Talk:John Punch (slave)

First slave?

"The first enslaved Africans arrived in what is now the United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526" from Slavery_in_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Punch_(slave)&action=editthe_colonial_United_States extracted July 30, 2012

It seems doubtful that John Punch was actually the first US slave, even if Ancestory.com claims it is so --24.138.73.44 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The HT quote is "...it has led some historians to regard him as the first African to be legally sanctioned as a slave". So right off the bat, it's only some historians (who?), and it's from a documented legal proceeding. (Citation needed.) No doubt there were many more brought to the continent before him. Ancestry.com is in fact concluding he was legally the first US slave, saying, "All evidence gathered to date offers persuasive arguments that point to John Punch, the first African in Colonial Virginia sentenced to a lifetime of servitude—the first slave." (http://c.mfcreative.com/offer/us/obama_bunch/PDF/main_article_final.pdf) But of course, we can't just take their word for it need historians' input cited here, too. Ruodyssey (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

History is made by documents, right? He's the first documented slave. Speciate (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Conjecture at best. Another lame attempt at revisionist history. - ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Punch was declared a servant for life, but see John Casor, who was actually declared a slave. There is a difference. See Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom, etc. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And if other historians declare Casor the first slave, it is hardly unanimous that Punch was. Use of the word "some," then, is not weaselly, it is elucidating fact. I hope my improvements to the article make everything better. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Russell in 1913 and Catterall in 1926 note the John Punch case as being significant for being the first "documented" account of a slave in the Virginia colony, as well as differentiating his treatment as "a negro" - sentencing to life inservitude, from that of the men from the Netherlands and Scotland, whose indentures were extended. This is the consensus of historians. It is a specific definition; it does not mean there were not other slaves, but he is the first to be documented. See newly added cites to the article, including an online scanned e-text of the 1913 book, which includes the short record of the court case. John Casor was the first to be declared a slave "as a result of a civil suit", another specific qualification: his master Robert Parker was sued by his previous master Johnson, and the court defined Casor as a slave, ordering him returned to Johnson.Parkwells (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Comments addressed specifically only to above users have been successfully removed by author:] Dr. Matt (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say "documentation cited by McIlwaine as a secondary source". McIlwaine's Minutes of the Council and general Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with notes and excerpts from the original Council and General Court records, Now Lost is a collection of primary sources and doesn't seem to offer any explanation, interpretation, or historical context, besides chronology, to the court records themselves. So one has to be careful when quoting from McIlwaine because the chances are that they'd actually be quoting a primary source, which is fine, but an individual can't extrapolate meaning or apply interpretation to such quotes. Furthermore, the NPS website is not the same strength of reliable source as Russell, Vaughan, Foner, or Donoghue. It's fine to use when stronger sources aren't available, but since there are a number of more detailed sources that have undergone the peer-review process of an accredited institution, those should be used instead. So we use wikipedia's own explanation of what qualifies as the strongest of sources and then work our back from there. This would yield (from strongest to weakest) Russell, NPS, McIlwaine if McIlwaine is considered simply a collection of primary sources. If 2 or more sources are of equal strength and have undergone the similar levels of scrutiny, then any contradicting claims should be directly accredited to the author/source that made them.

Regarding any "contradictions" referencing the material you've questioned from the NPS site, I don't see any. Documents that indicate slavery or lifetime service are not the same as documents that explicitly declare slavery or lifetime service. Also, the information from 1630 specifically says that it was a "customary practice to hold some Negroes in a form of life service," and then supplements that statement by saying some blacks were able to hold on to their indentured servant status because they eventually won their freedom. This means that the blacks that didn't win their freedom weren't indentured servants because they were held for life and Russell describes these individuals as "slaves". The only ones who retained their status of "indentured servant" were the ones who got to eventually leave their indenture. The ones who didn't win their eventual freedom did not retain their indentured servant status. So I don't see the contradiction here, but if it lies with something else, then maybe you can be more specific. It matters little anyway because the NPS site and what it says doesn't have more weight than strong reliable secondary sources themselves. I hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Indentured servants held for life likely did not lose their servant status. Punch apparently married a white woman and had children who were born free, something that would not have happened if he had been a slave. Virginia law stipulated that children took the fathers status, it was 1662 before the law changed to make children take the mothers status. Wayne (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Obama link

Until this has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the wording should be very careful indeed. hgilbert (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about being careful, I've replaced the second mention of Ancestry.com so people know where this comes from. So they don't think it comes from a peer-reviewed journal. (And I doubt we'll ever get that.) Also, since you're concerned about wording, I restored the original wording. The wording you had implied that they ran a yDNA test on a Dunham, found some African ancestry, then connected him to Punch via standard genealogical research. Instead, they connected the Dunhams to the Bunches via standard genealogical research, then ran yDNA on male Bunch descendants (they can't run yDNA on Dunham's line), found African ancestry, and then made a genealogical/historical guess that connected Bunch to Punch. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify exactly that in the article, especially the "guess" part. hgilbert (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The "guess" is the same thing that historians do all the time, I don't think it's a giant leap. I should have said "supposition" instead. I think the word "probably" in the article adds enough doubt. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all the time; historians are careful to distinguish between well-supported links, as in the latter generations of the Bunch family, and guesswork. We should be equally careful here. hgilbert (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed "guesswork" to "supposition." The link Ancestry.com made is a solid one, one based on the best genealogical, historical, and genetic evidence available. Using "guess" or "guesswork" makes it seem as if they made the suggestion half-cocked, when in fact, they made a good link based on logic and evidence. The only way it could be more sure is a birth certificate or a will, both of which aren't there (and even then, illegitimacy could again destroy such a link... there's no such thing as a 100% solid fact in history). TuckerResearch (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

African American?

How can he be "African American" if the USA didn't exist at the time? Surely "African" is more correct and appropriate?--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Africa and America are continents, both of which existed at the time. hgilbert (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with ukexpat - calling him 'African-American' seems wildly anachronistic to me. It's like referring to Montezuma II as 'Mexican' before Mexico as we know it existed. There was no United States of America at the time, so he couldn't have been 'American'. I'm going to change it to simply 'Black', which is presumably what is meant here. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the link to black. We could of course unlink it completely.--ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He was African, born in Africa; there isn't any question about that. Agree that African American refers to later generations of American-born people.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

3O John Punch Slave or not

This section was added to seek a third opinion on the status of John Punch after his sentencing in 1640. Scoobydunk says that John Punch was made a slave as the result of his court case in 1640. WLRoss says that John Punch's contract as an indentured servant was extended and therefore he was not a slave. Please see the following talk pages and discussions regarding John Punch for more information:

• [1]
• [2]

23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've found of historians describing how John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial in 1640.

• "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling." Toppin, Edgar (2010). The Black American in United States History.
• "Thus, the black man, John Punch, became a slave unlike the two white indentured servants who merely had to serve a longer term. This was the first known case in Virginia involving slavery." Edgar A. Toppin, A Biographical History of Blacks in America Since 1528.
• "John Punch's status was changed from an indentured servant to a slave," resulting from his court case. Henry Robert Burke. "Links To The Past".
• 1640, Punch was the "first documented slave for life." http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm
• In regarding Punch "...'the third,being a negro,' was reduced from his former condition of servitude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life."John Henderson Russell. "The Free Negro In Virginia, 1619-1865". p.30.
• "The third, 'being a negro named John Punch shall serve his master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life here or elsewhere.' This case , antedating that of John Casor by four years, made a Negro a slave for life as a penalty for the crime of running away." Virginia Writers' Project, "The Negro in Verginia". p.14
• "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery." A. Leon Higginbotham. "In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period.
• "July 9, 1640 - A Virginia court decision describes three runaway servants—two white and one black—who were captured in Maryland. The two white servants are sentenced to additional years of service. The black man, John Punch, is made a slave for life, possibly marking the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans in Virginia's courts." Tom Costa, http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia#contrib

My sources clearly explain how John Punch was sentenced to slavery and became a slave. WLRoss argues that Punch wasn't a slave and remained an indentured servant. I'm sure he'll list all of his sources indicating that below.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources you posted are irrelevant, please provide sources that Punch was a legally recognized slave. That some people consider indentured servitude slavery is not the argument. Also, please do not speak on my behalf, that is a violation of WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources I listed are completely relevant because they all confirm that John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial. "That some people consider indentured servitude slavery is not the argmunt," it is, because you just argued that Punch didn't become a slave and remained an indentured servant and implied all of the sources and historians I listed are wrong. So where are your reliable sources for that assertion?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Well, I found my way here after one of you requested a third opinion. At this point, I've spent about forty minutes reading through the article and your discussions, so I feel like I have a halfway decent grasp of the issue although I might well be missing chunks.

Let me summarize my initial reactions here so that you can critique them.

1. The article in its current state seems pretty well-researched and well-written. I haven't looked much at the history, so I really don't know which of you is most responsible for this version.
2. You've been having a pretty massive and uncivil disagreement, but on a cursory inspection neither one of you seems unambiguously in the right.
3. The core issue seems to be whether to characterize Punch after his 1640 trial as (a) an indentured servant punished with life servitude, (b) effectively a slave, or (c) a slave without qualification.
4. Pretty much all the sources that have been quoted lean towards using the term slavery rather than indentured servitude, which is most compatible with characterizations (b) and (c).

Let me know if this seems accurate to you. To be honest, I have very little idea whether this will please zero, one, or both of you. —Neil 21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide a third opinion. I don't think (b) is an accurate way to characterize the issue because that was a misrepresentation of a single quote from Toppin and I found an additional source from Toppin where he distinctively qualifies Punch as a slave and even says this was the first case in Virginia involving slavery. I also feel (b) would be a completely different discussion about what qualifies as "slavery". thus requiring it's own dispute resolution. Regardless of how people may want to personally define slavery, I'll just stick to what historians and reliable sources say. Understanding that, the issue largely comes down to whether John Punch became a slave or not. I've provided numerous sources using specific language describing John Punch as a slave as the result of this ruling. No reliable sources have been quoted or cited contesting this view held by historians or asserting that Punch wasn't a slave but was still an indentured servant, and the opposing view seems to stem entirely from original research, which is against WP:OR. I appreciate your opinion, though I do find it to be a little noncommittal. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources. None of them say he was the first "legally recognized" slave. Calling indentured servitude a type of slavery is irrelevant. Wayne (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting the sources, they speak for themselves. Historians clearly consider this case as the first time a negro was sentenced to slavery in Virginia. The court legally recognized that John Punch was to serve Hugh Gwyn for the remainder of his life. Historians call this "slavery" and therefore the court legally recognized slavery. Again, indentured servitude isn't slavery and these sources, for the most part, clearly explain how Punch WAS an indentured servant and then BECAME a slave due to this legal ruling, which is a legal recognition. They don't have to say "legally recognized" for it to be a legal recognition. It's a legal recognition because it was a sentence officially and legally determined by the court, and is therefore recognized by the court. Again, you try to dismiss these sources as equating indentured servitude to slavery, and they are not. They are making a clear distinction between the two and explain how Punch was once and indentured servant and then became a slave. I've yet to see your sources advocating that Punch remained an indentured servant after his court case. Where are they? Oh, here are some more sources of my own.

