Talk:Isaac Davis (soldier)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isaac Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 17:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose issue

• Is it "Minute Man" or "The Minute Man". You mention both, but you should stick to one.
• In the "Preparations for war" section, Most Minuteman companies were not equipped with bayonets. → When I read the previous sentence and then the one I just mentioned, it seems out of place. I think a little more context is needed to make that part of the paragraph flow a bit better.

Verifiability issues

• "Legacy" section, that first sentence that follows Emerson's piece is going to need a reference. I am fine with the proceeding sentence, which is more quantitative than anything, but that one sentence where it's claimed that the "Minute Man" statue is iconic is significant enough of a claim in which I think it needs to be cited.

  I see that you added an appropriate reference, but could you add an inline citation there so that readers know where you got it from? –MuZemike 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do you have a page number(s) for the Ryan and Bracken references?
• I have added {{Failed verification}} tags where I could not verify the information against the references. Please go through and rectify those issues where they are tagged.
  • To clarify, for the second tag (at the end of that first paragraph in the "Preparations for war" section), the only thing which I could not verify was the date of establishment of the Minutemen; the reference mentions nothing about 1774.

Coverage issue

• You can probably add a little more in the "Early life and family" section; the Fletcher reference has a little bit more relevant information (e.g. birthdate) which you can add.

Conclusions

In progress – I still need to go through the sources in more detail and make sure the content in the article are in the citations given. Just a pointer for future articles: try and write longer, fuller paragraphs when you can, preferably somewhere between 4-9 sentences. That makes the prose look more professional and appealing to readers. Hopefully I'll finish with the GA review sometime later today. –MuZemike 17:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. The statue is called "The Minute Man." Thanks for catching the inconsistency, I've fixed it. I re-wrote the sentences about bayonets and equipment and I hope it flows better now. I added a reference for the "iconic" statement. Let me know if you think there is anything else that needs fixing. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

On hold – I've completed my GA review and have placed it on hold pending resolution of the issues I noted above. I have added a couple of verifiability issues and an additional recommendation to expand with the sources that you have, because I think you could expand just a little more. Also, I have struck those issues which were resolved. Apologies (now and in advance) for the hold-up on the review, as I am reviewing this while on my vacation. –MuZemike 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the citation re: "iconic" here. I do not have page numbers for the Bracken or Ryan articles. The versions I am using are the electronic ones and therefore do not indicate page numbers of the original magazine/journal articles. I have added new citations where you placed the failed citation template...Galvin addresses these events and specifically notes the dates. Under early life, I added his birthdate and the birth year of his wife, but beyond that, I really could find any additional information. There's almost nothing recorded about his life prior to 1775. I hope this addresses the above. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Passed – Your explanations are perfectly reasonable; I didn't think of the electronic-only copies of the books, just make sure you have the correct OCLC/ISSN numbers there, so that they can be accessible. I also figured that only one or two more sentences at most could be added to the "birth" section, and IMO I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. Good work! –MuZemike 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I added OCLC numbers for the online publications. Thanks very much for the review! Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A few concerns, dubious info, other

Yay, people are working on this article!!!! My baby is all grown up! I'm sad to see a lot of what I wrote gone, but clearly I am no writer, nor was I very good at finding sources.

I read through the article and had a few points:

1) Charge? I never read of a charge in any of my sources. Could someone clarify what is meant by "charge?" I imagine running and screaming, perhaps I've seen too many war movies? My limited sources speak of soldiers standing and speaking and then diving for cover, but not charging.

2) I added a citation needed tag next to the "fact" about Davis being chosen to lead because his men had bayonets. As I had originally written (and I think cited), nobody knows for sure why this junior officer was chosen to take the lead position, nor even if he was chosen or if he took it himself, nor if it was offered to someone else who declined. Perhaps my source was wrong, but please cite a source contradicting that. It also might be of interest to mention that he was not the senior officer when given the lead.

3) Also, why was Samuel Prescott removed from this article and replaced with "a messenger?" That's quite the demotion for someone who helped found a country!

4) The Acton Historical Society library at the Hosmer House has a wealth of history books and artifacts. I rarely make it to Acton anymore, but if someone lives nearby they probably have more info that you could ever look through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article about Davis. There's actually a good amount of your original stuff in here, it's just been expanded. Some responses to your concerns:

1) Quite right, "charge" is not the right word. I've replaced it with "advance."

2) It's true, there is some confusion as to how and why Davis's company ended up in the lead. But there is credible primary source evidence that Davis was deliberately ordered to take the lead (according to the deposition of Thomas Thorp, an Acton minuteman) and that he was given the lead because his company was equipped with bayonets (according to Amos Baker, a Lincoln minuteman). Granted, these depositions were given decades after the fight, but many leading historians have accepted their accounts as fact. I will add a citation for one or two of them.

3) As for Samuel Prescott, I do not know of any firm evidence that he warned Acton. There is certainly a strong tradition that this happened (his ride is still reenacted in Acton). But I do not think it is actually documented by a primary source. Davis himself was apparently warned by the son of Capt. Robbins of Acton. The rider who woke the Robbins household was probably Prescott, but not actually identified. I think it is probably worth noting in the article that tradition places Prescott in Acton. I will add this.

4) The Acton Historical Society has little primary source material on Davis, unfortunately. There just isn't much left.

