Talk:James Armistead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Middle and Surname[edit]

According to the article itself and the sites referenced in this article this mans adopted surname was LaFayette and Armistead his middlename, yet the article is titled "James Armistead". Shouldn't it be renamed to James LaFayette with a forwarder from "James Armistead" for current articles linking to this entry? 62.108.17.179 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

he was came out the closet when he was 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.151.205 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote keep "James Armistead" as the article's title, as this is how he is most widely known. Apparently, historians primarily have written about him as "James Armistead", which naming protocol was fairly common for a slave. Commonly, the slave had only his/her first name - a European not African name - to those acquainted with him/her. People less acquainted, or complete strangers, would refer to the slave perhaps as, "John Doe Armistead's slave, James," or very often just use "James Armistead" because it was shorter and less cumbersome, and the context in which this was said would indicate that the person is a slave "owned" by someone named Armistead. It was only years after James Armistead LaFayette's historic exploits that he added the "LaFayette". Part of me would like to respect the man by following the name he himself chose when he finally had the opportunity, but I think that for an historical figure 200+ years ago, we should follow the name that has been primarily used by historians for many years. I just have to add, as a European-American Southerner, that each time I have to type the word "slave" I can feel disgust, anger, and resentment. Just from typing the word. As for modern writers saying that so-and-so the slave was "owned" by such-and-such other person, my outrage goes through the roof. Nobody can "own" a person, regardless of whether the law says they do, it is not possible. The truth is that the "owned" person is imprisoned, enslaved, and otherwise having his/her human rights violated, and if it wasn't illegal in that time and place, well it should have been. They can imprison and mistreat the body, but the person can never be owned. I know I'm ranting, but this is just the Talk page, not the article itself, and in the many years I have been using and contributing to Wikipedia, I mostly limited myself to copy edits and occasional small factual contributions or corrections and not once before have I ranted. (I've made contributions from other IP addresses, also.) If I knew the appropriate discussion forum for broaching this "owned" issue as a style guide thing, that's where I'd post this micro-rant. Thanks for listening.  :-> 69.17.65.107 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DOB?[edit]

If most sources put his DOB in 1748 why are we using 1760? Seems to contradict what the article says.02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 (talk)