.66.204.51 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further down the article we got The wood's most notable feature is not its durability, but its resistance to termites. Handmade bricks were baked in kilns by enslaved workers and 40 carpenters, brick masons and plumbers were hired by Howard, who lived in tents at the site of construction while doing their work., which clearly states "enslaved workers". The source is from this book. Thus, it is clear that slave labor are used during the construction. Thanks. SunDawn talk 04:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case my edit stands, since the carpenters and brick masons and plumbers were white, hired white craftsmen that were *paid to build the house. The slaves didn't build it, they made the bricks for it. That's a far cry from how the Wiki reads right now Quote "The plantation house is a Greek Revival- and Italianate-styled mansion built by slaves for John Hampden Randolph in 1859" That is clearly false, there is no support for the claim that slaves built it. Which you have now recognized.

Best regards /Eric 81.225.109.85 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"White craftsmen" have no sources. The carpenters, masons, and plumbers may be whites, but as there is no source we can't place it on the article. As for the enslaved workers, in my opinion making bricks is part of the construction process - while the place itself is not wholly constructed by slave labor, slave labor is clearly used during the construction. Removing the "slaves" from the sentence implies that no slave labor is being used, which is not the case. I propose to change the sentence into The plantation house is a Greek Revival- and Italianate-styled mansion built by craftsmen along with slaves for John Hampden Randolph in 1859. That way, it is clearer that slaves are not the one who is building the house, while also made it clear that slave labor is being used during construction process. SunDawn talk 01:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White craftsmen do have sources, also, the carpenters, masons and plumbers were all *paid, slaves were never paid for their labor. However, making bricks is indeed part of the construction process and I am not diminishing the contribution, at all. Burning bricks is a bit of an art. But. It's a far cry from having built it, let alone having the expertise required to build the house. With that being said though, I'm onboard with your proposed change of Quote "The plantation house is a Greek Revival- and Italianate-styled mansion built by craftsmen along with slaves for John Hampden Randolph in 1859" I think that's a good way of phrasing it and I have to admit it reads better than my own edit and it's also an honest and balanced way of putting it.

Best regards /Eric

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.