Talk:John Punch (slave)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First slave?

"The first enslaved Africans arrived in what is now the United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526" from Slavery_in_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Punch_(slave)&action=editthe_colonial_United_States extracted July 30, 2012

It seems doubtful that John Punch was actually the first US slave, even if Ancestory.com claims it is so --24.138.73.44 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The HT quote is "...it has led some historians to regard him as the first African to be legally sanctioned as a slave". So right off the bat, it's only some historians (who?), and it's from a documented legal proceeding. (Citation needed.) No doubt there were many more brought to the continent before him. Ancestry.com is in fact concluding he was legally the first US slave, saying, "All evidence gathered to date offers persuasive arguments that point to John Punch, the first African in Colonial Virginia sentenced to a lifetime of servitude—the first slave." (http://c.mfcreative.com/offer/us/obama_bunch/PDF/main_article_final.pdf) But of course, we can't just take their word for it need historians' input cited here, too. Ruodyssey (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

History is made by documents, right? He's the first documented slave. Speciate (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Conjecture at best. Another lame attempt at revisionist history. - ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Punch was declared a servant for life, but see John Casor, who was actually declared a slave. There is a difference. See Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom, etc. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And if other historians declare Casor the first slave, it is hardly unanimous that Punch was. Use of the word "some," then, is not weaselly, it is elucidating fact. I hope my improvements to the article make everything better. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Russell in 1913 and Catterall in 1926 note the John Punch case as being significant for being the first "documented" account of a slave in the Virginia colony, as well as differentiating his treatment as "a negro" - sentencing to life inservitude, from that of the men from the Netherlands and Scotland, whose indentures were extended. This is the consensus of historians. It is a specific definition; it does not mean there were not other slaves, but he is the first to be documented. See newly added cites to the article, including an online scanned e-text of the 1913 book, which includes the short record of the court case. John Casor was the first to be declared a slave "as a result of a civil suit", another specific qualification: his master Robert Parker was sued by his previous master Johnson, and the court defined Casor as a slave, ordering him returned to Johnson.Parkwells (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Comments addressed specifically only to above users have been successfully removed by author:] Dr. Matt (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say "documentation cited by McIlwaine as a secondary source". McIlwaine's Minutes of the Council and general Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with notes and excerpts from the original Council and General Court records, Now Lost is a collection of primary sources and doesn't seem to offer any explanation, interpretation, or historical context, besides chronology, to the court records themselves. So one has to be careful when quoting from McIlwaine because the chances are that they'd actually be quoting a primary source, which is fine, but an individual can't extrapolate meaning or apply interpretation to such quotes. Furthermore, the NPS website is not the same strength of reliable source as Russell, Vaughan, Foner, or Donoghue. It's fine to use when stronger sources aren't available, but since there are a number of more detailed sources that have undergone the peer-review process of an accredited institution, those should be used instead. So we use wikipedia's own explanation of what qualifies as the strongest of sources and then work our back from there. This would yield (from strongest to weakest) Russell, NPS, McIlwaine if McIlwaine is considered simply a collection of primary sources. If 2 or more sources are of equal strength and have undergone the similar levels of scrutiny, then any contradicting claims should be directly accredited to the author/source that made them.

Regarding any "contradictions" referencing the material you've questioned from the NPS site, I don't see any. Documents that indicate slavery or lifetime service are not the same as documents that explicitly declare slavery or lifetime service. Also, the information from 1630 specifically says that it was a "customary practice to hold some Negroes in a form of life service," and then supplements that statement by saying some blacks were able to hold on to their indentured servant status because they eventually won their freedom. This means that the blacks that didn't win their freedom weren't indentured servants because they were held for life and Russell describes these individuals as "slaves". The only ones who retained their status of "indentured servant" were the ones who got to eventually leave their indenture. The ones who didn't win their eventual freedom did not retain their indentured servant status. So I don't see the contradiction here, but if it lies with something else, then maybe you can be more specific. It matters little anyway because the NPS site and what it says doesn't have more weight than strong reliable secondary sources themselves. I hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Indentured servants held for life likely did not lose their servant status. Punch apparently married a white woman and had children who were born free, something that would not have happened if he had been a slave. Virginia law stipulated that children took the fathers status, it was 1662 before the law changed to make children take the mothers status. Wayne (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Obama link

Until this has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the wording should be very careful indeed. hgilbert (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about being careful, I've replaced the second mention of Ancestry.com so people know where this comes from. So they don't think it comes from a peer-reviewed journal. (And I doubt we'll ever get that.) Also, since you're concerned about wording, I restored the original wording. The wording you had implied that they ran a yDNA test on a Dunham, found some African ancestry, then connected him to Punch via standard genealogical research. Instead, they connected the Dunhams to the Bunches via standard genealogical research, then ran yDNA on male Bunch descendants (they can't run yDNA on Dunham's line), found African ancestry, and then made a genealogical/historical guess that connected Bunch to Punch. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify exactly that in the article, especially the "guess" part. hgilbert (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The "guess" is the same thing that historians do all the time, I don't think it's a giant leap. I should have said "supposition" instead. I think the word "probably" in the article adds enough doubt. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all the time; historians are careful to distinguish between well-supported links, as in the latter generations of the Bunch family, and guesswork. We should be equally careful here. hgilbert (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed "guesswork" to "supposition." The link Ancestry.com made is a solid one, one based on the best genealogical, historical, and genetic evidence available. Using "guess" or "guesswork" makes it seem as if they made the suggestion half-cocked, when in fact, they made a good link based on logic and evidence. The only way it could be more sure is a birth certificate or a will, both of which aren't there (and even then, illegitimacy could again destroy such a link... there's no such thing as a 100% solid fact in history). TuckerResearch (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

African American?

How can he be "African American" if the USA didn't exist at the time? Surely "African" is more correct and appropriate?--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Africa and America are continents, both of which existed at the time. hgilbert (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with ukexpat - calling him 'African-American' seems wildly anachronistic to me. It's like referring to Montezuma II as 'Mexican' before Mexico as we know it existed. There was no United States of America at the time, so he couldn't have been 'American'. I'm going to change it to simply 'Black', which is presumably what is meant here. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the link to black. We could of course unlink it completely.--ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He was African, born in Africa; there isn't any question about that. Agree that African American refers to later generations of American-born people.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

3O John Punch Slave or not

This section was added to seek a third opinion on the status of John Punch after his sentencing in 1640. Scoobydunk says that John Punch was made a slave as the result of his court case in 1640. WLRoss says that John Punch's contract as an indentured servant was extended and therefore he was not a slave. Please see the following talk pages and discussions regarding John Punch for more information:

• [1]
• [2]

23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've found of historians describing how John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial in 1640.

• "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling." Toppin, Edgar (2010). The Black American in United States History.
• "Thus, the black man, John Punch, became a slave unlike the two white indentured servants who merely had to serve a longer term. This was the first known case in Virginia involving slavery." Edgar A. Toppin, A Biographical History of Blacks in America Since 1528.
• "John Punch's status was changed from an indentured servant to a slave," resulting from his court case. Henry Robert Burke. "Links To The Past".
• 1640, Punch was the "first documented slave for life." http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm
• In regarding Punch "...'the third,being a negro,' was reduced from his former condition of servitude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life."John Henderson Russell. "The Free Negro In Virginia, 1619-1865". p.30.
• "The third, 'being a negro named John Punch shall serve his master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life here or elsewhere.' This case , antedating that of John Casor by four years, made a Negro a slave for life as a penalty for the crime of running away." Virginia Writers' Project, "The Negro in Verginia". p.14
• "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery." A. Leon Higginbotham. "In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period.
• "July 9, 1640 - A Virginia court decision describes three runaway servants—two white and one black—who were captured in Maryland. The two white servants are sentenced to additional years of service. The black man, John Punch, is made a slave for life, possibly marking the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans in Virginia's courts." Tom Costa, http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia#contrib

My sources clearly explain how John Punch was sentenced to slavery and became a slave. WLRoss argues that Punch wasn't a slave and remained an indentured servant. I'm sure he'll list all of his sources indicating that below.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources you posted are irrelevant, please provide sources that Punch was a legally recognized slave. That some people consider indentured servitude slavery is not the argument. Also, please do not speak on my behalf, that is a violation of WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources I listed are completely relevant because they all confirm that John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial. "That some people consider indentured servitude slavery is not the argmunt," it is, because you just argued that Punch didn't become a slave and remained an indentured servant and implied all of the sources and historians I listed are wrong. So where are your reliable sources for that assertion?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Well, I found my way here after one of you requested a third opinion. At this point, I've spent about forty minutes reading through the article and your discussions, so I feel like I have a halfway decent grasp of the issue although I might well be missing chunks.

Let me summarize my initial reactions here so that you can critique them.

1. The article in its current state seems pretty well-researched and well-written. I haven't looked much at the history, so I really don't know which of you is most responsible for this version.
2. You've been having a pretty massive and uncivil disagreement, but on a cursory inspection neither one of you seems unambiguously in the right.
3. The core issue seems to be whether to characterize Punch after his 1640 trial as (a) an indentured servant punished with life servitude, (b) effectively a slave, or (c) a slave without qualification.
4. Pretty much all the sources that have been quoted lean towards using the term slavery rather than indentured servitude, which is most compatible with characterizations (b) and (c).

Let me know if this seems accurate to you. To be honest, I have very little idea whether this will please zero, one, or both of you. —Neil 21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide a third opinion. I don't think (b) is an accurate way to characterize the issue because that was a misrepresentation of a single quote from Toppin and I found an additional source from Toppin where he distinctively qualifies Punch as a slave and even says this was the first case in Virginia involving slavery. I also feel (b) would be a completely different discussion about what qualifies as "slavery". thus requiring it's own dispute resolution. Regardless of how people may want to personally define slavery, I'll just stick to what historians and reliable sources say. Understanding that, the issue largely comes down to whether John Punch became a slave or not. I've provided numerous sources using specific language describing John Punch as a slave as the result of this ruling. No reliable sources have been quoted or cited contesting this view held by historians or asserting that Punch wasn't a slave but was still an indentured servant, and the opposing view seems to stem entirely from original research, which is against WP:OR. I appreciate your opinion, though I do find it to be a little noncommittal. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources. None of them say he was the first "legally recognized" slave. Calling indentured servitude a type of slavery is irrelevant. Wayne (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting the sources, they speak for themselves. Historians clearly consider this case as the first time a negro was sentenced to slavery in Virginia. The court legally recognized that John Punch was to serve Hugh Gwyn for the remainder of his life. Historians call this "slavery" and therefore the court legally recognized slavery. Again, indentured servitude isn't slavery and these sources, for the most part, clearly explain how Punch WAS an indentured servant and then BECAME a slave due to this legal ruling, which is a legal recognition. They don't have to say "legally recognized" for it to be a legal recognition. It's a legal recognition because it was a sentence officially and legally determined by the court, and is therefore recognized by the court. Again, you try to dismiss these sources as equating indentured servitude to slavery, and they are not. They are making a clear distinction between the two and explain how Punch was once and indentured servant and then became a slave. I've yet to see your sources advocating that Punch remained an indentured servant after his court case. Where are they? Oh, here are some more sources of my own.

