Talk:Dolley Madison/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Todd ladies

Is Dolley Madison, née Todd, any relation to Mary Lincoln, née Todd? --Angr (t·c) 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Dolley was born Dolley Payne. She acquired the "Todd" from her first husband, John Todd, Jr. - Nunh-huh 07:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Was her husband, John Todd, related to Mary Lincoln though? hannah.joy. (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Same question, two years later. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Custody of John Payne Todd & Inter-religious Marriage?

There is a bio. pic. on PBS right now dealing with the life of Dolly Madison; I am not surprised that she nearly lost custody of her son, John Payne Todd. Does anyone know where i could find some references for this citation? It also seemed to be rather unthinkable during her life-time to marry outside of one's religion. Has anyone heard of this before?

Quaker and non-Quaker was not as strict a division as some, and not everyone was so religious. children were considered to belong to the husband's family, for purposes of inheritance, at any rate. She probably weighed her decision of marriage against staying a widow and trying to support her son.Parkwells (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs More Detail on Being First Lady

Dolley's tenure as First Lady during the pivotal years of Madison's presidency - 1809 to 1817 - are hardly covered in this article. Dolley is widely credited with essentially creating the role of First Lady, understanding the importance of that role in the success of her husband's administration. She held informal soirees at the White House that served an important role in furthering discussion of a bitterly divided Congress. She was the first to decorate the White House in a manner befitting a residence of the head of state. Her role in holding the fort at the White House during the British incursion into Washington is well documented and brought her a high reputation in America as a patriot of the first order. She had a significant role in bolstering Monroe's reputation, one of the highest for any early American president.

It was said by Cjhf';lke's opponent in the election of 1808, that he was beaten in the election because he was up against Monroe and Dolley, and that he would have won if he were only up against Monroe; showing the high regard Dolley was held in Washington.

Tony (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree; she was a notable First Lady and apparently a remarkable woman. Recent biographies are noted in the "Further reading," but none have been read by editors or used as references. There needs to be more on her as First Lady. She wasn't just a poor widow.Parkwells (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ice Cream

According to an episode of "The Presidents" that recently aired on the History Channel, ice cream was a very popular dessert in the Madison White House. And Dolley's favorite flavor was oyster! Apparently, pistachio ice cream hadn't been discovered yet. :-) Randomstew (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Acted as first lady?

She acted as the first lady during the Thomas Jefferson administration? That is an odd statement. In what way, exactly, did she act as the First Lady?

Well, the First Lady of the United States article itself explains why this makes perfect sense - the role is simply as "hostess of the White House" or somesuch. Nonetheless, I agree that the sentence as it stood could be confusing to some, so I've added a small clarification. - IMSoP 20:20, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

her husben james madison died then she remarried to another man

[?] James Madison, was Dolley's 2nd, and last, husband. She did not remarry after Madison's death.

What's up with the image here? Dolley's fat or father?

Dandridge?

I can find no source online for her being a Dandridge, after noting that both this page and the Martha Waashington give that as part of their names and searching for relationships, i found no pages outside Wiki using Dandridge with Dolley. I'm removing it, pending citation. ThuranX (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

8 September 2009 rewrite - pls go back and rescue any sourced content from prior versions

An IP editor did a major re-write on 8 September. The editor added much information, but much of the content was not actually about the subject of the article or was POV commentary unstuiable for an encyclopedia article. I started an editing run through to remove most of the clearly improper stuff, but am too tired to properly finish at this time.

One thing that should be done is to go back to the version before the IP started editing and rescue any properly sourced content that got lost. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Place of Burial?

Does anyone know this? Ttenchantr (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the PBS show American Experience, she was first kept for 10 years in a temporary vault in Washington D.C. Each time money was raised to bury her, it had to be used to pay off John Payne Todd's debts. She was finally buried in the Madison family plot near James Madison's Grave at Montpelier in Virginia. AJseagull1 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Dolley Madison and Slavery

I noticed that user Ebanony made some edits to the article in which it was repeatedly reiterated that Dolley Madison owned slaves and benefitted from the service of slaves. While not inaccurate, as far as I know, the various mentions of this fact seemed tacked-on and had little to nothing to do with any of the events described. It could be encyclopedic to mention that the Stuart portrait of Washington was physically removed by slaves, if properly cited. For the time being, I have removed all of Ebanony's edits, as well as the subsequent edit by Meanoldmike, since it appeared to be made mainly in response to the former. I also reverted two instances of (unrelated, AFAIK) vandalism. Ebanony, if you feel it's important that the article include Dolley Madison's involvement with slavery, please offer some sources showing that this is an important facet to the woman's notability. --DavidK93 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to removing some of the edits; this is a collaboration. However, the following statement that Davidk93 added is innacurate:

"Dolley filled a wagon with silver and other valuables and sent them off to the Bank of Maryland for safekeeping. She also took the Gilbert Stuart's famous portrait of George Washington, and the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and fled from the city."

