Talk:Ain't I a Woman?

message: Isabella was from New York, not usually felt to be in the South.
:And? What does this have to do with the article? Anazerkon 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some northern states did at one time have legal slavery but achieved emancipation peacefully prior to the Civil War.  IIRC, Sojourner Truth was indeed from New York, which at one time was a slave state.  Slavery was abolished there, but before that, she was sent to another slave state prior to gaining her freedom.  I hope this clears things up? Afalbrig 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gage's version of the speech shows Truth to be speaking in a crude North Carolinian dialect, not the Low-Dutch dialect she actually spoke in. It played off of American beliefs that all black people spoke like stereotypical southern blacks, which is one reason why Truth's birthplace is important when discussing the speech. Sandarmoir (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the South? 

message: The article states: "In her speech, Truth argued that while American culture often placed white women upon a pedestal and gave them certain privileges (most notably that of not working), this attitude was not extended to black women."  But I can't really find any particular textual evidence in either version of the speech that she was discussing any disparity between white and black women in the suffragist or feminist cause.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.178.126 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that passage is unsourced. I'll remove it. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race? 

message: Having a heading titled "The speech" with a description of versions of the speech found below a heading called "Background" seems to be putting a cart before a horse. Having a heading called "Different versions" as well as a heading titled "The speech" is untidy and affects readability and seems unencyclopedic. 
I think this article should be differently organized. It doesn't flow or describe the subject in an order that makes sense. Moving some information, such as that found under "The speech" seemed like a helpful choice... a number of editors have expressed displeasure in this editing style (moving large chunks of text without discussion of my plan on the talk page) which is probably why I decided to undo this edit. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, , thanks for engaging on the talk page. I actually think the article is organized pretty reasonably -- background is often given ahead of the details about the subject, sort of as an introduction for those who may not understand the context -- but I'm willing to listen. Since you really like working on huge sections at a time, one thing you could think about is placing a copy of the article into your sandbox, moving things around until you think you've got something better, and then coming back here to ask people to take a look. That would allow you to play around with the organization to your heart's content, but wouldn't be disruptive. --valereee (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for my attempt at reorganization (which I then undid)