Talk:Nat Turner/Archive 1

Old talk

The page linked to by the "The Confessions of Nat Turner" reference is the wrong one, but I'm not sure what the right one should be. 83.67.201.204 12:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks right to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

---

Nat Turner is regarded as a hero by large numbers of African Americans... Whaaat? I'd wager that the vast majority of African Americans have never even heard of Nat Turner, much less regard him as a hero. Kwertii 01:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Remove a vast majority from a large population - what remains can still be a large number - hundreds of thousands, depending upon the numbers. Leonard G. 03:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

This cannot be right: "Nat Turner and his fighters traveled from slave plantation to slave plantation, freeing slave owners and their families."

Bartosz 18:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would free blacks be part of a slave rebellion?

While free blacks were in a better legal position than slaves, they were not equal to whites legally or socially in the antebellum south. Most whites viewed all blacks, free and slave, as a single (inferior) category, and many of the legal and social disabilities that applied to slaves also applied to free blacks, either de jure or de facto. In addition, most free blacks were former slaves themselves, and had friends and family still in bondage. They would have been intimately acquainted with the system and injustices. --Jfruh (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

It said they hanged him AND they skinned him.... isnt the later a bit unnecessary?

If they skinned him it should be in there.. slavery was and is not a pretty thing, the brutality of skinning some one says alot about the people of the time

Nat Turner

Nat Turner is well known by many blacks, and is considered a hero,

Naming Conventions

Concerning the naming, nis name wasn't Nathaniel Turner, with nickname Nat. His name was Nat, slaves were given shortened nicknames like that and weren't allowed last names. That could be considered a way of dehumanizing them. I appreciate calling him Nathaniel if you want to undo that dehumanization, but it's inaccurate, no one ever called him that in any documents. I think it's more humanizing to give his name as it was and to keep in mind the indignity of not even being allowed a full name. As far as the last name it was exceptional that he was often recognized by the last name of his first master 'Turner' Oates suggests that this was because of his precocity as a child, he was know as 'Turner's smart little slave Nat' and it stuck. On trial documents he was recognized as "Nat alias 'Nat Turner'" I'm going to change it to that. If someone else has different ideas on this or if I don't know what I'm talking about I welcome you to argue the point. Erik Herron 2:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) :)

"POV"

Someone keeps RVing my edits saying that they're "POV." My edits are:

1) I state that if Turner's rebellion occurred in modern America, it would be probably be labeled a mass murder

2) I state that because the slaves did not want to alert whites to their presence, they killed with blunt objects, axes, and knives. This is a matter of historical fact

3) I state that among the victims of the rebellion were several women and children; that one mother was hacked into pieces with an axe before her child, and that the child was decapitated before his mother; and that slaves attempted to slice apart an eight-months pregnant woman, but that a slave loyal to that woman's family saved here. These, too, are matters of historical fact; information on points 2 and three are derived from "The Fires of Jubilee" by Stephen Oates, which documents in great detail the murders and victims. Point one is culled from the FBI Crime Classification Manual's section on mass murder. Arguably, it could also be called a spree killing. 69.154.189.137 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. You say "The rebellion is not only notable for the above stated reasons, but also for its gristliness". You may find it notable for that reason, but unless you can find a source that finds the event notable for that reason, then it's just your opinion. Phrases like "hacked to bits" are obviously unencyclopedic and POV. Saying the precise way each victim died ("a teenage girl who was stabbed to death, a small boy who was decapitated, and the boy's mother, who was chopped into pieces with an axe in front of her son") doesn't give the reader any useful information about Nat Turner, but only serves to be sensationalistic. Remember: the goal here is to make an article about Nat Turner, not to get a reaction out of people. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to observations about naming

Actually there was no universal system governing the question of whether slaves had surnames or not. It depended on local usage and the whims of a number of individuals, including the master and whatever clerk, secretary or clergyman was deputed to record the names of newborns. Many slaves were automatically assigned the surname of their master. Others had a surname arbitrarily assigned to them or one that originated from a nickname. Those who did have a surname assigned to them would more commonly than not retain the same surname when and if they acquired a new master. Some were assigned a surname at birth but never or seldom used it. Still others were known simply by a given name; as has been pointed out on this site, sme masters didn't want their slaves to have surnames because they thought it conferred too much dignity on the slave and might make the slave insubordinate. There was no unformity. We have to remember that under slavery, the master and people who worked for the master, had an authority to decide all kinds of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.29.149 (talk) 04:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

inspecific content

"In the end, no slave uprising before or after inflicted such a severe blow to the ranks of slave owners in the United States. Nat Turner is regarded as a hero by large numbers of African Americans and pan-Africanists worldwide."

I'm not sure what the first sentence means by "severe blow to the ranks of slave owners" - looks to me from the article that the rebellion actually entrenched the legal status of slavery. Also, who exactly are the large numbers of African Americans who regard him as a hero? It would do better to say "Some African Americans, such as Professor So-and-So regard him as a hero." Shuageo 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. It was a severe blow in that it scared slave owners across the state and beyond, and the state even considered outlawing slavery (and all black people) as a result. It ended up rigidifying the institution of slavery, but it was a severe blow to slave owners. Maybe the sentence could be reworded, I dunno.

As for being a hero, here are some sources: In the documentary "Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property", Alvin Poussaint and Ossie Davis recall how Nat Turner became a hero in the Black community, according to [1]. A New York Times article[2] begins "Hero or villain? In 1831 Nat Turner led the bloodiest slave revolt in American history. He has variously been viewed as a religious visionary fighting a terrible evil, as a figure of liberation or as a murderous fanatic." Maxine Jones of Florida State University wrote "Turner emerges as an inspiring hero and revolutionary to some, and as a villain and cold-blooded murderer of women and children to others." NPR reported "For [documentary film-maker] Burnett, Turner is a heroic American figure." – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, isn't someone who liberates you a hero. A hero often is one who saves another. Either saving them from a room being engulfed by fires or drowning or something. For him not to be a Hero would have to stem from white bias minds that believe that white people shouldn't have been harmed to free the slaves. Arn't civil rights leaders heros? The ones that fought, arn't they heros? They killed white people, so why is it different when a black man does it? It basically proves the point of America believing that whit is right, even when a black person did it first he was wrong but when white people they're right. Quit tryna look like a damn god and a liberater because every the white family has gone there has been massive bloodshed, pillaging, and diseases spread. Greedy ass bastards. I got bias, but I also distributed facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.244.36 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations and rewrite discussion

This article needs to be extensively re-written, as it currently copies extensively from Turner's biography at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p1518.html and violates their copyright. I am loathe to remove the obvious violations, though, as they're the "meat" of the article.--Chuckhoffmann 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

don't wager a lot

I'm an African American and I have heard of Nat Turner. The subject is assessed in introductory U.S. history in the state of VA, so I'm sure that many other's have been exposed to the information. And yes, he is somewhat of a hero. Slavery was war, and in war the commanders are heroes. Remember Haiti? Southeners veiwed Stonewall Jackson as a hero. He was a racist and a murderer. Im not advocating the violence; I'm just placing it in a different perspective. Nat Turner killed for the abolitionist cause, Harriet Tubman was more peace full in the escape. Nat Turner had a birst of frustration that day, set out to kill 8 whites, and was then hanged. His death left people sad. By Bailey Herbert

You asked "Remember Haiti?" Well, no, sadly, most Americans don't. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Side Note; Someone left a comment on this page that was blatantly racist and not in any way constructive, for this reason I deleted it.

