Jump to content

Talk:David Cooper (abolitionist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Cooper (abolitionist)

(
)

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 21:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: My Apologies. The next DYK nom' I reviewed was Template:Did you know nominations/Berceuse (Chopin). (See my list of other reviews not yet used for QPQ here} -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Re: Close paraphrasing : Several quotes from Cooper and Benezet, taken from DeBusk, pp. 1, 5, 27 are included in the article. As quotes, denoted with quotation marks in the article, it is my understanding that these don't count as close paraphrasing. I found one occurrence of close paraphrasing and fixed it. There are several very short general phrases, three or four words, that are similar, which I'm hoping don't pose issues. If there are other occurrences that you know of, could you be more specific? I can't seem to find any others consisting of long phrases or entire sentences.
Re: DeBusk's Senior Thesis : — DeBusk's senior thesis was approved by Dr. Gary Bell, Dean, University Honors College, and Dr. Gretchen A. Adams, Asssistant Professor, Dept of History. DeBusk makes numerous references to notable historians and primary sources throughout his work. Only simple statements of fact were taken from DeBusk and used in the Cooper article, with no OR or SYTH involved. If there are specific items in question in the article in that regard, please let me know. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regards to close paraphrasing: correct, quotes don't count as close paraphrasing - this refers more to instances where perhaps some words have changed but the overall structure and phrasing is largely identical. For example, compare "Cooper did not live to see the abolition of slavery within the United States, however, he felt that his efforts were significant" with "Cooper did not live to see slavery abolished within the United States, but he didn't feel his efforts were insignificant".
  • This is the sentence I used to replace the close paraphrasing you just pointed out:
Abolition became law throughout the United States long after Cooper had died, yet while alive he believed that his efforts to bring abolition to the land were not in vain and appreciated by many.
  • There are many sources, even used in some FA articles, that cover e.g.history, written by curators and such, not necessarily bonafied scholars. A good example of such sources can be found at the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, per George Washington's estate (and now Museum}. Most of their coverage refers to Secondary and Primary sources, however, often times those sources, esp Primary sources, are not readily accessible on line. Here are two good examples ( 1, 2 ) of coverage without a specific historian's name attached to it, yet deemed reliable. It would seem that so long as there is some sort of scholarly oversight, or confirmation e.g.by professors, historians and reliable sources, that such sources are permissible, and perhaps also allowed on the basis of AGF. At least I hope so. Replacing DeBusk's coverage is going to be next to impossible from my position, as he had access to sources that I don't. Oh well, let's see what happens. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I replaced a couple of DeBusk citations. I also had to 'hide' a couple of sections sourced by DeBusk, leaving hidden notes for other editors in the hopes that they may be able to find adequate sources for this material. After a lengthy search, I was unable to find other sources. Hopefully the article is ready for DYK. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It looks like although other citations have been added, some of the content is still very close in phrasing to the DeBusk source - for example the Concept of abolition section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except for minor phrases, consisting of no more than a few words, I could not find any examples. Could you be more specific? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "He equated indentured servitude with his ideas on gradual emancipation" is nearly identical to "even equated it with his ideas on gradual emancipation". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria:, Haven't heard from your lately. During the last several days I've gone through the article, checking all the sources for duplications and have reworded several phrases that may have posed issues. Hope everything is okay at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you're aware, pings don't work unless you add the template and sign in the same edit. Certainly much better, though the Concept of abolition section is still a bit close for comfort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your time and patience. As I said above, I'm getting a 'fatal error' or no results every time I attempt to use the dup detector, so I went through the section and did a general rewording, while also condensing a statement and adding another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dup detector is mostly good for direct copy-pasting; that's not what went on here. It's unfortunately rather difficult to use any automated method to catch close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: — I used a dup dector a few years ago -- not sure if was the same one I tried using here, but it also provided settings for the number of words/characters to check on, and highlighted all similar phrases e.g.five or more words in length. However, I'm getting no results with the one in question here. Can't figure. In any case, I'm hoping the section, and article, is good to go now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no further problems during my rather brief examination of the Cooper source, so I am replacing the tick as the close paraphrasing issues seem to have been resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returned from prep per issues raised at WT:DYK. The date in the hook also appears to be wrong. Let's iron out the hook and get it approved before re-promoting. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Template:Did you know nominations/David Cooper (abolitionist)

  • ... that in 1783, David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery in a leading Quaker publication addressed to the US government, with George Washington privately signing his name to a copy?

Gwillhickers Nikkimaria Cwmhiraeth StudiesWorld

I'm trying to parse this. As it is, it sounds like maybe it's the leading quaker publication that was addressed to the government, while actually the essay is. But there are just so many parts. I was thinking maybe this helps:

  • ... that in 1793, David Cooper published an essay in a leading Quaker publication condemning slavery and addressed to the US government, with George Washington privately signing his name to a copy?

Does that seem better? Or does it now just sound like it's a leading publication that condemns slavery? Any other suggestions? --valereee (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there are too many clauses here. Just trim it to:
  • @StudiesWorld, Yoninah, and Valereee: One of the most significant points has been removed. Addressed to the US Government. As such, the publication caused a lot of controversy. The essay wasn't just some passing Quaker publication read only by Quakers. It was also published in newspapers, specifically addressed to "the rulers of America", and received a lot of notoriety when it hit the fan of the US government. Copies of this specific essay were handed out by Anthony Benezet, Cooper's colleague, to Congress, Washington. Jefferson and the New Jersey Legislature in Cooper's home state. The original hook was only 184 characters to begin with. There's really no pressing need to water it down to almost a boring statement. Also, no one knows when and in what capacity Washington signed the copy, and none of the sources say "privately", and the article doesn't, so we should keep the original research out of the hook. It's a rather simple statement, and the most comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery in a leading Quaker publication addressed to the US government, with George Washington signing his name to a copy? – (178 characters)

Gwhillhickers, ALT2's got the same issue as the original -- it reads as if it's the quaker publication that is directed at the government, but it was the essay that was directed at the government. --valereee (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: privately -- the article says Washington later signed a copy and kept it in his private library. I think that saying Washington signed a copy sounds like it might have been a contemporaneous and public act. --valereee (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Valereee see this ginormous discussion/RFC re the tract on Talk:George Washington/Archive 33. We do not know when or why GW signed the tract. All we know, from sources available, is that Cooper wrote it, handed it out liberally to many members of the government, and at some point a copy made its way to Washington's library, at some point it was bound with other such tracts and that one, being the first in the bound book, was signed. Per the sources, we should say "privately" or leave out the signed bit altogether. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per the sources. The sources (Hayes, pp.291-292; Morgan, p.235 and Furstenberg, p.264) do not say "privately", as if no one ever knew about it at all, only that Washington kept the copy in his private library. Again, we should not read our own speculations into matters, as this is OR. We should also not assume a given reader will interpret it this way, or that. The important points are, it was a tract condemning slavery, addressed to the US gov, and that Washington thought enough about it where he signed it. If any of the readers want to inquire further they will go to the article, and even go as far as to read the sources themselves. All we can do is say Washington signed it. i.e.Washington approved Cooper's message. That's the major point of the hook. The hook, nor the article or the sources, doesn't say Washington signed the tract at a public ceremony, and it also doesn't say he signed it in solitude. Valereee's ALT3 is fine, and retains the important points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since someone took it upon themselves to add "privately" to the hook, and even removed "addressed to the US gov", before placing the nomination in the Queue, and before this discussion was resolved, then I suppose what's done is done. I must say, what's the point of discussing matters if a given editor is just going to do what they please anyway? I'm not an Administrator so I can not make the correction to the hook now that it's in the Queue. Would an Administrator be good enough to at least remove the OR from the hook? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwillhickers, it's not done; we can still edit. We moved it to queue to allow the prep setters room to work. If you have concerns, we can still discuss. --valereee (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've moved it out of queue 4 and into prep 5 to give us time to discuss. Gwillhickers can you think of an ALT that will satisfy the original concerns about too many clauses causing confusion over which was directed at the US government, the essay or the leading publication, and will also address concerns about causing confusion as to whether Washington signed the tract privately/later or publicly/contemporaneously? --valereee (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for moving the hook out of the Queue and renewing my faith in the DYK process. I had assumed this was a done deal and that my view had meant nothing to nobody. Okay, I am not sure how we can remove too much of the hook and keep it's overall significance. The fact that it was addressed to the US government, while Washington, a slave owner, was president, has great significance and implication. Again, this wasn't some passing editorial or some such - it turned a lot of heads. My latest version (ALT3) was down to 178 characters, down from 186 that was approved by two other editors originally. I'm concerned that if we remove anything else it will lose much significance and come off not nearly as intriguing. How about this, with the removal of "leading Quaker publication", and condensed even further? Hope this works. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4 : ... that in 1793 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington signing his name to a copy? – (147 characters)
Gwillhickers, the bit about Washington still makes it sound like he might have signed the tract publicly/contemporaneously, which apparently we can't confirm? The construction cut down to its basic parts is "in 1793 Cooper published essay, with Washington signing a copy." Which to me sounds like they're concurrent events. I apologize for seeming to be nitpicky. I want to find something that works for you, I just want to ensure the hook doesn't end up getting pulled because of error reports, and without clarifying that, I'm afraid there will be concerns raised. Sorry to keep pinging you, doing it purely for purposes of time, if you don't need me to do that to ensure you know the convo has continued, tell me to stop! --valereee (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers my bad --valereee (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly I have to agree, it could easily be interpreted that way. We don't know if the signing was completely private, with a few contemporaries, or in public. All we do know is that he signed it later and that eventually everyone knew about it. How about this? – Any further clarification can be found in the article, and the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT5 : ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington later signing his name to a copy? — (emphasis added for purposes of this discussion only.)
That more or less works for me, pinging Victoriaearle Factotem Cmguy777 and Snow Rise as editors who contributed to the RfC and are familiar with the discussion to see if they are okay with ALT5. --valereee (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should come as no surprise to the nom that I am not OK with mentioning Washington's signing of his own personal copy at all. Victoria's synopsis of the GW RfC is spot on, and the consensus there was that it was undue weight to mention this in the GW article. To do so, I believe, carries the implication, however small, that his signature was an endorsement. Clearly, this is something the nom believes, but no source supports this.
  • Furstenburg, whose Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks is the most comprehensive source on this subject, informs us on p. 252 that Cooper's tract was the first in one of 36 volumes of pamphlets on a variety of subjects Washington had bound, and that in each volume he signed the cover of the first pamphlet. That suggests to me there was nothing intrinsically important to Washington about this specific pamphlet; he signed it, like he did 35 others, simply because it was placed first in the volume.
  • On the same page Furstenberg writes of the six pamphlets on slavery, including Cooper's, "How did Washington interpret these texts? There is almost no internal evidence to help answer this question."
  • Then, on p. 274, Furstenberg, referring to the pamphlets on slavery, including Cooper's, writes, "... it is impossible to say whether the readings in this volume might have influenced Washington’s decisions."
I would suggest a more neutral hook that pays due regard to weight would read:
Whatever the wording that makes it to the front page, it should at least get the year Cooper's tract was published right: 1783, not 1793. Factotem (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for catching that. Changed 1793 to 1783. In any case, merely saying Washington possessed a copy and excluding the points that it was addressed to the US government and that later he signed it is simply too vague, almost pointless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Washington's signature on his own personal copy, the significance of which we have absolutely no idea because no source tells us, significant enough to be highlighted on the front page, especially in language which might, I believe, be misinterpreted as an endorsement? Factotem (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why else would he sign it, and go so far as to have it elaborately bound? For no reason, or because he disagreed? It's common knowledge that when you endorse something you approve of it. The sources go even further, and explain how Cooper's ideas of emancipation paralleled those of Washington, in that emancipation should be accomplished through gradual steps and through legislative efforts. Many noted sources cover this. We should let the readers decide as to the significance of the signature. If there are factual errors, or the hook is too long, or wordy, or if the sources are questionable, we can address those issues, per the purpose of this forum. We can't suppress this based on the notion that some readers may interpret it this way or that. Blocking the hook for those reasons alone would amount to censorship. Cooper gained notoriety because of his tract to the US gov and that copies were given to Congress, Washington, Jefferson and others, and because a copy was later signed by Washington. This main feature about Cooper and his work is hook-worthy. Many sources thought it was significant enough to cover. We need more than an assumption about what some of the readers will think here. ALT5 is virtually pointless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have to look at the context of the times. The end of the Revolutionary War. The tract was anonymous. Did Washington even know who wrote the tract? Did Washington send the tract to the government? I will agree with Factotem on the signifigance. Maybe Washington may have had some sort of personal repentance on slavery or catharsis by signing his name to the tract. There appears to be no other signifigance. We should not put too much weight on Washington's signature to an anonymous tract. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion is holding up the promotion of Prep 5 to the queue, which will free up more prep sets, I've moved this hook to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, acknowledging the ping. I'm fine with Factotem's hook, but haven't actually read the article and would like to take a glance at it, and, if needed, revisit the sources. I can't get to it today but will try to tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 sounds fine, but with all the controversy about the hook facts, I was beginning to wonder if it was possible to propose other hooks that had nothing to do with the tract or Washington, if only as a backup in case the current options don't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, ALT5 is almost meaningless. Washington also "possessed" a lot of newspapers, letters, documents, etc, with all kinds of ideas contained. That by itself means nothing. At least three editors approved the hook with mention of GW's signature, starting with the original, with no opinions about how some readers might interpret it. Since then it has been condensed and has retained its main theme. We don't say why Washington signed it, or that he signed it for no reason at all - that would be asserting a POV and OR. We shouldn't also assume how some of the readers will interpret the idea. All we can do is keep the hook factual, well cited and as short as possible. I agree, that rehashing all the opinions that were covered in the RfC, which was conducted to see if this had enough weight to mention in Washington's biography, is repetitive and holding up matters. The hook in question involves Cooper's biography. This nomination was submitted June 4, almost two months ago. I've done my best to address all concerns fairly, but now it seems the 'opinions' will be never ending. I'm hoping we can just stick to the simple facts, well cited, let readers make up their own minds, and more importantly, that they be given the chance to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about ALT6 then? It sounds like a decent compromise, showing that Washington possessed a copy of the essay while avoiding the mention of the signing (which appears to be the main point of contention here). And personally, considering how well-known Washington is, I'd think that something being in his possession would be of interest in itself regardless of context. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
  1. 1., if we go with the Washington signed the tract hook, we have to be careful because as Furstenberg notes, page 263-4, "No evidence has come to light when or how Washington acquired this tract, but it seems likely the author sent it to him .... He signed it on the cover page", (Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks);
  2. 2., I hadn't actually read the article until last night and in trying to find verify the hook looked at the sources and see there's CP in the article. Then I noted Nikkimaria flagged it. So I'm not sure why it's been promoted. FN 23 say, "Cooper published the tract with the intention that it be read broadly in the various colonies at a time when the Quakers were not in the best favor due to their non-violent and passive involvement in the American Revolution. As a result, Cooper decided to publish his tract anonymously, concealing its Quaker origins.[23]", source say, "Cooper’s second tract, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America (1783), was intended to be read broadly in the colonies at time when Quakers were out of favor due to their non-participation in the American Revolution ... As a result, Cooper published this tract anonymously, obscuring its Quaker origins".
  3. 3., would be fine with Narutolovehinata5 suggestion to leave out the Washington signature altogether, but first think someone should look more carefully at the article. I'd volunteer but cannot do so today. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 12:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, we don't say when or why Washington signed the tract, or that he approved it because he signed it - nor can we say he disapproved. Yes, his signature does suggest he approved -- he wouldn't have signed his name to the tract if he disagreed with it, so no one is advancing some bizarre or unlikely idea here. We let readers decide. i.e.We do know Washington's ideas about emancipation involved a gradual process, via legislation, and that they were not only the same as Cooper's ideas, but like Lafayette's, who also wanted to bring slaves into the free world via gradual steps, via legislative measure, rather than just setting them free all at once, with no means of support or place to live, and nothing but a pat on the back and good wishes. Yes, Cooper had his doubts about whether his tract would actually prompt Washington into taking immediate action, but that doesn't change the fact that Washington signed the tract, placed it at the top of other such tracts and had them elaborately bound for his personal library. Cooper also published the tract anonymously, which doesn't change the fact that Washington signed it. The important consideration was the publication's contents. Anyways, ALT5 is the most comprehensive, yet simple and neutral. We let the readers take it from there. In fact, the hook will invite further inquiry just as we've seen it done here in this forum, which is the purpose of hooks in general. Merely saying Washington "possessed a copy" with no mention that he signed it, and with no mention that it was specifically addressed to the US gov is meaningless and will hardly invoke further inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering multiple editors have raised concerns about the signing part and its implications, it does seem quite likely that the hook may have to go up without it. Why the apparent persistence in including the signing when, as long as the mention of Washington is there, arguably the hook works even without it? Like, if the point was to mention the connection to Washington, then ALT6 seems to be a decent compromise in maintaining that fact while avoiding the contentious point. Is there really a difference in hookiness if we mention that Washington signed the hook as opposed to merely possessing it? If, for the sake of discussion, if it was instead Thomas Jefferson or some other American politician that signed/possessed it, would you still want the hook fact to focus on the signing as opposed to the possession? I admit that I am unfamiliar with the context or background of the RfC so forgive me if I'm showing ignorance of that discussion, I'm just wondering why there's an apparent insistence to mention that Washington had signed a copy, despite there being on-Wiki discussions regarding that fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we've been through this. Simply saying Washington "possessed a copy" is vague and almost meaningless. Otoh, saying he signed a tract, about anti-slavery issues, that was addressed to the US gov, is not only far more interesting, it's much more comprehensive. Multiple reviewers have approved the hook, which has been condensed, but still has retained its meaning. Since the latest multiple pinging, all we've seen are assumptions about how some of the readers may interpret the hook, and questions about when and why Washington signed the tract. The article and the sources will put things in perspective for those who have any questions. i.e.One doesn't put his 'John Hancock' on a document because he disapproves. There's no hook out there that can explain everything. The purpose of any hook is to invite inquiry, and given all the attention this hook has received so far, I believe it will do just that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't put his 'John Hancock' on a document because he disapproves. So from my interpretation of that comment, are you trying to imply that Washington signed the document because he approved of it? Is that the reason why you want that particular hook fact to go up? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from a cursory reading of the article, it sounded to me like Washington was signing his copy because it was part of his personal library, the way people stamp their books nowadays. Yoninah (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion is way over the character limit and is too long anyway. ALT6 gives the intended meaning of that in a more concise way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, struck as it's over the character limit. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, ALT6 obscures the intended meaning, ignoring that it was addressed to the US gov and that later Washington signed a copy. Once again, simply saying someone "possessed a copy" is practically meaningless. Washington also "possessed" many letters from Jefferson. Does this mean he agreed with Jefferson's ideas, or that he was a close friend? More comprehensiveness is needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: you are not allowed to edit your own hook in prep. Since this hook has been pushed back a few preps and the new prep is soon to be promoted, I'm returning this whole nomination to WP:DYKNA so it can be worked out before promotion. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: - My apologies for that. I had corrected the date and substituted "addressed to the US Government" for "leading Quaker publication", as that is one of the main points in the hook. All occurrences of 1793 have been changed to 1783. ALT1 - ALT5, has been approved by at least four editors. As the same opinions have been addressed more than once I'm hoping we can finally go forward with the below hook which has been further qualified, reflecting WanderingWanda's input. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT8 : ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington later signing his personal copy? — (emphasis added for purposes of this discussion)
  • Although the nominator claimed that four editors had signed off the "George Washington signed a copy" hook fact, based on the WT:DYK discussion and concerns raised by several other editors, it appears that there is currently no consensus to mention that fact in the hook at this time (in the interest of disclosure, I did not have any problems with the "Washington signed a copy" hook fact, though as I am not well-versed in the matter I would defer decisions to those who are more familiar with the topic). We could go with the ALT6 hook proposed by Factotem, which goes:
  • Another option is to go with a modified version of the original hook, while dropping the mention of Washington (since it appears that the Washington mention is the point of contention here):
  • ALT7 ... that David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery in a leading Quaker publication addressed to the US government?
It could also be possible that we could try a different angle which instead deals with the publication of the essay. Like personally, a hook that mentions that the reason why it was published anonymously in the first place was due to the fact that, at the time, the Quakers were not exactly the best-regarded religious group in the US, is quite interesting in itself. Or, if that doesn't work out, we could try a completely different hook fact that doesn't have to deal with the essay. I understand that the essay was Cooper's main claim to fame (even though it was originally published anonymously), but if the concerns about that aspect of his life can't be addressed, we may really have to try going in a different direction this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: What have you done to this template? You removed my apology to Yoninah and have also removed my ALT8.
The hooks that mention "addressed to the US gov" and Washington's signing have been approved at least four times. Please stop tampering with and removing my edits! Once again, simply saying "possessed a copy" is vague and meaningless. Your other suggestions really aren't much better. Cooper's tract to the US gov is the most interesting -- not anything about Quaker popularity, etc. Washington's signature on Cooper's tract is the most significant fact in the article. Please stop brushing it off as if it weren't. This belabored, repetitive and highly opinionated debate has gone on for quite some time now, while disregarding the approval of multiple reviewers. No viable contention has yet been submitted as to why Washington's signing shouldn't be mentioned -- only opinions about how some readers may view it, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any comments here, the extended content was moved here by Yoninah and was put under a "collapsed box" template to prevent clutter (and also to keep discussion in one place). And it appears that your original comment was made at WT:DYK, not here, and if it didn't show up here, it was because it was not yet made when Yoninah did the copying. As it appears that your edit had removed said templates without Yoninah's permission, I have restored them until there is consensus to remove them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ALT7, by my reading of the sources, Cooper's essay was not published in a "leading Quaker publication" (which would surely have scuppered his efforts to disguise the Quaker connection by publishing anonymously); it was a standalone pamphlet. Factotem (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring my reply to Yoninah and ALT8:

  • @Yoninah: - My apologies for editing in the prep area. I had corrected the date and substituted "addressed to the US Government" for "leading Quaker publication", as that is one of the main points in the hook. All occurrences of 1793 have been changed to 1783. ALT1 - ALT5, has been approved by at least four editors. As the same opinions have been addressed more than once I'm hoping we can finally go forward with the below hook which has been further qualified, reflecting WanderingWanda's input. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT8 : ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington later signing his personal copy? — (emphasis added for purposes of this discussion)
It does not appear to be accurate to say that ALT5 has been "approved by at least four editors"; from what I can tell, since the initial discussion began, only Valereee has approved of it so far. Meanwhile, at least two other editors who were involved in the RfC (Factotem and Cmguy7777) have concerns about the signing part, while Victoria said that it could be possible to simply leave out the signing part entirely. That's three major RFC participants out of the four that Valereee pinged for further comment (Snow Rise has yet to respond). And in the end, it doesn't really matter if "four other editors" or any number of any other editors had approved of it. Many other editors have since objected, which at the very least suggests that there is no consensus to include the signing part. Yes, I understand that as the nominator, you are free to disagree with their opinions or their rationales, but the point remains that there is no consensus at this point to focus on that fact and multiple editors have advocated for either changing it to "possession", or leaving out the mention of Washington entirely. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "opinions about how some readers may view" Washington's signature are borne out by the fact that multiple editors have expressed concern about what is implied by mentioning the signature, and by the nom's own opinion that the signature was some form of endorsement or approval, despite the complete lack of sources that support such an assumption. The "most significant fact in the article" comprises just 16 words, with no explanation of why Washington signed his own personal copy or what the essay meant to him. I would suggest that ALT6 could be improved by mentioning that Washington was a slaveowner, e.g.:
  • ... that George Washington, who owned slaves his entire adult life, possessed a copy of an essay condemning slavery published in 1783 by David Cooper?
...though that would need the article to first cover something about Washington's slave owning. But I prefer Narutolovehinata5's idea of focusing the hook on Cooper disguising his Quaker connections by publishing the essay anonymously; this is about Cooper, after all, not Washington, isn't it? Factotem (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where we are on ALT numbers, so I'll propose ALT9 below. If David Cooper's activities were notable enough for an article, ideally, his name would appear at the beginning of the hook. Since Washington only receives passing mention in the article, the name-dropping seems like click bait. As for Washington signing a copy, didn't people of that era regularly sign the inner bookplate of books (and etc) in their personal libraries? The important issue, it seems to me, is what Cooper wrote. Like this:
Would you consider the above ALT9? — Maile (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ALT9. This reveals another error in the article: if it was indeed Benezet who provided Washington with a copy, as the article states, then it should be George, not President, Washington (Benezet died five years before Washington became President). I emphasise if above because the article doesn't cover all the sources about when and how Washington acquired the tract. Furstenberg (2011 pp. 263–264) says we don't know, but speculates that Cooper sent it to him, while Professor Jonathan Sassi (2012 pp. 198–199) suggests that Robert Pleasants might have sent it to Washington in 1785. Not sure if that makes any difference to the new hook proposal. Factotem (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't affect ALT9 (or other hook proposals), but it could affect the article itself, if the article is saying one thing even though other sources say a different thing. If that is the case, then the article would need to mention at least briefly the speculation about how Washington got his copy (as opposed to only stating the Cooper theory), otherwise that could prevent this nomination from being promoted in a prompt manner. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When did Washington get the track? How did Washington get the track? Did he know who authored it? When did Washington sign the document? Yes. This is all speculation. There is not enough information to be discussed in the article. We can't make up history or fill in the unanswered questions for the readers. When Washington was president he protected the interests of slave holders. He signed the fugitive slave law. He kept blacks from being naturalized citizens. He was at the Constitutional Convention and did not utter one word against slavery. There is too much weight on emphasizing a signature at an unknown date. The only signatures that counted were the ones while he was President. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points about Cooper's placement in the hook and click bait. I'm OK with ALT9, though US Congress needs to be changed to Confederation Congress. Factotem (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "President Washington", to George Washington, per Jackson, 2010, p. 136. Other than technical errors of this sort the article isn't 'saying one thing and the sources another', which is a rather rank exaggeration. The fact remains, Washington was given a copy, the exact date doesn't matter, (i.e.published in 1783, Benezet died the following year) along with copies given to Congress and others, and that at sometime Washington had signed it, placed it at the top of other such tracts, had them "stitched" together in an elaborate binding, and included it in his personal library. These are clearly not the actions of someone who disapproved of Cooper's tract. Because Cooper's tract was specifically addressed to the US gov ("rulers of America") makes the tract very significant, reflecting on the issue of slavery at that time, not to mention Cooper's involvement. Other than the notion that this may be interpreted wrongly by some of the readers, there hasn't been one viable reason why the hook in question should be censored because of its content. Once again, the hook, in its essence, (now ALT8), from the beginning has been approved by at least four reviewers (possibly five, one reviewer had close para-phrasing issues not concerning the hook) and is covered by several reliable sources. If that wasn't the case I'd opt for a different version or a different hook altogether. The nomination has been repetitively dragged out for some time now, and only on the basis of opinion and doubts, not because the hook is advancing a complete falsehood not supported by the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter of "four or five editors" had approved of the "essence of the hook" (and for the purposes of transparency, can you please name which four editors these are?), it has been clear that at least four editors have also raised reservations about it. That's many against many, meaning there is no consensus at this time to use the signing fact, and either a compromise has to be reached, or a totally new direction is needed. Secondly, your quote These are clearly not the actions of someone who disapproved of Cooper's tract, along with your earlier comment One doesn't put his 'John Hancock' on a document because he disapproves. By these comments, are you saying that Washington approved of the tract? And if this is the case, is this the reason why you are not willing to go with any hook that does not mention Washington's signing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating and belaboring matters, once again. I've already said I believe Washington approved, which, as I've outlined above, is sort of obvious, given his signature, elaborate book binding, placement in his personal library, Cooper's ideas of emancipation in line with his own ideas, etc. However, I also said, several times, that we don't say that Washington, as a matter of fact, approved Cooper's tract, in the hook or in the article. Once again, we let readers make that decision. Please review the template talk. You still have yet to explain your opposition in viable terms. e.g.Errors in the text? Not supported by sources? Hook too long? Anything other than opinion only? Also, we don't need a unanimous consensus to go forward with any hook, esp since opposition has only offered opinions and doubts on matters, e.g.regarding how a reader may view the hook in question, interpretations of what Washington did and didn't do in earlier years, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Alt 9. Before this gets approved, however, the close paraphrasing needs to be addressed. I posted a couple of examples above (the bolded bits) and found another from FN11. Can't find the cited info from FN10. For RL reasons have to be gone for the forseeable future otherwise would volunteer to help. Victoria (tk) 21:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoriaearle: – ALT9 would be my second choice, as Washington's signature on Cooper's tract has due weight in Cooper's biography. Also, I believe any close-paraphrasing was resolved some time ago. If there are still close para-phrasing issues other than quotes, titles, common phrases, etc could you be more specific? I'm not finding reference to these items in your last edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt9 seems good, but alternatively, what if the hook focused more on the fiery tone of the pamphlet?
    • Quote from the article: The pamphlet was written in strong and unforgiving terms, accusing American slaveholders of "treason" against the natural rights of man, and of making a "mockery" of the Declaration of Independence.
    • Alt10: ... that in 1783 abolitionist David Cooper wrote a tract accusing slaveowners of treason against man, and that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both received and kept copies?
– WanderingWanda (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks ' Wanda, but there's nothing to indicate how the tract was received by Washington here. We don't want to say out right, as established fact, that Washington approved, but we do want to at least indicate how the tract was received. ALT10 also doesn't mention that the tract was addressed to the US gov, which in great part, along with Washington's signing and keeping it for his personal library, is what makes the hook intriguing, and is what brought notoriety to the tract, and eventually to Cooper himself. Also, there's no need to mention Jefferson in the hook. I can go with an ALT that doesn't mention the signing at this point, but we at least need to indicate that Washington didn't ignore or throw his copy in the trash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT11: ... that in 1783 abolitionist David Cooper wrote a 22-page anti-slavery address to the US government, with George Washington saving a copy for his personal library?
  • I think ALT11 is an excellent compromise. Readers who click on the article will find more about signing the copy. I'm AGF'g because I don't see the whole hook fact in Hayes, and assuming it's in Morgan. ALT11 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan only mentions the signature. Mentioning the library is no better than mentioning the signature IMO. Amongst the c.1,200 titles in Washington's library (Isaac) was a tract on slavery by Granville Sharp, delivered to Washington in 1785, which "...Washington did not bother even to skim...and left it along with several other slavery pamphlets in their original wrappers..." (Furstenberg p. 260). Clearly, inclusion in the library is in itself no indication of significance, so why should it appear in the hook as if it was? It takes a factoid out of context, and runs the risk of implying on the front page that Washington, a slave owner his whole adult life who never spoke out publicly against slavery,(Twohig p. 116) was more of an antislavery advocate than he was in reality. If Washington must be included in the hook, then ALT9 remains IMO the most appropriate way of wording it. Factotem (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premature nomination closure

