This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Propose merge. Three small articles on essentially same topic prevents a clear picture. Articles are split off from main preventing a whole picture from emerging:
Well, Cartwright himself is certainly important enough for his own article. Drapetomania seems to have a life of its own beyond Cartwright's writings, do it probably should have its own. I merged Dysaethesia Aethiopica with Cartwright's article, but someone else gave it its own article. That's fine with me. It is more important that lots of things on WP. The Drapetomania article should be expanded with more information on its ongoing importance. Cartwright's article should be expanded with more information on his other contributions beyond these two "disorders." Basic information on the "disorders" and their history should continue to be included in Cartwright's article. That's my opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to trivialize anything.
Steve Dufour16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I still wonder what she means by "trivialize." Steve Dufour, you have to keep in mind her earlier actions with Drapetomania. She tried to have it deleted in order to, in essence, trivialize it because she didn't want it to corrupt the legacy of Psychiatry. And I'm not jumping to conclusions here; she said it. -
Cyborg Ninja21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems clear to me that
Mattisse is saying that three short articles may not be as effective as one longer article; that the shorter articles "trivialize" their subjects, but a single article would produce a "clear picture" of Cartwright and his diseases. —
Malik Shabazz (
Talk |
contribs)
22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why you added a "check" tag to
Dysaethesia Aethiopica. The sentence in question has a footnote reference to a document on the web, including a page number. Any reader can easily verify the source, so I'm not sure why the tag is there. Thank you. —
Malik Shabazz (
Talk |
contribs)
21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
With respect to the issues about which they advocate. This is hardly an extremist position or a fringe theory. Also, this article is an external link in both this article and
Drapetomania. (The external link is a reprint; my footnote is the original source.)
Yup, good idea. Fully agree this a legitimate external link, and for the avoidance of doubt concur they aren't extremist or fringe.
Addhoc23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Propose merge. Three small articles on essentially same topic prevents a clear picture. Articles are split off from main preventing a whole picture from emerging:
Well, Cartwright himself is certainly important enough for his own article. Drapetomania seems to have a life of its own beyond Cartwright's writings, do it probably should have its own. I merged Dysaethesia Aethiopica with Cartwright's article, but someone else gave it its own article. That's fine with me. It is more important that lots of things on WP. The Drapetomania article should be expanded with more information on its ongoing importance. Cartwright's article should be expanded with more information on his other contributions beyond these two "disorders." Basic information on the "disorders" and their history should continue to be included in Cartwright's article. That's my opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to trivialize anything.
Steve Dufour16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I still wonder what she means by "trivialize." Steve Dufour, you have to keep in mind her earlier actions with Drapetomania. She tried to have it deleted in order to, in essence, trivialize it because she didn't want it to corrupt the legacy of Psychiatry. And I'm not jumping to conclusions here; she said it. -
Cyborg Ninja21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems clear to me that
Mattisse is saying that three short articles may not be as effective as one longer article; that the shorter articles "trivialize" their subjects, but a single article would produce a "clear picture" of Cartwright and his diseases. —
Malik Shabazz (
Talk |
contribs)
22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why you added a "check" tag to
Dysaethesia Aethiopica. The sentence in question has a footnote reference to a document on the web, including a page number. Any reader can easily verify the source, so I'm not sure why the tag is there. Thank you. —
Malik Shabazz (
Talk |
contribs)
21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
With respect to the issues about which they advocate. This is hardly an extremist position or a fringe theory. Also, this article is an external link in both this article and
Drapetomania. (The external link is a reprint; my footnote is the original source.)
Yup, good idea. Fully agree this a legitimate external link, and for the avoidance of doubt concur they aren't extremist or fringe.
Addhoc23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply