Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2014 by Bencherlite ^Talk 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) was President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Born in Kentucky, he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and had a career as a soldier, fighting in the Mexican–American War. As a plantation owner, he employed slave labor as did many of his peers in the South, and supported slavery. He served as Secretary of War and U.S. senator, arguing against secession, but agreeing that each state had the right to secede. At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, Davis was chosen as President of the Confederate States. He took personal charge of the Confederate war plans but was unable to defeat the larger, more powerful and better organized Union. He is often blamed for contributing to the fall of the Confederacy. His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country and he paid little attention to the collapsing economy. At the end of the war in 1865, he was captured and imprisoned; after his release he entered private life. He wrote a memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, eventually became a Civil War hero to many white Southerners and, in later life, encouraged reconciliation with the North. (Full article...)

Most recent similar articles: since 2013-08-01, John W. Johnston, TFA on 2013-10-12, and perhaps Thaddeus Stevens, TFA on 2014-04-14 (though the Civil War does not figure strongly in the Johnston article)
Main editors: Omnedon
Promoted: 2013
Reasons for nomination: June 3 was Jefferson Davis' birthday; this is also a widely-covered article.
Support as nominator. Omnedon (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, educational page on this deceased politician. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Education about a historical figure is one thing, but we don't need Wikipedia to look like it's celebrating Jefferson Davis's birthday. This might make sense on an anniversary of his capture or another historically significant anniversary, but not a day where we could be seen to be controversially lionizing the titular head of the Confederacy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of celebrating. Conversely, why should his capture be celebrated? In any case, Davis was a US soldier and politician for his entire adult life up to the Civil War. I don't see how making this a TFA in any way "lionizes" him. Omnedon (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Promoting the article on his birthday is much more likely to be interpreted as celebratory of what he is most notable for than not, and that's needless and avoidable controversy. I'm not speaking to the quality of the article, which is even-handed and informative. And his being a US soldier and politician is fine, although he is clearly most notable for pointedly not being a US soldier and US politician. An event tied to the end of the Civil War is more historically significant than the birthday of one of its failed leaders, and is less likely to be misinterpreted. I'm also a little nonplussed about how the article's Davis' reputation among whites in the South was restored by the book has been rendered as His memoir [...] helped to restore his reputation. I don't think his reputation was rehabilitated quite as strongly for most present-day Wikipedia editors, and I would advise against a birthday-connected spotlight.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - We featured Operation Kita on its anniversary, but it would seem odd to interpret that as Wikipedia lauding the actions of the Japanese navy. Wikipedia features articles of all sorts on dates of significance to those subjects, which with biographical subjects of any stripe is often date of birth; I see nothing to suggest that's lionization, celebration, or any other kind of endorsement. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The anniversary of a significant military event is clearly not the same thing as a person's birthday. Complete false equivalence. I already said this article would make sense on a date of actual historical significance; that's not what birthdays are.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The lead of the article says Davis wrote a memoir entitled The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, which he completed in 1881 and which also helped to restore his reputation. so when I was tweaking the first-draft blurb posted above to get it to the appropriate length etc, I put His memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, helped to restore his reputation. If you don't like the wording of the lead (which is what the blurb will follow) then that's a matter for the article, not this nomination. Also noting that TFA often runs biographies of controversial people on their birthdays and I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I saw someone say "Why on earth is Wikipedia celebrating the horrendous person X on his birthday by having him as TFA?". Should TFA refuse to run biographies of military personnel on the anniversaries of their birth because of anti-war objections? Politicians? Religious leaders? No, that's not the TFA way. Bencherlite^Talk 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see you're right that the lead in the article summarizes it as "restored his reputation" while the nuanced sentence further down says it helped restore his "reputation among whites in the South", clearly a more select group. The article isn't as balanced as I initially thought, I suppose. But to answer your questions, I'm not making blanket demands for all situations throughout time but yes, I think we should use some mild discretion about scheduling with some of the more notable figures of historical racism. The idea that no one could ever interpret a birthday remembrance as celebratory is silly, that's quite often when we celebrate people. For many articles this is innocuous, but not all. I think this one would be better on another date.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and Cirt; an interesting and educational article on a figure of historical significance. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as major historical figure, though I would agree that a tweak of the blurb AND the lead of the article for proper nuance would be well-advised per NPOV, and I just did so there and strongly suggest adding "...among whites in the South" here to the blurb as well (@Bencherlite:: Can I add the preceding to the blurb or only if nominator/consensus says it's OK with them?). He was President of the Confederacy, but he was not a Hitler or Stalin type of person, he was a complex, nuanced individual and not a pure villian in any sense of the word. His birthday (or day he died) as good as any to be TFA, and, frankly, there aren't all that many significant dates associated specifically with him as an individual as opposed to the overall Civil War. We have had Thaddeus Stevens, a powerful anti-slavery advocate as TFA as well as Lynching of Jesse Washington, so we are clearly running TFAs representing all viewpoints and we do no one a service by sanitizing history to ignore those who were not purely heroic. (Huw makes a good point about Operation Kita) Having helped with both of the other articles I mentioned, someone who is a major Abraham Lincoln fan, and as a person who has taught American History at the college level, I am comfortable supporting this article for TFA. We are not advocating any single point of view on wikipedia, we are NPOV. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support and comments. The tweak to the blurb, already made by Bencherlite, seems quite reasonable to me. ("Tweak to the blurb." I like the sound of that.) Omnedon (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to respond to Montanabw: For the love of...WP:NPOV doesn't mean we should strive to be seen as equally pro and anti slavery. Highlighting an anti-slavery crusader does not somehow force us to highlight the other side of the argument. We wouldn't need to run a David Duke shout out for every mention of MLK. Wikipedia isn't supposed to "represent all viewpoints" equally, only proportional to our sources, most of which hold a dim view of those who defended slavery. That's a profound misunderstanding of NPOV. Also, the idea that Jefferson Davis could not be considered a villain "in any sense of the word" is bizarre on the face of it. I don't think the tweak quite goes far enough, unless we want it to seem like we're suggesting that whites in the south currently have a great opinion of the subject, when the source is speaking of the whites in the south of the Nineteenth century. We should avoid slandering the whites of today. The idea that the leader of the Confederacy has a great reputation among anybody at this point goes against NPOV's advice to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts and fails to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. I don't think "good reputation among whites" is going to be universally seen as being fairly representative of opposing views.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - And that wasn't what I was implying; my point is that we could run Hitler as TFA if it were a FA, and in doing so we would NOT be supporting Nazism. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is becoming somewhat offensive. This article is not pro-slavery or pro-Confederacy. It is simply an article about an important historical figure. It's been through peer review, good article review, and featured article review. Not that such articles can never be improved, because of course they can -- but it does nothing to suggest that Davis is somehow a hero to modern southern whites. That sentence is being lifted out of context in this discussion. In context, the reference is clearly to the people of the time. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't be offended, I agree that context would help that sentence. It's missing in the blurb, and it's not clear in the blurb that it's only talking of white people from his era. The other problem with blurbing this subject only as an interesting historical figure is that it avoids any indication that (in contrast to "similar article" Thaddeus Stevens) he was an actual and unequivocal slavery crusader, and not as some dusty personal view unrelated to his notability, but as a longstanding and vocal part of his career, before, during and after the Civil War. As it stands the only really negative thing being said about Davis in the blurb is that people "blame" him for "contributing to the fall of the Confederacy". Other people are often celebrated for "contributing to the fall of the Confederacy" so I don't see how that's a particularly blameworthy thing here. There was a concern about "sanitizing" history by suggesting this would work on a different date. In the interests of actual neutrality, the blurb shouldn't position the views of Civil War era southern whites (whether they were disappointed he didn't win the war or thought well of him for writing a valorizing history of the Confederacy) above the views of modern scholars and the significant views of other parties. I think the omitted fact that he was a full-throated advocate for slavery is more historically important than noting he wrote a book that repaired his relationship with southern whites of the day.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I support this article being TFA, but I'm also good with improving the blurb to be a bit clearer on the slavery issue if need be (those of us who know history "get it" about the Civil War as it is, but I suppose someone who isn't from the US or is not familiar with US History may not) Yes, he was pro-slavery and a slave owner, but he was also a more nuanced individual than many of his fellow slaveholding contemporaries, he did not initially favor secession, and later he asked people in 1889 to “lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to make your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished—a reunited country.” Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's important that there's an article and I appreciate how detailed it is. And it is true that he made arguments against secession both before and after he led an army shedding blood for secession. He wanted people to live under one union for most of his career, and urged that for the next generation in his last public address as you have quoted. It would be misleading to portray him as somehow nuanced about slavery and race however, or imply it wasn't a core preoccupation with him. In his public life, he was a committed and vocal slavery advocate and promoter of the expansion of slavery, domestic and abroad, and was explicit about his belief in inate white superiority. If it was a privately-held view or general slave ownership, I wouldn't mention it as strongly, but it was embedded in his public life, oratory, and notability, as evidenced in the sources. We need to have something more proportionate than "owned slaves". Currently I think the last two sentences repetitively assert he was somehow esteemed by Southern whites. We could remove the successful memoir sentence (which inlinks to a not-great article that says the memoir didn't achieve great success) and include something about his advocacy. I think this issue is arising from the fact that where the body of the article states he was chosen for his presidency by being a model "champion of a slave society", the lead only mentions that "His plantation in Mississippi depended on slave labor, like many Southern plantations." He did more than passively own, he championed often and consistently, and it was part of his own stated rationale for his historic role.