Best,Historical Perspective (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Disregard my comments under #3 re: Prescott. Reading more closely, I see he is still in the article. David Hackett Fischer confidently states that it was Prescott who brought word to Acton. Other historians are more hedgy about it and I still believe there is an issue as to definite documentation. But, in the end, I think the tradition is firm enough to leave in the article.

I think some of the narrative is confusing as to direction. It says "...Davis then moved his company to the right of the line.[1] Around 10:30, the provincials faced to the right...". If they marched to the right, and then faced to the right (or the military command, 'Face right'), they would be facing the rear of their lines. --vkt183

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• "The Minuteman" by French.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Minuteman

Who the statue is based on is a big deal, yet none of these sources:

• Boston National Historic Sites Commission (January 17, 1959). Lexington–Concord Battle Road (Interim Report). Washington: Department of the Interior. House Document 57 – via Proquest.
• Holzer, Harold (2019). Monument Man: The Life and Art of Daniel Chester French (Kindle ed.). Hudson, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1616897536.
• Howard, H. C. (1906). "The Art of Daniel Chester French". Fine Arts Journal. 17 (9): 542–557. ISSN 2151-2760. JSTOR 42004755.
• Kowalski, Philip J. (2007). "From Memory to Memorial: Representative Men in the Sculpture of Daniel Chester French". Journal of American Studies. 41 (1): 49–66. doi:10.1017/S002187580600274X. ISSN 0021-8758. JSTOR 27557919. S2CID 143819417.
• Richman, Michael (1972). "The Early Public Sculpture of Daniel Chester French". American Art Journal. 4 (2): 97–115. doi:10.2307/1593936. ISSN 0002-7359. JSTOR 1593936.
• Richman, Michael (1980). "Daniel Chester French and Henry Bacon: Public Sculpture in Collaboration, 1897–1908". American Art Journal. 12 (3): 47–64. doi:10.2307/1594234. ISSN 0002-7359. JSTOR 1594234.
• Seaton-Schmidt, Anna (1922). "Daniel Chester French, Sculptor". The American Magazine of Art. 13 (1): 2–10. ISSN 2151-254X. JSTOR 23938986.
• Tolles, Thayer (1999). "The Minute Man, 1771-1775; this cast, around 1875-1876". Selections from the American Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts and the George Walter Vincent Smith Art Museum. Springfield, MA: Springfield Library and Museums Association. pp. 223–225. ISBN 978-0916746186. LCCN 00273713. Archived from the original on April 23, 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2020 – via Traditional Fine Arts Organization.

mention a connection with Isaac Davis. There is a singular pamphlet from the 1940s that is only found in 14 libraries in the world that mentions it. It is by far a minority viewpoint and should be given appropriate weight. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I hear your point regarding appropriate weight but listing sources that simply do not mention the claim is very different from sources that refute the claim or offer alternative claims as to the subject or inspiration behind the statue. Further, the Davis claim is supported in additional works. Some examples follow, all scholarly works (there are other popular histories and magazine articles I’ve not listed).

• Brown, Milton Wolf (1977). American Art to 1900: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture. New York: H. N. Abrams. ISBN 9780810902077.
• Holsinger, M. Paul (1999). War and American Popular Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313370847.
• Lemire, Elise (2021). Battle Green Vietnam: The 1971 March on Concord, Lexington, and Boston. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812252972.
• Linenthal, Edward Tabor (1991). Sacred Ground: Americans and their Battlefields. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252061714.
• Robbins, Paula Ivaska (2003). The Royal Family of Concord: Samuel, Elizabeth and Rockwood Hoar and Their Friendship with Ralph Waldo Emerson. Philadelphia: Xlibris. ISBN 9781401099701.
• Trapp, Frank (1985). Nineteenth Century Art. Amherst: Mead Art Museum. ISBN 9780914337041.

…so it's not just a matter of a singular pamphlet. Editing to reflect that the assertion is not universally acknowledged might make sense. I don't know of any sources that dispute the claim--the matter simply isn't addressed in many sources. Either way, to straight up remove the sources and any mention of the claim is not, I think, appropriate here.

Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through and cross checking; dropping Xlibris since it is a self-publishing house. Do you have access to a copy of The Story of the Minutemen Man? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Checking The Life of Daniel Chester French: Journey into Fame, Creston mentions a plow, but never connects it to David, who is not mentioned. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Busy week in real life. The plough is a local relic owned by the Town of Acton and belonged to Davis. So, though Cresson doesn't mention it, there is a Davis connection with that plough and it is telling that French used that specific artifact as a model. If there isn't a citation re: the Davis plough in the article, I can add one. I do not have access to a copy of the Story of the Minuteman only notes I took when viewing a library copy ages ago. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I will hopefully take a look at it next week when I am at the LOC. This what I am including in the The Minute Man: "It is, perhaps, a portrait Isaac Davis, an officer that died in the battle." with this note: "The claim that The Minute Man depicts Davis first appeared in Robbins (1945) and can be found in sources such as Linenthal (1991, p. 30) and Stout (1999). Other sources about Daniel Chester French, such as Creston (1947), Richman (1972), and Holzer (2019), are silent on the subject. Contemporaneous sources such as Hoar, Emerson & Walcott (1876) also do not mention the connection between Davis and the statue." Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)