Slaves produced slavery

Former Russian leader Khruschev expressed the notion that ending slavery would be a good way to employ nuclear weapons. Slavery will never end in the United States as long as powerful people employ their military power to keep Negroes here. Slaves were so weak that they could never stage a real fight. They needed weapons other than some axes and some knives. Since nuclear weapons were invented, Europe has been without a major war. People are afraid of Russia and the Hydrogen bombs that Russia possesses. Lebensraum is now being pursued in Africa where the weaklings exist. Slaves have produced slavery throughout history by being weaker than other stronger people who were seeking to enslave them. Nat Turner was a mentally-unbalanced slave, he was not powerful leader like Napoleon Bonaparte had been. The article is too lengthy. People are making a mountain out of a molehill. The article should not exceed one paragraph in length. There is no need to delve into the passing event, inasmuch as it accomplished nothing. The article resembles an April Fool's joke. 71.240.30.93 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of nuclear weapons would be foolish on the count that it would destroy the slave and the slave master. Also the slave, from the Atlantic Slave Trade, was tricked into being a slave. He thought that he would live better then the king in his native land did, if he came with John Hawkins. Then they were put in camps to where their minds were affected and made useless to think for themselves and made them dependable. How can someone weak build America as strong as it is. That means that all other nations are truly weak then sense America is the Strongest built on the back of a weak slave. Also are the pyramids weak? Slaves ancestors built that. As the evolution theory proves generations get stronger, not weaker. Please respond.

It would seem the first paragraph is a racial comment really. Slave revolts were part of history, regardless of what caused them. The first paragraph could be included as an OPINION, but not something as fact. Why "Slavery will never end in the United States..." Slavery no longer exists. There may be racial differences but there is no more slavery in the U.S. I really don't get what you (in first paragraph) are trying to say.

(Third paragraph) Slavery does exist in America. In order for one to be a slave they must be dominated by an influence or person. The poor are dominated by the rich. The rich are in high places so they give decisions in order for them to stay rich while they give decisions for the poor to stay poor. The majority of the poor will grow up and still be poor. That's domination by the rich because the rich don't work, or seldomly do. The poor works for the rich man which makes the rich man richer. A poor man can't work for another poor man, they're too poor to have anything to market.

Nat Turner's Education

According to the 2001 edition of World Book, Nat Turner was taught to read and write by the son of one of his masters. In this Wikipedia article, it is stated, "picking up the ability to read without being taught". Which account of his education is correct?

No one knows. According to Stephen Oates Fires of Jubilee, it remains unknown how Turner learned to read; speculation points to his childhood friend, who was indeed one of the master's sons, but this remains nothing more than speculation, and could be a revisionist attempt to downplay what seemed to be Turner's preternatural intelligence.209.169.114.213 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nobody, no matter how intelligent, just spontaneously learns how to read unless someone literate teaches them. That teaching may be in an informal way, but you don't just magically become literate by being smart and staring at words on a page. Since (I believe) it was illegal to teach slaves how to read, his master's son is a good bed as to his teacher, though of course it's fully possible that there were other illegallyl literate slaves or free blacks who may have taught him as well. --Jfruh (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An Article on Nat Turner

I'm considering on creating an article (from scratch) on Nat Turner. Sr13 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just edit this one? Some re-wording to deal with the copyright, clear up the points discussed above, and Bob's your uncle. Totnesmartin 12:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This article does need a complete rewrite. The fact is that there is no piece of documented evidence for which contradictions cannot be found regarding the life of Nat Turner. As Herbert Aptheker says in his book “Concerning the Turner Revolt there is unanimity on two things, and only on two things. First, all agree it took place, or, at least, started in Southampton County and, second, that the leader was Nat Turner”. Because of the ambiguity and the drama of his actions various different groups have used him to justify their views and have added to the narrative of his life in order to do so. For instance there are reports of him learning to read spontaneously, being taught by his parents, and by his master's family. Regardless of likelihood, each serves a particular bias and none could be ducumented as correct.

The article name can remain the same, but a better way of thinking of the article might be, 'the legacy of Nat Turner.' I'd like to work on it, but am in the middle of finals now (writing a paper on Nat Turner incodentally). But I think doing justice to a man whose meaning-of-life has been hijacked by so many others is important and can be accomplished by an unbiased and informative article. Erik Herron 5:59, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This article definitely has issues with items that are either original research or are from sources uncited. The "Consequences" sections seems especially problematic in that realm. Mwelch 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Turner Descendant

I am a descendant of Nat Turner's family in Southhampton County, specifically Branchville, and am looking for other relatives. Any other family members, please email me at Newsmania2002@yahoo.com 68.99.251.133 07:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits on March 13, 2007

Today another editor decided to revert several recent edits without any explanation. I reverted those edits, and here's why:

• Lede - I think the earlier change by the anonymous editor ("His methodical slaughter ... makes his legacy controversial" rather than " His methodical slaughter .. made him a controversial figure") is an improvement, especially since the second half of the sentence also discusses his modern legacy: "but he is still considered by many to be a heroic figure of black resistance to oppression." That's why I restored the language.

• Further reading - I think that The Confessions of Nat Turner should be appropriately attributed to Thomas Gray, who wrote the book, and not to Nat. The book begins and ends with material by Gray, and the confession is clearly not written in Nat's language (e.g., "we found no more victims to gratify our thirst for blood"). Gray may have started with Nat's language, but the final product is clearly Gray's. The fact that Gutenberg calls it a work by Nat Turner is bad, but Wikipedia shouldn't make the same mistake. That's why I put it back in "Further reading" with Gray as the author.

• Further reading - I think that the book by Oates should be included with all the other books cited as "Further reading." I don't think the fact that one editor found it in Google Books shouldn privilege it above the other books to be listed alone as an "External link." Furthermore, I don't know whether Google Books is considered WP:COPYVIO. That's why I put Oates back in "Further reading" without the link to Google Books. If Google Books isn't WP:COPYVIO, we can put back the link, but I think it should stay in "Further reading" along with all the other books, not in "External links" with shorter articles.

• External links - There were two external links, to About.com and PBS.org, that I restored.

Rather than start an edit war, I wanted to lay out an explanation of why I reverted another editor's changes, although I still wonder why he reverted two other editors' changes without any explanation or edit summary. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, sorry. The only thing I meant to do was restore the Gutenberg link. I must have hit edit while viewing in an old edit version. Sorry. -- Stbalbach 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted, but many editors have very strong feelings about this article and Nat Turner's slave rebellion and I wanted to discuss the changes we both made rather than start an edit war. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted edits on April 17

I deleted the following contribution by MZZ DEB from the article today:

It was at a ‘tender’ age that Nat began to have visions and although it was not legal for African Americans to read or write, he performed this feat on his own. It was divine inspiration that led him to his purpose in life which began by preaching and teaching his fellow slaves. His “Black” brethren lauded him to be a prophet, and yet his white counterparts thought him to be nothing more than a mere “heathen.”

Through his confessions, Nat recanted that those persons responsible for teaching him to pray, saw that this young man, although quite “gifted” would not make a good slave. Nat tried his hand at the art of taking clay and molding it into various works. He was, simply stated, not very good at this undertaking, but he could make a fair wage out of these art forms if it were needed.

