Talk:Nat Turner's Rebellion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrong link

I don't know how to edit links, but the link to Stephen B. Oates, goes to a scottish football jock of the same name rather than the historian. Here is the link to the historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Oates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.172.10.46 (talk • contribs).

Fixed - just needed to add the "B.". Thanks for pointing that out!--Kubigula (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Drawn and quartered?

I swear I've read this article a few years ago, and it said that Nat's head and limbs were sent to different parts of Virginia. Does anyone know if that is true?

Mulatto?

There is speculation that he was a mulatto fathered by his slave master.74.185.0.47 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His father was a slave, who ran away either long before Turner was born or far enough before Turner could remember him. Turner's fair complexion does not speak to the possibility of him being mulatto because his mother birthed him before he came to the plantation he lived on. It may be possible that he was fathered by his slave master but that is highly unlikely, just due to the timeline of events of his life.

Add back Casualties

This section was sourced but deleted without explanation.Parkwells (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

this section was moved and edited.. "200+ casualties". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmtoure (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Was in charge of the rebellion and killed only 1 person 40.133.85.210 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Feel free to redirect this page to Nat Turner if that's a better choice. I think it's worth starting anew considering that the Nat Turner article seems to be heavy copyvio though.

200+ Black Casualities?

Turner and 18 others were hung for conspiracy where does the rest come from revenge killings?--Bushido Brown 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The other Casualties are coming from the actual revolt itself. During the The revolt was a violent and chaotic escapade that was planned from the evening before by Turner and other 4 other men in the vicinity. There were actually about 60-70 slaves involved in the revolt initially. Obviously then other slaves in the vicinity became involved as well. The Revolt also began on this plantation then spread to neighboring plantations. With this understanding, it possible that there were 200+ casualties during the revolt as as a result from the revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmtoure (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind political correctness, report the facts

How many people were killed during Nat Turner's slave rebellion, how and where? The section on that is so scant. Nat Turner's slave rebellion is a well known event in American history--and it is well known he and his followers killed children. Is there a fear of detailing this, because there is an attempt to hero-ize him. If you want to hero-ize him, do so, it's your right--but don't deny what he did--he killed babies. I want the blow-by-blow. They went into honkey-house one and killed this many, they went into honkey-house two and killed this many. The killings that took place during Nat Turner's slave rebellion were slow and methodical. Probaly the actions of a sociopath. But to be honest--could you necessarily fault him or them? Oppressed people will at times rise up and even in violent and savage ways. William Wallace in Scotland began engaging is some savagery in his rebellion against the English. Can you necessarily blame him? I'm white and American. Nat Turner did some horrible things, but these were provoked acts, and probaly natural responses to oppression. But, there'd be no mitigation for this today, as blacks are no longer enslaved or deprived of legal rights, though I'm sure they'd like an excuse to kill some whites. That's why they rallied behind OJ Simpson. Those days were very different. Foolish people expect oppressed people to just stay down. It's like standing up to a bully--they are shocked by it and suddenly play the victim role. Stupid people who want to be able to do whatever they want to a person, and are emotionally thrown off when they won't accept it. Whether it's oppression, injustice, abuse, disrespect, bullying, mocking, people are not always going to take crap from others--people will rebel, revolt, react, and stand-up. All you cowards out there who are always looking to take advantage of someone only when you feel you can get away it, be ready for it. And it's not going to happen the way you want it.

Bravo... Nat is a hero and shouldn't be compared with OJ. Nat actually had a goal in mind: Freedom. OJ is an idiotic meathead who savagely acted without thought or purpose. Subsequently, the money he made from being paid to act violently toward other human beings--the profession called "Football"--got him great attorneys who saved him from the electric chair. And the reason why some blacks rallied behind him was not because "they'd like an excuse to kill some whites", it was actually because blacks have felt unfairly treated in the criminal justice system and thought that OJ had managed to beat the unfair system at its one game, exposing it as a system that actually favors those who are rich, famous, and/or happen to be of the same race as the majority of the jurors. But Nat didn't get lucky; he acted bravely in the face of a very bleak future for himself, his family, and fellow slaves. Had he not acted, he would have lived another 25-30 years as a docile animal, being passed on from generation to generation of slave owners and their children. 74.185.0.47 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"blacks are no longer enslaved or deprived of legal rights, though I'm sure they'd like an excuse to kill some whites" INTERJECTION - TOO MUCH HATRED AND OPINION IN YOUR WORDS, THAT IS MY ANALYTICAL OPINION, DEAR WRITER HOW COME YOU KNOW SO MUCH OF WHAT 'THEY' WANT? YOUR TERMINOLOGY IS 'RACIST' BUT IT IS A PART OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; YOUR GENERAL TONE SEEMS SYMPATHETIC BUT YOU ARE NOT EMPATHETIC. YOU SAY YOU UNDERSTAND BUT BY YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. - K F ZIOLKOWSKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.133.60 (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Victims?

It is interesting that a separate page has been created to honor the "victims" by naming all of them, after emphasizing how cruel Nat Turner was. Interesting only because these "victims" were part of the heinous institution of slavery that regarded blacks as animals to be discarded. Perhaps...just perhaps Nat Turner got tired of being treated like an animal. Perhaps children were killed also because, more than likely, they were going to grow up to inherit the institution of slavery, and its capital (slaves), from their parents. Part of truly understanding history is being able to put actions into context. And slaves living in the 1700s were not ruthless killers who slaughtered innocent white victims. If there were victims, they were the slaves themselves. You can't regard human beings as "property" and not expect backlash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.113.50 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC). umm not even a majority of his victims were slave holders, im sorry but its true. His 'mission' was to kill all whites (pg 59 in Sources of the African American Past: Second Edition. Pearson and longman Publishing house). We have to understand that both slavery and Nat Turners actions are equally bad. Just like the reprisal killings of African Americans afterwards. Nothin is black and white, it is all gray. murder is murder, especially of children. Slavery is slavery, especially of children. See, all bad --Billwsu 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a military article. It might be easiest to rename it "causalities" as this is the usual word used for people killed in wars. futurebird 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Near victims" I wonder how this is al all significant? futurebird 08:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery, although horrific and inhuman, is not murder. Hacking women and children to pieces is worse than being forced to labor and whipped for disobedience. They are both terribly wrong but since murder is worse the victims are recognized as such. And by the way, the "war" Nat Turner started was not simply a fight for freedom, since some free blacks participated in it. It was a war of extermination. There was no plan of "escape" so to speak, but a deliberate seeking out and slaughtering of white people.72.192.16.31 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV tag to this section. The language used to describe the deaths of the white victims — especially when contrasted with the language used to describe the deaths of the Black victims — inserts a very clear point of view.

I also think it's ridiculous that more space is taken by the names and identification of the white victims and non-victims than the article spends describing the slave rebellion itself. Again, I think this inserts a point of view.

