# Talk:Gessner Harrison

Template:Did you know nominations/Gessner Harrison

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your ce. I have seen a couple examples where tone can be improved. I’d like to address any specific areas/sections you may want addressed. We just underwent the GA review so I want to be careful. Thanks again. Hoppyh (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hoppyh, I wouldn't say this issue is limited to a specific section. I noted several areas where interpretations are presented, for example "Harrison's own discipline in money matters may be questioned by his inability to make ends meet on his $3,000 annual salary", which are not entirely supported by the given sources (although I would suggest splitting up the page ranges for FN3 to make that more readily verifiable). In other places we present the opinion of a given source as fact - for example, "Harrison did not entirely follow the more robust male stereotype of the antebellum South". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This is why they discourage doing biographies envolving your family—this guy is an ancestor. I’ll go through the entire article and clean it up, then maybe let you know and you can take another look. Hoppyh (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I have found and remedied throughout the article a significant number of incidents where the encyclopedic tone was lacking. I’m hopeful the proper tone has been achieved. Hoppyh (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
On a quick look I see that the first specific example flagged above is still present - did you disagree with my assessment of it? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. I’m glad to put the FN3 issue on my to-do list. Hoppyh (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
FN3 has been split into 4 page ranges for easier verifiability. I will double check to assure accuracy of cites. Let me know if anything else strikes you, and thanks again. Hoppyh (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I have gone further to increase the desired tone. I myself am quite hesitant to do more, for fear of sacrificing accurate use of sources. The primary sources, and Harrison contemporaries, including Broadus, are indeed non-encyclopedic; I’d rather not be the one to dilute the characterizations, despite article ratings, etc.. Hoppyh (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If there are specific characterizations that you feel ought not to be diluted, which is fair enough, why not quote them with inline attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That has been part of my effort. Hoppyh (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Hog Farm, the GA reviewer, so they are aware of the issue and can keep it in mind in future GA reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: My bad.  The tone is consistent with the tone from the sources, so I thought that was acceptable.  Will look for that closer in the future. Hog Farm (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: and @Hog Farm: Good idea–alot of work has gone into addressing the current tag which I think can be removed. I would be grateful if we could get another pair of eyes to consider this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I didn't want to tag this (and screw it up at DYK again) but I think the statement that going to dinner represented a desecration of the Sabbath needs an explanation. Why would going to dinner on a Sunday desecrate the Sabbath? --valereee (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I am happy to try to help. I understand Harrison's initial response to the dinner invitation to be an unusual one. But it was consistent with his strict religious upbringing which the sources Broadus and Neumann document. I am not a theologian, but my understanding is that the equally strict biblical observance of the Sabbath as a holy day and as a day of rest would dictate that Harrison not participate in any work (he refused to study on Sunday) or any form of entertainment or celebration, as Jefferson's dinner would have been perceived. As unusual as Harrison's response may have been, the sources all confirm his conviction for it as well as Jefferson's acknowledgement of it. I hope this is helpful. Hoppyh (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I assumed it was something like that, too, but my issue (and the reason I would tag it, if it weren't at DYK right now) is that this needs to be explained in the article. To the average non-theologian reader, I would expect going to a acquaintance's house for a meal being forbidden for Christians to be puzzling, which means it needs explanation. Since this is actually the DYK hook, I feel like this is something that needs to be dealt with before it goes on the main page. --valereee (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Probably something in Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy that would give a source for an explanatory sentence. --valereee (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Let me see what I can do. Too bad we don't have Harrison's words. We'll have to be careful not to put them in his mouth, I suppose. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hoppyh I've linked both the article and the hook to Sabbath in Christianity, which probably solves the problem as it provides a link for those who are wondering why. Apparently the protestants just weren't forbidden to work on the Sabbath, they also had to refrain from anything that wasn't for the glory of God. :) --valereee (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, Right, no fun on Sunday! I think your link works far better than what I had in mind, which was cherry picking a source. I do appreciate your time and effort—let me know if anything else is needed. Hoppyh (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It was better where it was - your family is around long before you are, and it's around long after you die. Esszet (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The family link was originally at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. I think the context would be improved there, and that would provide the priority for it. Hoppyh (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The following opinion text has been omitted. It needs to be substantiated by specific actions on Harrison’s part and the source provided must be shown to be reliable: Horrified by the "vice and an utter want of morals," Harrison sought "to live in monkish retirement.Taylor, Alan, Thomas Jefferson's education, 2019, New York isbn=0393652424 page=263 Hoppyh (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)