• "Thus, John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life, by law, in Virginia." Encyclopedia of African American History Volume 3.
• "John Punch decision therefore, did not just establish and set the legal basis for slavery in America, it was the first racial decision in America." Amechi Okolo, Ph.D. "The State of the American Mind: Stupor and Pathetic Docility."
• A year later, in the case of John Punch, the General Court of Virginia recorded the first unambiguous example of the enslavement of an individual Negro, as punishment for having run away." Francis Adams, Barry Sanders, "Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans in a White Man's Land, 1619-2000."

All of these confirm that Punch was legally recognized as a slave "by law", emphasizes the importance of the decision in establishing the basis for slavery in America, or explains that this was the first unambiguous example of enslavement of a Negro, as punishment for running away. I also want to point out that another editor agrees that the sources agree with the notion that John Punch became a slave as the result of his trial.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have a feeling you've both been over this ground many times before. Since both of you seemed relatively satisfied with my initial findings, I'm going to go ahead and give my opinion on how to describe Punch after his trial.

1. Scoobydunk, you've provided a significant number of reliable sources that suggest than the historical consensus considers Punch a slave. I would remind you that quality trumps quantity, because some of them are fairly weak: for example, Okolo's The State of the American Mind is self-published and Russell's The Free Negro in Virginia is a doctoral dissertation from 1913. However, others, like Toppin (2010), Higginbotham (1980), and Costa (2011) are very strong, so I think you've made a very credible point.
2. Wayne, you can certainly try to rebut this and prove that some historians consider Punch an indentured servant for life. But you'd have to advance some reliable sources to support that, and I don't think I've seen you do that. You might think the historians Scoobydunk cites are wrong; you might even be right about that. But on Wikipedia, that's original research and that doesn't fly.
3. However, even if Scoobydunk's sources accurately represent the historical consensus, this issue of slavery versus indentured servitude isn't completely clear cut, and historians can only make educated conjectures about what, exactly, the Governor's Council intended Punch's status to be. So it seems very sensible to say that Punch was effectively a slave. Toppin (2010) does exactly that.

Here's an example of wording that seems fair to me:

This case marks one of the first cases in colonial America where a racial distinction was made between black and white indentured servants. Most historians believe that the ruling effectively made Punch a slave, and consider the episode a milestone in the development of African American slavery in the United States. Edgar Toppin wrote...

Let me know what you think. —Neil 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case where the wording has to be "fair"; the consensus of historians has to be recognized and presented, and that is, that the court's decision made Punch a slave for life. Whether "weaker" sources also cite what is the consensus position does not weaken the position as established by RS, and Scoobydunk has established that.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I said "fair", I meant "fair summary of the scholarly consensus". And I tried to make it clear that I wasn't discounting the strong sources just because they were mixed in with weaker ones. So on these two points we agree completely. If you're also saying that "most historians believe" is too watered down given the sources we've seen, I can kind of see that. I could certainly support "historians agree the ruling effectively made Punch a slave," for example.—Neil 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Neil, thank you again for your input. I would be perfectly fine with your well written alternative if it weren't for 3 things:

• I'd be willing to use the language of "most" to represent a "majority" opinion if there was an actual reliable source that expressed an opinion that Punch was never made a slave. Since WLRoss can provide no reliable sources, then there is no need to give such a claim any weight, mention, or inference. As per WP:OR, if a minority opinion is expressed by a reliable and notable authority then we can provide appropriate context for the differing opinions, establishing a minority view vs. a majority view. However, WP:OR also says that if a minority opinion isn't expressed by a notable authority and is not reliable, then it doesn't deserve being mentioned at all.
• The next concern I have is that only one historian said "in effect", so it's not accurate to reflect all the other historians with this sentiment. The point being made by most of these sources is that this was a definitive moment in Virginia's history that documented an indentured servant becoming a slave. Toppin unambiguously declares this more robustly in his earlier work.
• The final concern is that using "effectively" conflicts with WP:editorial and the way you presented it conflicts with WP:OR. You expressed a doubt of what the Governor's Council intended and you're the one making a determination that historians can only make educated conjectures, so you chose the word "effectively" to reflect your doubts(original research) on what historians consider to be a legal determination of slavery. Though I may agree with your own conjecture, it is still original research and the majority of historians don't claim that he "effectively" became a slave. If you had another reliable source making such an argument about the conjecture of historians and that Punch was only considered a slave in effect, then it could be added as a "minority" or "contesting" opinion, but it wouldn't suffice to let this point of view be representative of what the other historians actually thought or said.

Thank you for pointing out Okolo. I did not realize this was self published. I was hesitant about citing him because a lot of the things he says seem to be a little bit too aggressive and now I understand why he didn't have a more tempered approach. Good catch. I'm glad more people are contributing.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To your first point, I agreed with Parkwells above that, in the absence of any sources suggesting scholarly dissent from the slavery viewpoint, it might make more sense to just say "Historians agree..." To your second point, about "effectively", I am not familiar enough with the issue and the sources to take a hard line. However, I don't feel that "in effect" is a misrepresentation or editorializing. It's hardly controversial or original research to say that history isn't an exact science, and many of the sources you cite hedge a little bit, whether by saying "in effect" or saying "slavery for life"/"lifetime slavery" rather than just "slavery". At any rate, I think the presence of "in effect" is pretty insignificant to the meaning of the statement, so I'm honestly not that interested in debating it. It just seems like an opportunity for a small gesture of goodwill that doesn't harm the article's accuracy. —Neil 21:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "effectively" is significant. First, most historians don't say "effectively" so to characterize most historians as saying such is a misrepresentation of what those historians said. Your examples of "slavery for life" and "lifetime slavery" are not used to instill a doubt or account for a possibility that John Punch might not been a slave, but are simply adjectives and prepositional phrases used to describe the length of his slavery, which is still slavery. You added "effectively" based on your own opinion that historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended. That is original research. Though you may be right, you can not add the results of your own original research into an article, which you suggested to express a doubt in what historians consider to be slavery. Yes, historians are people and they make conjectures, but that doesn't mean as editors we can discredit or undermine the veracity of what they say by including our own qualifiers. That's exactly what WP:editorial and WP:OR describe. For another example, we can look at science. We know that science is constantly growing and sometimes things known as facts can cease to be fact. This doesn't mean that we can express this understanding to undermine what scientists believe. If most scientist believe that the Earth is round, I can't say "Most scientist believe the Earth is possibly round," or "...likely round," based on my own observations of science. If most scientist don't say "likely round" then I can't claim that they do say "likely round". It is a misrepresentation based on my own understanding of science, and is OR.

I'm all for goodwill, but it's not goodwill to instill our own doubts based on our opinions of historians and their ability/inability to interpret historical documents. The goodwill comes in the means of understanding that historians know what they are talking about and we should represent and respect their opinions as such. If two or more historians directly disagree on a subject or fact, then we can represent those disagreements giving them their own due weight. We cannot, however, use our own opinions to convey a doubtful alternative to what historians assert. This how you specifically described the reason for your inclusion of "effectively," as an opinion that historians conjecture and can't possibly know what the intent of the Governor's Council was, therefore you were going to insert language to represent your opinion of doubt in their abilities to accurately access historical documents and court rulings. That's original research. I just don't feel the article should reflect your concerns on the ability of historians to evaluate terminology and their applications to history. Sorry, if this comes off as "being a dick". I respect the time you've spent contributing to this discussion and I respect your opinion, otherwise I wouldn't be spending the time addressing it and would just ignore it or dismiss it completely. Thank you again for your continued input, I do feel this is an important aspect to discuss.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that you've spent a lot of time on this issue, but I honestly think you're taking an extremely broad view of original research and making a mountain out of a very small, peripheral molehill. When I looked through your discussion with Wayne, I saw some real avalanches of text that you had written; if a lot of them revolved around this issue, you may want to think about choosing your battles a bit more carefully in the future. At any rate, you've heard my perspective so I'll bow out of the "effectively" issue now. The article looks good so far; if you guys want my opinion on some other aspect, you can drop me a line. —Neil 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I added "effectively" some time ago but it was rejected/reverted by Scoobydunk who quoted an earlier book by Toppin where he did not use the word in support. The claim that "historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended" is far from original research and is basic premise of anthrological enquiry, at least one historian actually said that in regards to Punch. I believe it may have been Toppin but will need to look it up. The fact remains that Punch was a servant who committed a crime and was subsequently sentenced to SERVE for life while Casor, having committed no crime, was recognized as having no indenture and belonging to another party for life. Punch was not even the first person to be indentured for life and the court NEVER determined him to be a slave. Re:" It's a legal recognition because it was a sentence officially and legally determined by the court, and is therefore recognized by the court." You misrepresent what the court determined. The court specifically, and officially, said "serve" so it was servitude for life that was recognized by the court, in other words, effectively but not legally slavery. Wayne (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I hear your point that "Punch was not even the first person to be indentured for life and the court NEVER determined him to be a slave", but you need to bring forward some reliable sources to support it. If you don't, there's no possible way it can go in the article no matter how sensible it may sound.

Also, to clarify, I did make the point that even historians cannot be completely certain what the Governor's Council intended, but I think it's far too strong to say "historians' viewpoints are only conjecture and that they can't know what the Governor's Council intended". —Neil 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not far from original research. OR is broadly defined but they broke it up into subcategories to clear confusion and the subcategory that directly says it's a violation of OR is WP:editorial. "Effectively" is a synonym for "essentially" and "essentially" is specifically listed as one of the words for WP:editorial. On top of that, it is against WP:weight to represent all of the historians as saying "effectively", when only 1 said "in effect". SO you could argue it as an minority opinion if you want to, but that's if we even succumb to the idea that "in effect" and "effectively" have the same meaning, and they don't. There is a clear difference in connotation so to stay neutral, it should be quoted and not paraphrased. On top of that, you could hardly argue it as a minority opinion because that same author, definitively and unambiguously called him a "slave" in his other works. Everything @WLRoss: just wrote is entirely original research and is strictly a violation of wikipedia policies. He's yet to supply a single source to back up his opinion that Punch remained an indentured servant. He says the court case never said the word "slave" but fails to recognize that Casor's case didn't say "slave" either. As a matter of fact, the Casor case didn't even say Casor had to serve JOhnson for life, it only said he was still his property and had to be returned. According to historians and the sources I listed, Punch was the first legal slave in Virginia. No one is saying he was the first indentured for life, historians say he's the first documented slave. You're the only one claiming he was an indenture servant for life, something you've provided no sources for and it a result of your own opinion, thus violating WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think people should be careful to stick to what is claimed: Punch is considered the first "documented" slave in Virginia (emphasis added) - the distinction arises because this court case is documented. There may have been others without records but that is not important here. Let's just keep to the historic consensus.Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unless we hear of some compelling new sources, we can safely say that after his trial, historians consider Punch the first documented slave in the Virginia colony. —Neil 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll happily settle for after his trial, historians consider Punch the first legally documented slave in the Virginia colony. It wasn't documented in some shipping transcript or captains log, it wasn't documented in private journal, it was documented in an official court record as the ruling of the court, which is a legal document. That's the whole significance of this thing, that is was the Virginia court recording and documenting the first instance of slavery.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The following sets out the legal status of Punch/Casor including several which, while calling Punch a slave also name Casor as the first LEGAL slave.