If a roster of the white victims must stay — and I object to it — it should be (a) limited to their names, (b) shown in two or three columns, (c) omit the non-victims, and (d) (maybe) appear in smaller type. There is no reason why an article about a slave rebellion should be overtaken by a selective list of its victims. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of victims (yes, that's what they are) is part of an historical account which is relevant to the article. This is what happened to people who were white. NOT people who were merely slave-owners. If they had tried to stop the slaves from escaping, the killing would have been justified. No. They hunted down people, particularly women and children, and hacked them to pieces or shot them. POV? Not at all.72.192.16.31 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the fact that there were white victims. I'm saying that an article that has 4 times more information about the white victims of the Turner Rebellion than it does about the Rebellion itself is pushing a POV:

“ Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. ”

(The quote is from WP:Undue weight, a section of WP:NPOV.) If you think the proportion is right, I'd like to hear why. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the simple fact that the white racist mobs that came after individuals un-associated with the rebellion at all killed double the amount the rebellion did. Yet they are hardly mentioned, and the mobs are called militia.:

Can we get a citation for the "10 elementary school children were decapitated and their bodies were stacked outside the school" fact? I've done some research and it appears they did kill 10 children at a school, but I can't find any evidence of decapitations or arranging the bodies. Hey8 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we find any citations on it at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmtoure (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the part where it said that the majority of the victims were children? So you you condone of the brutal murder of children, eh? School-age children are hardly perpetrators of any sort of plight. And people deserve to know who was killed. There is no limit to the amount of information one may have in an article but if you have a problem with it, add more to this one and don't bitch about the other.

I'm of the opinion that Nat was a cold-blooded murderer but such opinions have no place here. THAT'S what NPOV is about, not the length of an article.Sion 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Only NPOV? Cool, maybe people can remove such accusations from 'heroes' like Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden and Vlad the Impaler. Just a bunch of guys fighting for their rights in a world that doesn't understand just how much they went through. Hitler, in his own mind, was justified in his actions was he not? Was he not convinced he was right? When Vlad the Impaler impaled women and children to scare off an army of invading Turks, was he not justified by his actions? His whole kingdom, his religion and his own life were at stake (pun not intended) So to call a holocaust mass murder is just mere speculation, POV. It is not murder, a mere stastistic. Whats a few million women and children here or there when some crazed maniac has his own desires on the line?

Fact remains, these men are labelled as such because there is no justification for what they have done, there is no forgiving. It is not POV, it is fact. Nat Turner could have done what Martin Luther King did and turned things around, instead sought refuge in murder - not just murder, but butal hacking of children. This monster was not a hero. Anyone who agrees with this guys actions needs a serious rethink. DarkMithras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He did try the Martin Luther King approach. He actually tried to preach to his "masters" about the evilness of slavery. He even baptized a white man. But that didn't win him freedom. I guess you could also argue that his "masters" didn't have to enslave him; they could have done what Abraham Lincoln did, but they needed free labor. ExistentialBliss (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Deleted!

I had just contributed a point on the main page; Nat Turner's slave rebellion - perhaps it belonged here - It was deleted and not moved. I was expressing my concern for the racist terminology I found offensive in the article. I tried to be eloquent so I do not understand why I was censored so. Even if I posted in the wrong section should it not have been moved here? Thankfully we have the joys of Copy n Paste n I always backup my work... ;)

Public Interjection: A Modest Proposal -

Is it too much to ask to replace the word white with 'white' and black with 'black' as these are terms of opinion that mean different things to different people and are scientifically meaningless. They are terms used often in prejudice and where possible can we be true to the facts which are that people who originate from the place commonly referred to as Africa are known to science as Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Europeans are also Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What I am saying is that people are people and descriptions of appearance such as 'whites' or 'blacks' are often unnecessary, offensive and only confusing especially since so many people of mixed parentage could 'pass' for the 'race' (another misleading concept) that they were not supposed to be part of. These words in future should only be properly used in a historical context ('Black' as a term of empowerment as well as the 'N-bomb' will undoubtedly remain in the collective consciousness for a good while as a way of people coming to terms with the degradation of wombanity under the colonial yoke - naa mean? but that's another matter...) It pains me to see so many contemporary writers who really should know better than to trumpet such 'racist' etymology using offensive words such as 'blacks' when they should really be specific and write instead people, slaves, rebels, freedom-fighters, Turnerites, bounty-hunters, overseers, civilians, soldiers or whatever term is best relevant depending on the textual passage at hand. I write this interjection in the interests of scientific accuracy and ethical conduct. I truly believe that these words represent 'mindsets' or psychologies and carry with them certain stereotypes which are known as BELIEFS that certain people from certain places act in certain ways. It cannot be stressed any harder that these are mere beliefs and have no basis whatsoever in science. If Science is the yardstick of contemporary culture then let us be true to what we know and can prove. I perhaps could go on to say that on Earth in 2010, any person describing themselves as 'white' or indeed 'black' is suffering from delusions and is most probably caught up in the 'mind-war' known as 'racism'. In my mind I am a Womban (read wooman; sorry but Human is a sexist term but that's a different debate) and a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I do not feel it really relevant but I am sure that by now many readers are interested as to my so called 'ethnic-origin' to see if they can discern bias and therefore some form of 'ethnic-loyalty'. Look, I am just a person, a male member of our species. My skin is light in tone. My parents are both, according to contemporary science, classified as 'Slavs' as were their parents before them. I give you this information freely so as to make it understood that I am writing this for the good of Wombanity.

PS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT WIKI ADMIN, PLEASE REMOVE THIS INTERJECTION WHEN THE BELOW ARTICLE NO LONGER CONTAINS ANY TERMINOLOGY OF HATRED. I WILL NOT EDIT THE ARTICLE BELOW AS IT WAS NOT I WHO WROTE IT.

K F Ziolkowski 82.31.133.60 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.133.60 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I posted this at the Nat Turner page, but I'd like to update this page, too, so I'm asking here as well. My understanding is that the best sources for Turner's life and for the rebellion right now are:

Breen, Patrick H. The Land Shall be Deluged in Blood: A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt. Oxford University Press, 2015.

French, Scot. The Rebellious Slave: Nat Turner in American Memory. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004.

Greenberg, Kenneth S., ed. Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory. Oxford University Press, 2003.

In no particular order. I'd like to update the sources in this article, removing non-peer reviewed sources where necessary/possible. Does anyone mind? In the process, I may update/expand the article, does anyone mind this, too? I'll be using google books and, I hope, a local copy. Should I rely heavilly on any other sources? Should I avoid one of these sources? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties -- proposed language

I'd like to propose the following language for the section on casualties. It's not perfect, but I think it fairly describes the brutality with which the white victims of the Rebellion were killed, and at the same time avoids the POV balance problem I described above.

According to the book "The Fires of Jubilee" by Stephen Oates, Nat Turner had ordered his followers to "kill all the white people", including women and children. Because their lives were considered of little or no value, no record exists of the number and names of Turner's followers who lost their lives.

