Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Margaret Lea Houston

Margaret Lea Houston[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2017 by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Lea Houston was First Lady of the Republic of Texas, First Lady of the state of Texas, and a founding member of Concord Baptist Church in Grand Cane, Texas. She was a poet and an accomplished musician. Her influence on husband Sam Houston persuaded him to give up alcohol and profane language. Margaret gave birth inside the governor's mansion to the youngest of their eight children, as angry mobs gathered outside in response to her husband's opposition to Texas signing the Ordinance of Secession of the Civil War. He was removed from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy. Their eldest son joined the Confederate army and was left for dead on the battlefield at Shiloh, saved by a Union Army clergyman who found a Bible from Margaret in his pocket. Sam Houston died of illness before the end of the war, as Margaret sat by his bed reading to him from the 23rd Psalm. She became the keeper of his legacy and opened his records to a trusted biographer. When she died of yellow fever, Margaret could not be buried with her husband in a public cemetery for fear of contamination, and was instead interred on private family property. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Nothing in the last year or so
Main editors: Maile66
Promoted: July 18, 2016
Reasons for nomination: April 11 is Margaret Lea Houston's birthday
Support as nominator. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support always keen to see more women as TFA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be very interesting to see more women at TFA. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per preceding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. None of this is a criticism of Maile, who I've worked with many times and who I respect a lot. I can't write a blurb from this article that meets TFA standards; she has no accomplishments of the kind that would tend to get mentioned in a TFA bio. This article only talks about how she was a good mother, wife, and daughter. I don't doubt any of that, and in my own world view, those are all wonderful things to aspire to. But one of the unpleasant realities of life, and of Wikipedia, is that there are some things we don't get to make the rules for, and "what kind of things get mentioned in short bios" is one of those things. This is the first time in 2.25 years of writing TFA blurbs that I've had to oppose because I can't see how to write a blurb for this article. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Dank, can you please link where there is a rule that says "what kind of things get mentioned in short bios" ? It doesn't say that on the project page that I can find. Nor do I see it where we create the nomination. I'm sorry you are frustrated in not being able to write a blurb, but I already wrote one. You do wonderful work in this area, but are you the only person who decides this? — Maile (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain aspects to this discussion that might blow up, go in directions that alienate some Wikipedians, if I argue the point vigorously, so I won't argue it, other than to ask you to imagine whether anything mentioned in your blurb would be likely to be seen as relevant enough to the subject of the bio, in her own right, to make it into any other blurb. You either see the problem or you don't. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I know what you're trying not to say, not to evoke. Because I am a member of WP:WOMEN. I don't want it to blow up, either. But in essence, you and I are divided over what makes a 19th century woman's story notable. It's interesting to think of all the wives of US presidents who could be eliminated with that. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Lea Houston (April 11, 1819 – December 3, 1867) was First Lady of the Republic of Texas, serving during her husband Sam Houston's second term as President of the Republic of Texas. Born in Alabama, she met Sam Houston in 1839 when the latter traveled to Mobile seeking investors. They were married the following year and moved to Galveston, Texas, where Sam soon re-entered politics. Over the course of her husband's career, which often saw him traveling, Margaret mainly remained in Texas and raised her eight children. Over the course of their marriage, Margaret convinced her husband to give up both alcohol and profane language, and under her influence he converted to the Baptist denomination. In 1859, on the cusp of the Civil War, she served as First Lady of the State of Texas while her husband worked in vain to defeat the Texas Ordinance of Secession. Following Sam's death in 1863, she became the keeper of his legacy and opened his records to a trusted biographer. Assessing the Houstons' relationship, James L. Haley wrote, "[Sam] Houston trusted the care of his soul to Margaret, that he had no more war to fight within himself, left him with more energy to wage political battle." (Full article...)

How would this work? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question: which of those things seems relevant and notable enough to merit a mention in any other bio since we became coords at TFA? "served as First Lady" is a statement about her husband, not about her ... in fact, the complete lack of information on what she did makes it sound like she did nothing at all of note in that role (which I'm guessing isn't true). - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does "First Lady" apply to her husband? Yes, she's best known as wife of Sam Houston. Just like Luo Yixiu is best known as Mao's first wife. That was sufficient for TFA 2 years ago. I fail to see how this differs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, at least Margaret helped co-found a church. Clarification on what the Republic of Texas really was. It was a rebel republic and operated as such. Mexico's government refused to recognize it, in spite of Santa Anna's signature on a treaty. Inbetween the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto and the USA's 1845 annexation of the Republic of Texas, Mexico kept re-invading. After annexation, Mexico retaliated and we fought the Mexican–American War war. The government was constantly on the run, moving from one location to another, operating where they could. There was no entertaining diplomats or redecorating, no first-lady protocol. In 19th century Texas, women were either wives and mothers, or they were hookers. Not a lot of choice there. When Margaret married him, they spent several days sleeping outdoors on the ground while their 2-room log cabin was being finished via slave labor. It is mentioned in the article that Houston sent her back to Alabama for a while during one of Mexico's re-invasions of Texas. Margaret's accomplishment was to take an unstable foul-mouthed unpolished drunk, whose best accomplishment was fighting wars, and refine him to a point where he later became a very respectable legislator. She did that, and he openly acknowledged how she had changed him as a human being. He already had two wives that he abandoned, along with a political career in Tennessee that he just walked out on during his term in office, and she was the only one who provided him with stability. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous commenters RileyBugz, Casliber, Peacemaker67: can you comment? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally enjoyed the original blurb—the current one seems more like an article for her husband, not her. Overall, I think that if there is enough research to write an article that long on her, she is definitely notable enough to appear on TFA. I still support this nomination. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 14:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my objection. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the original blurb either. Material doesn't need to be spoon-fed to readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the original blurb. I think it makes clear her notability and provides necessary detail about her influence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]