• "Thus, John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life, by law, in Virginia." Encyclopedia of African American History Volume 3.
• "John Punch decision therefore, did not just establish and set the legal basis for slavery in America, it was the first racial decision in America." Amechi Okolo, Ph.D. "The State of the American Mind: Stupor and Pathetic Docility."
• A year later, in the case of John Punch, the General Court of Virginia recorded the first unambiguous example of the enslavement of an individual Negro, as punishment for having run away." Francis Adams, Barry Sanders, "Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans in a White Man's Land, 1619-2000."

All of these confirm that Punch was legally recognized as a slave "by law", emphasizes the importance of the decision in establishing the basis for slavery in America, or explains that this was the first unambiguous example of enslavement of a Negro, as punishment for running away. I also want to point out that another editor agrees that the sources agree with the notion that John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have a feeling you've both been over this ground many times before. Since both of you seemed relatively satisfied with my initial findings, I'm going to go ahead and give my opinion on how to describe Punch after his trial.

1. Scoobydunk, you've provided a significant number of reliable sources that suggest than the historical consensus considers Punch a slave. I would remind you that quality trumps quantity, because some of them are fairly weak: for example, Okolo's The State of the American Mind is self-published and Russell's The Free Negro in Virginia is a doctoral dissertation from 1913. However, others, like Toppin (2010), Higginbotham (1980), and Costa (2011) are very strong, so I think you've made a very credible point.
2. Wayne, you can certainly try to rebut this and prove that some historians consider Punch an indentured servant for life. But you'd have to advance some reliable sources to support that, and I don't think I've seen you do that. You might think the historians Scoobydunk cites are wrong; you might even be right about that. But on Wikipedia, that's original research and that doesn't fly.
3. However, even if Scoobydunk's sources accurately represent the historical consensus, this issue of slavery versus indentured servitude isn't completely clear cut, and historians can only make educated conjectures about what, exactly, the Governor's Council intended Punch's status to be. So it seems very sensible to say that Punch was effectively a slave. Toppin (2010) does exactly that.

Here's an example of wording that seems fair to me:

This case marks one of the first cases in colonial America where a racial distinction was made between black and white indentured servants. Most historians believe that the ruling effectively made Punch a slave, and consider the episode a milestone in the development of African American slavery in the United States. Edgar Toppin wrote...

Let me know what you think. —Neil 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case where the wording has to be "fair"; the consensus of historians has to be recognized and presented, and that is, that the court's decision made Punch a slave for life. Whether "weaker" sources also cite what is the consensus position does not weaken the position as established by RS, and Scoobydunk has established that.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I said "fair", I meant "fair summary of the scholarly consensus". And I tried to make it clear that I wasn't discounting the strong sources just because they were mixed in with weaker ones. So on these two points we agree completely. If you're also saying that "most historians believe" is too watered down given the sources we've seen, I can kind of see that. I could certainly support "historians agree the ruling effectively made Punch a slave," for example.—Neil 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Neil, thank you again for your input. I would be perfectly fine with your well written alternative if it weren't for 3 things:

• I'd be willing to use the language of "most" to represent a "majority" opinion if there was an actual reliable source that expressed an opinion that Punch was never made a slave. Since WLRoss can provide no reliable sources, then there is no need to give such a claim any weight, mention, or inference. As per WP:OR, if a minority opinion is expressed by a reliable and notable authority then we can provide appropriate context for the differing opinions, establishing a minority view vs. a majority view. However, WP:OR also says that if a minority opinion isn't expressed by a notable authority and is not reliable, then it doesn't deserve being mentioned at all.
• The next concern I have is that only one historian said "in effect", so it's not accurate to reflect all the other historians with this sentiment. The point being made by most of these sources is that this was a definitive moment in Virginia's history that documented an indentured servant becoming a slave. Toppin unambiguously declares this more robustly in his earlier work.
• The final concern is that using "effectively" conflicts with WP:editorial and the way you presented it conflicts with WP:OR. You expressed a doubt of what the Governor's Council intended and you're the one making a determination that historians can only make educated conjectures, so you chose the word "effectively" to reflect your doubts(original research) on what historians consider to be a legal determination of slavery. Though I may agree with your own conjecture, it is still original research and the majority of historians don't claim that he "effectively" became a slave. If you had another reliable source making such an argument about the conjecture of historians and that Punch was only considered a slave in effect, then it could be added as a "minority" or "contesting" opinion, but it wouldn't suffice to let this point of view be representative of what the other historians actually thought or said.

Thank you for pointing out Okolo. I did not realize this was self published. I was hesitant about citing him because a lot of the things he says seem to be a little bit too aggressive and now I understand why he didn't have a more tempered approach. Good catch. I'm glad more people are contributing.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To your first point, I agreed with Parkwells above that, in the absence of any sources suggesting scholarly dissent from the slavery viewpoint, it might make more sense to just say "Historians agree..." To your second point, about "effectively", I am not familiar enough with the issue and the sources to take a hard line. However, I don't feel that "in effect" is a misrepresentation or editorializing. It's hardly controversial or original research to say that history isn't an exact science, and many of the sources you cite hedge a little bit, whether by saying "in effect" or saying "slavery for life"/"lifetime slavery" rather than just "slavery". At any rate, I think the presence of "in effect" is pretty insignificant to the meaning of the statement, so I'm honestly not that interested in debating it. It just seems like an opportunity for a small gesture of goodwill that doesn't harm the article's accuracy. —Neil 21:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "effectively" is significant. First, most historians don't say "effectively" so to characterize most historians as saying such is a misrepresentation of what those historians said. Your examples of "slavery for life" and "lifetime slavery" are not used to instill a doubt or account for a possibility that John Punch might not been a slave, but are simply adjectives and prepositional phrases used to describe the length of his slavery, which is still slavery. You added "effectively" based on your own opinion that historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended. That is original research. Though you may be right, you can not add the results of your own original research into an article, which you suggested to express a doubt in what historians consider to be slavery. Yes, historians are people and they make conjectures, but that doesn't mean as editors we can discredit or undermine the veracity of what they say by including our own qualifiers. That's exactly what WP:editorial and WP:OR describe. For another example, we can look at science. We know that science is constantly growing and sometimes things known as facts can cease to be fact. This doesn't mean that we can express this understanding to undermine what scientists believe. If most scientist believe that the Earth is round, I can't say "Most scientist believe the Earth is possibly round," or "...likely round," based on my own observations of science. If most scientist don't say "likely round" then I can't claim that they do say "likely round". It is a misrepresentation based on my own understanding of science, and is OR.

I'm all for goodwill, but it's not goodwill to instill our own doubts based on our opinions of historians and their ability/inability to interpret historical documents. The goodwill comes in the means of understanding that historians know what they are talking about and we should represent and respect their opinions as such. If two or more historians directly disagree on a subject or fact, then we can represent those disagreements giving them their own due weight. We cannot, however, use our own opinions to convey a doubtful alternative to what historians assert. This how you specifically described the reason for your inclusion of "effectively," as an opinion that historians conjecture and can't possibly know what the intent of the Governor's Council was, therefore you were going to insert language to represent your opinion of doubt in their abilities to accurately access historical documents and court rulings. That's original research. I just don't feel the article should reflect your concerns on the ability of historians to evaluate terminology and their applications to history. Sorry, if this comes off as "being a dick". I respect the time you've spent contributing to this discussion and I respect your opinion, otherwise I wouldn't be spending the time addressing it and would just ignore it or dismiss it completely. Thank you again for your continued input, I do feel this is an important aspect to discuss.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that you've spent a lot of time on this issue, but I honestly think you're taking an extremely broad view of original research and making a mountain out of a very small, peripheral molehill. When I looked through your discussion with Wayne, I saw some real avalanches of text that you had written; if a lot of them revolved around this issue, you may want to think about choosing your battles a bit more carefully in the future. At any rate, you've heard my perspective so I'll bow out of the "effectively" issue now. The article looks good so far; if you guys want my opinion on some other aspect, you can drop me a line. —Neil 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I added "effectively" some time ago but it was rejected/reverted by Scoobydunk who quoted an earlier book by Toppin where he did not use the word in support. The claim that "historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended" is far from original research and is basic premise of anthrological enquiry, at least one historian actually said that in regards to Punch. I believe it may have been Toppin but will need to look it up. The fact remains that Punch was a servant who committed a crime and was subsequently sentenced to SERVE for life while Casor, having committed no crime, was recognized as having no indenture and belonging to another party for life. Punch was not even the first person to be indentured for life and the court NEVER determined him to be a slave. Re:" It's a legal recognition because it was a sentence officially and legally determined by the court, and is therefore recognized by the court." You misrepresent what the court determined. The court specifically, and officially, said "serve" so it was servitude for life that was recognized by the court, in other words, effectively but not legally slavery. Wayne (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I hear your point that "Punch was not even the first person to be indentured for life and the court NEVER determined him to be a slave", but you need to bring forward some reliable sources to support it. If you don't, there's no possible way it can go in the article no matter how sensible it may sound.

Also, to clarify, I did make the point that even historians cannot be completely certain what the Governor's Council intended, but I think it's far too strong to say "historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended". —Neil 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not far from original research. OR is broadly defined but they broke it up into subcategories to clear confusion and the subcategory that directly says it's a violation of OR is WP:editorial. "Effectively" is a synonym for "essentially" and "essentially" is specifically listed as one of the words for WP:editorial. On top of that, it is against WP:weight to represent all of the historians as saying "effectively", when only 1 said "in effect". SO you could argue it as an minority opinion if you want to, but that's if we even succumb to the idea that "in effect" and "effectively" have the same meaning, and they don't. There is a clear difference in connotation so to stay neutral, it should be quoted and not paraphrased. On top of that, you could hardly argue it as a minority opinion because that same author, definitively and unambiguously called him a "slave" in his other works. Everything @WLRoss: just wrote is entirely original research and is strictly a violation of wikipedia policies. He's yet to supply a single source to back up his opinion that Punch remained an indentured servant. He says the court case never said the word "slave" but fails to recognize that Casor's case didn't say "slave" either. As a matter of fact, the Casor case didn't even say Casor had to serve JOhnson for life, it only said he was still his property and had to be returned. According to historians and the sources I listed, Punch was the first legal slave in Virginia. No one is saying he was the first indentured for life, historians say he's the first documented slave. You're the only one claiming he was an indenture servant for life, something you've provided no sources for and it a result of your own opinion, thus violating WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think people should be careful to stick to what is claimed: Punch is considered the first "documented" slave in Virginia (emphasis added) - the distinction arises because this court case is documented. There may have been others without records but that is not important here. Let's just keep to the historic consensus.Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unless we hear of some compelling new sources, we can safely say that after his trial, historians consider Punch the first documented slave in the Virginia colony. —Neil 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll happily settle for after his trial, historians consider Punch the first legally documented slave in the Virginia colony. It wasn't documented in some shipping transcript or captains log, it wasn't documented in private journal, it was documented in an official court record as the ruling of the court, which is a legal document. That's the whole significance of this thing, that is was the Virginia court recording and documenting the first instance of slavery.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The following sets out the legal status of Punch/Casor including several which, while calling Punch a slave also name Casor as the first LEGAL slave.