Fifty-seven white men, women and children were killed during Nat Turner's Rebellion; most were hacked to death with axes, stabbed, or bludgeoned. The largest number of casualties were children. In one instance, Turner and his insurgents stopped at an elementary school, where they killed the teacher, decapitated ten of the children, and stacked the headless corpses in the front yard of the school.

Nat Turner's Rebellion resulted in a vicious response by Southern plantation owners. Eager to show that actions such as Turner's would not be tolerated, plantation owners throughout the south executed vigilante justice with terrorist-fervor, killing slaves and other persons of African descent (many of whom had no connection with the rebellion).

I hope we can word-smith this language to reach some sort of consensus. I'd like to know what other editors think. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with the part that cites The Liberator and one of its letters-to-the-editor

I'm trying to fix the embedded quotations from a letter-to-the-editor in order to clarify the quotes for the reader. Any help would be appreciated. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of the term "African American"?

The article contains this phrase: "...sign that he should begin preparing for a rebellion against those holding him and fellow African Americans as slaves." I know this is indirect speech, but even so is it appropriate to refer to black slaves of that time as "African Americans"? I am not trying to be provocative, just asking. --ukexpat 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know many others don't approve of my blunt language, but before Reconstruction I don't think there was such a thing as an African-American; most were enslaved Africans, although there were a few free Blacks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the estimate of the number of slave and free black casualties

I think that the most recent research suggests the number of slaves and free blacks killed outside of the 56 executed is much less than 100-200 currently on this page. I've been looking at the issue, and particularly the recent books by Breen (2015) and Allmendinger (2014) argue for a much lower number. Is there any reason those two books should be discounted? Reviews of the books I have found have been generally positive, I think. Here is a summary of what I've been able to figure out:

On page 231 of Breen, Patrick H. The Land Shall be Deluged in Blood: A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt. Oxford University Press, 2015., Breen discusses the number of slaves and free blacks killed after the revolt, citing Alfred L. Brophy, The Nat Turner Trials, 91 N.C. L. Rev. 1817 (2013) for a number of killings of between 25 and 40. Brophy was Breen's advisor, and he cites chapter 8 of Been's UGA PhD thesis (Breen, Patrick H. "Nat turner’s revolt: Rebellion and response in Southampton County, Virginia." PhD diss., Doctoral dissertation - a published similar discussion is available at Patrick H. Breen, “Contested Communion: The Limits of White Solidarity in

Nat Turner’s Virginia,” Journal of the Early Republic 27 (2007): 702– 3n28). Retrieved from University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations Record, 2005.), page 142-171. Breen's advisor, Alphred Brophy, cites Breen at Alfred L. Brophy, The Nat Turner Trials, 91 N.C. L. Rev. 1817 (2013). In his thesis (page 158), Breen discusses numbers from different sources: 120 by Higginson (1861), Cromwell (1920), Oats (1975), Greenberg (1996); "more than 100" by Paramore (2003); "hundreds" by Eric Foner (1971). He attempts to trace the source of these numbers, particularly the estimate of 120, which is discussed on page 167. He states that the minimum and maximum should be 16 and 148 based on tax record and newspaper accounts and then argues for the low end of these estimates. Another recent source, Allmendinger, David F. Nat turner and the rising in Southampton county. JHU Press, 2014. Chapter 9 (p199-212) gives a similar argument to Breen for a very low number of estimates and discusses the sources of previous, high estimates that is similar to Breen's. He further examines the issue in Appendix F, concluding on page 296: "The documented, extraordinary losses through insurrection and emigration, together with the balance of ordinary losses and gains in the tax rolls (final entries against first entries, departures against arrivals, absences against returns), suggest that atrocities claimed as many as twenty-three slaves and one free black man in Southampton in 1831."

I'd like to open a discussion about the number of people killed used in the infobox and in the article. I would also like to propose the above paragraph as a draft of a footnote that can be used for that number. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly object to any attempt to reduce the number of fatalities. Page 231, which you cite above, is a footnote in which Breen states "These high estimates have been widely accepted in both academic and popular sources." (In the interest of full disclosure, this article—to which I have contributed—is one of the popular sources he cites.) He cites only one exception to what he describes as "the consensus", Brophy, whom he says draws from his (Breen's) dissertation. Until a dissenting view gains widespread acceptance, it should not replace the consensus view among historians. If this article is changed to mention a range of black people killed, it should emphasize that the high end is the consensus view and the low end is an emerging view that is not widely held among historians. See WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, please don't understand my note as an attempt to reduce the number. Rather, I wanted to update the sources, and source [19] used for this number is something produced by PBS which, based on the page's bibliography, seems to cite Foner 1971, and I think should be updated to something more scholarly and recent. Is there another source for the consensus than Breen's "widely accepted"? If not, then perhaps the number should be set at 120 in this article, citing "Breen 2015, p98, 231". Then say in a footnote, "Breen 2015, Chapter 9 and Allmendinger 2014, Appendix F are recent studies which review various estimates for the number of slaves and free blacks killed without trial, giving a range of from 23 killed to over 200 killed." Thinking about it a bit more, The estimates Breen and Allmendinger give are kind of primary sources and Brophy's use of Breen is not exactly independent, so I think you are right that giving much weight to their estimate might be premature, although including the lower of their estimates in a range in the footnotes might be fair. I recognize that 120 does reduce the number in the text, I wish to restate that this is not my goal so much as to improve the sourcing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any other feedback? Does this change sound reasonable? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself, because it seems I was ignored by Smmurphy. If a certain number is "widely accepted in ... academic circles", that is the number our encyclopedia article should cite until (a) scholarly consensus changes, in which case we update the figures and maybe summarize the changes, or (b) reliable secondary sources write about the difference of opinion among scholars, in which case we write about the dispute. We don't throw out a scholarly consensus and a century of historiography because Breen and somebody who draws from his dissertation disagree with it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But the number "widely accepted" being referred to is 120, is it not? The note referred to (note 23 on page 231) is a footnote to a paragraph reviewing 6 estimates: Higginson's of 120, Cromwell's of 120, Foner's of "into the hundreds", Oates' of "at least 120", Greenberg's of "120 at a minimum", and Parramore's of "at least 100". Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I misunderstood what Breen had written and mis-remembered what some of the other sources said. Because he cited this article among the sources of the high estimates, I thought that he was suggesting that most of the other sources also supported figures as high as 200. I see now that they don't—at least not the ones I can access. Although Breen doesn't cite a figure, I think 120 is probably the high consensus figure to which he refers, not (as I understood it) 200. I've self-reverted my changes. Again, I'm very sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I expect a change like this to be a bit frought. I am still not sure this is the best solution, but I think it is a good one and solves two problems. One, now I think all sources in the two articles are to historians or primary sources and none to journalists or blogs (which can be ok, but using historians is more authoritative and more helpful to our readers I think). Two, Allmendinger specifically criticized Wikipedia in using this number and I wanted to improve the sourcing for the figure to address the criticism. Feel free to continue the conversation here or, with RSs as you said, in the article, of course. By the way, if you haven't already, I recommend you check out WP:TWL, Project MUSE gives access to many books, including, I think, Allmendinger (full disclosure: I am the coordinator for that partner). Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Insurrection Act

According to the table on Insurrection Act of 1807, President Jackson invoked the Act on August 23, 1831 at the request of Virginia to help suppress the rebellion in Norfolk. Presumably this would mean that federal military should be added to the table of belligerents, and it sounds like there's more to the story. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Medicinal grease?