Nat fully believed that he was put on this earth for a special assignment from God. Once while attending to the crops Nat saw “great” drops of blood on the corn, He saw hieroglyphic symbols and numbers. He saw “men in different attitudes” and other impressions which represented the things of heaven. His discoveries only strengthened his convictions and his belief that he was placed here to do God’s will. So Nat began his mission by the enlistment of a few choice men. This too, he claimed was revealed to him by the “Holy Spirit”.

His fellow servants had reservations about his “visions,” from God but through his communications with the Holy Spirit they soon saw the wisdom in his wise sayings. After being placed with an overseer, Nat ran away for the span of 30 days and surreptitiously remained in the woods the whole duration of that time. Nat believed himself to be in another part of the country, but was led by the Holy Spirit to return to the overseer. Regardless of his circumstances, he fully believed it to be “The Almighty” himself who led “ordered” his steps.

References

http://www.pbs.org/wghh/aia/part3/3hfoot.html. “The Confessions of Nat Turner”

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1826-1850/slavery/confesxx.htm. The Confessions of Nat Turner (1 Index (7).

http://www.melannt.com. Confessions of Nat Turner.

http://www.spartacus.schhlnet.co.uk/USASturner.htm. Nat Turner.

The material was inserted after the William Styron Confessions, which was the wrong place for it. I also think its tone sounds like it was copied and pasted from another source. If the material is retained, the references need to be placed in the appropriate place.

There may be some valuable material here, but I don't have the time to go through it all now. (I did notice that some it is already in the article.) Maybe somebody else can review it and add it to the appropriate places. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Verification of sources

A query on the figure cited for the number of victims murdered during the rebellion; 57 is quoted, with the reference being Oates, Stephen B. (1990 [1975]) The fires of jubilee : Nat Turner's fierce rebellion. New York: HarperPerennial ISBN 0-06-091670-2. However, if one consults Thomas R. Gray 'The Confessions of Nat Turner' (Baltimre, 1831), the section which contains his trial record, 'The Commonwealth, vs. Nat Turner', states under the list of persons murdered the total to be 55. Which is the correct figure? (Pienienkeli 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Comment: While I appreciate the discussion (within the section of the article on capture) of the questions surrounding the veracity of the 1831 "Confessions of Nat Turner" as published in pamphlet form by Thomas Gray, there are also earlier citations to that text within the article. Would it be possible to direct attention to these concerns earlier in the article, perhaps with the first such citation? Also, where citations are noted as still needed for the discussion of accuracy/POV in Gray's "Confessions," David Allmendinger's piece in the Greenberg anthology could prove apt. --Historytrain 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

Hmmm... I'm sorry to say this but, this has the same exact info as another site. Was this just a coincidence? I don't think so. Here is the site if you don't believe me. Nat Turner Okay. Thanks. I hope this helps.

Actually, I see that there is a citation to wikipedia. This means someone over there is plagiarising this site. WikiDelete 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)WikiDelete, Instant deletion!

Mulatto?

There is speculation that Nat Turner was a mulatto fathered by his slave master 74.185.0.47 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brantley

Turner not only influenced Brantley to change his ways but also was baptized together with Nat. They submerged themselves in a pond at the same time in fornt of an audience. This was unthinkable in those times of inequality where baptism occurred seperately by race. The community made them social pariahs and Brantley would have to move away. This was not only significant in that a white and black were baptized at the same time and in the same water but Brantley was an overseer whoom was supposed to look upon slaves as inferior, not as equals. "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" pages 59-9. 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Abuse

Also not mentioned in this history is the question of abuse. Nat had scars on temple and back. In addiiton to a large knot on his right arm near his wrist. While the "Richmond Enquirer" dismissed them as injuries from fights, Wiliam Lloyd Garrison made the case they were clearly signs of abuse by his slavemaster. One should examine the argument of Garrison to decide which is likely. "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" F. ROy Johnson Page 52. 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk)Collective Conscious

"singular"

I wouldnt say Nat's intelligence is singular. John Clark Turner, son of Sam Turner Nat's master was Nat's age at the time. During this time, it was normal for the youth of salves to be the play friends of the master's son. So tey probably hung out together. In fact William S. Dewey stated "it is well known that Mr. J.C. Turner, his (Nat's) young master, gave him instruction, assisted by Nat's parents." "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" F. Roy Johnson Page 18 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk)Collective Conscious

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.108.56 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in indiscriminate killings

Nat did let a white family live at Lehi Waller's house. A slave named Davy stated that he witnessed Nat did not kill one white family. Nat stated to Davy as his reason, "they thought no better of themselves than they did of the negroes." F. Roy johnson "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" Page 98 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Mystery

One thing that has eluded explanation and needs investigating is the fact that Nat Turner apparently did not touch the house of Thomas Gray and his family, even though it was in the path that Turner's group traveled. Is this family related to the legal representation for Turner?. F. Roy Johnson states that, "The Negroes apparently were so drunk that they passed by the Thomas Gray family." F. Roy Johnson - "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" Page 95. This adds credibility to the accusations of the Turner Rebellion being a hoax all together. This doesn't necessarily mean that is the case, but I just can't see how the slaves missed this house when it was in their path. 06:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Collective Conscious

Number of blacks killed as response

I would add to the paragraph about reprisals against African Americans that the numbers were high enough and acts so indiscriminate that the commander of the responding armed forces Brigadier General Eppes, stated that he would punish ordinary civilians if they did not cease from punishing the blacks. He went on to state that the response from the whites in indiscriminate attacks against innocent blacks were of such a character and of such an amount that no one would be able to tell whom was the villain or the hero in the story of this rebellion. 3 days after he threatened punishment of civilians for indisciminate atrocities against innocent blacks, he again promised rather than threatend reprimand if the atrocities continued. Page 110-1. F. Roy johnson "The Nat Turner Rebellion"

John Hampton Pleasants, senior editor of the "Richmond Whig" stated that there can never be a rebellion like this because a similar response by the white population would lead to "the extirpation of the whole black population in the quarter of the state where it occurs." F. Roy Johnson "The Nat Turner Rebellion" Page 110.

07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Not clear

Please re-word this so that it clearer. I am not quite certain what you are saying and if I as a professional historian cannot understand it, then I dont expect any layman to :(

07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk)Collective Conscious

However, fears of repetitions of the Nat Turner Revolt served to polarize moderates and slave owners across the South.[citation needed] Municipalities across the region instituted repressive policies against enslaved and free blacks. The freedoms of all black people in Virginia were tightly curtailed, and an official policy was established that forbade questioning the slave system on the grounds that any discussion might encourage similar slave revolts. There is evidence of trends in support of such policies and for slavery itself in Virginia before the revolt.[citation needed] This was probably due in part to the recovering Southern agricultural economy and the spread of slavery across the continent which made the excess Tidewater slaves a highly marketable commodity. Nat's actions probably sped up existing trends.

Nat Turner

Nat Turner's name Nat meant "the gift of God" in Christianity.