• The Black American in United States History Edgar Allan Toppin 1973: "Punch in effect became a slave under this ruling...John Casor, in 1655, is the first black we know of to be made a slave in a civil case."
• Colonialism: Key Concepts in American History Darrell J. Kozlowski 2010: "There were no laws regarding slavery early in the Virginia colony's history. By 1640, however, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery. In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave in the thirteen British North American colonies."
• A Look at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments John Richard Conway 2008: "The Virginia colonial court upheld Johnson's claim. It is the first record of a person being declared a slave in this country."
• Black Yellow Dogs Ben Kinchlow 2008: "This [John Casor] is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery in the New World. From evidence found in legal documents, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nations first official legal slaveholder."
• The American Dream Stephen McDowell 2007: "This [John Casor] was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
• Slave trade and slavery John Henrik Clarke 1970: "That [Casor] was the first recorded civil case in the history of Virginia establishing a person as a slave for life."
• The Negro in Virginia University of Michigan 1940: "Anthony Johnson perhaps holds the dubious distinction of being the first Virginian, black or white, to hold as a slave for life a negro who had committed no crime."

The following sets out what historians believe.

• History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker." Wayne (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is for John Punch not John Casor. None of the sources you've listed support your argument that Punch remained an indentured servant and didn't become a slave. We already went through dispute resolution about Johnson and Casor and a third opinion discredited your sources and agreed that sources most accurately reflected my position. But let's go ahead and debunk your sources again.

First we can get rid of these following sources because they only claim Casor was the first where no crime was involved or as the result of a civil case, which doesn't contradict my position on Punch because his was a criminal case that happened 14 years prior. As a matter of fact, they bolster my position because they recognize that someone before Casor was legally found to be a slave which is why they supplement/qualify their sentences with "civil case" or "not as the result of a crime".

• The Black American in United States History Edgar Allan Toppin 1973
• The American Dream Stephen McDowell 2007
• The Negro in Virginia University of Michigan 1940
• Slave trade and slavery John Henrik Clarke 1970
• Black Yellow Dogs Ben Kinchlow 2008

I see that you ignored this quote from Kinchlow in that same source, "This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World." That's why we can get rid of Kinchlow as well. Kinchlow is also a tertiary source that used other historians' research from internet sites. One of those sites listed in the notes for chapter 1(The chapter where your quote came from) is The Virtual Jamestown website. The Virtual Jamestown specifically says "John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by law in Virginia." http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html .

These next sources are either tertiary sources/textbooks, written for juveniles, or both and do not take precedence over reliable secondary sources or sources written for collegiate use.

• Colonialism: Key Concepts in American History Darrell J. Kozlowski 2010
• A Look at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments John Richard Conway 2008

So, all that leaves is Foner, and Foner doesn't assert that Punch remained an indentured servant as the result of his trial. What you quoted only mentions a precedent set in Johnson v. Parker, which some of my sources define as a court recognizing that black people could own slaves. So after you've included all of this information which isn't relevant to whether Punch became a slave as a result of his trial or not, they still do nothing to support your position. You've been told all of this before by myself and another third opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, thanks for providing your sources. Now we can try to weigh the evidence and move forward. Personally, I'm a bit confused because of the number of sources that have been cited and their varying quality. To help that, I'm starting a table below listing the strongest sources (including some I've found today). To include a source, let's say that it must be (a) a reliable source, (b) written by a credentialed historian (i.e., one with a Ph. D. and some relevant academic appointment) with specific expertise in the American colonial period or black slavery, and (c) published by an academic source like a journal, university press, or a specialized reference work in the last fifty years. Everyone, feel free to add to it, or discuss these criteria. —Neil 08:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Neil, that is an impressive table. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so maybe I'm just easily impressed, but I appreciate the amount of work you've spent on offering a third opinion and your research into verifying sources. I was hesitant to edit the table because I thought I'd mess it up, but it seems to have survived my addition unscathed. I added Winthrop Jordan and 2 of his works. Both were published by either a journal or university press and Jordan is an award winning author with a Ph. D.. Both sources say similar things, with slightly different wording. I included "Modern Tensions and the Origin of Slavery" because this article includes information and analysis on the price of negroes being sold in 1645 and 1643, providing additional evidence of Negroes serving for life. This first source was published in 1962, just outside of your 50 year range. If there is a firm reason for the 50 year limit, then I'll happily accept its removal, but I feel it's close enough. Of course, if these sources don't hold up to your strong source criteria, feel free to remove it and just let me know why. Thanks!Scoobydunk (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, thanks! I have to say I'm having fun learning about race relations in 17th century Virginia. Your additions are great: I picked fifty years out of the air so we could focus on relatively modern sources, but a year here and there won't do any harm. I already feel like I have a better grasp on the consensus, but we can wait another day or two in case Wayne or Parkwells want to bring in any additional sources. —Neil 18:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review Paul Finkelman. He earned his masters and Ph. D. in American History and is considered one of the most cited legal experts. The reason I ask for review is because his expertise is more focused on the history of law and court cases. However, I feel since we're discussing court cases that helped define slavery, since he's educated in American History, and since he's written many books regarding slavery in America pre and post the revolutionary war, that his input is appropriate. His works have been published in numerous university presses, like Yale and University of North Carolina, and this particular reference was published by the Library of Congress.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk is completely ignoring the argument. I'm not saying Punch was not considered a slave by some historians or that indentured servitude was not a form of slavery. My argument is that Casor, who had no indenture and had committed no crime, was the first legal slave. We can no more say that Punch was legally a slave than we can say that the large number of white servants sentenced to a life of servitude before Punch were legally slaves. Historians recognize the difference. Scoobydunk needs to supply sources claiming that Punch was legally a slave, not sources merely calling him a slave. That most of my sources speak of Casor is relevant because they call him the first legal slave while accepting that Punch was a type of slave. None of the sources listed as "strong" by Neil claim is was a legal designation. It is also bad faith to reject sources written as textbooks for "library, secondary school, and university-level curriculums" as "books written for juveniles". Foner is only quoted as a reliable source supporting the use of "some historians" in place of "most historians". Wayne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the argument, you keep trying to change the argument. You've said multiple times on multiple pages that indentured servitude was not slavery and contested that Punch remained an indentured servant and wasn't a slave. You said that MULTIPLE TIMES and have yet provided a single reference indicating that. Now you're trying to change the argument to a matter of semantics. I've listed multiple sources that say "legal distinction","by law", or recognize that Punch was made a slave by legal means through the legal process of the justice system, the same way Casor was. Also, disregarding your 6th grade textbooks is not bad faith. As per wp:reliable textbooks and tertiary sources "should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Since we have numerous secondary sources on the matter, the textbooks hold no relevance or precedence over what these secondary sources say, which is why they can be ignored for a detailed discussion, which is what we're having. This is why you're left with no sources to confirm your opinion that Casor was the first legal slave, because all the other secondary sources you listed recognize that Punch or others was/were legally made a slave(s) before him. Hence why they have to distinguish the Casor suit not with the word "legal" but with fact that it was a civil case where no crime was committed. To help cut down on the less reliable and tertiary sources that both of us have listed, Neil has created a table of strong reliable sources that should be used in coming to a resolution in this dispute. I suggest you start participating in the evolution of this discussion and find some strong reliable sources that support your position. Also, Foner only said "some historians" in regard to historians who considered the negroes landing in Jamestown in 1619 to be slaves. He didn't say "some historians" when addressing the status of Punch or what historians consider Punch.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What I've said multiple times is that indentured servitude was not legally slavery. It is bad faith to call a public library or university-level curriculum textbook a "6th grade textbook". It is also bad faith to misrepresent a Wikipedia policy by leaving out part of the quote. Per WP:RS 1. "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." 2. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." 3. "Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available." The policy you are quoting applies only to tertiary source textbooks not secondary source textbooks. The Punch court case did not recognize him as a legal slave for life, it recognized him as a legal servant for life. Historians sometimes use the term slave for Punch NOT "legal slave." My sources say first legal slave for Casor, you need to find sources that call Punch a legal slave. Your interpretation of Foner is WP:OR. He said that historians are devided, that "some" believe X, "others" believe Y, "while others" believe Z. That supports the use of "some" or perhaps "many" for each, not "some" for the first and "most" for your preferred version. So far all of Niel's strong reliable sources support my argument, none claim Punch was legally the first slave. Wayne (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You also said multiple times that Punch was not a slave and remained an indentured servant, so stop pretending you didn't. The textbooks I called 6th grade textbooks specifically say 6th grade and/or ages 11 and up in the book and as listed on google.books.com. So it's not bad faith at all and the fact that you keep accusing bad faith where none exists, can actually be seen as bad faith on your part. Everything you quoted on textbooks is what is preferred over primary sources or what can be used in general. These quotes of yours from the WP:reliable page do not contradict the statement that I quoted that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Also, WP:reliable says nothing about "secondary source textbooks" and the word "textbook" doesn't even exist on the secondary source page. This is clearly the result of your own OR in an attempt to justify using a tertiary source in place of a secondary source. Only 2 of your sources say "legal". One is a tertiary source and won't be used over secondary sources, and the other one says "legal sanction" but then supplements that with "not for a crime". Regardless, neither of those sources meet the strong source criteria set forth in this discussion. I didn't interpret Foner, I repeated exactly what he said. He didn't use "some historians" to refer to Punch or how historians regard Punch. He said it about slaves landing in 1619 Jamestown. I don't even think you know what OR is after you make such a baseless accusation. You're the one trying to say we should use "some historians" instead of "most historians" based on what Foner said about historians who consider slavery to have existed since their arrival in Jamestown in 1619. Lastly, if you read Neil's and my reliable sources, nearly all of them indicate the importance of Punch and his case as being either the first legal documentation of slavery or at least the first evidence of servitude for life as legally recognized by the courts. NONE, and I'll say this again, NONE of them regard Casor as the first legal slave, nor do they say Anthony Johnson was the first legally recognized slave holder, which is your ultimate argument that you've interjected back into this discussion. So, no, they don't support your position at all which is why you're so frantic to try and argue semantics, make an OR argument about Punch remaining an indentured servant, and misrepresent sources to try and discredit facts.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You are using Google as a RS? Google may say "ages 11 and up" but that is the minimum standard, the sources themselves say public library to University level. Of course Casor is in the argument, when a RS calls Punch a slave and goes on to say that Casor was the first legal slave that shoots down the argument that Punch was the first legal slave. And I'm still waiting for you to provide sources supporting that Punch was a legal slave. Regarding the use of the word "most", per WP:RS/AC The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

RS has to do with what's allowed in wikipedia articles, not with how we make decisions about things in the discussion page. Note how we link to the wikipedia articles to verify the credentials of the authors and historians we cite. You should probably take the time to read what Neil found because he used a different source verifying that Toppin was classified as a juvenile source. On top of that, it's a tertiary source and can't be used in place of reliable secondary sources. It's not so much the age group, but that it's a tertiary source that disqualifies it from the discussion where reliable secondary sources are available. The publisher does not meet our strong sources criteria and the source itself doesn't meet RS criteria when we have reliable strong secondary sources to use in its place. So you still don't have a RS that says Casor was the first legal slave. It's also about time you stop with this "legal slave" thing because a court ruling and sentence are legal recognition and legal adjudication. Therefore, the court recognized that Hugh Gwyn legally owned John Punch for life, which the sources below either call slavery, or say was the first case documenting one of the tenants of slavery. Hence, Hugh Gwyn was the first documented person to be made a legal slave holder. As far as "most" is concerned, that's fine. Our consensus will accurately represent the strong reliable sources. None of which say Casor was the first negro legally made a slave. Also, I suggest you check out the latest source I found to back up my position.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you should start searching for them while you search for strong reliable sources that support your point of view regarding Punch and his court case.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Have changed this to reflect longstanding historical consensus, with a 1913 work remarking on Punch having been made a slave for life.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about John H. Russell he describes it very clearly on page 18.

