Talk:Nat Turner's Rebellion

message: The infobox trying to identify this as a "battle" is absurd.  The 200+ black "casualties" (once again, and odd term) were spread out amongst a long period of time and the vast majority were innocent civilians not connected to Turner's rebellion, which makes listing them as combatants bizarre.  The "opposing" infobox is even stranger.  It lists the other side as "Southampton County" with a strength of 15,000 and lists 57 dead as "casualties".  Once again, the 57 dead were not "combatants" killed in battle, but murdered civilians, mostly children.
This article would be 100% better if it weren't presented as a "battle", but the infobox needs to be changed either way.  It makes it seem as though all the unrelated black & white civilians that were murdered were somehow either soldiers (for the whites) or rebels (for the blacks). Childe Roland of Gilead 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree about the infobox - it struck me as odd at once.  I looked to find a better infobox, and the best I could find was :Template:Infobox historical event.  Any objections to using this infobox instead?--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, I made the change.  I have to say that it's a slightly less impressive infobox, albeit more appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure when, but someone has changed the infobox back to a military conflict. I totally agree with the discussion above that this is not a correct summation of this event. In fact, the rebelling enslaved people and the militia did not engage in combat at all. Rather, the militia helped find individuals after the rebellion ended.  But before I change it back to the historical event infobox, I wanted to give others a chance to share their thoughts. Rublamb (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Lacking any objections, I have restored the infobox to historical event. Rublamb (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants? and Infobox 

message: I see a contradiction.
In Aftermath: The state reimbursed the slaveholders for their slaves.
In Legal response: Moreover, some owners of slaves who were killed during the rebellion or its immediate aftermath sought compensation from the legislature; all their petitions were rejected.
I don't know which one is correct, just that they appear contradictory. Totensiebush (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Totensiebush. It's taken me a while, but I finally had a chance to look at the sources cited for the two apparently contradictory claims. It turns out that they're not contradictory. If a court tried and executed a slave, the owner was entitled to compensation from the state. However, the owners of nine slaves who were killed (without trial) during the suppression of the rebellion sued for compensation and their claim was rejected. I will try to improve the language in the article to reflect this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For decades, I had puzzled over the trials of Nat Turner and the other rebels who were arrested. Afterall, they had no rights under the law and, therefore, no need of a jury trial, especially with a jury of some of the most important men of the county. Some authors speculated that this was the slave owners' way of figuring out what happened (why the "content" slave rebelled and how they were able to plan the rebellion). Other authors noted how this shows the control and civility of the white society. But I believe the the above fact solves my question. According to Henry Louis Gates Jr., state law specified that enslavers would be reimbursed for slaves that were executed or sold by the government. If the same individuals were execute by vigilantes, the owner received no compensation. Applying this policy to the Nat Turner Rebellion, it seems that the trials were more about money and the disposition of property than sense of justice (although not all of the tried individuals were executed). Rublamb (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that these were show trials, intended as a warning to other would-be dissidents. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: With Turner, definitely. But the fact that the sentences varied (executed, sold out of the area, freed) for the others indicates that these were not show trials, but hearings where the jury made a ruling based on the facts. (Although I want to go back and see what court records reveal about each individual's trial because I assume the owner's testimony weighed heavily on the outcome). Certainly, the official hangings/executions were a warning, but I suspect Black Head Sign Post, the place where vigilantes left the decapitated heads of rebels on posts, was probably a stronger warning than these trials. In fact, execution by vigilantes without a trial should have stirred more fear as the innocent were killed along with the rebels. This gets into my former puzzlement over the trials. Rublamb (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Historically, this event was called the Southampton Insurrection. When a state historic marker of that name was replaced, the event's name was discussed at great detail, with one side wanting to reuse the old name and the other side wanting to change it to Nat Turner's Rebellion to recognize the important role of Turner. Their compromise was to call the marker Nat Turner's Insurrection; however, that name has not gone into wide use. Rather, the phrase Nat Turner's Rebellion is most commonly used. That is the name used by the National Museum of Africa Amerian Cultura and History here and the Gilden Lehrman Institue of American History here. A Google search for "Nat Turner's rebellion" yields 115,000 responses. The Encyclopedia of Virginia/Virginia Humanities calls the event "Nat Turner's Revolt" here but that name only yields 17,600 hits.  In contrast, "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" yields 26,200 hits, "Nat Turner's Insurrection" has 12,300 hits, and "Southampton Insurrection" yields 15,400. To me, it is obvious that the correct name for this article should be "Nat Turner's Rebellion". Any objections to this move? Rublamb (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. Based on the given data, it would be the right move per WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Move is completed. I believe I have updated existing templates, as well as links in articles. If you find something that needs fixing,  please edit or let me know.  Rublamb (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: Why are "White" and "Black" capitalised throughout this document. This extends to within quotes, which is just wrong... 2001:861:E385:7F80:7C09:8EF3:3389:9111 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that quotes should reflect the source but the use of capitalization elsewhere in this article was decided on a long time ago by agreement of its editors. Although Wikipedians frown on capitalizations in general, MOS gives editors latitude to use mainstream, general-style references. The trend in most is to capitalize races. For example, APA says "racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized." The Chicago Manual of Style agrees, while the AP Stylebook capitalizes Black but not white. However, we can always revisit the prior decision. I like it as is. What do others think? Rublamb (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird capitalisation