[edit]

@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and Factotem: — The nomination was closed out before I had a chance to respond to the latest talk. Factotem, while citing Twohig, p. 116, regarding Washington's never speaking publicly against slavery, ignores the part where Twohig also says, "...in the face of his own growing oppistion to the institution". While Washington may have not read every pamphlet on abolition, (indicating, btw, that he kept so much of this material that he didn't have the time to read all of it), he indeed read Cooper's tract, signed it, had it bound and kept it in his library. That's more than a "factoid", it clearly indicates that Washington was in agreement with Cooper's ideas, esp since Cooper's ideas of gradual emancipation via legislation were in line with his own. This was already explained. Also, anyone half familiar with Washington knows that he remained publicly silent on slavery because it was a highly divisive issue that could easily explode and cause a rift in the young and unstable nation. Pushing the slavery issue would have been the last straw for many of the southern states who were very reluctant about the idea of national unity - because of slavery. Cooper's tract gained notoriety largely because of Washington's signature and the fact that he had it elaborately bound ("stitched") together, and kept in his library. This was also explained above. Yoninah just referred to ATL11 as an excellent compromise. I have compromised numerous times in coming up with other hooks and finally came up with one that didn't mention the signing. Yet now we can't even mention that Washington kept it in his personal library because it suggests Washington approved? That was the whole point, and given the sources and circumstances, is called for. This seems like another effort to show Washington as a slave owner who couldn't care less about the issue of slavery, which is a falsehood. Merely saying that copies were simply handed out is next to meaningless, in regards to both Cooper and Washington. All points in ALT11 are covered by at least three sources.