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony." John H. Russell, The Free Negro In Virginia, 1619-1865.

Again, on matters of content, it's best to post these inquiries on the Punch talk page, or any relevant article talk page. Hope this helps you.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Have brought the discussion back to the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying with this latest post. Is there a question i can assist you with? Your previous question asked for a definition from the author of what "slavery" and "slave" were and I supplied it. Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're trying to say about page 30 or Sep 30, 2013. If you're talking about a broken link on Wikipedia, then I have no idea of how to address that or even where you can go to have that addressed. If you're simply talking about the fact how editors sometimes remove information, such as page numbers, then all I can say is that it happens. You're welcome to include the page number for parts quoted from the dissertation.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't know the intended purpose of your post either?Scoobydunk (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're going to explain the purpose of your post?Scoobydunk (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Change to "Often"

Wayne, you removed the word "often" claiming that "All of the Africans that arrived in 1619 were indentured." It's particularly peculiar because you just cited Foner as saying "Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619..." which contradicts a claim that all of them were indentured servants. This also contradicts what Alden T. Vaughan had to say about slavery:

"On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989."

Where Vaughan declares that almost everyone recognized the existence of slavery by 1640, if not from the beginning. Please provide a strong reliable secondary source that supports your edit. If one is found, then the article should represent both views and direct attribution should be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That some historians believe that indentured servitude was slavery is not relevant. Using the word "often" was falsely implying that some were not indentured. Slavery was not legal in any colony until 1641.

Last I checked 1619 was earlier than 1640. Vaughan admits that slavery may not have existed from the beginning so what is the problem? Wayne (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, what Vaughan admits is that nearly everyone agrees that there were slaves by 1640, if not from the very beginning. This quote from Vaughan speaks to the mainstream/majority view of slavery and it does not say "slavery may not have existed from the beginning." This contradicts your assertion "All of the Africans that arrived in 1619 were indentured," for which you've provided 0, that's ZERO, sources to substantiate. I'm asking that you supply those sources and if you can't, then the article needs to reflect what the sources that have been provided actually say. Vaughan also clearly states that some historians/people believe slavery existed from the onset of the colony. You do not get to use your OR interpretation of what qualifies as an indentured servant versus slave to say that they are wrong or wrongfully mistaking indentured servitude for slavery. To make that statement, you also need a strong reliable secondary source that explicitly says that. So please supply a source for both claims, so the article can give direct attribution where it is necessary. The word "often" is not specifically said by a source and is purely subjective and not quantifiable. So this sentence needs to reflect the possibility of there being both indentured servants and slaves. It should not disregard what numerous historians and reliable sources have said about slavery existing from the beginning. Foner recognizes historians that hold this view and so does Vaughan, neither of them say "they were all indentured servants" in any way shape or form.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable, first you reject any edit that implies that historians are divided on the subject, then to reject my edit, you claim historians are divided on the subject! There is no contradiction, the paragraph is specifically talking about the Africans that arrived in 1619 and all of those were indentured. It is totally irrelevant if any historian considers indentured servitude the same as slavery. Wayne (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What's unbelievable is how you still can't provide a strong reliable source to back up your claim that "they were all indentured servants." Also, I have no problem including quotes from both Foner and Vaughan, but this is not what you do. You take Foner and then use OR to say they were all indentured. The word "often" at least indicated that some were indentured servants and others had a different status, which represents the beliefs of some historians as multiple sources have verified. However, with your removal of "often" and your claim that "all were indentured servants" you're the one who's ignoring that there is division on the status of the Negro upon arrival in Virginia. You then try to take Foner and pretend that he contradicts a claim that Punch was the first official/legal slave or the first legally documented example of slavery in Virginia. It doesn't and Vaughan perfectly explains how even though there is division on when slavery as an institution started, that almost everyone acknowledges that there were slaves in the colony by 1640. "It is totally irrelevant if any historian considers indentured servitude the same as slavery." This quote is you trying to dismiss what reliable sources actually say based on your own original research interpretation of what was a "slave" vs. "indentured servant" and is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You've yet so submit a single strong reliable source that claims all of the Negros that arrived in 1619 were indentured servants and even if you did, it would not take priority over Foner and Vaughan who specifically say that some historians believe slavery existed at the onset of the colony. I'm more than happy with the article reflecting this division between historians on the status of the Negro on arrival to Virginia, but this does not mean there is division on the status of John Punch which is your attempt to include original research in the article. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to this addition that has since been deleted.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to spend more time reading the links Neil and I have given you, including the requirements for the table that was created on the John Punch talk page and WP:Reliable, more specifically WP:Source. The book you've taken that quote from is published by a privately owned company called Madison Books and does not meet the same criteria as the sources in the table which were all published by accredited universities or journals that often use peer review or equivalent professional scrutiny when approving publication. Yes, any private company can publish any wide variety of misinformation and such sources are fine when no other sources are present. However, since there are numerous other more reliable and stronger secondary sources that contradict the information from Alf Mapp Jr., this source does not take priority over and is not given equal consideration over the sources listed in the table. You need sources from a specialized scholarly journal or university press for it to merit equal consideration. The strength and hierarchy of sources is explained on WP:Source and WP:Reliable.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the quote you've provided from Jaffee doesn't change the fact that your referenced source was published by a private company. Wikipedia prefers use of the most reliable sources available to determine article content and privately published books that haven't gone through an accredited institution's peer review process can't not be used over sources that have. Also, please keep content on the talk page relevant to the article. Article talk pages are not the place to make threats or levy personal attacks against other users. The talk pages are for people to present information/inquiry and discuss it. If the information you supply doesn't meet the level of reliability that other sources have met before it, then it does no good to get upset about it. It's much more constructive to find and provide sources of equal reliability based on Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. I hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are cherry picking policies again. I'm not familiar with Mapp myself but according to WP:R quote:Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Mapp complies with this criteria. Wayne (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "cherry picking" and I don't think it means what you think it means. Here, you make an accusation of cherry picking and then go and cherry pick a quote yourself. Cherry Picking is when you intentionally misrepresent information by ignoring evidence or only presenting data that speaks to your narrative. I've already said before that Mapp would be perfectly fine to use in an article because, unlike others, I'm actually familiar with Wikiepedia's policies on reliable sources. However, it can not be used over stronger and more reliable sources and is not given equal weight to sources that have been published in a peer-reviewed or academic journal. That's not cherry picking, that's accurately reflecting what WP:reliable and WP:source have to say about third party sources and reliability. Also, your quote says "reliable third-party publications," and here is what WP:thirdparty, WP:reliable, and WP:Source have to say about what qualifies as "reliable":

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

The quote provided from Mapp does not meet the definition of "reliable" as described by WP:thirdparty. Even if it did, it is not more reliable than secondary sources that have already gone through a peer-review process from an accredited institution like a university press or specialized academic journal. This is not cherry picking, this accurately reflects Wikipedia's policies regarding multiple sources and establishing which ones are most reliable. To cite a small portion of WP:reliable and ignore everything else Wikipedia says about reliability and the use of the most reliable sources is what cherry picking actually looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take the policy and ask someone to explain it to you. There is nothing in the policy that states that peer reviewed books are always more reliable than self published (see dictionary definition of "usually"). This is especially self evident in this topic as the peer reviewed books often contradict each other. You hold peer review to be the standard yet constantly reject any source, peer reviewed or not, that contradicts you. You can't continually enforce your ownership on the article. Wayne (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mapp retired as a professor of English, not of history. His book on the religion of the Founding Fathers was described as a popular version, lacking primary research. A consensus of peer-reviewed sources by recognized authorities in the field of the history of slavery and the American South does outweigh one man's self-published book when he is an expert in a different field. Does the book you quote from by Mapp include primary research? The consensus means most of the historians share an opinion; if that position changes later based on new evidence, a new consensus may be established. Mapp's opinion could be presented as one minority opinion but it does not mean his opinion has equal weight to the consensus of major historians in the field, and it is a misrepresentation of the state of academic scholarship o this topic to say so. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on RS and represent the state of academic scholarship in the fields. Wayne's persistence in pursuing this argument is just bogging down the article.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am not familiar with Mapp. However, his is not a minority opinion. There is no consensus among historians regarding this subject. Wikipedia should be based on RS and represent the state of academic scholarship in the field but it does not here. It presents only one view, one of three having equal weight among historians and it is a view that does not even have a single primary source in support. Wayne (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with which sources are considered most reliable and which ones aren't. The "usually" is specifically qualified by a number of explained circumstances that could disqualify a source from being reliable, for instance;

Some publications that appear to be reliable journals, are instead of very low quality and have no peer-review. They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of reliable journals.[2][3][4] If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index.

This is an example of when a peer-reviewed source wouldn't be considered a reliable source. The use of "usually" doesn't change the hierarchy of reliable sources or make self published or privately published books more reliable than peer-reviewed works in general. It is simply used to acknowledge that there are some peer-reviewed sources that are not reliable due to being grossly outdated, not from a respected journal, or are published in a copycat journal designed to mislead people into thinking it's another well renowned, respected journal. This doesn't change the circumstances of Mapp's book which does not meet the qualifications of reliability as defined by WP:Third. So Mapp is not given equal consideration or weight unless you prove that the numerous other sources listed in the table above, don't meet Wikipedia's qualifications of reliability and are, therefore, less reliable than Mapp. That being said, you haven't presented a single source of equal reliability that contradicts the numerous sources listed in the table above. I follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliability and believe the article should reflect the most reliable sources. Sorry if you can't find any to back up your point of view.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from making facetious remarks and I may take your work a little more seriously. These comments are disruptive and are violations of WP:NPA and WP:DGF. Wayne (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything facetious and it's not my work you're not taking seriously, it's the work of strong reliable sources that have been published by accredited institutions and scholarly journals. You keep pretending that there are other views regarding John Punch yet you haven't presented a single strong reliable source to support such a claim. It's been over 6 months and you still haven't given a single source to support your claims. That's what article disruption actually looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Admiralty, Maritime and Common Law Firsts

From a discussion elsewhere on this page:

"...the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts..."

...actually occurred on 30 June 1640.

List of Virginia Governor Samuel Argall's 1618 Edicts includes nation's first Blue Law.

From 1607 until 1624, when the Colony’s General Assembly repealed the prevailing influence of the London Company, colonists had been living under something of a remote state of British rule; the very rule, in fact, from which they had sought to flee when emigrating to the New World. These “rules and ordinances” from the British Sovereign appeared in a number of written documents; among them, the sealed orders from King James I, which were opened on the day of the settlers’ first landing at Cape Henry on 26 April 1607, the London Company Charters (Charter of 1606, Second Virginia Charter and Third Virginia Charter) and in several letters to Virginia's Royal Governors, which would become “edicts,” like those of 1618, applicable to all colonists, any of which would necessarily become a “Slave to the Colony” for disobedience.

The most uniformly pervasive of these edicts would later be known as the Blue Law. Over time, it would be adopted, in one form or another, by most states in the nation, since it held several “hidden” benefits, many of which are considered progressive even by modern standards. In Virginia (the Commonwealth), it survived until 1984, when it was finally repealed, though remnants remain in the practice of recognizing Sunday as a "business day" holiday.

The stringent edict requiring all inhabitants to adhere strictly and publicly to the practice of Christianity by attending weekly Sunday services, failed in its design to take into account the impending change in demographics, which would begin the following year with the introduction of Africans to the Colony. With few exceptions (Africans from Angola, those who were baptized prior to or during their voyages, &c.), and by its own admission, the later-arriving African population was predominantly non-Christian.