• The Black American in United States History Edgar Allan Toppin 1973: "Punch in effect became a slave under this ruling...John Casor, in 1655, is the first black we know of to be made a slave in a civil case."
• Colonialism: Key Concepts in American History Darrell J. Kozlowski 2010: "There were no laws regarding slavery early in the Virginia colony's history. By 1640, however, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery. In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave in the thirteen British North American colonies."
• A Look at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments John Richard Conway 2008: "The Virginia colonial court upheld Johnson's claim. It is the first record of a person being declared a slave in this country."
• Black Yellow Dogs Ben Kinchlow 2008: "This [John Casor] is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery in the New World. From evidence found in legal documents, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nations first official legal slaveholder."
• The American Dream Stephen McDowell 2007: "This [John Casor] was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
• Slave trade and slavery John Henrik Clarke 1970: "That [Casor] was the first recorded civil case in the history of Virginia establishing a person as a slave for life."
• The Negro in Virginia University of Michigan 1940: "Anthony Johnson perhaps holds the dubious distinction of being the first Virginian, black or white, to hold as a slave for life a negro who had committed no crime."

The following sets out what historians believe.

• History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker." Wayne (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is for John Punch not John Casor. None of the sources you've listed support your argument that Punch remained an indentured servant and didn't become a slave. We already went through dispute resolution about Johnson and Casor and a third opinion discredited your sources and agreed that sources most accurately reflected my position. But let's go ahead and debunk your sources again.

First we can get rid of these following sources because they only claim Casor was the first where no crime was involved or as the result of a civil case, which doesn't contradict my position on Punch because his was a criminal case that happened 14 years prior. As a matter of fact, they bolster my position because they recognize that someone before Casor was legally found to be a slave which is why they supplement/qualify their sentences with "civil case" or "not as the result of a crime".

• The Black American in United States History Edgar Allan Toppin 1973
• The American Dream Stephen McDowell 2007
• The Negro in Virginia University of Michigan 1940
• Slave trade and slavery John Henrik Clarke 1970
• Black Yellow Dogs Ben Kinchlow 2008

I see that you ignored this quote from Kinchlow in that same source, "This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World." That's why we can get rid of Kinchlow as well. Kinchlow is also a tertiary source that used other historians' research from internet sites. One of those sites listed in the notes for chapter 1(The chapter where your quote came from) is The Virtual Jamestown website. The Virtual Jamestown specifically says "John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by law in Virginia." http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html .

These next sources are either tertiary sources/textbooks, written for juveniles, or both and do not take precedence over reliable secondary sources or sources written for collegiate use.

• Colonialism: Key Concepts in American History Darrell J. Kozlowski 2010
• A Look at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments John Richard Conway 2008

So, all that leaves is Foner, and Foner doesn't assert that Punch remained an indentured servant as the result of his trial. What you quoted only mentions a precedent set in Johnson v. Parker, which some of my sources define as a court recognizing that black people could own slaves. So after you've included all of this information which isn't relevant to whether Punch became a slave as a result of his trial or not, they still do nothing to support your position. You've been told all of this before by myself and another third opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, thanks for providing your sources. Now we can try to weigh the evidence and move forward. Personally, I'm a bit confused because of the number of sources that have been cited and their varying quality. To help that, I'm starting a table below listing the strongest sources (including some I've found today). To include a source, let's say that it must be (a) a reliable source, (b) written by a credentialed historian (i.e., one with a Ph. D. and some relevant academic appointment) with specific expertise in the American colonial period or black slavery, and (c) published by an academic source like a journal, university press, or a specialized reference work in the last fifty years. Everyone, feel free to add to it, or discuss these criteria. —Neil 08:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Neil, that is an impressive table. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so maybe I'm just easily impressed, but I appreciate the amount of work you've spent on offering a third opinion and your research into verifying sources. I was hesitant to edit the table because I thought I'd mess it up, but it seems to have survived my addition unscathed. I added Winthrop Jordan and 2 of his works. Both were published by either a journal or university press and Jordan is an award winning author with a Ph. D.. Both sources say similar things, with slightly different wording. I included "Modern Tensions and the Origin of Slavery" because this article includes information and analysis on the price of negroes being sold in 1645 and 1643, providing additional evidence of Negroes serving for life. This first source was published in 1962, just outside of your 50 year range. If there is a firm reason for the 50 year limit, then I'll happily accept its removal, but I feel it's close enough. Of course, if these sources don't hold up to your strong source criteria, feel free to remove it and just let me know why. Thanks!Scoobydunk (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, thanks! I have to say I'm having fun learning about race relations in 17th century Virginia. Your additions are great: I picked fifty years out of the air so we could focus on relatively modern sources, but a year here and there won't do any harm. I already feel like I have a better grasp on the consensus, but we can wait another day or two in case Wayne or Parkwells want to bring in any additional sources. —Neil 18:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review Paul Finkelman. He earned his masters and Ph. D. in American History and is considered one of the most cited legal experts. The reason I ask for review is because his expertise is more focused on the history of law and court cases. However, I feel since we're discussing court cases that helped define slavery, since he's educated in American History, and since he's written many books regarding slavery in America pre and post the revolutionary war, that his input is appropriate. His works have been published in numerous university presses, like Yale and University of North Carolina, and this particular reference was published by the Library of Congress.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk is completely ignoring the argument. I'm not saying Punch was not considered a slave by some historians or that indentured servitude was not a form of slavery. My argument is that Casor, who had no indenture and had committed no crime, was the first legal slave. We can no more say that Punch was legally a slave than we can say that the large number of white servants sentenced to a life of servitude before Punch were legally slaves. Historians recognize the difference. Scoobydunk needs to supply sources claiming that Punch was legally a slave, not sources merely calling him a slave. That most of my sources speak of Casor is relevant because they call him the first legal slave while accepting that Punch was a type of slave. None of the sources listed as "strong" by Neil claim is was a legal designation. It is also bad faith to reject sources written as textbooks for "library, secondary school, and university-level curriculums" as "books written for juveniles". Foner is only quoted as a reliable source supporting the use of "some historians" in place of "most historians". Wayne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the argument, you keep trying to change the argument. You've said multiple times on multiple pages that indentured servitude was not slavery and contested that Punch remained an indentured servant and wasn't a slave. You said that MULTIPLE TIMES and have yet provided a single reference indicating that. Now you're trying to change the argument to a matter of semantics. I've listed multiple sources that say "legal distinction","by law", or recognize that Punch was made a slave by legal means through the legal process of the justice system, the same way Casor was. Also, disregarding your 6th grade textbooks is not bad faith. As per wp:reliable textbooks and tertiary sources "should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Since we have numerous secondary sources on the matter, the textbooks hold no relevance or precedence over what these secondary sources say, which is why they can be ignored for a detailed discussion, which is what we're having. This is why you're left with no sources to confirm your opinion that Casor was the first legal slave, because all the other secondary sources you listed recognize that Punch or others was/were legally made a slave(s) before him. Hence why they have to distinguish the Casor suit not with the word "legal" but with fact that it was a civil case where no crime was committed. To help cut down on the less reliable and tertiary sources that both of us have listed, Neil has created a table of strong reliable sources that should be used in coming to a resolution in this dispute. I suggest you start participating in the evolution of this discussion and find some strong reliable sources that support your position. Also, Foner only said "some historians" in regard to historians who considered the negroes landing in Jamestown in 1619 to be slaves. He didn't say "some historians" when addressing the status of Punch or what historians consider Punch.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What I've said multiple times is that indentured servitude was not legally slavery. It is bad faith to call a public library or university-level curriculum textbook a "6th grade textbook". It is also bad faith to misrepresent a Wikipedia policy by leaving out part of the quote. Per WP:RS 1. "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." 2. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." 3. "Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available." The policy you are quoting applies only to tertiary source textbooks not secondary source textbooks. The Punch court case did not recognize him as a legal slave for life, it recognized him as a legal servant for life. Historians sometimes use the term slave for Punch NOT "legal slave." My sources say first legal slave for Casor, you need to find sources that call Punch a legal slave. Your interpretation of Foner is WP:OR. He said that historians are devided, that "some" believe X, "others" believe Y, "while others" believe Z. That supports the use of "some" or perhaps "many" for each, not "some" for the first and "most" for your preferred version. So far all of Niel's strong reliable sources support my argument, none claim Punch was legally the first slave. Wayne (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You also said multiple times that Punch was not a slave and remained an indentured servant, so stop pretending you didn't. The textbooks I called 6th grade textbooks specifically say 6th grade and/or ages 11 and up in the book and as listed on google.books.com. So it's not bad faith at all and the fact that you keep accusing bad faith where none exists, can actually be seen as bad faith on your part. Everything you quoted on textbooks is what is preferred over primary sources or what can be used in general. These quotes of yours from the WP:reliable page do not contradict the statement that I quoted that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Also, WP:reliable says nothing about "secondary source textbooks" and the word "textbook" doesn't even exist on the secondary source page. This is clearly the result of your own OR in an attempt to justify using a tertiary source in place of a secondary source. Only 2 of your sources say "legal". One is a tertiary source and won't be used over secondary sources, and the other one says "legal sanction" but then supplements that with "not for a crime". Regardless, neither of those sources meet the strong source criteria set forth in this discussion. I didn't interpret Foner, I repeated exactly what he said. He didn't use "some historians" to refer to Punch or how historians regard Punch. He said it about slaves landing in 1619 Jamestown. I don't even think you know what OR is after you make such a baseless accusation. You're the one trying to say we should use "some historians" instead of "most historians" based on what Foner said about historians who consider slavery to have existed since their arrival in Jamestown in 1619. Lastly, if you read Neil's and my reliable sources, nearly all of them indicate the importance of Punch and his case as being either the first legal documentation of slavery or at least the first evidence of servitude for life as legally recognized by the courts. NONE, and I'll say this again, NONE of them regard Casor as the first legal slave, nor do they say Anthony Johnson was the first legally recognized slave holder, which is your ultimate argument that you've interjected back into this discussion. So, no, they don't support your position at all which is why you're so frantic to try and argue semantics, make an OR argument about Punch remaining an indentured servant, and misrepresent sources to try and discredit facts.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You are using Google as a RS? Google may say "ages 11 and up" but that is the minimum standard, the sources themselves say public library to University level. Of course Casor is in the argument, when a RS calls Punch a slave and goes on to say that Casor was the first legal slave that shoots down the argument that Punch was the first legal slave. And I'm still waiting for you to provide sources supporting that Punch was a legal slave. Regarding the use of the word "most", per WP:RS/AC The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