Where is your' properly sourced citation to make such a claim? You have none, yet you accuse Meanoldmike and me of improper edits? Not true. Then you added a disclaimer saying the article section wasn't properly done? This is the only section that does have references.

There was a source for the Paul Jennings text. It was a direct link to the University of SC text. Here it is See pages 12 and 13. You say: "It could be encyclopedic to mention that the Stuart portrait of Washington was physically removed by slaves, if properly cited." There was a good source. You deleted it. If it was not done correctly with html, then you should have adjusted it, not deleted it.

I corrected this because Dolley did not remove the painting according to an eyewitness. You had no reason whatsoever to remove these sentences of Meanoldmike and mine; they were accurate and sourced. The Madisons owned slaves and they did do these things. Note this is moved to the correct subsection. This section was already here. You did even read the talk page to see why these edits were done.Ebanony (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I created a new section for a reason; you made multiple edits throughout the entire article. Burying a new discussion in an old topic makes it difficult for editors to find it. I tried to be as clear as possible that I reverted recent edits; it is misrepresentative to state that I have "added statements" or "made claims." As for why I reverted the edits instead of correcting the citation, it's because your addition of edits throughout the entire article made it difficult to sort out what should and shouldn't have been added, and those edits taken together suggested to me a possible bias. There was nothing wrong with the format of that particular citation (although the text formatting was a bit off); I'm not asking for a new citation on that information, but for the addition of frequent references to her status as a slaveowner. And I don't mean citations that confirm she was a slaveowner, but rather citations that show this to be a contextually important fact for an encyclopedia article. Because Meanoldmike's edit was built around yours, and because the undo function couldn't be applied to your edits (I had to make the edits manually.), it was difficult to keep his, as well. I'm sorry if you were offended that I referred to your edits as biased in my edit summary, but now you've called me uninformed so we're even. --DavidK93 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk) The reason why this belongs in # 7 In Washington 1801-1817 area is because these particular edits refer to that section. If you go back and read the earlier posts (some going back years) you'll see there are reasons cited for making the changes to the painting. As to the other edits on slavery, fine I can understand putting them here, but not both. If you're going to edit the article, then do it correctly; it takes time. And you deleted correct work by just using the undo function.

But I said your're unfamiliar with Dolley & the painting because you've said twice now that "show this to be a contextually important fact for an encyclopedia article." This is not meant to insult. Maybe you didn't know. Ok. Fine. This is in numerous documentaries, and is always discussed with the British invasion of Washington. The section was there before I edited it. There were articles published in Wahington Post & NPR on it in 2009 to cover the White House ceremony honouring Paul Jennings descendants. See for yourself this link. or . That's the context. You could also research it and contribute to it so that it's written better.

Further Meanoldmike comment was added along with a citation. He didn't make it up, and knew what he was saying. It was well placed and showed Dolley's role was that of directing the slaves & staff, not doing the physical labor. The slaves did the work and got no credit. That is the "agenda" some have, not I. That's the bias I tried to correct.

Now the article itself is poorly done, and I made few changes to reflect the fact Dolley and her husband were slaveowners. That could be in a seperate section. But it's necessary to put it into context. Many slaves lived and worked in the white house. You think that's not relevant? Washington Post thinks so. It could be written better - I agree. The task as an editor is to correct errors, not revert incorrect text. Use more than the undo key. Lastly, I apologise if you were insulted; that's not my goal. Why not look into the issue and help us make the whole article better? Improve the disputed sections and check the facts. Help make this artice better.

To clear any confusion, I meant reverting back to the old txt (adding), which I had changed because it was incorrect. This is the part: "Dolley filled a wagon with silver and other valuables and sent them off to the Bank of Maryland for safekeeping. She also took the Gilbert Stuart's famous portrait of George Washington, and the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and fled from the city."