00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Collective Conscious

"Nathaniel" does. "Nat" doesn't. Jersey John (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

TOO Sympathetic

This article appears too sympathetic to Nat Turner. I do not see even one sentence that states anything to the effect that slaughtering all whites regardless of age, gender and whether they resisted or not is incompatible with righteous resistance to the institution of slavery. It only says "controversial." Are you kidding me? It's downright VILE, and one would think that it would cast Nat in a negative light, and completely overshadow the fact that it was done in resistance to an evil institution. Again, this article is much too sympathetic. Jersey John (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an interpretive essay. We report what reliable sources have to say about Nat Turner. If you can find reliable mainstream sources that say what you said above, please incorporate that into the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, you're not biased in the least are you, Mr. Shabazz... Jersey John (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion JERSEY JOHN. I supposed the concept of Slavery in and of itself wasn't too sympathetic with Nat Turner and for the Institution of slavery for that matter. Killing is killing, but when slavery is meant to reduced and control a person like an animal, I think historically, you can see the results as to what happens. Sorry if this article offended you by not being "sympathetic" to the victims of the assault led by Mat Turner, but there's no mention as to the millions of slaves over a 200 plus year period could gain your sympathy as well.

Thankyou Mr. Shabazz, it is important we not only take into account the personal life of Turner but also the societal harms he and many other negroes suffered. Evidence is the key when you are speaking of such sensitive topics. Would Jersey John consider any american president's page as too sympathetic: they slaughtered more people than Turner had ever seen. I've got evidence johnny-boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I do think that "controversial" does sound like a weasel word in this context, but frankly I can't think of a better one. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nap, you're whole argument devolves into "slavery was bad so it excuses anything Nat did." Wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/214.13.130.104|214.13.130.104]] (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, anon. -jerseyjohn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Most fatalities but not largest

Nat Turner's Rebellion resulted in the most fatalities, but the 1811 German Coast Uprising in Louisiana involved more slaves. This rebellion, too, was short-lived and many of the insurgents were quickly tried and executed.--Parkwells (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Spree killer"

Nat Turner was convicted of murdering a large number of people in a short period of time. Does this make him a convicted serial killer, spree killer, or mass murderer? We are supposed to be objective and not sympathetic that he was a slave. We don't give Timothy McVeigh sympathy because he was "raging against the machine." Anyway his victims were non-slave holders, including women and children he beheaded. As a matter of historical fact that makes him some type of convicted murderer, regardless of what other events in society where taking place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarradio (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nat Turner led an armed insurrection. Are you going to add "mass murderer" to the biographies of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. The article says nothing about a trial that convicted him of murder. That's the only way a simple homicide can be turned into a criminal offense of that sort. Was he ever convicted of murder? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not according to any reliable source I can find. They all simply say he was convicted (or judged guilty) and executed. I have a feeling he was convicted of leading a slave revolt, a crime that was much more feared than murder. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are those reliable sources, Guitarradio? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted much of Guitarradio's latest edit to the article's lede although I did retain info. on Turner's trial and execution. The number of deaths is already in the lede and should remain there. Turner's actions were treated both at the time and subsequently by historians as a slave revolt -- this should be the prime focus of the article lede. For unknown reasons, Guitarradio wants to downplay the historical consensus and treat it first and foremost as a crime. Absent reliable sources and a consensus of editors, the text should remain as it currently is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer infobox

I removed it, since Turner does not seem to fit the description used in Wikipedia: 'A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.' Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Guitarradio has yet to provide any reliable sources in which a historian calls Turner a serial killer or a spree killer. Absent such a source, Guitarradio is engaging in original research, particularly synthesis. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations section

Came across the new "Interpretations" section while fixing spelling/formatting errors in article. Have some reservations about this section, even though it’s reasonably well written. E.g. “The September 11 attacks caused somewhat of a revaluation, given that both events were arguably religiously-motivated violence against civilians due to the militant's opposition to government policies.” The construction feels like somewhat of an interpretative stretch (especially the tie-in to “opposition to government policies” and the wikilink to Religious terrorism), and subtle POV pushing. LavenderLily (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and would like to have a community vote on whether or not the information is relevant or appropriate for the article. Any administrators want to weigh in? ExistentialBliss (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Soapbox

I don't know if the article is too sympathetic or not, but I had to laugh. Yesterday, just to test the pro-Nat Turner activists, who will stop at nothing to distort this man's story, and the oh-so politically correct folks on Wikipedia, I changed the word "actions" (the rebellion was comprised of Turner's impartial "actions") into "crimes." Of course, I was pretty sure the yahoos would be all over that, in their forgiving of their "martyr" and their hero Turner. Last I checked, hacking off the heads of children, shooting people down in their homes, knifing them while stealing their belongings, etc. were/are crimes in the US. But wait, the sob stories will cry out dismally, slavery itself was crime (and that justifies the slaughter of whoever). Yes, of course, slavery was a crime against humanity, but sadly at that time in the US it was not a crime against the state (this too a sort of crime). Turner's actions no doubt are also crimes against humanity (No they're not! Those dogs deserved to have their heads lopped off, etc.) But, as well, and as noted, they were crimes against the state (then and now). But I don't care, you know how these people go off on Wikipedia, they are totally divorced from reality and fact and understanding and impartiality. To be sure they consider this whole platform their soapbox, comprising their god-given right to claim whatever the hell they want (that is strong, there are good people here). "Crimes" was switched to "actions" within a day. So okay, Nat Turner simply evinced a bunch of cuddly and entirely just "actions."

The “actions” are very clearly identified in the preceding sentences -- perhaps you missed the words “slave rebellion” and “methodical slaughter of white civilians”? If you want to replace "actions" with "insurrection", then be my guest. You state:

"So okay, Nat Turner simply evinced a bunch of cuddly and entirely just 'actions.'"

Perhaps you can point to the specific part of the article where there is any attempt to justify Turner’s actions or any text that can be described as “cuddly”. All I see are simply the facts as best they’re known.

I note that another editor, who I imagine you agree with, wants to label Turner a mass murderer. The problem with that, of course, is that reliable sources don’t treat it in such a simple-minded way. Indeed, even the folks back in the day didn’t execute Turner for murder -- they charged him with “insurrection” and his followers with “conspiracy, insurrection, and treason” (see the article by Oates listed in the references).

So I guess by failing to charge Turner with murder, his executioners fall into your category of “pro-Nat Turner activists.” According to the folks representing the victims at the time, Turner was guilty of the same crimes committed by George Washington, Robert E. Lee, the Jews who rebelled in the Warsaw ghetto, Native Americans who resisted American encroachment, American settlers who resisted Native American resistance, or any people anywhere at anytime who resorted to armed violence in order to oppose an unjust, tyrannical government that maintains itself through violence and threats of violence.