RS has to do with what's allowed in wikipedia articles, not with how we make decisions about things in the discussion page. Note how we link to the wikipedia articles to verify the credentials of the authors and historians we cite. You should probably take the time to read what Neil found because he used a different source verifying that Toppin was classified as a juvenile source. On top of that, it's a tertiary source and can't be used in place of reliable secondary sources. It's not so much the age group, but that it's a tertiary source that disqualifies it from the discussion where reliable secondary sources are available. The publisher does not meet our strong sources criteria and the source itself doesn't meet RS criteria when we have reliable strong secondary sources to use in its place. So you still don't have a RS that says Casor was the first legal slave. It's also about time you stop with this "legal slave" thing because a court ruling and sentence are legal recognition and legal adjudication. Therefore, the court recognized that Hugh Gwyn legally owned John Punch for life, which the sources below either call slavery, or say was the first case documenting one of the tenants of slavery. Hence, Hugh Gwyn was the first documented person to be made a legal slave holder. As far as "most" is concerned, that's fine. Our consensus will accurately represent the strong reliable sources. None of which say Casor was the first negro legally made a slave. Also, I suggest you check out the latest source I found to back up my position.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you should start searching for them while you search for strong reliable sources that support your point of view regarding Punch and his court case.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources and Citations

Have deleted Henry Robert Burke as a cited source, as his article, "Slavery in Virginia," is undated, on his personal website, and does not add new material to the discussion. Historians in 1913 and 1926, published by RS academic presses, established the facts about the case. Will add him as an External Link - he's an example of people who especially contribute to local history.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Table of Strongest Sources

Author (linked)	Title (linked)	Publisher (linked)	Year	Quote
Tom Costa	Runaway Slaves and Servants in Colonial Virginia	Encyclopedia Virginia	2011	"The third servant, 'a negro named John Punch,' was punished differently. Rather than take on additional years, he was made a slave for life. Scholars have argued that this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." "Late in 1654, "John Casor Negro" fled the service of Anthony Johnson, preferring to work for one of Johnson's neighbors, Robert Parker. Once away from Johnson, Casor claimed that his master had held him as a slave when he actually was an indentured servant."
Philip J. Schwartz	Twice Condemned: Slaves and the Criminal Laws of Virginia, 1705-1865	Lousiana State University Press	1988	"The earliest known case was in 1640, when the General Court punished a runaway black servant with lifetime servitude, even though his accomplices, two white servants, received only one additional year of service to their masters and three more to the colony. Clearly, white authorities were willing to make racial distinctions."
Philip S. Foner	History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom	Greenwood Press	1975	"They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."
A. Leon Higginbotham	In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period	Oxford University Press	1980	"In another decision that same month, the Virginia Count demonstrated that it would not be reluctant to subject blacks who were not already enslaved to lifetime servitude....Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."
W. T. M. Riches	"White Slaves, Black Servants and the Question of Providence: Servitude and Slavery in Colonial Virginia 1609-1705	Irish Journal of American Studies	1999	"In 1640…there is the first evidence that some blacks were not being held as servants but at least as life-long slaves. The General Court session of 22 July 1640 saw the sentencing of several runaway servants who had been captured in Maryland and returned to Virginia….The third servant was John Punch."
Winthrop Jordan	Modern Tensions and The Origins of American Slavery	Southern Historical Association	1962	"The first definite trace [of "hereditary life time service", "slavery's most essential feature"] appears in 1640 when the Virginia General Court pronounced sentence on three servants who had been retaken after running away to Maryland...'the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where.'" "In addition to these clear indications that some Negroes were owned for life, there were clear cases of Negroes held for terms far longer than the normal five or seven years…One Negro freeman, Anthony Johnson, himself owned a Negro [John Casor]."
Winthrop Jordan	White Over Black: American attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812	University of North Carolina Press	1968	"The next year, 1640, the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia...'the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where.'"
Paul Finkelman	Slavery in the Courtroom: An Annotated Bibliography of American Cases	Library of Congress	1985	"Other records from this period, however, show that black servants were gradually being reduced to a status below that of white servants. In 1640...The court declared 'that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere.' In such ways African servants in Virginia and Maryland became slaves."
Ashton Wesley Welch	"Law and the Making of Slavery in Colonial Virginia"	Ethnic Studies Review	2004	"A series of cases in the early 1640s demonstrate that black labor was not subject to term restrictions. In July 1640, three runaway slaves were caught and tried before the court. All three were whipped, and while the two Whites, a Dutchman and a Scot, had several years added to their indentures, the third, a black man named John Punch, was ordered to serve his 'master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere.' "
Rodeney D. Coates	Law and the Cultural Production of Race and Racialized Systems of Oppression	American Behavioral Scientist	2003	"Ten years later, the Virginia Courts would establish servitude for life in a case involving runaway servants...John Punch 'was ordered to serve his master or his assigns for the time of his natural life'...Thus, John Punch’s name should go down in history as being the first official slave in the English colonies."
John Donoghue	“Out of the Land of Bondage”: The English Revolution and the Atlantic Origins of Abolition	The American Historical Review	2010	"...however, as early as 1640, colonial courts began constructing racial identities to determine who could be enslaved for a fixed term and who could be enslaved for life...In 1640, John Punch, a person of African descent, was sentenced to lifetime slavery in Virginia for running away with two bond slaves of European extraction. The latter were sentenced to flogging. This can be interpreted as the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake."
Alden T. Vaughan	"The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia"	Virginia Magazine of History and Biography	1989	"The occasional references to indentures in the surviving records are often inconclusive. For example, in 1665, John Casor, a black servant belonging to Anthony Johnson, stated he hand arrived in the colony with an indenture for seven or eight years. Johnson denied it and insisted on the ownership of Casor for life."

Table Discussions by Source (Row #: Author)

Costa

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Tags are used for the article because they ask editors to supply necessary sources to support changes they've made to the article. The tags you've added to quotes from a secondary sources basically equate to you demanding that Tom Costa appear on Wikipedia and supply you with sources already listed in his publication. Furthermore, I've already explained to you that original research is not allowed in articles on Wikipedia. So your own interpretations of the terms "slave" and "servant for life" carry no weight and do not merit a rebuttal/response. If you have reliable secondary sources, as defined by WP:reliable, that say Punch remained an indentured servant and didn't become a slave, then you're welcome to post those to the table in the same format that the other sources are presented. From there, we as editors, can discuss how the article should accommodate those new sources.

I'll also add that Costa merely refers to the fact the some scholars and historians consider this the first legal distinction between races which is not the same as affirming the statement itself. This assessment of his is clearly supported by the fact that there are other historians and scholars presented in the table that do affirm that statement.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative. It's not difficult to understand that people with different backgrounds and different biases will have different considerations of what they define as "truth". Your extreme example might sound silly to you, but it becomes less silly when applied to someone arguing that our solar system is geocentric as opposed to heliocentric and becomes more relevant when someone is arguing that creationism is "true". So the articles on Wikipedia do not reflect the subjective interpretations and opinions of editors for this reason. Instead, Wikipedia has created specific set of rules to address these difference between editors. Those rules take the form of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:OR. It doesn't matter what we believe to be "true", what matters is what's verified by strong reliable secondary sources. Regarding your text color example, I could just as easily claim, with every bit of certainty as you, that the text is "magenta" and now we're even further from establishing what is considered "true". This is why we use sources from academic and accredited institutions to support the information on Wikipedia. If those sources don't exist, you're welcome to use less reliable sources like a book published by a private company or a primary source, but they do not hold more weight and aren't to be considered over secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines for reliability. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to WP PresidentistVB. Despite many attempts there has been no consensus attained regarding Punch being a slave or servant. Unfortunately the question is somewhat politicized so it is difficult to get input from other editors. The terminology used MUST reflect the mainstream view of historians. I believe that view is that Punch was a servant or that at the very least mainstream views are divided on the subject. Scoobydunk however believes Punch was a slave and claims ownership of the article by reverting any text that suggests otherwise in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT no matter how well supported. Scoobydunk wont compromise and as I don't want to edit war I gave up arguing with him leaving John Punch by Scoobydunk a better title. If I get time I'll help you argue the case for a NPOV article. Cheers Wayne (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, I'll take this time to remind you about wikipedia's policies regarding personal attacks. PresidentistVB, Just to clear up possible confusion, WLRoss just spent a fair amount of time talking about "beliefs" but personal beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia articles. What is relevant is what can actually be verified through the use of a reliable source. The table has multiple sources that reference this case as a racial distinction and that also refer to John Punch as a slave. To the contrary, the table supplies 0 sources that say Punch remained an indentured servant and/or wasn't a slave. The article should reflect information from reliable sources and it does.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, as you know, it's not just Scoobydunk that disagrees with you on this particular issue so it seems inaccurate to say he's monopolizing the article. Scoobydunk, what personal attacks are you talking about? I certainly don't see any. Obviously Wayne's not your biggest fan (nor mine, I'm sure), but I don't think I've once seen him attack anyone personally.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil P. Quinn, I'm be happy to answer your question. As a matter of fact, you referred to it directly. WP:Personal states:

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

"Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Criticizing someone for ownership is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. On top of that, article talk pages are not the place to make criticisms about other editors. So here you have Wayne criticizing my behavior as "ownership" and also criticizing me for not compromising. Also, the remark about "John Punch by Scoobydunk" is not constructive and is a personal criticism suggesting ownership as well. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You have previously been warned regarding ownership. It may not have been this specific article but it was over the question of whether Punch or Johnson was the first slave. You are exhibiting the same behavior again here. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I requested that person to supply evidence in the forms of diffs or links as is required by Wikipedia. He could not supply any diffs or evidence to support his claim and I told him he was in violation of WP:Personal. I even gave him an example of what "ownership" actually looks like as described by WP:OWN and he still could not do the same. I planned on pursuing additional assistance against that editor since he was also in violation of guidelines set for administrators, but I found that he fled from Wikipedia during the midst of an arbitration case against him involving abuse of his powers on a multitude of incidents against other editors. Since he left, I felt it was no longer prudent to stack on to the plethora of accusations against him. Either way, this does not enable you to violate Wikipedia's policies the same way he/she did and the article talk page is certainly not the appropriate place for these criticisms.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a good example of a personal attack that not only lacks substance but also indicates a confrontational and blinkered attitude to editing. Wayne (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that was an explanation about how attempting to piggy back on other peoples' unsubstantiated accusations is still considered a personal attack, not a personal attack in and of itself. If you're referring to the examples I gave to that other editor, those are not a personal attack because I have yet to levy such accusations, but if I did choose to levy them, I have direct instances that clearly follow the behavior described by WP:OWN. So I have serious evidence to support that serious accusation and am not in violation of WP:personal.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference if you make the claim on another editors talk page or on this Talk page, especially as you repeated the claim on this talk page anyway. Regarding your examples, please explain how a list of articles I have edited is evidence of ownership and explain why my asking you not to delete unreferenced material for a "day or so" because I was adding references to the article is also evidence. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't made a claim about ownership except for "what it looks like" and that is not a personal attack. I then provided quotes from WP:Own of what ownership looks like and then gave evidence in the form of diffs and links to behavior that meets those Wikipedia's description of "ownership". The quotes are right there and they are self explanatory.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never disputed that some historians consider Punch a slave. The problem is that you will not allow the use of the word "some" or give equal weight to other historians views. I have provided a source that specifically discusses the three mainstream views yet you continue to cherry pick only sources that support your view.

