Talk:Kingsley Plantation

message: Parkwells, I asked to discuss this on the talk page so the article didn't suffer with rapid reversions. Yet you make changes anyway without any discussion. I don't know what familiarity you have with the topic or sources. Your edits appear to be misguided cosmetic changes.
:Moni, Perhaps you can acknowledge that people might have differences of opinion without labeling them "misguided".--Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge differences of opinion, but I really have a problem with the lack of communication about why the article is necessary to change. I think I worked diligently to get this article to GA and the changes I see you make unnecessarily simplify the writing and I disagree with your understanding of POV. I do not understand what you are doing, so you're making me work harder to figure it out. I don't get why the editors who spend the most time reading sources and writing articles must then spend more time getting any variety of editors to explain what they're trying to do when they drop by to make various tweaks. You know this site is full of drive-by gnomes, many of whom have a spotty comprehension of MOS or core policies. It would be much easier for you to approach the talk page of the article to discuss what you see are deficiencies in the prose. Instead I have to do this to get your attention. And what use is commenting on the GA nomination that was closed in September 2009? Why make it more difficult to corral discussion about the article? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Editors can have different opinions about the structure of paragraphs. In some cases, I had a different break to add emphasis to particular material. Editors are not required to give you their experience, but I have done much professional work on historic preservation projects and programs, nominations of historic structures, plus have studied and written about slavery and the South on Wikipedia, and received numerous awards here. I've also recently been working on related articles about Jacksonville, the Preserve, and the Mocama, Timucua, Guale, and other pre-Columbian groups.--Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is what I mean. I think it sells readers short and treats them like idiots to assume they cannot read through a paragraph of more than three sentences. Why is your judgment about paragraph length superior? Why choose the lower common denominator? I don't get that. In some cases, I had a different break to add emphasis to particular material. Parkwells, we don't get to decide what gets emphasized. The sources do that. I'm not asking for your resume, but an indication that you've read the sources would be nice. If you have not read them, say so. I don't mind discussing what the sources state and emphasize so you can get a clearer idea of what should be given due weight. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not useful. Why is your judgment about paragraph length superior? Or every sentence that you've written superior to what someone else suggests? It's a difference of opinion and style, that's all.  The article has to stand as it's written on the page. Your comments on any changes are mostly negative ("sells readers short and treats them like idiots"), hardly collaborative, or even indicating other people's opinions might be valid, even if you disagree with them. If you don't like it, change it back. Wikipedia allows "any variety of editors" to work on articles without justifying what they're doing; it allows "cosmetic changes"; that is fundamental to it. You can complain to them.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this doesn't cause ill feelings. I happen to agree that the previous wording and phrasing were generally superior; the writing is less choppy, and the paragraphs aren't broken apart, so the whole thing is generally significantly more readable. The GA reviewer above commented that the "Prose is of high quality", which is a good indication that that aspect of the article is something that should be retained. However, I don't think one disagreement like this ought to cause bad vibes between people who are obviously all interested in improving the article. I've made a few changes to the most recent version, to preserve some of the original prose but respecting Parkwells' concerns regarding presentation of certain material, hope it helps.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I thought saying he was "Credited as "An Inhabitant of Florida' " was a labored way of saying he issued it anonymously (not under his name), with the piece by An Inhabitant of Florida. That's what it seemed you meant.--Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But your solution is ungrammatical. Kingsley was anonymous. The defense of slavery was not. What is wrong with listing what you see are laborious or ungainly phrases so that we could work together to make issues clearer? I don't mind improving the article. I really, really disagree with making it simpler and not communicating about what should be changed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Did not intend to remove it from Notes.--Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with Moni. The wording, flow, and presentation were leagues better in the earlier version. There is no reason to cut sentences and paragraphs apart like that.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine; you're entitled to your opinion.  Change it if you want to do so.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Why? It has a direct bearing on how the grounds were laid out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the placement of the sentence that was awkward, as it followed discussion of the other people using the second floor, rather than the statement about Anna's having a separate residence. I moved it back to the building section, but following the statement about Anna. I see the GA reviewer had a similar comment about misplacement, and also linked the note on polygamy with the statement about separate residences.  