All I meant was putting this back up. It's 1) incorrect and 2) has no sources. The other edits I understand, this one I don't. That's why I said yours. You added it back up without knowing if it was correct or even adding a citation. That's the problem.Ebanony (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not taking the time to preserve the portion of your edits that were verifiable and met the criteria for notability, and I appreciate that you took the time to reinsert it along with Meanoldmike's edits. The article probably does not need to include the entirety of all the quotations, but it's right that the article should include this information. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

References

In Washington 1801-1817

kind of unclear, I think a foot-note is needed... :-/ hannah.joy. (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an issue with the factual accuracy of an individual named "Magraw" assisting in the rescuing of the George Washington portrait. Paul Jennings is credited as the african american who assisted in the rescue of the famous portrait. Article was amended with sources cited, will remove the reference to Magraw unless someone can provide some documentation crediting this individual. --Karioth (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One correction: Paul Jennings was Madison's slave and an eyewitness who wrote down who did remove it. He said that "John Susé (a Frenchman, then door-keeper, and still living) and Magraw, the President's gardener, took it down" on pg 12-13 of his book cited in the article.

There is the story that Dolley Madison saved the valuables from the White House. What actually happened is that her slaves did the work. Paul Jennings wrote numerous details, and without his writing (which is something like the first "tell all" of the White House), A COLORED MAN'S REMINISCENCES OF JAMES MADISON, published in 1865, we would not have as many details as we do today without the contributions of these African American slaves.Ebanony (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Amended to include several sources of importance on this issue.Ebanony (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is room enough for more than one person to get credit - making the decision and having it carried out are often done by more than one person. Great to get the account by Paul Jennings, whose memoir and viewpoint are indeed important. UNC has some great sources. Parkwells (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT on burning of Washington

Deleted two paragraphs cited only as eyewitness accounts in Federal Republican, having to do with British entry to the city and burning of major buildings, including the White House. Belongs with main article on Burning of Capitol, or whatever it's called; not in this article on Dolley Madison. It's useful to note Paul Jennings' perspective, not only because he was a slave but because he later wrote about his life with Madison. Adding fuller information about the roles of slaves in relation to major historic figures is in keeping with current historiography, for example, in treatment at Montpelier as a public history site - the place and the website.Parkwells (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Need current sources

There's an overreliance on early White House historians, when fuller accounts of Dolley Madison's role and character should be available in the recent biographies listed. We need to reflect current scholarly writing for underrepresented groups and people; she was known in her own time as a significant character, but that doesn't come through in this article.Parkwells (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Fever

Yellow Fever is not caused by poor sanitation as this article states. Yellow fever is caused by a virus that a very particular breed of mosquito carries. Humans get Yellow Fever after they are injected with the virus during the mosquito's blood meal. True, mosquitos breed in water. But the word, "sanitation" implies that the water contained organisms carried in human fecal matter and that Yellow Fever was caused by that. This is completely incorrect and should be changed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; you could have made the changes directly.Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

John Payne Todd

According to the Montpelier community and his grave stone, John Payne Todd was born in 1792, but this page list's his birthdate as 1790 and his younger brother as 1792. Does anyone know which is correct?

See: http://www.montpelier.org/explore/community/madisons_johnpaynetodd.php and http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1562

AJseagull1 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Find-a-Grave is not considered a Reliable Source for Wikipedia; use better sources like the Montpelier website.Parkwells (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We can sniff and cavil about the reliability of Find-A-Grave, but for Pete's sake what's unreliable about the photograph of his gravestone that appears there? See http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=1562&PIpi=76922. Poihths (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not Dorthea - and not Dolley, either.