The biggest problem with wikipedia as far as history articles is concerned is folks who try to create a fictional past based on their current political agendas and prejudices. In reality, a slave rebellion is a unique event that can’t be reduced to simply a matter of criminal law. Of course if you have reliable sources that put the rebellion in such a context, bring them on -- otherwise you're simply exercising, as you term it, your "god-given right to claim whatever the hell [you] want." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What you say is just enough, and in fact if you get right down to it, we could call Turner's "crimes" "actions." They are indeed that, one way or another, a simple word is not going to dramatically change many peoples' views of an event like this. I never said label him a mass murderer, though no doubt he was that. But neither would I think that the the crimes he was charged with were only insurrection, treason, etc. Those 55 dead people were not just glossed over in the trial (though I have not read all the details of this by any means). Turner's confession (by Thomas Gray) records the court as providing "A list of persons murdered" during the rebellion and telling Turner "You have been convicted of plotting in cold blood, the indiscriminate destruction of men, of helpless women, and of infant children." So that much, in any event, is murder, and though a rebellion like this does offer its own contours of interpretational complexity--laced with crimes against humanity that had no standing in any criminal statute--it is still conditioned by crimes and I think can be viewed from one perspective as a matter of criminal law. But the extent it can also be viewed in various other senses, well, that is of course possible too. We will always have to make some difficult judgments about people had to resist tyranny violently. If Turner were charged and executed alone for insurrection, treason, etc., however, than any number of other people who spoke out against slavery in the south (and there were some) could have been arrested, tried and executed for prompting insurrection, etc. Of course, to be sure there were such people who were grievously mistreated, and some probably almost were arrested and tried. Of course George Washington, people in Warsaw, native American warriors, etc. could very well have been arrested, tried and executed for similar crimes against the state (including murder). But these people were also, on the whole, a good bit different from Nat Turner, a fanatic and very-nearly psychotic man whose followers chopped off the heads of infants. This must never be justified--but I veer from the point, and I am not accusing you of such justification. In any event, Wikipedia, broadly, may be altering the conception that only the victors get to write history. It's everybody's game now, the the number of voices keeps growing and growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.238.200 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You said: "But these people were also, on the whole, a good bit different from Nat Turner, a fanatic and very-nearly psychotic man whose followers chopped off the heads of infants. This must never be justified." But they killed for their freedom just as Nat Turner did. What made them "different"? Was Nat Turner a "fanatic" and "very-nearly psychotic" (curiously, this is the same way he was characterized by slave owners during his time, who could not understand why a SLAVE would want to kill his master as well as other slave-owning family's). Is it because you can somehow identify more with George Washington and the Native American, and therefore be more empathetic to them? Freedom is something that people of all races, religions, and nationalities can fight for if they choose to. The fact that you cannot see the similarity between Nat Turner's battle for freedom and that of others is unfortunate and telling. 208.104.110.51 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing "controversial" about Nat Turner's murderous spree. He was responsible for mass murder and for an additional set of mass murders caused by the panic that ensued. IMHO, there is no defense for his terrorist activities. 192.156.59.38 (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fatalities

Weren't there quite a few more fatalities during the American Revolutionary War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHogan654 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And that has what to do with the topic...? Jersey John (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

in roots series, episode 5, sets thats events in 1841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.110.255 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fictitious Eclipse

The article states: "On August 13, there was another solar eclipse...". But there wasn't any eclipse visible in the USA in August 1831. The closest was the eclipse of 7 Aug, 1831, which was seen only in the south Pacific: Moonblink: 1831 August 07.

such lies, the truth - http://moonblink.info/Eclipse/eclipse/1831_08_07 total soalar visible MOST of north america! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.198.180 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the event referred to was indeed dust in the atmosphere, but then it shouldn't be referred to as an eclipse; of course if Turner called it an eclipse, that should be stated, but not that it actually was an eclipse. johantheghost (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually the lunar eclipse of August 23 was visible in VA: Moonblink: 1831 August 23. However this was a pretty marginal eclipse, and happened about 4am to 6am, so it would not have been much of a spectacle. johantheghost (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Have reliable sources written about the eclipse charts and Nat Turner? Otherwise, you're engaging in original research, which is not permitted in our articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's not OR to say that there isn't an eclipse on August 13. You can see that in any eclipse list, like NASA's, or even Wikipedia's. Nat Turner has nothing to do with whether an eclipse happened on that day — it just didn't. johantheghost (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Victims

The victims are known.

This article needs a list of the murdered victims, out of respect for them and their descendents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have added them. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz deleted them because I did not include the names of blacks that I do not/did not have. Rather than engaging in a revision war, why not add the names yourself? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

black&white

Why you say "African-American" and not "black", while you say "white" and not "Euro-American"? //yeah. with both capitals (sic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.60.166 (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Slaves

By 1831 were there other people enslaved in the United States apart from African-Americans? If not then why mention that he was an African-American slave and not just an American or a Virginian slave? Otherwise if there were other types of slaves (English, Irish or whatever) then the mention of "slaves" in the sentence ("slave rebellion of slaves") need qualification as well.

Also the current wording carries with it a certain level of expertise over who owned slaves in Virginia at the time: does "African-American slave" mean he was an African-American who was enslaved or does it mean that he was the slave of an African-American?

-- PBS (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

terrorism

There is no reference for the statment "classified as war crimes "! then it is pure opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.198.180 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, but you shouldn't have added your comment in the text of the article. Instead, you should have added a {{citation needed}} or {{according to whom}} tag at the end of the sentence in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

you fixed it - good, if it wasnt so hard to edit this faux XML code! ....

Merge?

I think there's probably more reasons to merge this with the article on the rebellion than to keep it separate. The rebellion article covers the background of Nat Turner and most of this article seems concerned with the rebellion. The aftermath and legacy of the rebellion are also the legacy of Nat Turner, his background as a preacher and "visionary" is a key part of the rebellion as well. I don't think history can shed any light on Nat Turner other than what we have from the rebellion. Anyone else have other thoughts? Bigjimleo (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but Nat Turner was an exceptional human being. He baptized a white man, had visions and was regarded by blacks and whites - long before his rebellion - as being special: a prophet. His whole life was like a work of art, a myth in the making; the rebellion was just the culmination of an extraordinary existence. So merging the two would actually do a disservice to the complexity of Nat Turner the man, before the rebellion. ExistentialBliss (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the religious nature of the insurrection, maybe the terms crusade and crusader are most appropiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblisseus (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a hard time applying those terms to someone who murdered woman and children in cold blood. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

But that's the definition of crusades and crusaders. They get drunk on religious nonsense and then go slaughter the nonbelievers. You should pay more attention in history class. 99.135.156.219 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Rape?

Is it known if any of the victims of the rebellion were raped? 2601:5C4:0:C:ED06:F6B2:61E:3CF0 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted edits by SongspiritUSA on the grounds that they are both unsourced changes and contradict the cited reliable sources; additionally, they introduce a heavy dose of apologia for slavery. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources

My understanding is that the best sources for Turner's life 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) 12:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

African American?

Though African-American has become synonymous with black in modern parlance, it is inaccurate to apply the term to Nat Turner. He was not an American at any time in his life. Considering the article already uses the term "free blacks" in close proximity to where someone added African-American (for whatever reason), it is congruent. Eodcarl (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean or what is the point of your comment. My reversion (which was the second time you were reverted, if my count is correct) is based on the idea that Turner is called an African American in the sources and my judgement of the sources is that his identity as such is notable enough to belong in the article in the lede and where it is discussed who he was. He is described as African American in most sources, for example Turner and other slaves in Virginia are described as African Americans in:

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.

and even in the very first source in the article:

Gray White, Deborah. Freedom on my mind: A history of African Americans. New York Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013.