Of course, the note doesn't appear there, so it doesn't matter.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The Timucua peoples had 35 chiefdoms and a total population estimated at 200,000.  Their territory was across north Florida and up to south Georgia to the Altamaha River and the Sea Islands. While the Spanish focused on the west, they had missions in today's Jacksonville and nearby in Mocama territory. Parkwells (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're facing some problems with this. The news article you mentioned is not clear on how the Mocama were distinct, or if they should no longer be considered Timucua. I don't think we should replace the blanket term "Timucua" with Mocama unless there's good reason.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; I was just trying to bring in current information. Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly any fault of yours, you're just reporting what the article said; it's the article that isn't particularly clear on this point.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: What POV does this phrase espouse? "One" is not arguing. Historians--and it's cited in the article--state that Kingsley was devoted to a specific system of slavery, but that his ideas of racial equality were significantly different from most other slaveholders in the U.S. Sure, it can be reworded if the point is obtuse, but it is not POV. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all sourced under "Kingsley's family", especially the paragraph that literally begins with the phrase "Authors of an ethnological study of slavery at Kingsley Plantation characterized Kingsley as a man of complex paradoxes, defiantly proud of his success as a slaveholder, yet dedicated to his multiracial family." Definitely not POV, but if Parkwells has a good alternative suggestion, we can consider it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kingsley was a man of paradox, but he seemed to ensure his family was not controlled by slavery.  He used slavery by gaining wealth by it, and resisted its holding back his own wife and children by freeing them, educating them, and providing for them. Clearly you like the phrase, so that's fine.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of Kingsley's early wealth and prominence was due to slavery and the slave trade. And he would have liked to continue profiting from it indefinitely, it was only when the British/American system of slavery started replacing the Spanish system in Florida, and it was clear his family would lose the rights they had under the old system, that he had to change his tune in that regard.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The lead is a summary of the information in the article. It is accurate to state that "Freed slaves and several private owners lived on the plantation...until 1955". What are you suggesting, that this be expanded in the lead? Is it really necessary since the information is well expanded in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just "free blacks"?--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuchullain's suggestion is better. It encompasses African Americans who lived/worked on the plantation who were never slaves. --Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Freedman's Bureau only held the plantation for four years before it went back into private ownership (1869-1955), which lasted nearly a century, that passage didn't convey the major blocks of control. Because you were writing about ownership and the Civil War marked social changes, I might suggest something like: "After the Civil War, the Freedman's Bureau held the property until 1869; private owners took over again that year, keeping it until 1955." A thought to use or not.Parkwells (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edits 

message: The discussion of Anna's familiarity with polygamy from Africa would be more appropriate with the discussion of family, not the description of the buildings.--Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It has a direct bearing on how the grounds were laid out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the placement of the sentence that was awkward, as it followed discussion of the other people using the second floor, rather than the statement about Anna's having a separate residence. I moved it back to the building section, but following the statement about Anna. I see the GA reviewer had a similar comment about misplacement, and also linked the note on polygamy with the statement about separate residences.  Of course, the note doesn't appear there, so it doesn't matter.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of content

message: The historic Mocama chiefdom had the territory from the mouth of the St. Johns River north to St. Simons Island at the time of Spanish colonization.  While scholars earlier had included them among the Timucua peoples, in the last 25 years, they have come to define them as a distinct and separate culture, as you can see cited in the articles on Mocama, Jacksonville, etc. Source: 2009 article about archeological work at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, citing a team from North Florida University and Jerald Malinich, a specialist on the Timucua. It would be more correct to say this was Mocama territory. They did speak a Timucua dialect called Mocama.--Parkwells (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Timucua peoples had 35 chiefdoms and a total population estimated at 200,000.  Their territory was across north Florida and up to south Georgia to the Altamaha River and the Sea Islands. While the Spanish focused on the west, they had missions in today's Jacksonville and nearby in Mocama territory. Parkwells (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're facing some problems with this. The news article you mentioned is not clear on how the Mocama were distinct, or if they should no longer be considered Timucua. I don't think we should replace the blanket term "Timucua" with Mocama unless there's good reason.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; I was just trying to bring in current information. Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly any fault of yours, you're just reporting what the article said; it's the article that isn't particularly clear on this point.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mocama

