Talk:Thomas Pellow

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

[Untitled][edit]

What's with this article? It appears to just be someone's research paper added, complete with sections that have nothing to do with this guy.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: appears to be someone's old research paper. Please help improve this article if you can.

Relevance?[edit]

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the sections on Converting Christian slaves to Islam and Women and slavery. This is an article about Thomas Pellow but those sections seem better suited to a general article on slavery at the time.

Bill Jpn (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content of section "Race relations in Pellow's narrative"[edit]

I see the content of the last section as problematic.

On the form, it is mixing informative content on Pellow's work (mainly in the first paragraph) with what could pass for personal opinion on a connected but different subject, and quotes about that subject. A rearrangement seems necessary, and maybe displacing some of the content to other articles. The use of the abbreviation "MN" seems unnecessary.

On the substance, applying "customized" narrative tropes (made two centuries later in order to show racism in a segregation or post-segregation American society) in this place seems strange and lacking in quality. Strange because it doesn't seem to help understand the work better, and lacking in quality because talking about such a subject would logically require more information, references or links. Adding several examples, or supporting content like a broader literary analysis of Pellow's work (which might show that the black character mentioned would fit into a broader supporting character category) would make the point less hollow.

The end of the section has too much of a personal (or academic) opinion and should probably be rewritten in a less assertive or more neutral way, for example by adding references. Pm3003 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the last part of the article consists of someone's opinionated academic "analysis", and should be either removed or entirely rewritten, with different sources. It's a waste of any reader's time and mental energy.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]