Governor Argall’s edicts of 1618 introduced the concept of "slavery to the Colony" prior to the arrival of the first Africans in 1619, and it did so indiscriminately. As today, immigrants and visitors, alike, are required to respect the laws of the countries they are in, just as are the residents. While the concepts in practice of "slavery to the Colony" and "slavery to a master" differ, therein lies a context in which the former may be defined (restrictions on provisions, and so on).

Beginning in 1619, in the nation’s first representative democracy, the first laws created by the Colonials themselves were enacted by the Virginia General Assembly at Jamestown. They were formally revised in September 1632 and not again until March 1657. In 1624/25, because of the egregiously inoperable requirements of the Third Virginia Charter, the influence of the London Company was repealed, and Virginia became a Royal Colony. (Importantly, the repeal did not include any of the Royal Governors' edicts.)

In the Laws of Virginia's General Assembly, enacted in August 1633, an act was passed ("Act X"), "that no Armes or Amunition be sould to the Indians."

It is ordered and appoynted, That yf any person or persons shall sell or barter any gunns, powder, shott, or any armes or amunition unto any Indian or Indians within this territorie, the said person or persons shall forfeite to publique uses all the goods and chattells that he or they then have to theire owne use, and shall also suffer imprisonment duringe life, the one halfe of which forfeiture shall be to him or them that shall informe and the other halfe to publique uses.

Some historians believe it to be the first occurrence of racial discrimination to appear in Virginia law; others view it, not as racial discrimination, but as a law identifying the enemy, considering a number of other laws and ordinances, which similarly singled out Indians. Six years later, however, in January 1640, the General Assembly would revise the text of "Act X," as was customary at the time when amending laws, to specify "negroes" instead of Indians.

ALL persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.

According to Virtual Jamestown, in its "Selected Virginia Statutes relating to Slavery," "This statute created a legal distinction between white and black men;" though it should also be noted, according to John Donoghue who wrote Fire Under the Ashes and is coeditor of Building the Atlantic Empires: Slavery, the State, and the Rise of Global Capitalism, 1500-1945 due out this year, that neither race nor religion may be considered the only predisposing factors:

Although race always defined the line between temporary and lifelong bondage in the colonial period, race did not always define the line between slavery and freedom. In fact, up until the mid-seventeenth century in the Caribbean and for the better part of the seventeenth century in the Chesapeake, most people reduced to chattel servitude entered the condition due to their sheer vulnerability to enslavement, not by virtue of their race, which in the modern meaning of the term did not yet exist. The vulnerability of these people to “indentured servitude,” or “bond slavery” as contemporaries also called the condition, existed as a function of their impoverishment.

Rulings on the two matters brought before the Virginia Governor's Council by Hugh Gwyn in June and July, 1640.

On 04 June 1640, Colonel "Hugh Gwyn gent" sought remedy, either for the return of or for permission to sell three servants, which had fled from his care to Maryland. It was ruled that all three should be extradited for trial before Virginia's Board. Less than a month later, on 30 June 1640, the Council passed a law authorizing the formation of a York County party of armed men for the purpose of pursuing "certain" runaway blacks.

30 June 1640 Commission authorized by Governor's Council to organize and compensate from local funds an armed band in York County, Virginia (known as "Charles River County" until 1642) to pursue runaway blacks.

It is almost certain that this party was formed to pursue John Punch, since it was the Council's own ruling in the June 4th matter, which required it and in relation to the same county as the 04 June matter; the same county of residence of the man, who was a justice and one of relatively few members of the House of Burgesses representing Charles River County at the time. [The General Assembly of Virginia, July 30, 1619 – January 11, 1978, pp 18,25,29,30.] (In 1640, he patented large tracts of land, including 700 acres "southside" and what is now known as Gwynn’s Island in present day Mathews County.) [Virginia Land Patent Book 3, pp 315.]

It would appear, then, that by any definition of "legal" (legislated, dictated or judicial), Punch's case was not the first to discriminate based on race or, specifically, against "negroes." Moreover, the introduction of the word "slave" into the earliest laws of the Colony; laws which would exist as edicts of a Virginia governor (hence, officially, until 1984), creates the requirement for a distinction of the terms "slave" and "slavery," when associated with court decisions beginning in 1640, unless the intention is to equate their severity to that decreed in 1618.

PresidentistVB (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First challenge: Unfortunately, Wikipedia's rules regarding original research prevents us from including original research in the article. So the vast majority of your post as well as any original research argument used to combat it would be irrelevant to what actually makes it into the article. It's not our responsibility or privilege, as editors, to "prove" anything. Our responsibility is to make sure the article represents the most reliable of sources on any given subject and Wikipedia provides a very clear criteria for establishing which sources are most reliable. So as long as strong reliable sources say that "Punch was the subject of the first common law ruling in Virginia" then the article will continue to say that as well. That being said, the Library of Congress source used for that portion of the article says it was "...one of the early cases that made a racial distinction..." and Tom Costa says "...this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." So I have no problem with the article representing this and this does not contradict the 1640 law because that was a statute and not a court decision or court case.

Second Challenege: I already supplied you with the definition of "slave" according to John H. Russell. You haven't given a definition of "slave" as used in the 1618 edict. So no comparison can be made and it wouldn't matter anyway since that would be a result of original research. The strong reliable sources supplied in the table recognize Punch as a slave, it doesn't matter if their definition is similar to or different than the intended meaning of the word that was mentioned in a 1618 edict.

"Technically, only two of the three servants, both of European descent, were ruled by the Council to serve as slaves, since, unlike Punch, each was also sentenced to a period of service to the colony, making each "A Slave to the Colony."

Technically, this is completely original research and Wikipedia does not allow you to take a term from an 1618 edict and apply it to a court decision in 1640. So this "technicality" of yours not only ignores what historians have defined "slavery" as, but is also irrelevant to how historians consider John Punch.

To your last point, the article already represents analysis from John H. Russell and Jeffry B. Perry that there is no direct evidence or mention that Punch was an indentured servant. However, both agree that it is most likely the he was a limited term bond servant of some sort before being condemned/reduced to lifetime slavery and this aligns with what nearly every other reliable source says. So I see no issues here.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lord, help me... I cannot resist. As to "Wikipedia's rules regarding original research prevents us from including original research in the article. So the vast majority of your post as well as any original research argument used to combat it would be irrelevant to what actually makes it into the article. It's not our responsibility or privilege, as editors, to "prove" anything. Our responsibility is to make sure the article represents the most reliable of sources on any given subject and Wikipedia provides a very clear criteria for establishing which sources are most reliable. So as long as strong reliable sources say that "Punch was the subject of the first common law ruling in Virginia" [he may very well be, if you're referring to the 30 June ruling - perhaps the historians know that] then the article will continue to say that as well. That being said, the Library of Congress source used for that portion of the article says it was "...one of the early cases that made a racial distinction..." [would be nice if you could rightly claim that it WAS, IN FACT, the first court case] and Tom Costa says "...this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." So I have no problem with the article representing this and this does not contradict the 1640 law because that was a statute and not a court decision or court case. [Read it again, "The court hath granted...]. Oh my point was, as long as the opening of this section remains on the talk page, at least it will be available for all to see, article-worthy or not. PresidentistVB (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep this numbered for you so you can easily keep track of which comment I'm responding to.

1. You don't have the authority to place or remove bans on Wikipedia. Furthermore, my demeanor hasn't changed, maybe it's your perception that's changed. You still need to produce strong reliable secondary sources and I've been saying that since the beginning.

2. The article is neutral because the article reflects information supplied by the most reliable sources presented and that's it. Just because a few editors want to create controversy over something that's well established, doesn't mean that such controversy actually exists. For example, just because geocentrists refuse to accept the heliocentrist point of view as "science" doesn't mean that the term "science" gets stricken from the article. Same with creationism and evolution. Evolution science is science as defined by a number of sources published by a peer reviewed accredited institution and so the article represents it as a science. It's the same with Punch being a slave and he's a slave because that's what the overwhelming majority of strong reliable sources refer to him as. The only controversy comes from people who can't seem to get their work published by an accredited institution.

3. It's clearly not obvious who the first slave was to appear in legal documents or assigned to slavery by a governing body. Hence why numerous reliable sources have identified Punch as such. Everyone has an equal opportunity to present strong reliable secondary sources to determine the content of the article. So the people who really need to reflect on their positions are the ones who can't meet Wikipedia's fair requirements to provide strong reliable secondary sources to support their arguments. The solution is not remedied by making the logical fallacy of special pleading and creating a new page that ignores strong reliable sources in favor of sources that haven't undergone peer-review and in favor of original research.

4. I don't more narrowly define anything, I merely quote what sources actually say. This is the key difference between our actions. You continue to put forward OR interpretations based on primary sources,while I actually submit quotes directly from strong reliable secondary sources. Since I was unable to verify what Catteral said, I merely provided an alternative from Costa. That's how WP works. People submit information, it gets checked/verified, and if it's not verifiable or demonstrably incorrect, then it gets changed. That's also the beauty of WP. If a new source gets revealed and the consensus of historians or the scientific community changes, then WP changes to reflect that new consensus. That consensus is determined by verifiable data from the strongest of reliable sources and the Punch article reflects the current consensus among historians.

5. Without a strong reliable secondary source to verify what it means, then your interpretation is considered original research by WP policies and it is not to be expressed in the article. Even if you did find a reliable source to support your definition, it would then have to explicitly put forward that argument regarding John Punch for this to be given any consideration. If what you say is true, then it should be easily verifiable by a number of strong reliable peer-reviewed sources. Please put forward those sources so editors can examine what they say and include their perspective in the article.

6. If you have a problem with this portion of the article then you can request a "citation needed" in hopes an editor can provide one. I do believe I've read that or something similar to it before. The cases you listed regard Hugh Gwyn, but none of them regard John Punch's life, save for one, the one listed in the article.

7. Regarding citation 10, neither of us have proven it has no bearing. What probably happened is a person included Catterall because the Library of Congress listed it as the source of its statement. The Library of Congress link is sufficient until a more reliable source, described by WP policy, is put forth to contradict it.

8. Numerous sources refer to Punch as an indentured servant who became a life long slave. Also, that quote about 1661 does nothing to disprove common law as established through the court system. It speaks specifically to legislation in the form of statute and doesn't speak to judicial determination. To say it does is considered original research and will remain as much until a strong reliable source is provided that makes the same assertion.

8. Actually, Wikipedia represents the current consensus in fields such as history and science. So WP is allowed to represent the interpretation of sources that have been peer-reviewed by accredited institutions in their respective fields. If historians call it slavery, then it's slavery. You're welcome to try changing WP Policy if you don't think it's fair, but such a drastic chance requires community consensus.

9. There are still no problems with this information. Russell only entertains the idea as a technicality. The majority of sources say he was an indentured servant and that is what the article reflects. The information supplied by Russell and Perry regarding this aspect is directly attributed to those historians which is what WP requires when you have conflicting information from a equally reliable source(Russell, not Perry) that presents an opinion not held by the majority of other sources. Wikipedia's voice is used to represent the views most commonly held by reliable sources and direct attribution is used for minority opinions.

