Talk:Kingsley Plantation

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingsley Plantation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi Moni3, I'll be reviewing this article. Will probably take a few days to complete. Sasata (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, with respect to prose, the article looks very good already. All I can offer are some linking suggestions, nitpicks that may just be personal preference, and of course, MOS wonkery. Will come back for a second read-through later to check out the sources. Sasata (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

lede

• "...as are the remains of a Spanish mission..." is Spanish missions in Florida a suitable link here?
• link multiracial?
• "...controlled by and resistant to the issues of race and slavery." Deep mindwinder statement, made me pause. But I like it.
• "Archeological evidence has been found in and around the slave cabins that give researchers insight into African traditions..." give->have given? continue to give? not sure, just thinking out loud
• "Zephaniah Kingsley wrote a defense of slavery and a three-tier social system that acknowledged the rights of free people of color; the site is also significant as his home and that of his unique family." the second half says the site is also important, but it appears to be not the best connector, as the first part of the sentence does not deal with the importance of the site.

Agree that this should be changed.The site is more important than his writing, and it was more because of his family and the structures on the site.--Parkwells (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History

• suggested links: indigenous peoples, gulf coast
• "By 1562" needs comma
• "... possession of the plantation turned over to John McIntosh..." what year?
• "He purchased the land and buildings for $7,000 in 1817." I'd be highly interested to know what the modern equivalent of that amount was. Same with the 50 cents extra for slaves purchases that appears later on.
• "...he educated them with the best he could afford..." the absence of a word after best leaves this sentence kind of hanging...
• "The Florida Territorial Council passed laws forbidding interracial marriage..." year?
• Note 2: "... the fishing community that is now known as Mayport, Florida." This redirects to Naval Station Mayport
• "He went on to exhibit considerable pride in the Haitian plantation built with the help of his sons:" Could you give a words about who he's writing to in the quote.
• avoid a picture under level 3 heading as is currently the case in "Post-Kingsley inhabitants"
• "After the hotel burned down," year?

Slavery on Fort George Island

• "This formation is unique in plantations in the antebellum U.S." My knowledge of US history is so weak I had to look up antebellum. Perhaps a link is warranted?
• "John Rollins deconstructed several of the slave cabins..." Is deconstructed the right word here? My understanding is that when used to imply "taking apart a structure", deconstruction is careful and deliberate, e.g. see Deconstruction (building). Is this what the source implies?

Kingsley's house and other structures

• "...resembling 17th century British gentry homes..." maybe link gentry, and soon after, Pavilion (structure)
• "Historian Daniel Schafer posits that Anna Jai would have been familiar with the concepts of polygamy and marrying a slave master to acquire one's freedom.[50] In West Africa, polygamy was not uncommon, and wives often lived in separate quarters from their husbands.[51]" These two statements seem misplaced in the section "Kingsley's house and other structures"
• "Between 1869 and 1877 Rollins covered the walkway between the kitchen house and the main house." Please clarify what is meant by "covered the walkway".

Activities and restoration

• "The Kingsley—Sammis—Lewis—Betsch family" I would have though hyphens would be used in a case like this (falling under the category of compound word).
• p. for single pages, pp. for multiple pages or page ranges. But you knew that :)

Some clarifications:

• One of the documents written by the National Park Service explains the importance of the site in its architecture of the owner's house, anthropological value of the slave cabins, and the historic value of Kingsley's home. The last sentence in the lead is supposed to highlight that point.
• There's an inflation template somewhere around here. Let me see if I can find it.
• Best education, really, is what sources say. He educated his children with the best...err...learnin'...let me think on how to restructure that sentence.
• Some of the dates are in my sources at home. I have to find them in a few hours.
• Kingsley was expressing his pride to Lydia Child--an extension from the quote about slaveholders and pirates.
• Are you suggesting I create a stub for Mayport, Florida?

Nope, just wasn't sure if you knew the destination of the link was somewhat unusual and not particularly helpful Sasata (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Schafer thought it interesting that Anna Jai lived in her own house, just like polygamous families in West Africa did. The existence of that sentence is referring to Ma'am Anna House. Do you have a suggestion about how to reword it?
• Hyphens, emdashes, blah blah. I'll change it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Some inflation info added. The one about the price of slaves is in a note.
• I rechecked three sources (one large document hosted by the National Park Service has pooped out--I may have it at home), and none give the date when the laws began restricting interracial marriage and mixed-race children from inheriting property. They say, simply, that laws were passed that gradually restricted rights. Kingsley began planning for a move in 1834 and it was not fully complete with all family members in Haiti until 1837. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor has implemented suggested changes, and the article easily meets GA criteria. Sasata (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is of high quality; article verily complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Amply cited to reliable sources. Spot check of several citations showed everything to be in order.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter, but coverage and presentation of material seemed excellent to me.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice work. If this article is FAC-bound, you might want to check out J.P. White. (1993). "American eye: A christmas at the plantation" North American Review 278(6):4-9 (on Jstor) to get another opinion on the plantation and its significance. For example, he writes "Our guide failed to mention that the importation of slaves was outlawed in the United States in 1808. Kingley's Florida, however, was then under Spanish rule and he helped to bootleg slaves into northern States through Florida waters." (p.5) This "bootlegging" aspect doesn't seem to be mentioned as a counterbalance to the "gentle slaveowner" persona depicted, although admittedly it's probably beyond the scope of this article.

Other books that may have some useful info include

• Elsbeth K. Gordon. (2002). Florida's Colonial Architectural Heritage. 319 pp.
• Edwin L. Williams Jr. (1949). "Negro Slavery in Florida". The Florida Historical Quarterly 28(2):93-110 has a few paragraphs about Z. Kingsley
• Kingsley Plantation and Subsistence Patterns of the Southeastern Coastal Slave. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by Kenneth W. Johnson, Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, pp. 35-56. Florida Journal of Anthropology Special Publication 4. Gainesville.

Copy edits

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)

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)

I absolutely disagree with cutting paragraphs apart. What constitutes "overlong"? There is no logic to this. It simplifies the writing and lowers the expectations of the reader. The writing was not obtuse or confusing before the paragraphs were split. Readers can and should be able to handle 10-sentence paragraphs.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kingsley published an anonymous defense of slavery....what does this even mean?

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)

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)

For what reason is Susan and Madelaine L'Engle essential to the understanding of Kingsley Plantation? Why was this removed from the Notes section?

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

Communicating about what you are trying to accomplish and working with other editors is essential in a collaborative project. I wish you would do it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Location of content

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)

Why? It has a direct bearing on how the grounds were laid out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Mocama

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)

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)

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)

Fine; I was just trying to bring in current information. Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

POV

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lead

"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)

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)

How about just "free blacks"?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kingsley Plantation

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: Schafer, Daniel L. (2018). Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley: African Princess, Florida Slave, Plantation Slaveowner. Revised and expanded edition. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0813056531.
• From Fernandina Beach, Florida: Schafer, Daniel L. (2018). Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley: African Princess, Florida Slave, Plantation Slaveowner. Revised and expanded edition. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. p. 64. ISBN 978-0813056531.

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)