message: "controlled by and resistant to the issues of race and slavery" - this part of the lead is not sourced and it seems an opinion, POV or OPED. One could argue they evaded issues of race because Kingsley did what he wanted and made maximum space for his family within the law. Slavery existed, but it's not clear that the family was controlled by it. Also, it's not supposed to be our opinion or research, but the product of other sources.--Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV does this phrase espouse? "One" is not arguing. Historians--and it's cited in the article--state that Kingsley was devoted to a specific system of slavery, but that his ideas of racial equality were significantly different from most other slaveholders in the U.S. Sure, it can be reworded if the point is obtuse, but it is not POV. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all sourced under "Kingsley's family", especially the paragraph that literally begins with the phrase "Authors of an ethnological study of slavery at Kingsley Plantation characterized Kingsley as a man of complex paradoxes, defiantly proud of his success as a slaveholder, yet dedicated to his multiracial family." Definitely not POV, but if Parkwells has a good alternative suggestion, we can consider it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kingsley was a man of paradox, but he seemed to ensure his family was not controlled by slavery.  He used slavery by gaining wealth by it, and resisted its holding back his own wife and children by freeing them, educating them, and providing for them. Clearly you like the phrase, so that's fine.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of Kingsley's early wealth and prominence was due to slavery and the slave trade. And he would have liked to continue profiting from it indefinitely, it was only when the British/American system of slavery started replacing the Spanish system in Florida, and it was clear his family would lose the rights they had under the old system, that he had to change his tune in that regard.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: "Freed slaves and several private owners lived on the plantation...until 1955"  The Freedman's Bureau managed the plantation for a brief time after the Civil War. Freed slaves then lived on it, and likely continued to live and work on it as laborers under private owners. The plantation was quickly sold and moved back to private ownership. But by the later 19th c., African Americans in the South would no longer be referred to as freed slaves. It sounds odd to encompass so much time in a sentence starting with "freed slaves" and ending in 1955, without giving sense of transitions.--Parkwells (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a summary of the information in the article. It is accurate to state that "Freed slaves and several private owners lived on the plantation...until 1955". What are you suggesting, that this be expanded in the lead? Is it really necessary since the information is well expanded in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just "free blacks"?--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuchullain's suggestion is better. It encompasses African Americans who lived/worked on the plantation who were never slaves. --Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Cúchullain t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Freedman's Bureau only held the plantation for four years before it went back into private ownership (1869-1955), which lasted nearly a century, that passage didn't convey the major blocks of control. Because you were writing about ownership and the Civil War marked social changes, I might suggest something like: "After the Civil War, the Freedman's Bureau held the property until 1869; private owners took over again that year, keeping it until 1955." A thought to use or not.Parkwells (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Kingsley Plantation. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216141414/http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/places/index.cfm?fuseaction=ListAreas&county=Duval to http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/places/index.cfm?fuseaction=ListAreas&county=duval
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507130633/http://www.floridamemory.com/Collections/kingsley/ to http://www.floridamemory.com/Collections/kingsley/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216141414/http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/places/index.cfm?fuseaction=ListAreas&county=Duval to http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/places/index.cfm?fuseaction=ListAreas&county=duval
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingsley Plantation. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091114221151/http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11182008-132256/ to http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11182008-132256/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Kingsley Plantation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Schafer2018":
From Zephaniah Kingsley: 
From Fernandina Beach, Florida: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Kingsley Plantation]]