History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way." Wayne (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not presented any historians that have published strong reliable sources that say John Punch was not a slave. So how can we give equal weight to something you haven't provided. Also, Foner specifically says:

"...others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant." (my emphasis)

Here, Foner is speaking about slavery as an institution and the Negro in general, not about every single slave and every single negro. His mention of the institution is explicit and, at best, his mention of the Negro can be considered dubious, though I feel it's clear he's speaking about Negros in general. To clarify this, we have another strong reliable secondary source.

"On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989.

This verifies that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery existed by the 1640s. That doesn't contradict Foner because Vaughan is not speaking to slavery as an institution like Foner is, he simply saying that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery did exist by the 1640s. This is a clear assessment and declaration of the "mainstream" view that does not contradict or conflict with what other strong reliable secondary sources have been saying about John Punch. This also means that the people who do not fall into the category of "almost everyone acknowledges" are an insignificant minority and Wikipedia does not give insignificant minorities equal weight or mention, whatsoever, unless in an article that's specifically written to address those minority viewpoints.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Vaughan specifically backs up Foner in that there are varying views. Regarding Punch, show me a single primary source that says he was a slave. Secondary sources are reporting their own interpretations rather than accepting what the primary sources say and are divided on the matter anyway. This article is presenting the views of some historians as the mainstream view to the exclusion of other views that have equal weight. Wayne (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources don't take priority over reliable secondary sources and WP:Reliable does a sufficient job in explaining why. So I don't have to provide a primary source that says any such thing. Also, Vaughan was saying almost everyone acknowledges slavery existed by 1640, which means, John Punch being considered a slave does not contradict with what Foner mentioned about some historians not considering the institution of slavery starting until 1660. So Foner doesn't contradict what other historians say about Punch, and Vaughan clarifies this. I'm still waiting for you to post those reliable sources that say John Punch remained a servant and didn't become a slave. We can't give equal weight to sources you haven't supplied yet. It's that simple, supply the sources, stop claiming they exist and showing up empty handed.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jordan, Winthrop

That particular source from Winthrop can probably be rejected as a strong source because his claim that Punch was sentenced to "hereditary life time service" is not remotely supported by records. Wayne (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The strength of an author or source is not dependent upon what you feel is remotely supported by records. You also need to read the passage because he didn't say that Punch was sentenced to "hereditary life time service." Winthrop said that this was the first "trace" of life time heredity servitude in that fact that it was the first documented instance of life time servitude. It wasn't until later that heredity became part of the formula of slavery, but the Punch case was the first trace of what eventually became slavery as we know it. That was the point he was making and it's a point shared by just about all of the strong reliable sources listed here.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not "what I feel", it is an indisputable fact that there are no supporting records for the claim. Punch was also not the first documented instance of life time servitude as there are earlier documented cases of life time servitude for whites and according to Toppin, there is also documentary evidence of life time servitude for blacks in the 1630s. Punch is merely the first documented "court case" involving a black sentenced to life in a country where the majority of court records are lost. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We will come to a consensus based on what the reliable sources do actually say and not based on merely your assertions, and that consensus will be based on material relevant to John Punch and John Casor. Also, Toppin fails the criteria for a reliable sources for 2 reasons. First, the book you quoted from is a text book and is therefore not considered a reliable source when dealing with other secondary sources, which North Shoreman informed you of weeks ago. Second, the publisher is not a scholarly journal, university press, or specialized reference work, it is a textbook publisher. Our first dispute resolution third opinion informed you of this, Neil specifically didn't include him in the table, most likely because of this, and now I'm telling you this. It does not meet the criteria of a strong reliable source, please remove it from the table.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I hear your point. I have to say I disagree, but at this point I'm just focusing on defining which are the strong sources that we should rely on in taking the temperature of the scholarly consensus. Scoobydunk is correct here: I am deliberately excluding textbooks, because their function is to give a very broad, shallow overview and to abstract away some of the historical nuance. That type of literature definitely has its place, but it doesn't belong in a deep discussion of a very narrow point. Regarding Toppin's book, I was torn about including it, but I just noticed on Worldcat that one of its publisher-defined subject headings is "African Americans -- History -- Juvenile literature." That convinces me that we shouldn't include it. However, Foner (I think you originally brought that one) is a good source, and you should feel free to add more like it. —Neil 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Neil I just wanted to make sure that you're also checking sources for "John Casor". I feel whatever consensus we come to should include a comparison between the two and whatever criteria we use for John Punch also gets equally and fairly attributed to John Casor. For example, if we're going to make the consensus that historians debate about when slavery actually began, then I feel that also applies to how we describe John Casor. I feel the sources we've already listed as strong sources give an in depth look at colonial slavery in Virginia and equally apply to both John Punch and John Casor. However, I just wanted to make sure you weren't limiting your search to just "John Punch" as there might be some credible strong sources that don't mention Punch but mention Casor instead. This is what WLRoss should be doing, but since you're a neutral third opinion, I think you should be doing it as well to give both of our positions fair representation. I know this can be a bit laborious but thank you for your participation.-Scoobydunk (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I found a scholarly source from a historical sociologist that studied the history of racial oppression. Since many historians are keen are describing and analyzing the disparate treatment of blacks based on race in colonial Virginia, I think including the input of someone who specializes in race relations and sociology gives more credence to claims of that nature. Coates received his Ph. D. in sociology from the University of Chicago. He serves on the executive boards of the Southern Sociological Society and Sociologists without Borders and was the former chair of the Section of Race and Ethnic Minorities of the American Sociological Association.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, good point about Casor. I found a couple of references to him in sources I had already logged, plus one new one at the bottom of the table. None of them cite him as a first. I don't consider Coates the strongest of sources on this point because, among other things, he cites a secondary source rather than primary sources for his knowledge of the Punch case, but I think it's within the bounds. I think we've gotten to the point where more sources would be superfluous. Let me sum up my conclusions:

• Almost every source explicitly uses the term "slave" when discussing Punch, and certainly none of them argue that he wasn't.
• Most of them make a point of calling him a lifelong or lifetime slave, I suspect because it's not clear that his slavery was hereditary (and may not have been at the time either).
• Six explicitly label him the first documented case of slavery, and none of the rest attempt to rebut this.

So I think we can very safely say: Punch's sentence is the first documented case of lifetime slavery in the Virginia colony, and he is often considered the colony's first slave, or something else with the key modifiers "documented", "lifetime", and "in Virginia". I'm also wondering if we should also remove the mention of Casor being the first slave in a civil case from his article unless we can find a strong historical source saying so. Toppin is our only one, and it's not the strongest. —Neil 01:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I will piggyback on your assessment with my own regarding the similarities of John Punch and John Casor. The majority of the sources explicitly say that John Punch was the first documented slave in Virginia. Others regard Punch as the first official slave or say that his case was the first legal sanction of slavery in Virginia. They characterize John Punch as a slave because he was forced or "reduced" to mandatory servitude for the rest of his life as the result of a court decision. This is why they say he stopped being an indentured servant and became slave as the result of his court case. John Casor is considered a slave for the same reason. John Casor was forced to servitude for the rest of his life, the same way John Punch was. So they are both considered slaves because they were both reduced to lifetime servitude. The difference between them, is that Punch was sentenced to slavery 14 years before Casor was ruled to be a slave. This is why these historians frequently discuss the importance of the Punch case and scarcely even mention the Casor case at all. Many historians also point out the importance of the Punch case as being the first documented evidence of racial disparity between white and black indentured servants. The other 2 servants that ran away were sentenced to 4 years plus lashings, while Punch, for no reason other than the color of his skin, was sentenced to lifetime servitude and lashings. None of these sources indicate the Casor trial as being important or influential to the development of slavery. The only source that did give it any considerable recognition was Foner who only used it as an example of how planters were started to impose slavery onto their indentured servants and ignore when indentured contracts were fulfilled. None of them characterize this as being the first legal recognition or documentation of slavery.

My conclusion of the evidence and the sources is that Casor and Punch were both considered slaves because they were legally documented as being reduced to lifelong servitude. I don't much care for the exact wording that is used in the article, as long as the consensus represents that Punch was a legally documented slave before Casor became a legally documented slave and, in turn, that Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as a slave owner before Anthony Johnson was legally recognized as a slave owner. There is no strong reliable source that tries to claim that Casor was the first slave or that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner, while there are many that explicitly say Punch was the first slave and recognize Hugh Gwyn as his owner. Any attempt to pretend that Casor was the first legal slave is simply unsupported by the sources and is a clear misrepresentation of the history of Virginia. This is the essence of what I've found to be true from our strong sources. Feel free to offer your opinions.

As per Casor and the civil case, though it is factually accurate, it is clearly not mentioned or emphasized in the strong reliable sources. So I agree with you that it should probably be removed because it gives Casor a false sense of historical importance which is not even remotely shared by the sources we've identified as strong. I personally believe that his importance is trumped up and misrepresented as an attempt of revisionist history that ultimately tries to blame a black slave owner(Anthony Johnson) as the founder of slavery or a key contributor of the development of slavery, which is not expressed by a single well credentialed historian or source that we've listed here. None of them say that explicitly or implicitly.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You cant say that Punch was a legally documented slave because he wasn't and the sources don't claim he was. He was a lifetime indentured servant which some historians consider slavery. Hugh Gwyn was no more the first slave owner than any of the other planters who illegally held slaves at that time. The main difference between Punch and Casor was that Punch had an indenture while Casor did not, the court extended Punches servitude (bondage slavery) while in the case of Casor the court specifically found that he had no indenture and was owned by Johnson (chattel slavery) which is a significant difference.
Claiming the Casor claim is revisionist history is WP:OR. None of the sources say Johnson was responsible for slavery, merely that his was the first case where a court recognized chattel slavery as legal. The only revisionist history I see is the push to say "most historians" support Punch being the first slave when the sources say "some" or "other historians" support this view. Wayne (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, you've failed to provide a single source to support your argument that John Punch remained an indentured servant. It's been over a month now and you haven't listed ONE SINGLE SOURCE to support this claim. Many of the sources I've posted said that Punch was legally made a slave and the point is that he was made a slave the same way Casor was. As the result of a court decision. The only difference is one is a criminal case and the other is a civil case. If you had any interest in representing the truth or bothering to read the sources, then you'd know this.