The article The Delectable Negro makes the claim that Turner's body was 'turned into "medicinal" grease' but this doesn't appear anywhere in this article. I don't have access to The American Historical Review which is cited for the statement in the other article - is this claim supported widely? JezGrove (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This claim and others related to body part harvesting were contemporary with the event and are pretty broadly cited. I have always been unclear as to whether it applied to Nat, the other executed slaves, or both. This disturbingly gross grease was not unique to this event; hanged man’s grease had been used as a salve for centuries in England. Rublamb (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Details of killings

Dear IP, this is in answer to your edit on my talk page. Which details are relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead section ? To answer that question, we have to follow recent sources focussing on the event, see WP:RS and WP:OR. You gave three sources, only one of them having a title that indicates a focus on Turner. And that source is more than a 100 years old. We have to be very careful here, because racist propaganda has long portrayed Black people as savages who killed and raped women and children. In reality, the enslavers themselves were the savages. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As to which details are relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead section, I thought this fact was relevant because one cannot understand the disgust this uprising engendered even among abolitionists, and the difficulties it created for them, without knowing about the murder of not just enslavers, but of innocent children as well. So much of history doesn't make sense if one paints the good side to be flawlessly good and the bad side to be perfectly evil.

I would add that your "sources focused on Nat Turner" requirement is not uniformly obeyed in the piece (see source 39, which is not focused on Turner but does include that a militia head stole a watch from a black person; I can only think this source is acceptable because it has the merit of naming a sin of the "savages," as you call them?)

If your bottom-line objection is that I included a fact which might soothe anti-black racists, this fact would have saved me time since I wouldn't have heeded your ostensible objection only to be reverted again under a new one. If I found a recent source as you suggest, also focused on Nat Turner, which prominently states that 24 children were killed by the insurrectionists, would you once again revert my addition?

If your true objection is ideological, I will simply give up and the public will read your version for the foreseeable future. 208.102.177.99 (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"Black people as savages who killed and raped women and children. In reality, the enslavers themselves were the savages." Sorry, but conflicts where both sides commit war crimes and other atrocities are far from uncommon. I doubt you can dismiss claims that the rebels slaughtered people, based only in the idea that they were the "good guys". Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick, you seem to have misread me, although I have to admit that my statement about the "savages" was easy to misread. Although I have (perhaps unwisely) revealed my personal sympathies in my preceding comment, I have no intention at all to reject or deny, to dismiss, to add or to edit anything based on those sympathies.

Dear IP, we don't decide by ourselves what is relevant and what not, but we follow academic scholarship. Even if presented in neutral language, the claim that the rebels slew 24 children conveys a moral judgment. According to WP rules, we can only present other people's (especially scholars') judgments, not our own. The correct place for that is the section "Interpretations". So, if you find a recent historian discussing their judgment with reference to the children killed, you can add that discussion to that section, and if that section is substantial enough, it can of course be summarized in the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand the meaning of "the claim that the rebels slew 24 children conveys a moral judgment." How is it not an objective fact, the morality of which can and is debated to this day? Please explain which facts are "moral judgments" and which are not. 208.102.177.99 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A fact is never a moral judgment. I spoke of the "claim". If you like that better, I might say, the selection of the fact that the rebels killed 24 children (from the thousands of facts available) conveys a moral judgment. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That clarifies it very much. And I agree with the idea. And what do you mean "if that section is substantial enough"... It's still opaque to me how any of the dozens of facts (e.g. a militia stole a watch) made it from the "Interpretations" section to a place higher in the article, or how a word like "frenzy" makes it from "Interpretations" to the lede (describing the response, not the insurrection of course). In other words, is some number of scholars mentioning a fact required? Does this process work mostly by "personal sympathy" or is there an established number of scholars or some other metric to add information higher up? 208.102.177.99 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For the lead section, see WP:LEAD. For the rest of your questions: There are guidelines (you might want to peruse them), but there is also the fact that human beings have their limitations. E.g., time is limited, which is also the reason why I'd like this discussion to terminate here. If you want to help creating a great encyclopedia, why not join us and create an account ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It is clear here that this event has no one proper name, but rather can be described in multiple ways, so a descriptive title is appropriate. There is not enough consensus here to change from the current descriptive title to the proposed one. Aervanath (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Nat Turner's slave rebellion → Nat Turner's rebellion – Of course there is no arguing the fact that Nat Turner's rebellion was in fact a "slave rebellion", but most US text books do not refer to it as this title. Most commonly refereed to as simply Nat Turner's rebellion. One could do a Google search, but I would think that most hits for Nat Turner's slave rebellion, would be mirror this site. Actually I did do a quick search, and Nat Turner's rebellion[1] still came up more often than Nate Turner's slave rebellion[2], despite the mirroring.JOJ ^Hutton 02:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.A Google search comes up with 26,500 for "Nat Turner's rebellion" [[3]] versus 828,000 for "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" [[4]]. With this giant difference, and the fact that the current name is more descriptive, I think the current name should stay. I can't see how the current name would have a negative effect on any reader of the article (or party searching for the article) or how the new name would make using or locating the article any easier. As far as what most textbooks call it, I would like to see actual verification that this is the case -- although how the events are indexed in reliable sources is probably a better indicator.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I get 652 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "Nat Turner's slave rebellion", 3,420 for "Nat Turner's rebellion". Amazon's top book on this subject is The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion. This suggests that the word "slave" is merely a descriptor, not part of the common name. Kauffner (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "Nat Turner's rebellion" is the common name for this particular slave rebellion. I am not sure how many Nat Turners there have been, or how many different types of rebellions they led, but I doubt there is a need for further disambiguation by adding "slave" to the title. It just seems needlessly over-precise. WP:Precision. Walrasiad (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) OK. Switch me to Oppose. The criticial argument in changing my mind is the one below about the article coming up in a search. If the individual searching for the slave rebellion doesn't quite remember the name "Nat Turner", he might overlook this article. Walrasiad (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the search engines is not a good reason to put extra words in the title. What do we do when Google changes their search algorithm? Kauffner (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about gaming. From WP:CRITERIA that lists the five criteria for a title -- "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Does the three word or the four word phrase give more assistance to the non-specialists? Also from that section, "What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article?" Isn't this a very clear reference to search engines? The section also asks "Is the title concise or is it overly long?" Does the single extra word make the title "overly long"? It further asks "Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?" Is there any doubt what the current title is about? Isn't there the possibility of actual doubt for the non-specialist if "slave" is taken from the title? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• As I explain below, there is no common name for the event and when the event is discussed it is virtually always in the context of it being a slave rebellion. Precision is qualified elsewhere in the article you linked to "...but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The topic in this instance is a "slave rebellion" (a specific and accurate term) not a generic "rebellion" (a general term that has many ambiguous implications). When one one additional word gives the reader valuable information, where is the harm? Precision serves a purpose beyond simple disambiguation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can anyone else see the irony in the proposer's first sentence -- "Of course there is no arguing the fact that Nat Turner's rebellion was in fact a "slave rebellion" -- yet he wants the word slave removed from the title. Yes it was a slave rebellion, but Wikipedia shouldn't dare say so? How illogical is that? How does it harm the article to accurately call it Nat Turner's slave rebellion? How does that harm Wikipedia? Is the content of Wikipedia to be decided by what someone else may or may not say on any given subject? We have 3.8 million articles. Have we not yet become mature enough to make our own policy without running off to google etc. Moriori (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  The title should inform the reader, tell him what the common name of the subject is. Made-up names are not nearly as useful. The opening sentence will him that this was slave revolt. Kauffner (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  Actually it is far from established as to what the "common name" of the event is. In fact, when either proposed title is used in a narrative context, it is "Nat Turner's" which is capitalized while "slave rebellion" or "rebellion' ARE NOT capitalized. If either were an actual "name" (i.e. proper noun) all of the words would be capitalized. Lacking any "common name" for the event we are left with creating the best name. Contrary to your claim, the existing article name cannot be cavalierly dismissed as a made up name (the link is the same one used in the Naming article).