10. Regarding the entire paragraph you quoted, the part you asked me to read again only says that the court decided to try and retrieve the runaways, it was not making a legal racial distinction upon issuing the equivalent of warrants.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

30 June 1640 Commission authorized by justices to organize and compensate from local funds an armed band in York County, Virginia (known as "Charles River County" until 1642) to pursue runaway blacks. PresidentistVB (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects what the strongest reliable sources say and they say he's a slave. You, nor anyone else has supplied any strong reliable sources that have said otherwise. If you don't have an equally strong source to put forward, then there is no reason to entertain this further. All of your arguments are original research by definition. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of what Wikipedia defines as OR. Wikipedia does not accept the OR arguments of climate skeptics for an article on climate change nor the arguments of geocentrists for an article on our solar system. They use the strongest sources that have been published by peer-reviewed and accredited institutions. Like I've said before, if what you say is actually backed by Historian consensus, then you should easily be able to supply strong reliable sources that verify it, just like I and others have that verify John Punch was made a slave.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Interim white flag

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Myself and multiple other editors do look at this objectively and have included exactly what the most reliable sources say on the subject. Instead of you looking at those objectively, you've instead tried to contact historians and try to change their opinions to match your own. That's the opposite of having a neutral point of view and shows the extreme opposite where you're trying to revise historical consensus to match your own point of view. John Punch was a servant who was made a slave and there isn't a single strong reliable source that refutes this and many that support it. There are also numerous strong reliable sources that say this was one of the first cases to make a racial distinction or where race was a factor. Also, if you have an argument you're trying to make, it is not other peoples' responsibility to find the evidence to support your argument. So instead of linking to a work by Ballagh, you need to provide an actual quote that is relevant to John Punch and supports your argument. Making arguments about distinctions between Christianity vs. Race are not relevant to John Punch and shouldn't be in this article, but in an article about early racism and/or colonial slavery. What is relevant is why historians consider this case and John Punch significant and that information is fairly represented in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you bother to read Ballagh's book you will find that he talks about slavery not being legal but that some servants indentured for life had a status that effectively made them slaves. He goes on to define the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. According to the book, a [male] slave's status passes to his children" "The personality of the servant was always recognized and his status could not descend to his offspring, as was the case with the slave." Punch did not pass his status to his children.

In 1640 the addition of time for a negro runaway servant was, in a case brought before the General Court, servitude "for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere"...Servitude may thus be regarded as preparing the way both legally and practically for the institution of slavery as it existed in Virginia. "Preparing the way" seems to imply that at this time lifetime servitude was not slavery. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So nothing in those quotes say that Punch was not a slave or say that this case didn't make a racial distinction. You saying "Punch did not pass his status to his children" and then concluding "therefore, he must have not been a slave," is exactly what original research looks like. Ballagh doesn't make that argument, nor does any other strong reliable source. That argument just came directly from you and it was a conclusion you drew by combining multiple different sources which is a violation of WP:OR. You take an example from Ballagh then use information from Ancestry.com, to put together a conclusion not put forward by either of the sources.

The next part is also an OR conclusion made by your misinterpretation of Ballagh. If Ballagh had said "...preparing the way for for slavery," then you might have a point, though it would still be OR. Ballagh doesn't say that, he says "...preparing the way both legally and practically for the institution of slavery..." This means that "slavery" as an "institution" didn't exist legally or practically but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at all. As a matter of fact, Ballagh recognizes and mentions "slave" or "slavery" multiple times in the events of runaways leading to a 1640 court decision. (page 54 and 55) This shows that Ballagh believes slavery and slaves existed before 1640, which is also explain by Vaughan.

• Edit: I just realized that you manipulated Ballagh and put forward a quote that doesn't exist. He does not tie the Punch case to his statement about "preparing the way both legally and practically." The former portion, presumably the Punch case, is from the footnotes on page 68, while the latter is from the actual chapter.

Another note, Ballagh actually defines slavery as "In extent servitude was of limited duration, while slavery was for life,"(page 67) He makes no mentions here about heredity, legality, or anything else. He clearly distinguishes between servitude and slavery, and the distinction is the condition of how long they were suppose to serve. A servant served for a limited time, while a slave served for life. He does go on to explain how there were laws protecting certain freedoms of servants and how slaves didn't have those same protections, but he does not infer that because servant status couldn't pass on to children for indentured servants that it must pass on for slaves. He only explains how slaves didn't have the same protections. He certainly doesn't define "slave" as must having their condition of slave being passed on to younger generations, only that there was nothing preventing that from happening. So even your OR conclusion about Punch's kids not being slaves doesn't mean that Punch wasn't, he still was a slave and his masters could have chosen not to keep his offspring in lifetime service. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting how you addressed 1 line of my response to Wayne and ignored everything else. Yes, I was mistaken and the word "slave" directly preceding the 1640 case I mentioned was referencing a law from 1705 and other uses don't provide a specific timeline unless mentioned in the footnotes. So that particular point about Ballagh remains unverified but not false and this wasn't "grasping at straws" or "cherry picking" it was a mistake. I clearly provided the context for the usage of the word, my description of the context was just incorrect. Despite this, he still clearly describes the difference between slavery and servitude as slavery being for life and servitude being for a limited time. Now, I won't go so far as to say that Ballagh considered John Punch a slave because that would be an OR interpretation based on how Ballagh described slavery. Likewise, it is also an OR interpretation to claim "Ballagh didn't use the word slave referencing anything before XXXX, so clearly, John Punch was not a slave." Ballagh doesn't mention John Punch once, so to make any declarations about John Punch's status based on this source from Ballagh, would be a violation of WP:OR.

Now, if you can find a quote from Ballagh that says "There were no slaves until XXXX" or something similar, then we can attribute that directly to Ballagh and post it in the article. However, this would be represented as a contrasting or minority view because of the numerous other sources that have referred to John Punch as a slave, as being enslaved, or his case being a legal sanctioning of slavery and because of Vaughan who specifically identifies the historical consensus as acknowledging that there were slaves by 1640, if not sooner. In regards to your last quote, you bolded the "servant" and it serves no purpose. The article clearly describes Punch as being a servant that became a slave. So you referencing a court document mentioning "servants" that had escaped, is already addressed in the article and does nothing to refute the fact that he was sentenced to slavery. Lastly, I don't know why you're still mentioning an unverifiable post to a comment section on a website. Besides needing to verify that that post was made by Donoghue, even if it was, it's not published by an accredited peer-reviewed institution or scholarly journal. Furthermore, you're making multiple interpretations of what he said about Christianity and race and trying to apply that to John Punch's status or the racial distinction that was made during his court case. If you want to claim that Donoghue said something, then it still needs to come from a strong reliable source to have any consideration for the article and does need to be relevant to the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting for you to provide those quotes from strong reliable sources for a long time, so it sure would be nice. Also, I'm not playing semantics, so if you find a book that says "enslavement did not take place" or "Punch was not condemned to slavery" or something explicit along those lines, then those would suffice, the same way the numerous sources already provided suffice. I'm not hung up on you providing a "verbatim" source, but you do need a strong reliable source that makes the argument you're trying to make. So accusations of hypocrisy on this matter are incorrect. Also, Russell is directly quoted in article and no where does the article say Russell said "Punch was a slave". So you pointing this out is irrelevant. Next, the table was clearly limited to books published in that last 50 or so years. This is why you don't see Ballagh, Russell, and older books on the table. Why is that? Because WP articles are suppose to represent the consensus of the scientific/historical community and the older the source, the less accurate it is in representing the consensus of today. Also, yes, what you said is supposition until you're trying to argue that that material gets included in the article, then it becomes original research. Ultimately, supposition is not relevant or constructive determining what the article should actually say, which is why I don't entertain "supposition". Also, what Wayne did with picking a quote from the footnotes and then combining it with a quote from the text, that's "cherry picking" because it intentionally misrepresents what Ballagh was saying. My quote from Ballagh is not "cherry picked" and I even explained the context. He was clearly defining the difference between servants and slaves and continued by giving more examples of protections that servants had that slaves didn't necessarily have. His book wasn't about there being no slavery until after a certain time, it was about how indentured servitude was fundamental in the development of the economy and society of the colonies and how it was distinct from the institution of slavery. So supplying a quote where Ballagh specifically identifies that distinction/difference, is not a quote that misrepresents the work. Lastly, unpublished and unverified quotes from people do not count as reliable sources and those quotes become even less relevant when there are strong reliable peer-reviewed or equivalent sources already available. So, good luck in your exploration, though I find it disconcerting that you're intentionally ignoring the numerous strong reliable sources, and calling them "wrong", in search of a snippet that may support your argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this "silence" is that you're referring to, but there was no "silence". If you're referring to your suppositions, I specifically identified them as such and explained why it doesn't merit a response. That's not silence, that's me explaining how your suppositions aren't relevant to the article. So your suppositions were met with response and then disregarded. Also, thanks for admitting that you're ignoring the strong reliable sources that have been provided.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV or just an exercise in futility?

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, multiple historians have gone there before and the article reflects what the most reliable sources from those historians say. This comment regarding slavery is already,mostly, represented with the quote from Foner. Winthrop is acknowledging the fact that historians have different opinions about the status of the Negro in the early years after 1619. This quote actually refutes your argument that "all Negroes were servants" because Winthrop is saying there isn't enough evidence to support such a claim. However, this quote specifically refers to the early years after 1619, which doesn't include the actions of the colonists over 2 decades later. We know this because Vaughan clarifies this point and so does Winthrop when he refers to the Punch case as the "first definite indication of outright enslavement." So the article already represents this concept, the only tidbit that isn't included is the idea that "No historian has found anything resembling proof one way or the other." So we can certainly add that to context, but we just need to be careful that the article doesn't start to detour from discussing Punch in lieu of slavery in general. Also, I intended that you find quotes that support your argument, not refute it outright. Though there are already numerous quotes that refute your point of view, thanks for supplying another. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

True, after skimming a few posts, what you actually said was "There was no such thing as slavery in Virginia at the time of Punch's trial or before; at least not as defined by a 'period of servitude for life.'" You use this line of thought to argue that Punch was not a slave. However, this quote from Winthrop still refutes the previous assertion. If Winthrop says that there is no way to know or prove the status of the Negro in the early years after 1619 then you can't claim to know or prove that there was "no such thing as slavery" and, in turn, "no such thing as slaves." Though you're technically right that the two assertions are different, my point still remains and is applicable.