  • Morgan, 2005, pp. 291-292: - "The year 1783 seems to have been a turing point in Washington's attitude towards the future of slavery in North America. Along with other leading public figures in the U.S., he did not see abolition as an extreme or forelorn hope. He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionists tracts published that year..."
  • Hayes, 2017, p. 235: - "Though Washington privately looked forward to abolition of slavery, he remained diplomatic, hesitating to commit himself. (Which also explains Washington's public silence."
  • Furstenburg, 2011, p. 252, 263: - "The first pamphlet in Washington’s volume, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, was penned by New Jersey Quaker David A. Cooper in February 1783. - Each of the volumes, without exception, bears Washington’s signature on the cover page of the first pamphlet, and some of them contain multiple pamphlets with signatures. In other words, these pamphlets, and not others, had been chosen to sit in Washington’s library".

Yoninah, if it's at all possible, could we use ALT11? Numerous sources cover how Washington was very sympathetic to abolition in his later years which is obviously why he embraced Cooper's tract. Littel more than beside the point conjecture has been offered here to oppose it, ignoring the bigger picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: I think you have to decide when enough is enough. Your nomination has been open for more than 2 months and every new hook is challenged. We finally found something that everyone can agree on and ... you disagree. If you like, I'll pull the hook. But I think we all have better things to do than argue it out some more. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for this long and belabored discussion. ALT11 sat there for more than a week and no one said anything, and you finally said it was an excellent compromise and approved it, yet another editor started the debate all over again, repeating the same failed out of context points already addressed. (i.e.Washington was publicly silent, etc) which is why I responded. Several reviewers had no issue with the part about Washington's signing, etc. Any disagreement should be based on sound reasoning, and no one, still, has offered any viable reason to keep mention of Washington's feelings about abolition, and Cooper's tract, out of the hook. Now we have a hook that doesn't even say the tract was specifically addressed to the US gov and barely a hint that it was read by Washington, even though his sympathies to Cooper's ideas are well covered by multiple sources. They say WP is not censored. If you have a mind to, I'm hoping you'll add something that indicates the tract was not merely handed out, but I suppose it's too late for that. The sources support that, and all the sources cover Washington's changing feelings about slavery and his sympathies towards abolition in his latter years, freeing all his slaves in his will and providing for the education of the young ones. If not, then ALT9 is better than nothing. In any case, thanx for seeing matters this far.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

Content and other sources are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden sections

[edit]

This article contains two hidden sections that were cited by a source deemed unreliable. If anyone can find sources for the material in question it would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Cooper_(abolitionist)&oldid=1206584946"