  The lede of Wikipedia:Article titles states, "It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject. ... Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I don't think there is any possible doubt that virtually ALL reliable sources refer to the event using the context of it being a "slave rebellion" rather than simply a "rebellion". "Slave rebellion" is not an imprecise embellishment but a precise description of what the event was -- it is relevant to antebellum American history precisely for the reason that it was slaves that were in revolt.

  Titles are for the users of wikipedia. I did a Google search for "rebellion" and did not get a hit in the first 40 returns. I did a search for "slave rebellions" and this article was the second hit. Again, I don't think there is much doubt that anyone searching the subject is either looking for Nat Turner specifically or "slave rebellions" in general. I repeat the question asked by another editor, where is the harm in including "slave" in the title? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  That it's not idiom, for something that has an established name. We are not here to make points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly Support Nat Turner's Rebellion; like Glorious Revolution, or Bacon's Rebellion, it's a proper name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  See below. Other than your pronouncement, what evidence do you have to support your opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  That Nat Turner's Rebellion is three times as common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. An apples-to-apples comparison of several proposed or plausible titles side by side in this ngram show that "Nat Turner's rebellion" (with or without capitalization) comfortably outpaces all the others combined in published sources. Dohn joe (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, common, concise. Unless there was another, non-slave rebellion led by a Nat Turner (hint: no), we don't need "slave" in the title.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of usage (moving beyond Google Searches)

The best way to determine whether a term is a proper noun is to check how historians use it. The same holds true in determining how a particular event is characterized. Samples from significant works:

“The Peculiar Institution” by Kenneth Stampp -- The index lists only “Turner, Nat, rebellion”. In the text on page 133 is the sentence “The Nat Turner rebellion lasted only forty-eight hours.” The failure to capitalize “rebellion” shows that it IS NOT part of a proper noun.

“Generations of Captivity” by Ira Berlin -- the index lists only “Turner, Nat”. In the text on page 206 reference is made to “... in the wake of the Nat Turner rebellion of 1831 ... . The failure to capitalize “rebellion” shows that it IS NOT part of a proper noun.

“American Slavery, 1619-1877” by Peter Kolchin -- the index lists “Turner, Nat” and “Turner rebellion”. In the text on page 156 reference is made to “the Turner insurrection of 1831”; on page 182 the reference is to “Nat Turner’s insurrection”. The failure to capitalize “rebellion” or “insurrection” shows that neither is part of a proper noun.

“Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World” by David Brion Davis -- the index lists only “Turner, Nat”. In the text on page 208 reference is made to “the Turner insurrection of 1831” and “Turner’s revolt”; on page 231 the reference is to “Nat Turner uprising in 1831.” The failure to capitalize “insurrection”, “revolt” or “uprising” shows that none of them are part of a proper noun.

“The Counter-Revolution of Slavery” by Manisha Sinha -- the index lists only “Turner, Nat”. In the text on page 15 reference is made to “Nat Turner’s uprising”; on page 207 the reference is to “Nat Turner’s rebellion”. The failure to capitalize “rebellion” or “uprising” shows that neither is part of a proper noun.

“Slavery and the Making of America” by James Oliver Horton and Lois Horton -- the index lists only “Turner, Nat”. In the text on page 114 reference is made to “Nat Turner’s revolt. The failure to capitalize “revolt” shows that it is not part of a proper noun.

“To Awaken My Afflicted Brethren: David Walker and the Problem of Antebellum Slave Resistance” by Peter P. Hinks -- the index lists “Turner, Nat” and “Turner insurrection”. The text uses “Nat Turner insurrection” (page 131) and “Nat Turner uprising” (page 153); “Turner’s Rebellion” is used on page 234 -- the sole instance in the seven works that suggests a possible proper name.

The obvious conclusions are (1) that there is no generally accepted proper name for the event and (2) all of these examples come within the context of slave revolts. The status quo should remain until someone comes up with better and more numerous examples supporting the proposed change.

This addresses only the weaknesses of the articles made in support. Once these are dismissed, we are left with determining the most useful, precise and concise title. The four word status quo meets these criteria unless someone can convince us that one extra word effects conciseness. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An argument from silence; a selection of books which barely discuss the subject (and do not use the present title at all). That they use a description rather than a proper name is neither surprising nor meaningful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Enslaved people"

There is no reason, except occasionally, to avoid repetition, to use this unnecessarily long phrase. It's merely ridiculous. Everyone knows slaves are people. "Slaves" is good enough. --74.72.155.252 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are some reasons. See User_talk:Lorecina#Slaves_vs._enslaved_people for a discussion I had with the editor who introduced the term "enslaved people" to this article. He or she convinced me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Omniscientius: When I reverted you, I pointed to this discussion. Pinging you, because you may not have noticed. Please note that you don't have to make three reverts to be considered edit warring. We solve conflicts by discussion, not by reverting. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Responding to this revert) Hello there, Rsk6400! I didn't see that there was already a discussion on this; sorry about that. My argument in favour of "slave" is that it's more concise and less awkward, more widely and commonly used, was used consistently in this article prior to a unilateral change, and has consensus for use in article titles. I generally take issue with arguments that "enslaved person" emphasises that slaves were people — of course they were, and it's not Wikipedia's job to use terms that emphasise (or, for that matter, de-emphasise) some aspect or another. It's Wikipedia's job to present information factually and neutrally, which "slave" accomplishes in half the words. A few more asides:

• As for the comparison to "colored" and "negro" presented in the talk page discussion you linked: these terms are outdated and currently considered offensive (see euphemism treadmill), while "slave" remains commonly used and not considered offensive.
• As for the argument on common use: yes, its use is increasing, but "slave" is still more commonly used (especially in non-American contexts).
• As for the argument (presented in previous discussions on this matter) that slaves were dehumanised / slavery was wrong: yes, but this shouldn't be relevant to how we describe slaves. Wikipedia is neutral; part of neutrality means not saying that "slavery was horrible" and "slaves were people", even though we can all agree on this — we should factually describe the dehumanising conditions, and let readers come to their own conclusions.