Just to clarify, Winthrop does say that. You need to go back and read the table that you have been clearly ignoring this entire time. Also, when you say "The last sentence above seems to negate any theories by proponents who believe race was a (if not, the) determining factor in the Council's decisions in July 1640," it is an example of OR if you're trying to use this as evidence to disprove the other sources. Secondly, it doesn't refute the claims of others because the defendants in the case, presumably, weren't of the same status and the other sources didn't say that whites couldn't be given the same treatment as Negros. They simply said the Punch case was one of the first to make a racial distinction (something that affect). This doesn't imply that all Negros were treated differently than all whites and vice versa. Furthermore, even if Winthrop, or anyone else, actually did say that the Punch case wasn't a racial distinction, it doesn't "negate" anything. It is simply another opinion to be considered when constructing and editing the article and when strong relatively equally reliable sources contradict each other, then we directly attribute what those sources say to the author.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you say "You need to stop showing you're not paying attention" when you've been linked and referred to the table numerous times yet you still didn't know that Winthrop said "first definite indication of outright enslavement," and tried to tell me I was wrong when the proof already exists on this very page. That is what hypocrisy actually looks like. Also, what you think is important does not affect what reliable sources have to say on any given subject. I also think it's not important and not relevant. The fact that colonists thought slavery was okay and moral 350 years ago has no relevance to how slavery is regarded today. Also, "educating" people on how slavery was regarded centuries ago doesn't belong in an article about John Punch but in an article on slavery or the etymology of the word "slavery". Please focus your attention on supplying strong reliable sources that support your position. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very relevant what people thought was slavery centuries ago. Long before the first coloured person arrived in America many white servants were either sent from England with lifetime indentures or were sentenced to lifetime servitude for crimes. If you consider lifetime servitude slavery then Punch was not the first slave not was he even the first black slave as there is evidence of lifetime servitude of blacks before 1640. Punch had freedoms a slave would never have, he married a white woman and his children did not inherit his status which they would have if he was a slave. Punch was an important step in the growth of slavery and is so only because so many records from the period are missing. Wayne (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant in an article about John Punch and WP articles are supposed to represent the today's understanding of history and science, not the understanding over 300 years ago. So, I changed the lead to directly quote from the sources so you can stop ignoring that part of the significance of Punch. The lead is suppose to represent everything significant about the subject/article and now it does by direct quote.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: You cannot claim your sources are strongly reliable without providing the criteria on which you base it. Moreover, by definition WP:NOTRS, your WP:LEDE is not reliable. Nothing shall be "put to rest" because you barked it so; we are not your slaves; and certainly I will not permit strong-arming, bullying, threatening intimidation to affect my sense and sensibility; at least not until those of us who believe you to be vandalizing the article and absconding with consensus agree to it. As of now, I do not.

Re your reason for making the change; to wit: "Directly quoted from the strong reliable sources so claims of misrepresenting the sources can be put to rest. The lead is suppose to mention everything significant, not just what you agree with. This represents sources and 3O," I shall now issue a challenge to produce one of the authors you cite to support your claim, in order to face the evidence in this section and either affirm or deny, here and now, in the present time, the most current view, whether or not it agrees with what you extrapolated it to mean and proclaimed as reliable, when clearly, any dummy can see it does not and is not. (Even the Jamestown organization disagrees with the opinion of your "strong" reliable sources. That alone makes the sources less reliable than you would purport and brings into question your own judgment.) In the interim, I have contested a number of claims in the lead (too many, in fact for the opening paragraph) concerning the reliability of content for you to invite one each of the respective cited authors to defend. We'll begin there.

The undo reversion I will make if you cannot produce a "strong reliable author" (minimum of one) followed by consensus with each of its members reporting in this section (I believe it requires two others to stand with you), shall remain intact one completed, pending Admin review. If my pending reversion is undone, then I'll have no alternative save to report this article and its "consensus" members to the NPOV Noticeboard WP:POVTITLE/WP:POVNAMING and have WP:ARB offer three admins to review the credentials and fitness of the members of the exclusive status quo consensus in facing allegations of dereliction of duty. I, for one, do not trust this page unto the care of just one editor. [cc to @WLRoss: and @PresidentistVB:] Dr. Matt (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is determined by WP policy and is clearly defined in WP:reliable, WP:verifiable, and WP:source. That is the criteria that determines the strongest of sources and the sources listed in the table meet that criteria. It is not determined by a vote among involved editors and so you can not try to refute something as not reliable just because you don't agree with what the source has to say and it refutes your position. And yes, if editors are constantly deleting material because they are claiming "that's not what the sources say" then that excuse no longer qualifies when you directly quote from the source. Furthermore, WP doesn't require producing authors to defend their sources in any way shape or form. Even then, I believe, doing so would be a conflict of interest. The people at the Jamestown organization don't determine what the reliable sources are. The criteria has already been determined by WP policy and attempts at appeals to authority do not change that. Also, these sources are not questionable and are not examples of WP:NOTRS. These sources are, both, from academically peer reviewed publications and WP:NOTRS specifically pertains to sources that haven't gone through a peer review process or through academic scrutiny of scholars.

Feel free to post on the NPOV Noticeboard anytime you want, though I don't know how well you'll do providing that you haven't provided one strong reliable source to support your POV and have admittedly ignored strong reliable sources that oppose it. Also, you've littered the article with dispute tags and dubious tags without actually making a dispute/disambiguation/dubious section to discuss your concerns. Secondly, the tags are not intended for you to use them to try and question what strong reliable source directly say. It's not dubious, lacking citation, or ambiguous when directly quoted from a source. Please fix these misuses of WP tags.

Also, you say that you won't permit threatening and bullying, neither of which I've done, then you threaten anyone who reverts your reversion and try to dictate demands that aren't within WP guidelines. This is another example of what hypocrisy looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Legal" "Official" "Documented" Which?

I said, "court-ordered?"  You @Scoobydunk: said, "no."  "No sources use that phrase."  

That's too bad. I believe you'll find in your own sweet time that there already existed legally-documented (ergo, "official") servants-for-life long before Punch. (I think a written contract still counts as a legal document, right?)

Please don't correct me unless you know what you're saying. Ours may not be secondary sources yet, but Kelso has already alluded to them. How hard can it be to get him to update his webpage?

"Court-ordered" would be the only way I know of to get Punch into the Guinness Book with a "legal" first.

Wow, champ. You had better get busy. You've got some strong reliable secondaries to hunt down. Make sure they say something along those lines <w> [cc to @WLRoss: @PresidentistVB:] Dr. Matt (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I already have numerous sources that speak to that effect and the lead directly quotes those reliable sources. You're the one lacking any reliable secondary sources that prove otherwise. Just because you enjoy ignoring sources doesn't meant they don't exist. Also, the article reflects exactly what reliable secondary sources say, so your attempts to use OR arguments to try and disprove them are fruitless.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we even on the same planet? Prove what otherwise? What are you talking about? Dr. Matt (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are, since you think I'm the one who has sources to hunt down when, in reality, you're the one who has sources to hunt down. I've already provided my sources and they are directly quoted and cited in the article. You've yet to provide anything from a reliable source that refutes the sources already listed in the article. Hence, John Punch was made a slave and his case was one of the first racial distinctions until you provide reliable sources that say otherwise. Even then, that wouldn't disprove what numerous sources say about Punch, it only gets added with direct attribution. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to follow, but if there is anything else I can assist you with, just let me know.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you have an agenda, and it makes no sense, since you claim that you've supported your assertions with satisfactory secondary reliable sources.

I have clearly indicated agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. As its tyrannical editor, a position which seems to have been acquired by self-appointment and the perception of having won every challenge, you should consider the suggestions of others and try to justify making changes which may actually improve the accuracy. Instead, you bitterly defend what you have written.

Noted is the protocol which seems to be required for you to actually make changes. It almost always results in a fight, or the need for threats or unconscionable degrees of childish behavior (like reporting the page, involving authors, getting a state's entire historical community involved or typing words, which portray some sort of personally threatening intent) - all of it unnecessary - none of it acceptable or, for that matter, endorsed by WP policy.

No sooner had I asked that no one make any changes to the lead until they read the alternate-concept lead I was working on, that you, almost defiantly, went to the main article, the MAIN ARTICLE, and made major, contentious changes... the first in many weeks, Why? It is as if you sit on some imaginary throne coming up with any dare you can for anyone to battle you. It's not a game, Scooby.

I've advised you in the past the areas which needed improvement. You ignored me. So I went on and marked them in the lead. Basically, other than inconsequential minor claims (fl 1630s, etc.), there remain, I think, only 3 main areas of dispute, since we now agree on the discrimination matter as being one of the early examples (not the first):

• 1 - indentured servitude as Punch's status prior to 07-09-1640
• 2 - made a slave-if this claim is going to stick, you have to have a section like those I directed you to: "Contemporary v historical meaning"
• 3 - any reference to VA having first slave and the weight of its influence on evolution of the institution in the rest of the colonies.

Beyond that, in answer to some of your points, which, incidentally, missed the point:

• • I do not care to have my version become the version used. I do care if it is not studied and if the consensus simply dismisses it outright. There are valuable suggestions in it; among them, discontinuing the practice of hyperlinking to unreliable content, "homing in" on a more accurate place of birth, use of the image to speak 1000 words and use of Ancestry.s own assertions (so we don't risk our own credibility) to pinpoint POB, removal of "fancy used-only-to-impress" things like "fl 1630s" which have no foundation and take up space (it's like saying "he ate, he breathed, he had sex, he pooped," etc.).
  • It is interesting to me that you've entitled this article to read like a bio, but you completely evade any bio information about him in the lead, in exchange for promoting the political and non-neutral point of view. That is the smoking gun, as far as I am concerned. @WLRoss: has also skimmed that issue... no mention whatsoever of the birth of the children, the most important fact, when tying Punch to Obama and the root of a definite curiosity as far as his flight to MD.
  • Learn from the tone and timbre of the prototype I wrote... It is NPOV and matter-of-fact in its presentation. (I am not saying I agree with everything contained in it, as I have already noted in the tags in the main article lead).
  • I will ask you again to try and curtail your finger-pointing. Not only is it ineffective with me, it actually becomes counter-productive to your (hard to understand) effort. If you tell me to produce sources (which I have told you three times not to), my first and only response (as you surely know by now) is to do everything and anything but!

Thanks for your (sincere?) offer of help. (That was not.) I don't think my understanding of the word "help," however, is the same as yours.

I perceive it as just another invitation to battle...

(Incidentally, I've created a new section for you to list your "To the victors go the spoils" edicts. It will help contributors and future editors understand the "rule by decree" policy, which has replaced "rule by intelligent discourse and consensus." in this talk area, and others. You should go in and begin your list of requirements…