• "Rather than take on additional years, he was made a slave for life. Scholars have argued that this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts."<--What's the first legal distinction? Oh, it's that John Punch was made a slave. Why is it legal? Oh, because it was the result of a court sentencing and recorded in the same court records that the Johnson v. Parker trial was recorded in. Legal distinction means legal ruling, which then means legal slave, and this source says exactly that.
• "Thus, John Punch’s name should go down in history as being the first official slave in the English colonies." What does official mean? Oh, it means it was legally and officially recognized by the courts in Virginia.
• "This can be interpreted as the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake."Straight up says this was the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery, thus making Punch the first legal slave.

The real funny thing is, NONE of these historians call Casor the first slave. None of them. Not a single one says that John Punch wasn't a slave but that Casor was different and was a slave. Most of them don't even mention Casor at all. It's clear you're set on holding your position which is completely void of any strong reliable source and set on ignoring the dispute resolution process and what historians have clearly said in their works. You even had to misrepresent the only strong reliable source you listed by spreading your quote along 6 paragraphs and arguing that it said "some historians" when regarding Punch, when the full text clearly doesn't. It does say "some historians" consider slavery to have existed since 1619. It does say "some historians" don't think any slavery existed until the 1660's. But, it doesn't say "some historians" in any way shape or form when discussing Punch. Foner makes no indication on the quantity of historians when discussing Punch. He doesn't say "some" or "other" when talking about Punch and actually describes Punch without using qualifiers describing its support by historians. He describes Punch as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion. So, you're wrong. I'm not pushing for the article to say "most historians" because you haven't presented a single contradicting opinion from a strong reliable source. We can say it as a matter of fact, just like all of these sources do.

Your explanation of the differences between Punch and Casor is purely original research and isn't supported by a single source represented in our strong reliable sources table. If you continue to edit and revert based on it, it is strictly a violation of WP:OR. Casor and Punch were BOTH reduced to serving their masters for the remainder of their lives. This is what historians call slavery and why they say both of them are slaves. The Punch decision came before Casor, therefore Gwyn was a slave owner before Johnson. Both of them were recognized as slave owners through a legal court process, but since Hugh's ruling predates Johnson's by 14 years, he is the first legally documented slave owner.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re the bullet points:

• "the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." The source is saying that Punch was sentenced to a far more severe penalty than the two white servants for the same crime which is clear from the rest of the paragraph. It did not make slavery legal. Your interpretation of the source is WP:OR.
• "official" means "information that has been announced publicly," it does not mean "legal." "Legal" means "according to the law" and the court extended Punch's servitude. The court did not use the word slavery which was still illegal in Virginia despite the ruling, it made him a "legal lifetime servant" which some historians consider slavery.
• "This can be interpreted as the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." A legal sanction is "penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law." The penalty was lifetime servitude. It does not give legal status to slavery.

BOTH Punch and Casor were reduced to serving their masters for the remainder of their lives. Historians call this slavery, however, Casor had committed no crime and was found to belong to his owner. Therefor, Punch may have been considered a slave but according to the primary source, Casor was the first documented legal slave. None of this is OR. Regarding your interpretation of Foner, he doesn't have to mention Punch by name. If he says that some historians believe slavery existed since 1619 then Punch could not be the first. If some historians believe slavery didn't exist until the 1660's then Punch could not be a slave. If some historians believe slavery developed over time then this includes Punch. Using "most historians" for your preferred position just because the source doesn't refer to any particular slave by name is a violation of WP:RS/AC. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Black's Law Dictionary defines precedent as "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Of course, regardless of precedent, the British Colonies had a common law court system. Common law is LAW developed by judges through court decisions and rulings. As just about all of the strong reliable sources say, this was the first time a court sentenced a Negro to lifetime servitude, which is slavery. Since this was the first time a court made this sentence, it established precedent that people could be made slaves for life. Thus, by definition of precedent and the power of common law, it became lawful/legal.

Also, interpreting primary sources is OR. You're not suppose to do it and you're certainly not suppose to use primary sources over strong reliable secondary sources. You have yet to give a single strong reliable secondary source that supports anything you say. Everything you assert is strictly OR and that fact that you just admitted to interpreting the primary source as the basis of your argument is a violation of WP:OR. Also, can you quote me where in the primary source it says "Casor is the first legal slave"? Last time I checked, it didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, the case didn't even say Casor had to serve Johnson for life, it simply ruled that Casor be returned to Johnson and that Parker pay whatever costs. It doesn't matter anyway, because our interpretations of primary sources is OR and doesn't belong in the article. I'm surprised that someone who's been on WP for so long doesn't understand this. I picked it up in only a few days.

For the last time, I didn't interpret Foner. I said exactly what he said and made no conclusions based on my own position. You're the one trying to interpret Foner to argue that he said "some historians" when talking about Punch. He didn't say that. Also, if "some historians" believe the first slaves arrived in 1619 and "some historians" believe there were no slaves before 1660, it is still possible for "MOST HISTORIANS" to believe that Punch was the first slave. Though this is true, it's still OR the same way you trying to say "some historians" is OR and that's why I'm not editing the article to say "most historians". Like I've already said, Foner makes no indication to the quantity of historians when describing John Punch. What Foner does INSTEAD is describe Punch as an objective matter of fact. That's how Neil and I plan to describe Punch since there is not a single strong reliable source arguing a minority opinion. Punch was the first legally documented slave in Virginia and Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as his owner. <--See how I didn't use "most historians", it's because I don't have to. I already conceded that I wouldn't say "most historians" like 5 days ago and explained to you exactly why. "Most historians" is no longer a matter of discussion because we are not saying "most historians". The secondary sources don't say "most historians" and they don't say "some historians" when regarding Punch, they state it as a certifiable fact, and that's how the article will read, as FACT and NOT OPINION. This is the third time I've said this.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I agree with Scoobydunk. We've had an absolutely massive discussion, and it's pretty clear what the sources say. I'm updating the article to reflect the conclusions I listed above, and that's pretty much the end of the story. If you feel differently, you're free to pursue other avenues for dispute resolution, but I strongly doubt you'll find much support for your point of view. —Neil 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My point of view regarding the use of "some" v "most" is strongly supported by WP:RS/AC and the fact that none of the sources say that Punch was legally a slave means we can't claim that based on an editors interpretation of what the sources meant. Consensus can not overrule WP policy based arguments. Wayne (talk)

The whole issue of "legally a slave" is based entirely on your own doubts and interpretations. Overwhelmingly historians call Punch a lifetime slave and none of them bring up any issue of legality or engage in any semantic handwringing over the definition of slavery, and that means we need to do the same. —Neil 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am curious to hear what you think about Donoghue saying this was a "legal sanctioning" or Costa saying the decision was a "legal distinction". Both of those speak to the legality of the ruling. Like I said before, there are many documents that could potentially list slaves, like shipping records, captain logs, and inventories, but this document is the official legal record of the court. Court writs or court processes are legal instruments/documents by definition, not by OR or POV. Like I said before, I don't really care so much about the wording we actually use, as long as the decision applies fairly to both Punch and Casor. My insistence on using a form of "legal" is because, as you can probably already infer, some people will try and use it as a semantic wedge to give a false sense of importance to Casor where none exists. They were both made slaves through the legal decisions of the court and I don't want people trying to undermine our consensus by pretending Punch wasn't legal while Casor was. Not a single strong reliable secondary source makes this distinction. I'm fine with not including legal, so long as I can get a consensus that "legal" doesn't apply to Casor either. Sorry, if this feels like I'm putting you on the spot, but I don't think such a request is a stretch since we can base it on the sources we've already exhaustively researched.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, sorry for the delay in responding. When I said that legality was a non-issue, I was thinking about Wayne's opinion that Punch's slavery failed to meet some nebulous, unsourced standard of legality. I agree that historians clearly interpret this case as a legal sanction of slavery. If you want to try making that characterization more prominent, more power to you (we shouldn't imply the court explicitly used the term "slave" or explicitly made the status hereditary, but I'm not worried that you will). —Neil 10:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your assistance.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not an "nebulous, unsourced standard of legality" and it did not "established precedent that people could be made slaves for life." Slavery was illegal under common law. Documented servitude for life was already established for various crimes long before Punch but the documents only mention white people. Punch may well have been the first "documented" case of a black person so sentenced but we also know that there were black people already serving for life at the time of that case. Casor's case was the FIRST documented where a court ordered servitude for life where no crime had been committed.
It seems 3O has failed and we can not resolve the argument so what do we do now? Wayne (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just about all of the sources we've identified and discussed completely contradict your assertions, which of course, you've provided no sources for once again. If you have strong reliable sources that prove there were legally recognized or legally sentenced lifetime slaves in Virginia before John Punch, then we can look at qualifying the consensus with the word "negro" if it is necessary. Also, none of the sources we've identified as strong give any significance to Casor as being the first of anything. Also, 3O hasn't failed and we have reached a consensus which does not have to be unanimous, see WP:CON. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've ignored sources and tried to change the argument. We were actively trying to reach a consensus about whether Punch was a slave or an indentured servant and this whole time you've not provided a single source for your argument and have tried to keep changing the argument to things not relevant to the topic of this dispute resolution. So your unwillingness to cooperate does not mean that this dispute resolution has failed. So, you ask "what do we do now?" and the answer is either you can provide sources for your claims and participate in making a consensus, or you can disengage from this dispute resolution, which is also considered consensus. Any reverting or editing based on OR will be handled in the appropriate manner.-Scoobydunk (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wayne, I wouldn't say that 3O has failed—as Scoobydunk says, we did reach a consensus. I understand you don't agree with it, which is certainly your right. If you want to bring more editors into the discussion, I'm not really sure how you should do that. I'd suggest reading the page on dispute resolution. —Neil 00:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk claims I failed to provide sources to support my view yet I can say the same for him. He uses WP:OR to interpret the primary sources reported by the secondary sources to claim "legality" etc and is also claiming it is the view of the majority whereas I have clearly shown that his is a view held by some on a subject where historians are sharply divided into three or more groups, none of which hold a majority. I've made concessions but as Scoobydunk is not prepared to make any the dispute remains unresolved and he has also failed to show civility to me as required by the 3O process. WP:3O is third party mediation in order to help two arguing parties come to an agreement and I thank you for that but if the two still cant agree then there is no consensus regardless of the 3O's view and we need to find another resolution. Wayne (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk claims I failed to provide sources to support my view yet I can say the same for him.

At this point, it doesn't really matter who provided what. We took an inventory of the strongest sources, as judged by explicit criteria, and it supported the view that I summarized above. If you think sources were unfairly included or excluded, try the reliable sources noticeboard.