Sorry for going on for so long about this. I should really write up an essay on this at some point so that I don't have to compose this every time, haha. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. In that discussion, I wrote I can't see that "enslaved person / people" is an euphemism, because it underlines the barbarity of enslaving persons. ... Neutral ... because I'm not a native speaker. But while that discussion was about article titles, WP:COMMONNAME applied. Here, I think the principle "don't change an established style w/o consensus" should be applied. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As for "underlin[ing] the barbarity" of slavery, I think that should be avoided in the interest of neutrality — I believe that we should put things plainly and straightforwardly, and not use language itself to push a point. As for the established style, although "enslaved person" has been used since the unilateral (as far as I can tell) change in February 2021, "slave" had been used from the article's creation in 2006 up to that point. So, while I concede that being used more recently weights the current style more heavily, I think that the original change was also a change to an established style without consensus, and so reverting that change shouldn't be too contentious. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

New Nat Turner article

Going against Talk:Nat Turner#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion from a couple of years ago, an editor has turned the Nat Turner redict into an article. This article is inferior to the content provided here, lacks enough sources, and does not include links to bring readers to this main article. I can move the biographical content from this article to Nat Turner or we can start a speedy delete for the duplicate article. Can others please advise on how we should proceed. Rublamb (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the content I provided in the bio article is inferior; I was merely restarting it so that others could add and expand based on the large amount of materials at our disposal. There are many articles on rebels who were primarily famous for their uprising, including slave rebels who are less known than Nat Turner. Even Spartacus (whose article actually notes in the opening paragraph "Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory"), but I doubt anyone is suggesting we should delete his biography.

The "consensus" that was reached to delete the content of the Nat Turner page was hardly a consensus (and only involved a fairly small number of votes), and someone's suggestion to have a formal request for comments was apparently ignored. The principle "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" has also been ignored for no apparent reason. I think there is good reason to have both an article about the rebellion and a biographical article for this highly notable person. LouMichel (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@LouMichel: You have a right to your opinion but are not going about this in the best way because you are unilaterally making a decision that ignores the discussion of the community merger. Consensus does not mean a majority of votes, nor is an admin needed to close a discussion, especially one that has been open for a year. The correct remedy, if you disagree, is to ask for a merger discussion review or to start a new discussion about splitting this article into two articles. Of course, restarting the former article from scratch is a third option, but one that is likely to end in AfD. Rublamb (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

A new discussion was opened on the Nat Turner page, and editors argued that the debate closed before a full discussion had taken place. Someone had actually suggested having a formal "request for comments," during the merger proposal, but as far as I can tell, their suggestion was ignored. It was closed without many people being able to comment or being aware that this was even happening.

There are basically just as many people on the talk page saying it was wrong to merge the articles as there are people agreeing with it. The merger misapplied the rules regarding Notability as I stated above, and consistently applying their decision to delete the bio will likely require a large number of other decisions about articles to be reversed.

The discussion about re-starting the bio article has been open for almost 4 years, with the newest comments seeming to suggest the wrong decision was made and that there should be a bio page. The final comment says it was "1000%" the wrong decision, and after years of no further replies, I believe action should be taken. If some other way of remedying this is preferred, I am happy to participate. LouMichel (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@LouMichel: Informal discussions on an article's talk page are not the same as a formal discussion because the former is only promoted to those who follow the article, while a discussion is promoted across many areas of Wikipedia, most notably to members of the related WikiProjects. Discussions closures are not a tally of "votes" but are decided based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. In this case, the merger discussion was open for a year--the normal time is a week to ten days--so there was ample time for people to share their opinions. I encouraged you to work on the content here and, then, suggest the move, because there would then be a reason to revisit the conversation. Although I believe Turner should have his own article, I do not support sendingreaders to a stub when better content was found through the former redirect. Ultimately, this is not about what you are I think, but what is best for the users of Wikipedia. If you don't have time to work on s new article now, work on it in your sandbox before publishing. Better yet, start a formal discussion about moving content from this article to that article. Rublamb (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I came across the article as part of new page patrol, and I'm pretty much circumventing this discussion and have taken the article to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Turner. If this biographical article should be recreated, I suggest it must be brought into draft space until it is ready. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nat Turner bio page needed

Why is there no separate biographic page for Nat Turner, discrete from this page, for the Nat Turner slave rebellion? The biographic outline on this page makes it obvious that there is robust data available and that there is more to this man than this notable rebellion. 2600:1702:870:A280:6C1C:4EEF:C587:30A4 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There used to be a page just on Nat Turner, but the contents got merged with this page. If you look at the top of this talk page (under the Wikiprojects), you'll see a reference to the merger.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is premature to try for a split at this point. My suggestion is that we both, and others, join in building this article. Once it has more reliable content, it will be easer to people to understand why the the rebellion and Nat Turner's biography can be two articles. And there is good support--Denmark Vesey has a separate article. Rublamb (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How does Nat Turner not have a bio page on Wikipedia? This is a very famous historical figure. I'm actually astonished that someone of this level of notability doesn't have a page when prime minister's cats and minor league hockey players have pages. LouMichel (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Some time ago, there was a discussion and decision to merge articles, citing the Wikipedia policy that says people who are famous for just one thing do not warrent an aritcle in addition to the related topic. Yes, there are other articles that need to be deleted or merged in Wikipedia but that does not change the fact that all articles must stand on their own against guidelines and collective decisions. As I stated above, this article can be built with content and sources so that it clearly needs to be split. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Famous for just one thing? Nat Turner has been featured in books and movies. He is a very famous figure in American history, cited as the inspiration for other anti-slavery uprisings like John Brown's rebellion. There are hundreds of pages for athletes who are famous just for being athletes, or "one hit wonder" bands or any number of other people who are famous for "just one thing". There are pages for less famous anti-slavery rebels. This seems like a tremendously inconsistent policy, and as far as I can see, no other figure of Nat Turner's stature has been excluded because of it. And other major encyclopedias have pages for Nat Turner the person, not just the uprising. LouMichel (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." LouMichel (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone who started working on this article after the merger discussion occcured, my advice stands: if you know of good sources, please help improve the content. You will have more support if the article has been improved first. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to restart the biographical page. The "consensus" on the Nat Turner page is hardly a consensus and was closed by a non-admin despite someone asking for a formal request for comments that, as far as I know, never occurred. We would have to delete countless pages for rebellion leaders, possibly including notable figures like Spartacus, if this decision by a tiny number of Wikipedians was consistently implemented. There are also numerous books, movies, articles, etc. that focus on the person and not just the rebellion in general. There is already a biographical article for Nat Turner in the Simple English Wikipedia. The John Brown article notes that Nat Turner the person was one of his heroes (not just the rebellion- the individual). Plus, as I've noted, the relevant principle "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" has been ignored. No one would argue that the event is not highly significant or that Nat Turner's role was not a large one.