No contemporary evidence supports the claim that her name was Dorothea. Her birth certificate states her name as Dolley (Allgor, page 416) and both of her most recent biographers (Catherine Allgor and Richard N. Cote) use Dolley, not Dorothea. I am changing the name to reflect current academic opinion Mragsdale (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Respected sources agree that it was only by mistake that she was referred to as Dorthea or Dorothy- her correct name was Dolley, not Dolly. hannah.joy. (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very frustrating to see how scholarship on Dolly Madison refuses to allow the woman her own name! It is abundantly clear to anyone who takes a few minutes to research publications that mention her from her own time and shortly afterwards universally ignore the obvious error made on her birth certificate and respect her life-long preference for "Dolly," a preference known to and respected by all who knew her personally. That's particulary clear from over 100 instances of "Dolly" versus none at all for "Dolley" in her grandniece's book. Why can't the pedants un-pedantify themselves and give her back her own name as she knew it and used it all her life? And why do we have to follow in their footsteps like sheep - and blind sheep at that? (See http://books.google.com/books?id=5qgZAAAAYAAJ.) Poihths (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to add: as I searched further, I find that the idea that Mrs. Madison's true first name was "Dolley" is very widespread; so much so that essentially no modern authority will accept anything else. Apparently it all goes back to an exhibition at the Smithsonian. See http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/legends/DMlegends.html. So I decided to do a little more digging. I took out a 48-hour trial account at the Rotunda system of the University of Virginia Press, which gives you acces to The Papers of Dolley Madison Digital Edition, ed. Holly C. Shulman. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2008. I searched for instances of the word "Dolly." I found over a hundred instances in which she signed her own name that way, or people wrote her name that way in letters to her, or her name apppeared that way on legal or other documents. I then tried to search for "Dolley." That proved difficult, because the text search engine recovers text from the metadata as well as the original texts, and the metadata, in good pendantic form, is all spelled "Dolley." The system produced over 1800 documents, so I did not have time to go through them all. I randomly hit about 50 of them. In only one case did I find her spelling her own name as "Dolley." In no case did I find anyone who knew her personally spelling her name as "Dolley." The only cases I found were situations where her name was written by strangers - business correspondents and the like.

Bottom line: there are plenty of instances where she spelled her name as "Dolly." A random sampling turned up very few cases where she spelled her own name as "Dolley." I think there is a very reasonable case to be made here that the present concensus opinion needs to be carefully checked against as many original documents as possible. I think the present concensus is wrong.

Of course, I realize that all of this, for Wikipedia purposes, is nothing but "original research." I'm throwing it in the soup anyway for those who care about truth - even if it's only a matter of letting a historical figure have her own name back. Poihths (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First photograph?

Re the Daguerreotype of Dolley in 1848 - was she the first First Lady to be photographed? I think that would be worth a mention. Valetude (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed!--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Dolly not Dolley

Her name was Dolly, not Dolley. There is no evidence that she ever spelled her name Dolley. Some ignorant pedants found a purported birth certificate with her name misspelled, and have corrupted Wikipedia with this incorrect name. The section on the spelling has no citation for this wild claim.  Randall Bart   Talk  23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To GA?

I'd like to try to bring this article to GA in the next 2-3 months, both as a prelude to working on the James Madison article and as a contribution to the Gender gap task force. It'll be a few weeks before I really get started, but I thought I'd begin by leaving a note here to say hello and to ask for input from established editors of the page. What changes would you like to see here as I work?

A few preliminary things on my list:

• Triple or quadruple the overall length of the article. Madison has a better claim to historical significance than most first ladies, and there's no shortage of material about her life to draw on.
• Include more about her political significance as a Washington hostess and her role in furthering her husband's career.
• Significantly reduce the section on "Spelling of her name". This seems to get undue attention (it's hard to imagine a published biography devoting 5-10% of its length to this issue, as our article does here) and to be based mostly on primary sources, raising original research concerns. Ideally we can find secondary sources, such as published academic biographies, that address this instead.
• Fleshing out the "Representation in other media" section into prose, rather than a list, and addressing the various ways she is remembered (per discussion in reliable sources)

Would be glad to hear the thoughts of any long-time pagewatchers. Looking forward to working with you, Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm so disappointed I didn't see this for a whole year! Thank you Khazar2 for starting this conversation. I think having a to do list can be enormously helpful. For now I think my best contribution would be to find some more sources for material already in the article. Knope7 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The White House: Actors and Observers has a chapter about the importance of Dolley's entertaining at the White House. Knope7 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dolley Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208192909/http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu:8100/dmde/ to http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu:8100/dmde/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dolley Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723150449/http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/hugh-howard.aspx to http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/hugh-howard.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing language in order to humanize the enslaved

I had been working with an editor to update the language and make it more appropriate and humanizing, and even though those edits were not found to be in violation - a user monitoring this page has indicated that I cannot make the edits and instead need to, "Use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you want, why, and what sourcing backs the new language you propose."

I propose the following changes:

1) Replace: "she directed her personal slave Paul Jennings to save it."

With: "it was one of the men she enslaved, Paul Jennings, who saved it at her direction."