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't "lead the army" - that was Robert E. Lee. If you have suggestions for actual blurb wording (as opposed to "someone [else] should do this") please put it forth here. I don't think we have to beat the reader over the head with "he was a bad man because he advocated for slavery"; that he was a pro-slavery advocate is blatently obvious to any intelligent reader; he owned a plantation, he owned slaves, he favored the expansion of slavery, he became President of the Confederacy. Duh, he was pro-slavery. So were millions of other Southern Whites. But propose language. The point is if this is an article suitable for TFA, and it is. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adapt this line from the article: 'He was seen as the "champion of a slave society and embodied the values of the planter class," and was elected provisional Confederate President by acclamation'. Belle (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's maintain the date of the start of the Civil War, but keep it concise: At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, Davis was seen as the ""champion of a slave society" and chosen as President of the Confederate States by acclamation. It's an improvement to have this indication that he wasn't chosen as a coincidental slaveholder. At the time he was seen as a leading public advocate of slavery and its expansion was a defining political concern of his, not a footnote or the privately-held opinion held by millions. This change gives it more balance, although the remaining assessments of him are still weighted specifically toward what Southern Whites thought of him, positive or negative, instead of how more neutral people might see him. We should consider removing the second last sentence, not least because it inlinks to a completely unreferenced article (It has one link to show the book existed; I can't count that as a reference for the article's editorial).__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone intend to make any changes to the article's lead? That's the best place to make changes - then the blurb can (as usual) follow that as much as possible. Changing the blurb but not the article risks having the blurb changed back to fit the article before or during its TFA appearance. The memoir is covered in the Davis article - while the article about the memoir could be improved, that's not a reason to remove the sentence about it from the blurb (or the lead). June 3rd is the next day to be scheduled, so the sooner that this can either be wrapped up or taken to the article's talk page, the better. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a tweak to the blurb earlier to match the article on the "whites in the South" point and just added a line here directly from the lede about slave labor on his plantation. I also chopped a wee bit to keep the blurb under 1200 characters. More than that I think is too preachy and beats the reader over the head. Elaqueate's suggestions are probably a bit too much for the lede - though the statement is in the article if it needs to be in the lede, I'm not going to go wading into an FA-class article and start mucking around there. I think it's good as is; we have one editor strongly opposed to running this article at all, and I am not sure that any change would actually lead Elaqueate to support. I could be mistaken though. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes you made are good. Omnedon (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on US history but I'd think it unlikely that he would have become a Civil War hero to black Southerners; I've swapped the colour marker between the last two sentences but the first of those two could probably stand to lose the modifying clause altogether. The opening of the article itself is weak as we don't get any sense of how or why he became President of the Confederacy. Belle (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your changes; your thoughts on the lead are Irrelevant to TFA, the article passed FA, and I can clearly see why he was chosen, US Senator with war experience, obvious. Readers here aren't second graders who need to be spoon-fed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's talk not spoon-feeding, but also not avoiding defining aspects. "His plantation depended on slave labor"? That misleadingly understates his relationship with slavery and represents it as something that was tangentially related to a business interest. This is not neutral. I think it is an interesting article, but the article says he was a political champion of the cause of slavery, consistent through his entire public career, not just a person with some secondary financial interest in it. I am disappointed that we are highlighting his reputation as seen from the eyes of Southern Whites multiple times. We shouldn't have two sentences in a row explaining how Souther Whites like him. I want to lose one of those sentences as it's a repeated concept. His reputation is not currently "restored" without qualification (He generally has a not-that-great reputation among the academic and more popular sources, according to our article). I've already proposed wording and would make the change to the article too. I only opposed running it on his birthday, not that it shouldn't be given notice at all, but it doesn't look neutral now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Montanabw. Wikipedia should be proud of the article. The "restored reputation" bit should not be in the blurb because it's confusing. he was not restored to an exalted position. It's just that people stopped calling him a traitor. In fact his reputation as a war leader remains poor--he did not do a good job and the article explains why. Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- tossed that bit and a minor rewrite. Better? Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm changing a sentence to match what it says in the source, the exact wording used in the main article, and I've changed the lead. Public and active career support of slavery shouldn't be summarized as the idea that one of his plantations owned slaves somewhere. Using the words of the article avoids a discussion about further summarizing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the reputation and dropped the health of wife & kids. Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the part about his family. It mentions his own health, and mentions his family in a few words. It's not about the kids' health, or the wife's health. However, the other changes are, I think, helpful to address the concerns being discussed here. Omnedon (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]