He uses WP:OR to interpret the primary sources reported by the secondary sources to claim "legality" etc and is also claiming it is the view of the majority whereas I have clearly shown that his is a view held by some on a subject where historians are sharply divided into three or more groups, none of which hold a majority.

I think the conclusions I mentioned above are clearly supported by the sources, not based on any synthesis or speculation. If you disagree, you might try the original research noticeboard.

I've made concessions but as Scoobydunk is not prepared to make any the dispute remains unresolved

There's no requirement that the dispute be resolved by equal concessions from both sides. If, hypothetically, we have heliocentrists arguing against geocentrists, the heliocentrists win completely, no concessions given (I don't mean that as an analogy for this disagreement).

and [Scoobydunk] has also failed to show civility to me as required by the 3O process.

I don't recall any incivility from either you or Scoobydunk. If you're going to make that accusation, please give specific quotations. As an aside, civility isn't a just requirement of 3O; it's a universal requirement on Wikipedia.

WP:3O is third party mediation in order to help two arguing parties come to an agreement and I thank you for that but if the two still cant agree then there is no consensus regardless of the 3O's view

We can argue all we want about the meaning of consensus, but let me be clear: there are now three editors (myself, Scoobydunk, and Parkwells) who disagree with you on the basis of well-considered reliable sources. I personally consider that consensus.

and we need to find another resolution.

No, I don't think we do. If you want to escalate this discussion further, perhaps to the dispute resolution noticeboard, the onus is on you to do so.

—Neil 10:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another response and not a single source provided. Neil is right, if you want to claim WP:OR then take it to original research noticeboard.-Scoobydunk (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Coates

Communications

[Emailed response from author whose quote is being considered for use in lead and follow-up reply emal.] Dr. Matt (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

From: Coates, Rodney

---

Date: 5/26/2014 10:11 AM

---

To: PresidentistVB

---

You are absolutely right, slavery rarely is used in legal documents in this early period. But, even though the actual term was not used, does that mean that this group of servants were not de facto slaves. If we were to take what is today the United States of America, and not just the 13 English colonies, we can identify slavery as early as 1501. I actually deal with this, along with French slavery in another work. But for this article, I limited myself to the the 13 English colonies. The fact that these 20 Africans were actually considered slaves by the Dutch merchants (recognized by English and other National governments of the day) is central to my use of the term. The fact that these Africans were abducted by the Virginia officials served to introduce this form of servitude into the English Americas. The fact that they were ostensibly called servants is more an attempt to be "politically correct" than anything else. The fact that they were a distinct form of servants, more distinct than the European servants of the day, is the point that I am making here. This was the birth of Slavery in what was to be the United States. Why is this point of interest, because it begins the racial distinctions between classes of labor. Perhaps I should have used the terms de facto slaves to make this distinction.

With reference to Punch, he was the first "documented" servant/slave for life in the colonies. All other servants were special variants of indentured servants. The fact that the African servants were treated as a different species of servants is the beginning of our unique form of slavery in the U.S. The fact that slavers are a particular form of servants allows for the confusion regarding the terms, and the very confusion by which the early English colonies avoided the legal problems associated with slavery. (An English Cannon law prohibited slavery) The Virginia officials, wary of stepping on these laws (being the smart lawyers they were) therefore used the term servants to avoid the problem. But, if a rose is called a flower, does it stop being a rose (even while it is yet a flower)?

I believe the distinctions are important. My purpose for writing this article was to document the racial distinctions and identities that were created. The difference in treatment of these forms of servants was and continues to be at the heart of what constitutes racial differences. Limited by both time and space, the article collapsed this more nuanced argument. The fact yet remains, a distinctly different form of servants arrived in the English colonies first in Virginia. This distinct form of servants were implicitly different than other servants of the day. With time these differences became more explicit. And these differences lie at the heart of both slavery, and the core of our culture of race and racism.

Thanks for both critically reading and holding me accountable for my work.

Dr. Matt (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Vaughan

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arranged by Section Title

Context

Old Point Comfort - First Landing Site of Africans

http://books.google.com/books?id=_DpAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=comfort+servants+african&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mgR2U-LuJo_zoASw_YCABA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rot0HHDFlVoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:OC1awXtqGtwC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1AV2U9e0GZDooATrqoJY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EqHVUV_3GR4C&pg=PA19&dq=point+comfort+africans+1619&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2wt2U6iBDI6GogTo2IHAAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Not a very good publisher, but we can use this as a placeholder for a better source in the opening phrase of the first sentence in the context section. It's not a disputed fact... so either ID it as Cape Comfort or Point Comfort. Slaves didn't just sail to Jamestown... "Africans were first brought to Jamestown and Virginia in 1619, however, their status as slave or indentured servant remains unclear. Philip S. Foner pointed out differing percept...

Old Point Comfort

http://books.google.com/books?id=ntHTAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=howe+history+of+virginia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nxd2U-vyI4mhogT7_oCgBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EqHVUV_3GR4C&pg=PA19&dq=point+comfort+africans+1619&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2wt2U6iBDI6GogTo2IHAAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false John and I are good friends.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LyENAQAAMAAJ&q=africans+arriving+in+Virginia+17th+c+point+comfort&dq=africans+arriving+in+Virginia+17th+c+point+comfort&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0RR2U7q-IY_ooAS1k4GgAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ

Sentenced to Life

It is quotable, so take note. Long before I typed my first word on WP about this article, my opinion was published:

There is no doubt that, by our standards, any form of ownership without compensation should rightfully be labelled as slavery, whenever, in human history, it occurs. Even those who believed themselves servants, indentured or otherwise, could learn, retroactively, and as in the case of John Casor, that what they thought was their term of indentured servitude was, all those years, nothing more than a type of slavery (servitude without compensation at the end of the term). I believe that understanding is both universal and timeless. So, to that end, there is no definitive way to argue against your case; especially since I agree with you on that issue. John Punch, the servant, was “substantively enslaved.

To that ultimate end, we are in agreement. But the entire focus of the article was a reminder that what the people, the subjects, the world felt at the time is what is important. Two years ago, the country's majority believed recreational marijuana use was (and should be) illegal. Do we, still? Isn't it important what we believed when we believed it?

It's a simple concept, and if you don't get it, then your thinking is trendy. You're a follower and not a leader. Wikipedia needs editors who are leaders.

Either way, IF I were to come close to agreeing with the title and thrux of the article, as is; it most certainly should at the least show a logical progression of thought, especially as regards how the editors and their "reliable secondary sources" arrived at the final ruling (which I will always view as presumptuous, unfounded and, possibly, entirely wrong) that John Punch was what the title declares. I don't think any of your reliable sources' works, incidentally, are scholarly, or they would not cite opinion, unless it could be supported by facts.

So, there's no harm in quoting other reliable secondary sources of the time... especially those which do not opine and do rely on facts. It also shows, in each and every century, the vast crevice in opinion, and why it should not be so surprising to see today. In each of the centuries, you could list each author, cite a quote but, to be fair, write a 1-2 sentence summary of the overall conclusion of the work. If there are more than one from a single author, then give each its due weight. The only alternative is to create a section, as the NPOV chat people suggested, entitled, "Alternative Theories," but I don't like it, because it sets out to create a division. I think showing the myriad "thought processes" over time, 400 years of them, is best...

Importantly, this article isn't about servitude v slavery. It's about John Punch, which makes the evolution of every issue pertaining to his case relevant... discussing the evolution of thought, punishment and legislation pertaining to runaway Negros, for example, is relevant.

Historical Context (Proposed Section)

17th Century

Were there any writers on the subject? Newspaper articles? That would be an interesting source of "of the time" sentiments.

19th Century

There are plenty of "of the time" items to show - numerous ads in newspapers re. runaway slaves...

21st Century

Food for thought... Dr. Hoo (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Have changed this to reflect longstanding historical consensus, with a 1913 work remarking on Punch having been made a slave for life.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about John H. Russell he describes it very clearly on page 18.

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony." John H. Russell, The Free Negro In Virginia, 1619-1865.

Again, on matters of content, it's best to post these inquiries on the Punch talk page, or any relevant article talk page. Hope this helps you.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Have brought the discussion back to the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying with this latest post. Is there a question i can assist you with? Your previous question asked for a definition from the author of what "slavery" and "slave" were and I supplied it. Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're trying to say about page 30 or Sep 30, 2013. If you're talking about a broken link on Wikipedia, then I have no idea of how to address that or even where you can go to have that addressed. If you're simply talking about the fact how editors sometimes remove information, such as page numbers, then all I can say is that it happens. You're welcome to include the page number for parts quoted from the dissertation.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't know the intended purpose of your post either?Scoobydunk (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're going to explain the purpose of your post?Scoobydunk (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Change to "Often"

Wayne, you removed the word "often" claiming that "All of the Africans that arrived in 1619 were indentured." It's particularly peculiar because you just cited Foner as saying "Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619..." which contradicts a claim that all of them were indentured servants. This also contradicts what Alden T. Vaughan had to say about slavery:

"On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989."

Where Vaughan declares that almost everyone recognized the existence of slavery by 1640, if not from the beginning. Please provide a strong reliable secondary source that supports your edit. If one is found, then the article should represent both views and direct attribution should be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That some historians believe that indentured servitude was slavery is not relevant. Using the word "often" was falsely implying that some were not indentured. Slavery was not legal in any colony until 1641.

