reading about your wiki exploits was the best thing I've heard in a while. I fight the same fight on a different field , and your work is inspiring! (GOAT as in Great of All time)
Markass530 (
talk) 06:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I noticed that you reversed some changes I made recently. Dlthewave didn't reply to my concerns but since you made change I will ask you here. Per a recent MOS talk page discussion there was no consensus that we should use "enslaved people" (or similar) vs "slaves" and there was a general consensus that we should follow the sources [1]. Given our MOS says follow the sources why would we follow AP? As I said at that discussion, wikipedia shouldn't be forcing language change but instead should follow when it is clear the change is well established in RSs. Currently we aren't there. Since you restored the recent language why do you feel it is better. Springee ( talk) 12:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Springee, thanks, but I think if the AP makes a change that means that the change has already occurred. As for that diff by Dlthewave, I don't know how that's pointy: they added valid and valuable information and did so with the kind of phrasing that seems perfectly valid to me, and very appropriate for 2021. Now, the source actually doesn't indicate that enslaved people built it, but that's pretty obvious, especially since the source is copied literally from this survey--but with the exclusion of "slave labor". And it's not hard to see that the only POINTy thing here is that the direct source left that out. In other words, following the source would mean an exclusion of historical truth. That that is rectified here, in the appropriate wording, that only improves our article. Never mind that I don't know whether content from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History is exempt from copyright, and that that touristic page doesn't indicate where the information came from. Drmies ( talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It is the last surviving structure of a slave plantation that was established in 1860, and was disassembled and reconstructed at its present location in 2002 to save it from demolition.with "slave" being a new addition. Plantations, like farms are often described by their crop, not how they are worked (cotton plantations or tobacco plantations, not John Deere farm). What about removing slave from that sentence since it focuses on the barn and instead, per the source, note that
The the original plantation included a plantation home, a separate brick kitchen, ten slave quarters. The barn is the last surviving structure. This was it is clear the plantation had slaves but doesn't use a term "slave" to describe the type of plantation.
Made of red bricks and built with the forced labor of enslaved people, it has two storeys and thirty-two rooms.[2]. The source is here. That reference doesn't say the house was built with slave labor. The paragraph before makes it clear the property was slave holding, "It came with outbuildings, livestock, and 100 African slaves.". So this one seems like a claim not supported by the source. However, let's assume we found a source that said slave labor was used in the construction (thus we can refine the language used). It again seems awkward to mix the architecture with a discussion of the slave labor aspect. Perhaps (with strikeouts and underlines):
See this discussion which has been sparked by a couple of your edits. Your involvement in helping to develop a broad consensus would be helpful. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you've done to keep Wikipedia true to its mission!
Nathan Carlson (
talk) 01:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, just passing this on to you in case you are unfamiliar with the article. Keep up the great work.
Stahel, D. (2018). The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’? The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2018.1487198 #
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article Boeselager, and discovered that two members of this family who were in on the 20 July Plot were being tagged as members of the "Resistance Against the Nazi Regime" as if they'd been members of the Weiße Rose or something. It turns out that Category:German resistance members includes everybody from martyrs like the Weiße Rose to members of the 20 July plot. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
reading about your wiki exploits was the best thing I've heard in a while. I fight the same fight on a different field , and your work is inspiring! (GOAT as in Great of All time)
Markass530 (
talk) 06:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I noticed that you reversed some changes I made recently. Dlthewave didn't reply to my concerns but since you made change I will ask you here. Per a recent MOS talk page discussion there was no consensus that we should use "enslaved people" (or similar) vs "slaves" and there was a general consensus that we should follow the sources [1]. Given our MOS says follow the sources why would we follow AP? As I said at that discussion, wikipedia shouldn't be forcing language change but instead should follow when it is clear the change is well established in RSs. Currently we aren't there. Since you restored the recent language why do you feel it is better. Springee ( talk) 12:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Springee, thanks, but I think if the AP makes a change that means that the change has already occurred. As for that diff by Dlthewave, I don't know how that's pointy: they added valid and valuable information and did so with the kind of phrasing that seems perfectly valid to me, and very appropriate for 2021. Now, the source actually doesn't indicate that enslaved people built it, but that's pretty obvious, especially since the source is copied literally from this survey--but with the exclusion of "slave labor". And it's not hard to see that the only POINTy thing here is that the direct source left that out. In other words, following the source would mean an exclusion of historical truth. That that is rectified here, in the appropriate wording, that only improves our article. Never mind that I don't know whether content from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History is exempt from copyright, and that that touristic page doesn't indicate where the information came from. Drmies ( talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It is the last surviving structure of a slave plantation that was established in 1860, and was disassembled and reconstructed at its present location in 2002 to save it from demolition.with "slave" being a new addition. Plantations, like farms are often described by their crop, not how they are worked (cotton plantations or tobacco plantations, not John Deere farm). What about removing slave from that sentence since it focuses on the barn and instead, per the source, note that
The the original plantation included a plantation home, a separate brick kitchen, ten slave quarters. The barn is the last surviving structure. This was it is clear the plantation had slaves but doesn't use a term "slave" to describe the type of plantation.
Made of red bricks and built with the forced labor of enslaved people, it has two storeys and thirty-two rooms.[2]. The source is here. That reference doesn't say the house was built with slave labor. The paragraph before makes it clear the property was slave holding, "It came with outbuildings, livestock, and 100 African slaves.". So this one seems like a claim not supported by the source. However, let's assume we found a source that said slave labor was used in the construction (thus we can refine the language used). It again seems awkward to mix the architecture with a discussion of the slave labor aspect. Perhaps (with strikeouts and underlines):
See this discussion which has been sparked by a couple of your edits. Your involvement in helping to develop a broad consensus would be helpful. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you've done to keep Wikipedia true to its mission!
Nathan Carlson (
talk) 01:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, just passing this on to you in case you are unfamiliar with the article. Keep up the great work.
Stahel, D. (2018). The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’? The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2018.1487198 #
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article Boeselager, and discovered that two members of this family who were in on the 20 July Plot were being tagged as members of the "Resistance Against the Nazi Regime" as if they'd been members of the Weiße Rose or something. It turns out that Category:German resistance members includes everybody from martyrs like the Weiße Rose to members of the 20 July plot. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)