While I currently have limited time to develop an entire article, I've started the bio page again, and others are welcome to add to it- I'm sure some of the previous content can be used again, perhaps with more focus on the individual, his impact before, during, and after the rebellion, mention of media portrayals, etc. LouMichel (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth

Many sources claim Nat Turner was born on the 2nd of October, but in some places it's the 1st. Wikidata claims that it's the 1st and is imported from English wikipedia (don't know how). All of this should be figured out. https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q329730 Артём Кочкин (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that his birth date is a guess or part of an undocumented oral tradition. I don't think we are going to get any closer than around October 1 or 2. Does expressing it that way (around October 1 or 2) seem like a reasonable solution? Rublamb (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Images and pro-slavery propaganda

@Rublamb: Since you are obviously putting a lot of work into improving the article, I'm a bit sorry to interfere. You added the image without mentioning it in the edit summary.[5] But that's not the real problem. The picture does not portray the rebellion. It portrays the attack on a mother with her little girls, an unarmed man "cruelly murdered by his own Slaves" (from the caption on the woodcut), a man defending his wife and baby, and the restoring of order by driving the criminals back into the wilderness. This is a representation of only one part of the rebellion, and also a distorted one. The other part is the enslavers' cruelty before, during and after the rebellion. I think the picture can be added to the body of the article, but giving it the correct context (pro-slavery propaganda). It should also be balanced with a corresponding picture depicting the cruel reality of slavery. The other picture you added shows the rebels with the faces of demons or maniacs - I think this is out of question. For the background of my reasoning see MOS:IMAGEREL and WP:DUE. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually when images are in dispute, they are left in place while being discussed, making it easier for others to find them and respond. As a historian who specializes in the intersection of history, myth, and propaganda, I understand your line of thought and, therefore, am going to fully discuss.

Image Horrid Massacre in Virginia: Based on the way the text is currently presented, I can understand why you think this image does not reflect the rebellion. Despite its B rating, I found this article to have unsourced and incorrect facts (Nat Turner acquired muskets--which he did not) and an amazing lack of detail. One item that is missing is the known facts of the rebellion--what took place, the sequence of events, etc. When this content is added, I believe you will understand that the period illustration does, in fact, very reflect incidents in the rebellion. These are the facts: Enslaved people took farm implements and went house to house, killing essentially every white man, woman, and child they came across, including an infant and students at school. At each location, the rebels' numbers grew as other enslaved people joined the rebellion. However, the rebellion ended when the men ran into the militia on road. As shown in the illustration, the rebels dispersed. There was never armed combat between the rebels and the militia. However, the militia and others did arrest or kill enslaved people they came across.

Historically, this illustration may have had a psychological impact, but its intention was to represent a current news event (it was an illustration in a small press pamphlet about the rebellion, not an illustration from newspapers). It refers to real people who were killed or attacked in the rebellion and accurately shows weapons used in the event. You are correct that this image does not portray slavery but that is fine because this article is not about slavery. (We do not need an illustration of slavery here because the article is linked to content on slavery). Although there is not an illustration of rebels being executed or hanged (thank goodness this was before the trophy photos of lynchings), this image does show enslaved people on foot, being chased by armed men on horses. This clearly depicts the imbalance of power and pairs with well the article's content that describes the aftermath of the rebellion and the killing of enslaved and freed blacks.

This image is considered a reliable source of the event. For example, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (which has provided exhibits and educational resources on the topic of slavery in America) uses this image on their webpage about Nat Turner's Rebellion and does not refer to it as slave propaganda. Some information about the origin of the image is included in the Encyclopedia Virginia (and should be included in the article). This image is in the collection of the Library of Congress which catalogs it under five subject headings--none of which related to propaganda. This image is used to depict the event by the American Social History Project; again no mention of propaganda. Here it is being used in a 2013 article in The Atlantic, a left-leaning publication. It is used by the Museum of Antebellum Slavery in an article about the rebellion. Here it is being used by Juneteenth Virginia to promote their “12 Days of Nat Turner. It is also the background and opening illustration for The Nat Turner Archive. For what it is worth, this source says that the pamphlet that originally published this illustration was written and published in New York and "contained decidedly abolitionist sentiments," proving this illustration was not created as pro-slavery propaganda.

Quoting from WP:IMGCONTENT: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. ...Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose..." I believe my use of this image meets this guideline and that your removal of incorrect based on this policy. This image is not decorative but explains and depicts the event that the article is about and is the only visual representation of the rebellion made at the time of the rebellion. In terms of balance, there is another illustration in the article that is a Victorian romanticized depiction of Turner.