I am not an expert on citizenship or identity or whatever it is that affiliates a person with one descriptor and not another. I suppose you could be right on the philosophical point, but this article is about Nat Turner and should probably be based on sources related to him. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

They might use the term to be politically correct, but just because a source uses the term incorrectly doesn't mean it should be in the article. The article uses the term black in several places; I didn't use that term, I simply changed the language to exclude African-American, which cannot apply to an antebellum slave. Eodcarl (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that black people were not Americans before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I cannot support Eodcarl's edit-warring in favor of her/his favored version of the article. I also find curious her/his argument that we should ignore the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have any interest in being civil, then I suggest you desist with the allegation I was edit warring. There is one of me, and several of you have ganged up on me. I don't suggest ignoring a source, and what is valuable from the source should be seriously considered. However, it is common today to use the term African-American for ANY black person at any time for no other purpose than fear of angering people. Black is still a common term (and used in the article). I avoided the used of a 20th century term to describe an early 19th century figure without using contextually unnecessary racial labels in the two places the term was used. Are you that attached to it that we must apply it to a person who was not an American? Eodcarl (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel that I was piling on you or ganging up on you. I just noticed that there is a broader discussion of the issue at Talk:African Americans. I think that there may be an interesting MOS consensus of the usage that could override the sources, but that one does not yet exist. So, for now I think that the sources support using African-American to describe Turner. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that because a term is used in a source that it must be used in the article. It is an anachronism that does not apply. Nothing in WP practice suggests it should be used. Sources can have mistakes (or I believe in this case, a knee-jerk result of political correctness). The dictionary definition of African-American and the new African-American WP article (edited by Talk) does not support using the term for Nat Turner. Also, the source does not refer to Nat Turner as an African-American. African-American in the the title of the book, a complete history of African-Americans, of which Nat Turner is relevant. That does not make him an African-American. Eodcarl (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Google books doesn't have a preview of the Deborah Gray White source, so I can't show that example, but she refers to Turner as African-American in other sources, see: White, Deborah Gray. Let My People Go: African Americans 1804-1860. Oxford University Press, 1996. p8. While I'm not a part of the discussion at the page, African American, I want to point out that referring to slaves as "African Americans" is extremely common, for instance examples can be found at this google books search and this google scholar search. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That terms are commonly misused does not suggest we should use it, since you and I are interested in precision. We agree the sourced article does not necessarily refer to Nat Turner as an African American, so there are no longer an procedural reasons to continue to do so in the article. Do you have other reasons to object to omitting the term African American from the article? As I said, the dictionary definition of African American only includes Americans, so even if commonly misapplied (so you've said), it cannot properly apply to Nat Turner. Eodcarl (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the point of this discussion is purely procedural. Sources call Turner African American, and the page currently reflects that (although in two places fewer than before your edits). I think the page should continue to do so, and am supported by many of the sources currently used inline. The French, Breen, and Greenburg sources which are included as "Further reading" are not currently cited inline, but also refer to Turner as African American. I'd be happy to cite French, Breen, Greenberg and White's usage of African American to describe Turner in line to describe Nat Turner if that would make you more comfortable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

So, knowing they are incorrect, you're happy to use terminology incorrectly because sources do so (albeit not the cited source)? Thank you for pointing out the other errors Eodcarl (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "cited source". Which source do you mean? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #1. You originally stated it calls Nat Turner an African American. As you admitted, that is unclear. Then you said other sources do, though not the one cited. I still maintain any source that calls Nat Turner an African American does so erroneously, since the definition requires the person actually be an American citizen, which is pretty obvious by the inclusion of "American." Eodcarl (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You say that the term "African American" is an anachronism, but why is that a problem? The Wikipedia article on Ancient Roman pottery uses the term "pottery" instead of whatever the ancient Romans would have called it. So why should we be concerned with what contemporary people would have called Nat Turner? --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I'm pretty sure the Deborah Gray White source does, she and the other authors refer to him as an African-American in other works. To your second point, I do not agree that slaves of a country cannot have that country's adjective in their identity in general and I do not agree that slaves in American cannot be described as American. I do not think American must always refer to a citizenship status, and I do not know exactly what the citizenship status of a slave was. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Slaves in America had no citizenship status or nationality. I understand you personally disagree, but the dictionary definition requires nationality. Eodcarl (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"American" also refers to nativity and not just citizenship status. Also, slaves are mentioned in the U. S. Constitution. BorderRuffian (talk) 31 October 2016 (UTC)BorderRuffian

I think Turner was a national of the United States in that the United States had some legal jurisdiction over him, but he did not have very many rights. I don't think it was the case that he did not have any rights. I'm not sure to what degree his rights were derived from federal or from state law. I know that Taney thought Dred Scott wasn't eligible to be a plaintiff in a federal suit, but I'm not sure if that applies to Turner, 16 years before Scott. I know there were cases where slaves were plaintiffs in other states, but I'm not sure if there were any in Virginia. I don't know if being a plaintiff in a state court implies the state court believes you are a citizen, or if that is just Taney's idea about federal courts in 1857. I don't know how overturning the Dred Scott case might affect all of this. So, yeah, I am not sure if he was a citizen, what that meant then, and what that might mean today, and I don't think it is clear cut. Beyond all of this, I do not think it is always clear if sources using the term "African American" are talking about an identity, an ethnicity, a race, a type of citizenship, a nationality, a combination of these, or what. In any case, is there a dictionary that expresses whether or not Turner was an African American, we are still looking for sources supporting your interpretation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is relevant. Non citizens can sue in American courts. That has nothing to do with identity. To be an American one must have the nationality; citizenship. If a slave was freed and moved to Canada, he would not be an African American. The term was invented to avoid saying "black" even though it is not derogatory, and white is still acceptable. It was invented to refer to Americans of African ancestry. That does not include slaves who were no Americans. The law did not afford them personhood, much less nationality. Stop following me to other pages. Eodcarl (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not sure the question of slave citizenship is well defined except via the Dred Scott case. In Taney's decision, he says he finds against Scott because his reading of the Declaration of Independence is that blacks (all blacks) were inferior and could not be citizens and thus could not sue in a federal court. I don't fully understand this, I do not understand arguments about state vs federal citizenship, and basically, think the whole thing was a mess. Certainly the law gave slaves personhood. It was, for instance, against the law to murder a slave in some circumstances.

I don't think I am following you, I am sorry you feel that way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, illegal to kill a slave, similar to being illegal to kill or steal a horse. It is not in dispute a slave had no citizenship or nationality, state or federal. That is historical fact. The only thing that remain is if it is reasonable to apply "Americanism" after the fact. The answer is no. It is the collision of political correctness and precision. African American is a ridiculous term in all cases, but at least we can enforce not applying it to people who were never Americans. Side note: I do appreciate your recent compromises on recent edits. They work well, IMO. Eodcarl (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Turner had some rights (it was even illegal for his own master to murder him, as I meant to say before). Beyond that, I'm sorry if I've pushed this discussion into the esoteric. The point is still that sources call him an African American and that in my reading of the sources, this identity is a notable part of who he is. The change you are proposing should probably be based on a real dispute about sources. Do you have any sources that make it clear Nat Turner, in particular, should not be considered an African American.