2) Replace: "[...] which was partially relieved by selling off the plantation and slaves and the sale of her late husband's papers." <- This is also a run on sentence

With: "[...] which was partially relieved by selling off land and her late husband's papers. She additionally supplemented her income by selling off members of the enslaved families on her estate."

These two (2) changes convey the same information, but remove the run on sentence as well as changes the language that inaccurately dehumanizes the individuals it refers to.

Additionally, even though I have only applied this revision to two sentences toward the beginning of this article - this revision should ideally be applied to the article in its entirety (where there are numerous references like the ones I've noted above).

Please revise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghgfrujbftjtf (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You have any sourcing that Dolley Madison personally enslaved Paul Jennings? The language changes the meaning. The run on sentence does need fixed, but the efforts here to remove the term "slave" from the lead isn't addressing the 15 other usages of the word through the article. Considering that Jenning's article is at Paul Jennings (slave), I don't know that this change is appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: your statement - "You have any sourcing that Dolley Madison personally enslaved Paul Jennings? The language changes the meaning." --- The article currently says (without any edits), " she directed her personal slave Paul Jennings to save it." Based on your statement, you've indicated that the current language needs to be changed. I am also proposing that it be changed.

Additionally, I am willing to make the edits to the 14 other places using the word "slave" - but on your talk page, you indicated that I was not to make any additional edits to the page myself and that I instead needed to propose edits here.

Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghgfrujbftjtf (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not indicated that the current language needs changed. Jenning's was her personal slave, yes. Was she the one who enslaved him though? "one of the men she enslaved" gives the reading that she was personally the one who first made him a slave. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone who is termed a "slave" is by definition, "enslaved." Therefore, if Dolley Madison held Jennings as her "personal slave" (which is the current language) - that language would suggest he was a person that she enslaved. I will seek additional assistance here, so that we can get an additional opinion here without further misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghgfrujbftjtf (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Verb usage reads differently for some people. I don't believe Wikipedia has a project guideline that suggests avoiding the term "slave" at this time. You'll need to wait a bit to see if anyone else responds. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

the difference is that saying "one of the men she enslaved" could be misread as (a verb) saying that Dolley Madison herself made Jennings a slave, or enslaved him (literally he was free and she forced him into slavery). This is not the case: Jennings had been a slave/enslaved since birth. The best terminology to describe enslaved people is debated (see, for instance, [1]), and it's not clearly agreed upon which phrasing should be used-- Eric Foner has notably advocated in favor of "slave", and many others have argued on either side. Given the potential here for misinterpretation, I'd be in favor of the first instance keeping the phrasing as it was, though the second change would be fine either way, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Notifying talk page that Ghgfrujbftjtf has opened Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dolley Madison (Prematurely, in my view). -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have closed the DRN filing as premature at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The project is presumably seeking a consensus (MOS guideline) on phrasing... But hard cases make bad rules, and (1) from the OP is a hard case, because: "she directed her personal physician Paul Smith to save it" is recommended style (concise, active voice) and doesn't dehumanize Smith. The only problematic part of the sentence is a single word. Ideally, there would be a humanizing alternative word to use in place of "slave", but until that new word is found, sentence (1) represents a hard case. It seems to be an unpromising candidate for a humanizing conversion, for two reasons: (a) from a 21st century perspective: it describes a situation in which an order from employer to employee is unremarkable (and inherent in any hierarchical relationship/organization) and in which Paul's chattel status isn't directly relevant; (2) from a 19th century perspective: free men sometimes interpreted subordination to female authority as dehumanizing. Before we find improvements for this sentence there must be many less complicated cases to improve, especially those in which the treatment of the slave was obviously more dehumanizing than a free citizen would have expected (in the slave's position). We want to take a neutral position on whether paid employment in service is dehumanizing (on the scale of slavery). And any servant would have saved the painting if so instructed, so the event itself wasn't dehumanizing. So the sentence about that event doesn't (urgently) need modification. The dehumanization arises from being a slave (or being written about only as an appendage). Rescuing a painting isn't dehumanizing. Rather than changing the description of the event, I'd recommend adding more on Jennings (or at least his relationship & history with Madison) in other sentences. --Wragge (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Scope of This Issue ?

Is this question unique to Dolley Madison, or is it applicable to wealthy White Southern American historical figures before the American Civil War? I suggest checking with WT:WikiProject United States or some other project to see whether there is a standard or MOS guideline. If there isn't a guideline, maybe there should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)