So, given my explanation, and your agreement that this illustration has a place in the body of the article, I would like to restore this image. Although I believe it is best as the introductory image in the infobox because it quickly summarizes the rebellion, but I can compromise on it being in the body of the article. Rublamb (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Image Nat Turner & the Conspirators in Confidence (1863): I zoomed in on the faces in the illustrations. Nat Turner has an intense look on his face and a goatee, but I would hardly describe him or the other men in this illustration as demonic or maniacs. I would maintain that it is more illustrative than the typical caricatures of African Americans of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This illustration is from the book History of American conspiracies: a record of treason, insurrection, rebellion & c., in the United States of America, from 1760 to 1860 which was published in New York City in 1863. Note that this was written by a Northern author and published by a Northern press during the American Civil War. That does not mean the text is not full of terms and themes offensive to modern readers, but I can say that Orville J. James was sympathetic to the enslaved, which he refers to as living in a "wretched condition" (page 396). The text proceeding the image is about Turner planning his rebellion. James notes that Tuner had "a face indicative of intelligence and resolution" (page 396) and lists the names of the other men at the meeting (p. 401). The text also quotes from an 1861 article about Turner in The Atlantic, an anti-slavery piece published early in the Civil War, and the first source to humanize Turner by mentioning his wife and children (page 396). In terms of use within this article, the image compliments the section of Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Prepartions. However, it would be reasonable to discuss if this illustration is informative (keep) or decorative (remove). However, whatever is decided for this illustration should also be applied to the illustration you left in the article, a later Victorian image of Turner.Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to comment on the second picture first, hoping to find time for the first one soon. Judging from the book title, it has been written for sensation-seeking readers, not for those interested in serious history. Of course we don't expect pro-slavery propaganda in New York during the Civil War, and we can expect some sympathy for humble, patiently suffering slaves like the Uncle Tom character. But expecting sympathy for Black rebels would be expecting too much from an average White Northerner. Anyway, I don't see any information of value in the picture. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You objected to this illustration because you said it was pro-slavery propaganda. Thus, I responded to your challenge and have proven your beliefs to be untrue. The value of this image is to provide balance and contrast to the Horrid Massacre illustration. It depicts of Nat Turner as a commander planning a rebellion, as apposed to period sources that claimed the rebellion was spontaneous and not well-planned. In addition, the book that is the source for this illustration names the other men in the illustration, acknowledging them as individuals rather than a generic slaves. (I think the caption of the photo should also name these men). As you probably know, the enslaved were rarely illustrated in the Antebellum era except in runaway posters. Thus, this illustration is unique because it depicts enslaved men as being in charge, making decisions, and not being under the thumb of their enslavers. It also provided balance to the Horrific Massacre illustration because it portrays the rebellions planners as thoughtful men, not savage beasts with weapons. This illustration also matches the text in the article. Later, when I add more detail to the trial section, the men depicted in the illustration will be discussed, again connecting to the illustration. Rublamb (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't call this image (i.e. Nat Turner & the Conspirators) pro-slavery propaganda. It's the other one ("Horrid Massacre") that was and still is called pro-slavery propaganda by me. My interpretation of the "Conspirators" picture is very different from yours. Also: It is not from the Antebellum era ("ante bellum" means "before the war"), and we have a lot of pictures of enslaved people from the Antebellum era (photographs, portraits, book illustrations e.g. in abolitionist literature). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to say that illustrations of specific and named individuals are rare, especially in the 1830s when the rebellion took place. Early abolitionist propaganda tended to show generic illustrations of slave auctions or of slaves working, etc. The earliest known photographs of enslaved people are from either 1849 or 1850 and the individuals are not named. The earliest named images that I recall are portraits of Frederick Douglas, Dred Scott (and wife), and Anthony Burns. I know there are others--just not many that are truly antebellum. I realize it is fudging to say this illustration is antebellum. Regardless, of a couple of years, it is still unique in that it depicts the enslaved not in a portrait and not was workers or as the powerless being auctioned, but as men in control. Could there be a racist element to the drawing? Probably, given the era it came from. But it is not obviously racist and is certain more neutral in its depiction of the rebellion. Whether or not it adds to the article or falls under decorative is another matter. Despite our lengthy discussion on this matter, I really do not feel strongly one way or the other about its inclusion--I just think it and the illustration that remains fall under the same category of fantasy depictions years after the fact that mostly serve a decorative purpose to a long article (that will be getting longer). Rublamb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The image "Horric Massacre" is far from neutral. The only atrocities depicted are those committed by the rebels, and even these are selected with the intention of shedding a bad light on them: I can see at least three girls among the White victims, but there are only two men. The other atrocities (e.g. the flaying of Turner's dead body, the killing of totally innocent Black people) are not shown. For the publisher of the picture, Black lives didn't matter. That the picture is used by respected publications is not of interest here, since those publications follow their own rules, e.g. they have to attract readers. Yes, we can use the picture, but we have to explain its historical context and we have to add at least one other picture to create a certain balance. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that black lives did not matter to most people in antebellum America. Even the abolitionists did not necessarily believe in racial equality. But the very heart of a slave rebellion is racial, so it would be impossible and inappropriate to cover this topic in a way that overlooks racial imbalance. In addition, Nat Turner tends to polarize people to one side or the other--hero or villain--making it almost impossible to find sources that are neutral. But by depicting both sides of the argument, there is balance. You cannot exclude all negative opinions and leave only positive ones as that is also a lack of neutrality. Nor can you just include contemporary opinions as that removes an understanding of how deeply this rebellion entered the white psyche and why it had such a major impact on legislation and liberties of the enslaved. How people depicted the rebellion at the time it happened it is vital to our understanding of its psychological and historic impact. Certainly, the text could be stronger in relationship to this topic and this specific illustration.

I am not sure why the genders of the white victims in the illustration matter unless you have a specific goal of obscuring the killing of women and children to make the rebels appear less ruthless. For example, I recently saw an interview where a person said no children were hurt in the rebellion as Turner would not harm children. Of course, this is factually untrue. I went through the list of white people killed during the rebellion. The list includes 10 adult males, 14 adult females, and 31 children (5 boys, 4 girls and 22 gender unknown). In one household, Catherine Whitehead, her four children, and a grandchild where killed as shown in illustration #1 of Horrid Massacre. Travers (misspelled as Travis in illustration) was killed as shown in illustration #2, along with his wife and three children who are not depicted. Barrows was killed and his wife and child were not, as depicted in illustration #3. In total, Horrid Massacre depicts the following white people: 2 adult males, 2 adult females, 5 children (3 might be female, but hard to tell because all children wore dresses). In context the actual numbers killed, these illustrations represent an historically accurate balance by age and gender. The artwork also represents actual incidents, not something fabricated. Furthermore, the illustration show the militia chasing the rebels, clearly illustrating the imbalance of power and weapons between the whites and the enslaved. This does not include any illustrations of the rebels being killed or hung. And a modern illustration of those scenes would be conjecture. However it does not mean that there is not value to the illustration in relationship to the article. As mentioned above, some balance is achieved by the inclusion of another antebellum illustration that depicts Turner and his team in a rational, calm men. It is not perfect, but we are limited by the range of materials available from the era. Also, I believe the illustrations use by other reliable and respected sources does matter--it show that this illustration is considered important in the discussion of Nat Turner's rebellion and that is generally not considered to be offensive--in constrast to your claims.Rublamb (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The Horrid Massacre image is simply unacceptable unless reliable sources have critiqued it and discussed it in its historical context. Without that it comes across as racist. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is racist - it's a contemporary depiction of the events in 1831, which was obviously a deeply racist time. For me, it illustrates how some people viewed the events in a way that words alone can't convey. As such, it clearly adds value to the article. If you want to also add some reliably sourced critique of the image, that would be great.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not so important: Even the first half of the 19th century was not a "deeply racist time". E.g. Black travellers to the UK like Harriet Jacobs or Frederick Douglass noted the absence of racism there. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for concisely saying what I have been trying to explain. And I do think context is important to add. The role of the media and expanding reginal panic is important to understanding the impact of this rebellion. Rublamb (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

These are the two pictures under discussion:

• Horrid Massacre in Virginia
• Nat Turner & the Conspirators in Conference (not "confidence"). Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)