Your argument seems to be based on the dictionary or something along those lines.If you don't have Turner specific citations, I think that your argument might make more sense in a more general article. You might also consider proposing something along the lines you are saying at MOS:IDENTITY.Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your political correctness has entered the surreal. It is this simple. He was NOT an American. Therefore he could not be an African American, even though the term is absurd. I have not, and will not edit pages of slaves who gained their freedom, or lived beyond 1865 in the US. Eodcarl (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The hell? He was born in the U.S. and died in the U.S. No matter his status, he was an American, period. WP:DROPTHESTICK, now. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Slaves were not Americans until the 14th Amendment. He died long before that. Stop stalking me. Eodcarl (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You keep asserting that it's inappropriate to call enslaved people in the US "African Americans". But looking through this thread, I don't see you linking to any sources for this claim. So could you provide a citation? Thanks! --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: Eodcarl is now community banned from Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Falsely attributed description of Turner

An IP editor changed this sentence, and her/his edit was undone:

Joseph Drexler-Dreis writes that Turner "was stimulated exclusively by fanatical revenge, and perhaps misled by some hallucination of his imagined spirit of prophecy".

References

The problem is that Drexler-Dreis didn't write that about Turner; an 1831 letter-writer to the New York Evening Post did. I don't have access to Drexler-Dreis's paper, but I did a Google search for the sentence in quotes. Here is one source:

A Jerusalem writer, whose letter appeared in the New York Evening Post, called him "a preacher and prophet" among the slaves, adding that Turner was "stimulated exclusively by fanatical revenge, and perhaps misled by some hallucination of his imagined spirit of prophecy."

This was a contemporary opinion of Turner, almost certainly by a white Virginian, not a modern interpretation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Criticism of the estimate of the number of slave and free black casualties and proposed that the reported estimate of slave and free blacks killed by militias and mobs after the rebellion should be set at 120, 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." The number, 120, is based on Breen's giving that number as the most common estimate and stating that such high estimates are widely accepted. Breen and Allmendinger review a number of estimates and themselves propose much lower estimates, but it is not clear those lower estimates have been accepted as widely as the higher ones. To keep the discussion centralized, please let me know if you disagree with the change at the other talk page. Thanks! Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the Skull His?

Did they ever figure out whether the skull belongs to Turner? John Paul Parks (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject African diaspora

Whose bright idea was this? These articles are literally the worst, most editorialized on this website.

"The massacre of blacks after the rebellion was typical of white fears and overreaction to black violence"

Citation needed. Also, I'd like an explanation of what "white fears" are. Akin to saying "black criminality". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.85.164 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The citation is in the article — the section is cited to this American Heritage article, and is a fair reading of that article. I'm sure plenty more sources could be found for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates defines "black criminality" as "The enduring view of African Americans in this country is as a race of people who are prone to criminality."[3] And "white fears" is just referring to the fact that white people were afraid of black people taking the rights they were entitled to. Obviously they're related in that they're both, ultimately, products of white supremacy, but I'm unsure what kind of connection you're trying to make here?

And I agree with User:NorthBySouthBaranof - that sentence does indeed appear to be supported by the citation. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What were the "white fears"? How about using a little common sense? The population was majority black, and it was kept enslaved by the whites through force of arms. Do you suppose any reasonable white person was calm and sanguine about that arrangement?John Paul Parks (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversion made without explanation

Malik Shabazz reverted my changes without explanation, and I would like to have one.

I entered the category "self-declared messiahs" since much of the middle section of the article relates his religious zeal and alleged relationship with the Almighty, and

I entered the category "mass murderer" because he was executed for being one.

I don't see where either of these facts is in dispute. If Malik's reversion was an error, I will gladly apologize. CsikosLo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please review the article's history. You are mistaken—I provided an explanation for my removal of the categories: "see WP:CAT#Articles".

That guideline states:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

This article doesn't refer to Nat as a self-declared messiah (nor does it use the word "messiah" at all). It does not refer to Nat as a mass murderer or a murderer of any kind. He was not tried for murder, he wasn't convicted of murder, and he wasn't put to death for murder. (He was charged and convicted of leading an insurrection. Read the article and its sources.) Consequently, including the article in either category cannot be supported by the facts presented in the article (or elsewhere). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Excessive use of African American modifier

I've made some changes to the article.

The opening reads 'was an enslaved African American.' Turner's status as an African American is noted below the article. This practice is not applied to Americans of European ethnicity, and shouldn't here either. He was born in America and his nationality was American, as the sidebar states, and there is no information on when descendants came from Africa (could theoretically have been centuries prior). Either 'slave' 'American slave' or enslaved American is more appropriate. I've gone with the latter to emphasize the temporal or illegitimate nature of slavery. Update: I've changed it to 'American slave' since I think referring to someone as an enslaved ____ just sounds odd. Again, referring to someone as a ______ African American. especially in the first sentence, and then ending the sentence has an inappropriate way about it; there's a reason there was significant controversy around Trump's sentence construction in this regard.

The next paragraph reads 'the African American boy was born.' I think this sounds inappropriate and a bit condescending, may I say Trumpian. I replaced 'the African American boy' with Turner, consistent with other articles. If anyone can make a case that this modifier practice is normal with other Americans, please do so below.

Moreover, there is really no authoritative source on Turner's parentage or heritage, and significant, well sourced controversy exists regarding the authenticity of his 'Confessions.' If required, I'll add a section on this subject, though lacking time at the moment to do so.

2601:80:C201:1910:1C69:AD10:334C:BABD (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trinuser006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus, non admin closure on a serious topic that requires more indepth discussion, a formal RFC should be started

@Klbrain: and @Steve Quinn:, how was there consensus? BIOPE1 doesn't apply, it's a highly significant event, just like Spartacus. There was absolutely no consensus to merge a serious topic, if so i may have to start a RFC - this deserves wider opinion, this is misuse of a policy meant to contain reality stars, mass murderers and in the news people - Nat Turner is a legitimate historical figure. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Even Britannica, a serious and reputable encyclopedia covers him solo [4]. BIOPE1 has a clause citing significant figures in significant events get their own article, how did the support votes cite policy?

"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."

Unless Nat Turner didn't have a significant role in "Nat Turner's slave rebellion". Also there's precedent with Dred Scott v. Sandford and Dred Scott, because you know - that significant role exemption of the policy miscited in this nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: This was only closed by going through the Administrator's notice board (see archived call at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion). 16 months of open discussion was sufficient time for people to air their views. You might note that I voiced an objection, but that objection being over-ruled I completed the merge given that the consensus was against my view, and my reading was that the close was fair. Klbrain (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Klbrain: How is a rush to close due to being open a long time fair? People were citing a policy that provides a clear exemption that they ignored, why are we above the britannica? Why do on the first two pages of google books do only three books mention "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" and not focus on him? [5] and [6], plenty of historical figures have revolt's like Pemulwuy, Yagan, and Popé. I could name many others, there's no "Pemulwuy's rebellion", if anything the event should be merged here. It should be on the supporting editors to explain why a policy meant for reality stars and mass murderers is being cited for a hugely important significant figure when there's a exemption in that policy for them and why Dred Scott is different, you can't miscite a policy and have it work. That discussion was weak, this will need a formal RFC and a proper admin closure. GuzzyG (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this book, that purely examines his religious role [7], would that not be significant coverage of a figure like what's cited in the exemption of that policy the supports were citing? There's many others like this. GuzzyG (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess the lesson here is not to succeed with your plans or you won't be considered notable, but if you fail you get articles as in Denmark Vesey or Gabriel Prosser or many other failures and every other rebel we cover. Lets redirect articles like Henry Ross and Peter Lalor to Eureka Rebellion, since rebels are not significant figures in their own rebellion. The reason why this needed a proper admin closure is because it fundamentally changes how we write about rebels. That's why a RFC is needed, which i will start when i have free time. GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The main concerns in this RFC were there was significant overlap and that reviewed sourced information on Nat Turner appears to be indistinguishable from this event. For example, the opening of BIOPE1 says:

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.