Dr. Matt (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is egregiously inaccurate to say that I've ignored your concerns. I've been addressing your concerns and making changes to the article when they were merited and if they weren't, I explained why they weren't to you on this talk page. Also note, I actually made changes to the lead before you asked editors not to and it wasn't "many weeks" since the last changes to the article, it was more like 1 week. My edits today, again, reflect that I'm addressing your concerns. I removed the word "indentured" from the lead because nearly all sources from the table just refer to him as a "servant" without the term "indentured". However, I've already explained why your second remaining concern is not relevant to this article. This article is about John Punch and his significance as described by strong reliable sources. It is not about dissecting the differences between what slavery meant 400 years ago compared to today. That concern is better served on a page about slavery, the development of slavery, or the etymology of the word "slave". Also, trying to include a section that discussed the differences between the terms in an attempt to imply that Punch was not considered a slave by colonial standards is also a violation of OR and NPOV. If, however, you find a strong reliable secondary source that directly makes a point to mention that Punch was not a slave by the colonial definition of the word, then that can certainly be added to the article in the relevant section. As for your 3rd remaining concern, I'm agreeable to changing the sentence to say "his case a key milestone in understanding the development of the institution of slavery in what would eventually become the United States of America. I skimmed the sources and I think it's more appropriate to reflect that this case is often mentioned when understanding and tracing the origin of slavery, not so much that this was the cause or necessary to the development of slavery. The lead is already written as a matter of fact and it has the proper sourcing to verify this. Your perception that it is politicized is only because you're the one with the agenda to "defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history," and are determined to, admittedly, ignore sources that speak to Virginia's involvement in the development of slavery in the colonies. I didn't name this article and identifying Punch as a slave is not a matter of politics, it's a matter of history as confirmed by numerous sources. Just because you want to take something that is a historical fact and pretend it's political, does not actually make it political and does not mean the article is in violation of WP:NPOV. Your attempt to argue this article's title as being political is what's actually a violation of NPOV, since you have no strong reliable sources that support your position and have ignored strong reliable sources that refute it. That's the opposite of being neutral and so are your attempts to contact the historians cited trying to change their mind on the subject. Despite all this, I'm glad that you've revised your concerns regarding the article, so now we can address them and move on. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do not concur that a discussion about slavery is inappropriate. It is clear that you see the article through a lens which doesn't recognize anything written inside parentheses. I presumed you were basing your comment, "This article is about John Punch and his significance as described by strong reliable sources. It is not about dissecting the differences between what slavery meant 400 years ago compared to today." on the title. But the title introduces the term "slave," which makes it part of what this article is about. That not only makes discussions about it relevant, it mandates disambiguation from other, irrelevant definitions. I have already identified how "slave" within the same 25 year period, could apply to anyone who missed attending church on any given Sunday. I have provided the statement from Ancestry.com, which states it was not then what it was 100 years later. I have shown sources which validated the fact that the early colonists knew well what the term meant (yet the reader does not), and I have stated repeatedly how the term was, perhaps intentionally, avoided in all written records of the time in Virginia (unlike in other colonies). Failing to clarify the meaning implied in the title would be a defect in the article, not only because of its ambiguity, but because it plays an important role in working backwards from the status of his children, in determining his own status. The attention paid to what type of "servant" he was prior to 07-09-1640 speaks to the issue. It is well documented and not disputed by any source that he was at least, definitely a servant. That is what one would call the "least common denominator." It is what I would have thought should have been used in the title, not only for that reason, but because those who believe he was, ultimately, made a slave, would be even more incited to read the content of the article, if only because the title departed from their understanding. The title would not have been in violation of NPOV in that case, because it is uncontested. After the court's decision was rendered, it would still be true, because all slaves are servants. (Not all servants, however, are slaves.) [Edit appended ==> The very first sentence of the main article contradicts the title: "John Punch... was an African servant,..."]Dr. Matt (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• As to your repeated request that I provide reliable sources stating he was not made a slave, the fact is borne out by the intentional use by the Council and others (all of which, as already established, knew what "slave" meant in terms of the time), of the word "servant." To be objective, it is possible the term was not as well defined as I think... one definition meant "to the Colony" for, for example, missing church, and one definition meant as defined by the slave trade. That disparity, coupled with an absence of any legal definition at the time, may have been the only reason the term was avoided. The effective "work-around" was to spell the sentence out verbatim - "for the rest of his life..."
• Do not concur that I have a conflict of interest. My prototype lead should have made that clear. No arguments here that Virginia (as the first colony) would naturally be the first to address the issue. Not going to discuss all implications here, but my concern as a Virginian speaks to the wording of the last sentence - nothing more. If you are going to state the key milestone sentence, it should be quoted and cited; although, I don't think quotations, particularly those which are -to the extent that they are bold and confrontational- unique in thought belong in the lead. It is like the sentence containing "Y-DNA." It reads as awkward, as if contrived. Breaking with parallel structure just to include it looks forced and, truly, isn't needed - it's practically contraindicated - in the lead. The way I wrote it is absolutely fine. There's a section in the content which expounds on it in detail. If you're not citing specifics of historical and genealogical, don't cite specifics of scientific. "KISS."
• Do not concur that title is not political. I did not say "partisan." Political applies to anything which chooses one path over another. Historical purists might say the title's author chose "the path less traveled." The title is not NPOV because it represents one school of thought (modern vs. historical). It is not a violation of NPOV to bring it to your attention.
• I appreciate your willingness to perfect this article. Say what you will in later sections, there's no reason to embellish the lead... nice and easy, avoiding proclamations and "wow!" statements is best.
• Do not concur that I violate OR. I can do all OR I want. OR doesn't belong in the article, but OR is not illegal, per se. That said, claims that his descendants would be known as "Bunch" or "Bunche" is OR. There's no reliable secondary source to make that connection. Even Ancestry disclaims it, though it also ignores its own admissions in its titular claims.
• It is also OR to assert he was "probably" born in Cameroon, Gabon or Cote d'Ivoire. It is "possible." It is "probable" he was born in one of the Gulf of Guinea coastal nations; not anything any more specific than that.
• Sentence structure was a primary concern. There were unnecessary ambiguities, which I identified for you. "Also" and "longer" are two. I also reordered the sentences so the flow, and the "wow" point made sense. "It is for this reason, that some historians..." It's just better. No judgments made about the original authors, who, most likely, just added sentences without rewriting the entire paragraph so the new additions fit.
• No one writes for me but me.
• Regarding the removal of the "nonsense" section... that matter is, at my request, under ARB review. Wiki-Watch is involved.
• Regarding images. The image of the three rulings by the Council may or may not be available forever. It is currently under review for possible violation of copyright. I think my case will win, but I am not the one who decides. I think it's important because it provides a setting for the rewritten phrase "one of the early." The map image, however, is entirely my own. If you ever decide to rephrase the infobox contents, you should use it. When I was done with it, I was impressed with just how informative and relevant it is. Moreover, while working on it, I read about the history of the three nations Ancestry mentioned. I was fascinated to discover that Muslims were actively spreading into these countries... nearly 400 years ago! - and, at the same time, the 4 slave trade nations were invading from the gulf coast. The poor natives of those nations had no hope - no one to turn to - no place to run to. Again, it does beg the question of "of the time" perspectives re. slavery. These negroes were already familiar with the concept of slavery; most of them were on board as slaves themselves. Did they expect not to be upon arrival? It has been well documented that they were not referred to as slaves in the same way as they were before their arrival. That change in "term of status" may have been enough to make them willing to subject themselves to lifetime service, simply because they were not doing so as slaves. I've already provided a number of sources which discuss this incidentally without actually discussing it. It is interesting to me. Not intended to be perceived by you as worthy of inclusion in the article.
• You did not mention the new section. I think I was fair and honest and, frankly, a bit more gratuitous than I should have been. The section was, itself, a double entendre... I hope you realized. Your first edict should be "Nothing is to be perceived as a personal attack. If I bark, bark back." Your second should be "I believe in strict adherence to WP policies. I will remind you when I perceive you to be in violation of any one or more of them. I reserve the right to report any such violations, I will give you several opportunities to correct them, and I will advise you if I intend to report them."

Dr. Matt (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As another editor already pointed out on your talk page, your new section/comment is inappropriate and doesn't merit a response. That's why I didn't mention it. Also, you say political means there are more than one path, but you've yet to present a strong reliable source that shows an alternative path to him being made a slave. So there isn't another path, he was made a slave and until you provide an equally reliable source that explicitly says otherwise. On top of that, your attempt to make a defense for using "servant" instead of "slave" is weak. Equally, you could say "John Punch (Human)" and then that would be the greatest common denominator and most inclusive. The point of the adding the disambiguation to titles is to clearly demonstrate what is significant about and identifiable about the individual. It is clear and supported by numerous sources that Punch was significant because of his being condemned to slavery and the title reflects this. It's not controversial, it's a historical fact. Your attempt to argue using servant as a "least common denominator" is an OR argument because you're presenting a controversy that he was not made a slave, yet have no strong reliable source to back up this position. Even if such a source existed, it would not override what numerous other sources have confirmed and changing the article to represent what 1 hypothetical source says is a violation of WP:NPOV in terms of WP:Weight. Also, there are no "Wow" statements in the lead, the lead simply reflects exactly what is significant about the article and is backed by reliable sources. Just because you can't believe that Punch was a slave, doesn't make it a "wow" statement. Also, no, including the entire history and development of slavery on every single page regarding slavery is unnecessary and it's certainly not relevant to this article. Just because Punch was a human doesn't mean we have to divulge every detail ever discovered about human history and explain the process of evolution either. None of these things are relevant to Punch and all of them distract from the focus of the article which is suppose to be about Punch and why historians consider him and his case significant. Also, your including the word "some" into the lead when referencing how historians view Punch is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weasel. Some is a weasel word and is an attempt to marginalize how historians view Punch, implying that others have differing views, though you haven't provided a single strong reliable source asserting a different view. If you want to quote Costa directly, who does say "some" then that's fine, but then you have to remove "one of the first" from the statement regarding racial distinction. Lastly, WP articles don't represent what you think is "borne out" through whatever interpretations you've arrived at because that's a violation of WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you require more from the opposition than you allow to support your own case? According to your oft-cited Donoghue source, no such certainty is offered; in fact, if you'll look at what I have denoted in red on the relevant page from the article, the author, in frank contradiction to the content of the article's opening paragraphs, just rather unassumingly begins out-of-the-blue and as matter-of-fact to refer to it as slavery - even going so far as to call the known indentured "slaves," (proof of his bias) and, further, removes himself and all accountability by disclaiming it can be interpreted as; NOT that it IS or WAS interpreted that way, especially by himself. I am not originating any controversy; that, TOO, is well documented, even by Donoghue in the same article - so much so that he decides NOT to discuss it. What is your problem, Sentry? Ground yourself, already. And why do you use the Donoghue article as a source for the information in the first sentence when Ancestry.com provides the scientific evidence pointing to western Africa, and Donoghue is merely reciting it in broader terms?? Sheesh. You now (and again) have, in one paragraph, validated everything asserted in the new section. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Matt (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. what another editor thinks about the new section, "Hoo cares?" Opinions are like interpretations. They cannot negate the facts no matter how reliable they are wonted to be. "If the shoe fits," and it certainly does. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't write "(human slave)" in the title; you wrote "(slave)." Stop wasting my time. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The only one wasting time here is you. How long has it been and you still haven't provided a strong reliable source to support your argument. I, also, don't require "more" from the "opposition". WP requires that the information you include in an article be verifiable by a reliable source and explicitly defines which sources count as reliable and "most reliable". Also, I used Donoghue for the first sentence because it's sufficient. If you were concerned about it, then you had ample opportunity to include ancestry.com as the source, instead of littering the lead with tags. The only person who needs to ground himself is you. Again, you think you can contest what has been put forward by strong reliable sources and you can't. The same way creationists can disqualify scientific studies involving evolution, you can't try to disqualify a peer-reviewed paper published by a historian just because you don't like it. It's also funny because you try and argue against using Donoghue while you were just recently trying to use what Donoghue allegedly wrote on some random website. I think there's a term for that, a term you keep demonstrating over and over again. Furthermore, as Perry, Russell, Foner, and Winthrop have all pointed out, the status of the negro can not be definitively known during the early years of the colony. So if Donoghue wants to refer to them as slaves, then he may, and it's not a contradiction when he says it was the "first legal sanctioning". The fact that he acknowledges, as a historian, that history is subject to interpretation, doesn't discredit what he says, even in the slightest. Also, authors of reliable secondary sources are allowed to be bias, so pointing out any bias he may have is fruitless. Lastly, I didn't write the title to the article. I've said this multiple times and I think it's evident that you failed to understand the example I was making with "human" vs "servant". Slave is appropriate because reliable sources refer to him as a slave, being enslaved, or being reduced to slavery and you've yet to provide a single source that contests this. Hence, there is no controversy regarding Punch being a slave except that which originates from you, an editor. If I'm wrong, provide a strong reliable source and prove it, understanding that even if that source is found, it won't override what the numerous other sources already say. In essence, you'd have to find numerous sources that refute him being a slave, assert slaves didn't exist, or something similar to try and argue that there is indeed a controversy and not just a minority viewpoint. I'd wish you luck again, but something tells me you're going to just keep making more OR arguments instead.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)