Talk:David Ruggles

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

David Ruggles not merging

Good night! Don't merge this page with anything! Yes, it need expansion -- let's be patient. Subitopiano (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Subitopiano (talk). Regarding your above dismay at the suggestion of merging the David Ruggles article with Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. The merge tag has been removed, as it appears to have been frivolously added in July 2008, with no discussion since, and no justifiable reason to merge.

David Ruggles is clearly a notable character. The article does need some work, but if this is done, it'll clearly be fascinating to those interested in history. I have fleshed out some references which are available online, and from which some article expansion should be possible.Wotnow (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow[reply]

Article expansion & getting citations right

After saving this comment, I'll save an edit to the article. The edit corrects a couple of longstanding things, which I noticed last time I contributed, but which I left alone at the time on the basis that (a) they were perhaps reasonable extrapolations from citations provided and (b) I was fairly busy. However, I notice a correction to an edit by Coloneltye on April 5 2010. Coloneltye added some material, and erroneously 'corrected' the publishing date for the Hodges 2000 citation. This was subsequently corrected by Auric on 15 April 2010. On doing a quick Google check, I did in fact find a 2010 reference for a book excerpt by Graham Hodges, containing material matching the text added by Coloneltye. So Coloneltye's mistake was to assume the material he/she was reading was the same as the Hodges 2000 citation. I have now added the Hodges 2010 citation to the article.

At the same time, I've made some alterations to the article text, to more closely match that which is found in the Hodges citations, rather than leaving the previous extrapolations. The black mistresses may well have been raped, perhaps even by definition of being slaves. But the Hodges texts cited do not say that. Similarly, whether Ruggles entered private homes using violence is not stated. Indeed no mention is made of "entering" the homes. So we cannot know from the citations provided whether he entered the homes at all - by force, stealth, or even invite - or whether he protested outside, or found a way to get information to the hidden slaves. So I've amended the text to more closely match that which is stated. Sometimes the material we cite is not specific. In those cases, it's only reasonable to extrapolate if there is one, and only one, extrapolation possible. If there is more than one extrapolation possible, and no other material to differentiate between possible extrapolations, it is not only reasonable, it is in fact necessary match the non-specificity in our paraphrasing.

I also note, and have demonstrated as best I can, that it is very often possible to find a remarkable amount of reliable information via the internet, in the form of book previews, sometimes full texts, or at least book reviews or excerpts (like Hodges 2010), article abstracts, sometimes full articles, etc.

Incorporating new material into an existing article is sometimes straightforward, but often entails a bit of work to maintain the integrity of existing verifiably cited material. And sometimes one finds that by the time reliable resources are located, there is insufficient time to do anything with them. My advice to anyone reading this, who wishes to expand, or make possible the expansion, of this or any other article, is that the easiest way to deal with that in the first instance, is to create a 'Further reading' section, and list the resources there. If someone has time and cares enough, they'll use the material to expand the article. But if that's the best we can do, it's better than nothing. It also gives any subsequent editors no real excuse for making up information, when there it is for them to read and cite. Wotnow (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Few Newspaper Citations

I added five historical New York newspaper and journal references from the Library of Congress describing Ruggles. Also added a link to New York State's abolition of slavery.Bjhillis (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Ruggles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]