That speaks to the wording of the RFC proposal. This is what the proposal correlated to. And in this instance, Nat Turner's bio is at most equal to the event and vice versa. And if the rebellion hadn't happened, Nat Turner probably would not be currently considered notable. This means there has not been enough in his biography for a separate article. Again, this is what the merge proposal was saying, and this is the consensus that has been reached. Then, the last sentence in the paragraph says

However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

So, maybe a discussion is needed to see if sources have emerged that specifically enlarge Nat Turner's biography sufficiently. This would seem to entail agreement between concerned editors. I don't think another RFC is necessary nor would it accomplish much regarding this. I think an informal discussion will be more effective, because that would be an offering of sources to support the contention for a different article. I feel I've explained my thinking sufficiently and I'm not going to undo the RFC. If anyone wants to challenge the close itself then please feel free to do so at WP:AN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason this requires more in-depth discussion, that you seem to skip over is that it requires that we fundamentally change how we treat rebellion leaders - the majority of which who die or are only notable for the rebellion, since you equate historical and successful examples of rebellion with a rule meant for in the news people, mass murderers, beauty pageant contestants and reality television stars; other professional sources like the britannica choose the bio over the event; the onus is on the supporters to prove why we should fundamentally change encyclopedic convention for a rule for reality stars. Every single rebellion leader would not pass this rule. They're only notable for the event and it would require articles like Pemulwuy and Yagan and many others to be rewritten in focus of the events. This is the rule being established, which you've failed to mention. It's the same with Dred Scott, the discussion did not adequately address any of this, so further discussion is needed and rebellion leaders need to be placed among mass murderers and reality stars, only notable for one event. What can a biography of Spartacus provide that will not be in the war article? The big name might make it seem not a similar case, but it is. This is what the support votes never addressed, which is why we need more discussion. The ball has started to roll and ignoring it won't help, we can't pick or choose, if Nat Turner is redirected, than the precedent is that most rebel leaders will too, because 99% of their bio is the rebellion - this is why there's the exemption for actual historical figures and again, why this needs more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Britannica describes him as having "led the only effective, sustained slave rebellion (August 1831) in U.S. history" [8], if that's not a clear example of a significant event i do not know what is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope it is not "me" as in who you refer to as "you". I closed according to consensus. And I am not going to respond to overgeneralizations. We are editing according to Wikipedia not according to Britannica. Anyway, I previously provided two solutions that can be pursued. After this I will no longer be responding to this thread. G'day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a in general "you", although you skipped over most of my points, how is Spartacus different exactly? It's not adequate consensus when it fundamentally changes how a whole group (rebellion leaders) of biographies are seen and how we treat these subjects on wiki, we can't pick and choose rebellion leaders if they are susceptible to a reality star rule than they all must be reexamined, even Spartacus. Look at how other wikis treat the subject, 28 articles for Nat Turner [9], 5 for the rebellion [10] - which shows this isn't a clear pass. When i have time i will start a RFC, it may be a "waste of time" but if it passes i have hundreds of articles related to rebellion leaders to nominate for redirection into the main article and to turn biographies into event articles, so a more indepth consensus must be achieved - even if it leads to the same result. Do you not see the precedent this decision has made? A site precedent requires more indepth discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also a shame we lose the spoken word audio that someone put 16 minutes into for this article [11] with this move with hardly any proper discussion in a formal setting. GuzzyG (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

one last thing; it's also worth a discussion if Turner doesn't pass this exemption in the cited policy "person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.", which is how most rebllion leaders have been treated Yagan and Pemulwuy etc. Pageviews back this up with 4.8 million for Nat Turner [12] and only 1.4 million for the rebellion [13], i think by now it's worth further discussion atleast, just to be clear, would you not agree? GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I 1000% agree that the wrong decision was made due to a misunderstanding of policy. I have never gotten involved in an RfC but if I can help at all, I would absolutely be willing to pitch in! ― biggins (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am proposing that the contents of this article be merged into Nat Turner's Rebellion. I’ve read a few books on this subject, including The Fires of Jubilee by Stephen B. Oates, and I found very little information about Nat Turner’s life that was not closely connected to his rebellion, probably no more than one or two paragraphs worth of it. I have doubts that we can really justify having a separate article on a man who, at least in current historical scholarship, seems to be defined exclusively by his rebellion. One of the big problems here is that it’s really unclear what sort of distinct structure this article should have. Let’s compare this article’s headings to those of the other article, Nat Turner’s slave rebellion. This article starts with “Early years”, but it’s the exact same as the other article’s first heading “Nat Turner’s background”. The second heading of this article is “Rebellion”, identical to the second heading in the other article. The third heading of this article “Capture and execution” covers the exact same ground as the similarly titled “Retaliation” in the other article. Finally, this article’s section entitled “Legacy” is quite similar to the other article’s sections “Aftermath” and “Legal response”. If anyone is opposed to a merger, they need to answer the question, in what way could the structure of this article be made different from the structure of the article Nat Turner’s slave rebellion? Right now, they look virtually identical.LoosingIt (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I never thought about it, but I agree with you. I just re-read WP:BIO1E, which says (in part):

It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.

I think the last sentence describes Nat Turner perfectly—he is famous for his central role in a notable event, but very little is known about him aside from that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

SUPPORT. There is nothing to be said about Turner that cannot be said in an article on the revolt. There is much duplication in the two articles. deisenbe (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with what has been said above. Plenty of information overlaps between both articles. I don't see a reason why this article shouldn't be merged into the one about the rebellion.--Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I also never really thought about it, but the merger does make sense. Turner doesn't have any notability outside of the rebellion; everything can be fully covred in the one article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Nat Turner is famous for one thing and one thing only. The articles should be merged. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Start a formal request for comment, it at the very least deserves a proper discussion. He's the central figure in a very notable event; which i am sure passes WP:BIO1E this isn't the article that rule was made for. "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]" this signifies why this article should be kept separate, media coverage of the event is huge as it's historically important and his role is large and significant, removing this article goes against that. Every rebellion leader would be merged under this ludicrous example. GuzzyG (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with GuzzyG. He was the central figure in a major event in American history far exceeding WP:BIO1E. GPL93 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. WP:OVERLAP, WP:BIO1E These articles cover the exact same topic. There is a very limited amount of material in the first section of each article that is not focused entirely on the rebellion and that material is only WP:NOTE because of the connection to the rebellion. If an Rfc can help, start one.   // Timothy :: talk  23:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment above, I Support the merger.--Darwinek (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am finding MShabazz's argument to be pretty persuasive. This article will never be anything more than a repetition of Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, so merge is the way to go. Handy History Handbook (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This article speaks about the life of Nat Turner while the Nat Turner's Rebellion speaks about a conflict that Nat Turner was the leader, both articles speak about different topics. If there are information that are the same in those articles, it must be merged to the article where it is most appropriate but do not merge the two articles in their entirety. --2x2leax (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge on the grounds that independent notability has arisen through subsequent honors and recognition, which focus on him and not the event. For example, 100 Greatest African Americans. Klbrain (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)