Last I checked 1619 was earlier than 1640. Vaughan admits that slavery may not have existed from the beginning so what is the problem? Wayne (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, what Vaughan admits is that nearly everyone agrees that there were slaves by 1640, if not from the very beginning. This quote from Vaughan speaks to the mainstream/majority view of slavery and it does not say "slavery may not have existed from the beginning." This contradicts your assertion "All of the Africans that arrived in 1619 were indentured," for which you've provided 0, that's ZERO, sources to substantiate. I'm asking that you supply those sources and if you can't, then the article needs to reflect what the sources that have been provided actually say. Vaughan also clearly states that some historians/people believe slavery existed from the onset of the colony. You do not get to use your OR interpretation of what qualifies as an indentured servant versus slave to say that they are wrong or wrongfully mistaking indentured servitude for slavery. To make that statement, you also need a strong reliable secondary source that explicitly says that. So please supply a source for both claims, so the article can give direct attribution where it is necessary. The word "often" is not specifically said by a source and is purely subjective and not quantifiable. So this sentence needs to reflect the possibility of there being both indentured servants and slaves. It should not disregard what numerous historians and reliable sources have said about slavery existing from the beginning. Foner recognizes historians that hold this view and so does Vaughan, neither of them say "they were all indentured servants" in any way shape or form.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable, first you reject any edit that implies that historians are divided on the subject, then to reject my edit, you claim historians are divided on the subject! There is no contradiction, the paragraph is specifically talking about the Africans that arrived in 1619 and all of those were indentured. It is totally irrelevant if any historian considers indentured servitude the same as slavery. Wayne (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What's unbelievable is how you still can't provide a strong reliable source to back up your claim that "they were all indentured servants." Also, I have no problem including quotes from both Foner and Vaughan, but this is not what you do. You take Foner and then use OR to say they were all indentured. The word "often" at least indicated that some were indentured servants and others had a different status, which represents the beliefs of some historians as multiple sources have verified. However, with your removal of "often" and your claim that "all were indentured servants" you're the one who's ignoring that there is division on the status of the Negro upon arrival in Virginia. You then try to take Foner and pretend that he contradicts a claim that Punch was the first official/legal slave or the first legally documented example of slavery in Virginia. It doesn't and Vaughan perfectly explains how even though there is division on when slavery as an institution started, that almost everyone acknowledges that there were slaves in the colony by 1640. "It is totally irrelevant if any historian considers indentured servitude the same as slavery." This quote is you trying to dismiss what reliable sources actually say based on your own original research interpretation of what was a "slave" vs. "indentured servant" and is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You've yet so submit a single strong reliable source that claims all of the Negros that arrived in 1619 were indentured servants and even if you did, it would not take priority over Foner and Vaughan who specifically say that some historians believe slavery existed at the onset of the colony. I'm more than happy with the article reflecting this division between historians on the status of the Negro on arrival to Virginia, but this does not mean there is division on the status of John Punch which is your attempt to include original research in the article. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to this addition that has since been deleted.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to spend more time reading the links Neil and I have given you, including the requirements for the table that was created on the John Punch talk page and WP:Reliable, more specifically WP:Source. The book you've taken that quote from is published by a privately owned company called Madison Books and does not meet the same criteria as the sources in the table which were all published by accredited universities or journals that often use peer review or equivalent professional scrutiny when approving publication. Yes, any private company can publish any wide variety of misinformation and such sources are fine when no other sources are present. However, since there are numerous other more reliable and stronger secondary sources that contradict the information from Alf Mapp Jr., this source does not take priority over and is not given equal consideration over the sources listed in the table. You need sources from a specialized scholarly journal or university press for it to merit equal consideration. The strength and hierarchy of sources is explained on WP:Source and WP:Reliable.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the quote you've provided from Jaffee doesn't change the fact that your referenced source was published by a private company. Wikipedia prefers use of the most reliable sources available to determine article content and privately published books that haven't gone through an accredited institution's peer review process can't not be used over sources that have. Also, please keep content on the talk page relevant to the article. Article talk pages are not the place to make threats or levy personal attacks against other users. The talk pages are for people to present information/inquiry and discuss it. If the information you supply doesn't meet the level of reliability that other sources have met before it, then it does no good to get upset about it. It's much more constructive to find and provide sources of equal reliability based on Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. I hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are cherry picking policies again. I'm not familiar with Mapp myself but according to WP:R quote:Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Mapp complies with this criteria. Wayne (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "cherry picking" and I don't think it means what you think it means. Here, you make an accusation of cherry picking and then go and cherry pick a quote yourself. Cherry Picking is when you intentionally misrepresent information by ignoring evidence or only presenting data that speaks to your narrative. I've already said before that Mapp would be perfectly fine to use in an article because, unlike others, I'm actually familiar with Wikiepedia's policies on reliable sources. However, it can not be used over stronger and more reliable sources and is not given equal weight to sources that have been published in a peer-reviewed or academic journal. That's not cherry picking, that's accurately reflecting what WP:reliable and WP:source have to say about third party sources and reliability. Also, your quote says "reliable third-party publications," and here is what WP:thirdparty, WP:reliable, and WP:Source have to say about what qualifies as "reliable":

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

The quote provided from Mapp does not meet the definition of "reliable" as described by WP:thirdparty. Even if it did, it is not more reliable than secondary sources that have already gone through a peer-review process from an accredited institution like a university press or specialized academic journal. This is not cherry picking, this accurately reflects Wikipedia's policies regarding multiple sources and establishing which ones are most reliable. To cite a small portion of WP:reliable and ignore everything else Wikipedia says about reliability and the use of the most reliable sources is what cherry picking actually looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take the policy and ask someone to explain it to you. There is nothing in the policy that states that peer reviewed books are always more reliable than self published (see dictionary definition of "usually"). This is especially self evident in this topic as the peer reviewed books often contradict each other. You hold peer review to be the standard yet constantly reject any source, peer reviewed or not, that contradicts you. You can't continually enforce your ownership on the article. Wayne (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mapp retired as a professor of English, not of history. His book on the religion of the Founding Fathers was described as a popular version, lacking primary research. A consensus of peer-reviewed sources by recognized authorities in the field of the history of slavery and the American South does outweigh one man's self-published book when he is an expert in a different field. Does the book you quote from by Mapp include primary research? The consensus means most of the historians share an opinion; if that position changes later based on new evidence, a new consensus may be established. Mapp's opinion could be presented as one minority opinion but it does not mean his opinion has equal weight to the consensus of major historians in the field, and it is a misrepresentation of the state of academic scholarship o this topic to say so. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on RS and represent the state of academic scholarship in the fields. Wayne's persistence in pursuing this argument is just bogging down the article.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am not familiar with Mapp. However, his is not a minority opinion. There is no consensus among historians regarding this subject. Wikipedia should be based on RS and represent the state of academic scholarship in the field but it does not here. It presents only one view, one of three having equal weight among historians and it is a view that does not even have a single primary source in support. Wayne (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with which sources are considered most reliable and which ones aren't. The "usually" is specifically qualified by a number of explained circumstances that could disqualify a source from being reliable, for instance;

Some publications that appear to be reliable journals, are instead of very low quality and have no peer-review. They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of reliable journals.[2][3][4] If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index.

This is an example of when a peer-reviewed source wouldn't be considered a reliable source. The use of "usually" doesn't change the hierarchy of reliable sources or make self published or privately published books more reliable than peer-reviewed works in general. It is simply used to acknowledge that there are some peer-reviewed sources that are not reliable due to being grossly outdated, not from a respected journal, or are published in a copycat journal designed to mislead people into thinking it's another well renowned, respected journal. This doesn't change the circumstances of Mapp's book which does not meet the qualifications of reliability as defined by WP:Third. So Mapp is not given equal consideration or weight unless you prove that the numerous other sources listed in the table above, don't meet Wikipedia's qualifications of reliability and are, therefore, less reliable than Mapp. That being said, you haven't presented a single source of equal reliability that contradicts the numerous sources listed in the table above. I follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliability and believe the article should reflect the most reliable sources. Sorry if you can't find any to back up your point of view.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from making facetious remarks and I may take your work a little more seriously. These comments are disruptive and are violations of WP:NPA and WP:DGF. Wayne (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything facetious and it's not my work you're not taking seriously, it's the work of strong reliable sources that have been published by accredited institutions and scholarly journals. You keep pretending that there are other views regarding John Punch yet you haven't presented a single strong reliable source to support such a claim. It's been over 6 months and you still haven't given a single source to support your claims. That's what article disruption actually looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Admiralty, Maritime and Common Law Firsts

From a discussion elsewhere on this page:

"...the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts..."

...actually occurred on 30 June 1640.

List of Virginia Governor Samuel Argall's 1618 Edicts includes nation's first Blue Law.

From 1607 until 1624, when the Colony’s General Assembly repealed the prevailing influence of the London Company, colonists had been living under something of a remote state of British rule; the very rule, in fact, from which they had sought to flee when emigrating to the New World. These “rules and ordinances” from the British Sovereign appeared in a number of written documents; among them, the sealed orders from King James I, which were opened on the day of the settlers’ first landing at Cape Henry on 26 April 1607, the London Company Charters (Charter of 1606, Second Virginia Charter and Third Virginia Charter) and in several letters to Virginia's Royal Governors, which would become “edicts,” like those of 1618, applicable to all colonists, any of which would necessarily become a “Slave to the Colony” for disobedience.

The most uniformly pervasive of these edicts would later be known as the Blue Law. Over time, it would be adopted, in one form or another, by most states in the nation, since it held several “hidden” benefits, many of which are considered progressive even by modern standards. In Virginia (the Commonwealth), it survived until 1984, when it was finally repealed, though remnants remain in the practice of recognizing Sunday as a "business day" holiday.

The stringent edict requiring all inhabitants to adhere strictly and publicly to the practice of Christianity by attending weekly Sunday services, failed in its design to take into account the impending change in demographics, which would begin the following year with the introduction of Africans to the Colony. With few exceptions (Africans from Angola, those who were baptized prior to or during their voyages, &c.), and by its own admission, the later-arriving African population was predominantly non-Christian.

Governor Argall’s edicts of 1618 introduced the concept of "slavery to the Colony" prior to the arrival of the first Africans in 1619, and it did so indiscriminately. As today, immigrants and visitors, alike, are required to respect the laws of the countries they are in, just as are the residents. While the concepts in practice of "slavery to the Colony" and "slavery to a master" differ, therein lies a context in which the former may be defined (restrictions on provisions, and so on).

Beginning in 1619, in the nation’s first representative democracy, the first laws created by the Colonials themselves were enacted by the Virginia General Assembly at Jamestown. They were formally revised in September 1632 and not again until March 1657. In 1624/25, because of the egregiously inoperable requirements of the Third Virginia Charter, the influence of the London Company was repealed, and Virginia became a Royal Colony. (Importantly, the repeal did not include any of the Royal Governors' edicts.)

In the Laws of Virginia's General Assembly, enacted in August 1633, an act was passed ("Act X"), "that no Armes or Amunition be sould to the Indians."

It is ordered and appoynted, That yf any person or persons shall sell or barter any gunns, powder, shott, or any armes or amunition unto any Indian or Indians within this territorie, the said person or persons shall forfeite to publique uses all the goods and chattells that he or they then have to theire owne use, and shall also suffer imprisonment duringe life, the one halfe of which forfeiture shall be to him or them that shall informe and the other halfe to publique uses.

Some historians believe it to be the first occurrence of racial discrimination to appear in Virginia law; others view it, not as racial discrimination, but as a law identifying the enemy, considering a number of other laws and ordinances, which similarly singled out Indians. Six years later, however, in January 1640, the General Assembly would revise the text of "Act X," as was customary at the time when amending laws, to specify "negroes" instead of Indians.

ALL persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.

According to Virtual Jamestown, in its "Selected Virginia Statutes relating to Slavery," "This statute created a legal distinction between white and black men;" though it should also be noted, according to John Donoghue who wrote Fire Under the Ashes and is coeditor of Building the Atlantic Empires: Slavery, the State, and the Rise of Global Capitalism, 1500-1945 due out this year, that neither race nor religion may be considered the only predisposing factors:

Although race always defined the line between temporary and lifelong bondage in the colonial period, race did not always define the line between slavery and freedom. In fact, up until the mid-seventeenth century in the Caribbean and for the better part of the seventeenth century in the Chesapeake, most people reduced to chattel servitude entered the condition due to their sheer vulnerability to enslavement, not by virtue of their race, which in the modern meaning of the term did not yet exist. The vulnerability of these people to “indentured servitude,” or “bond slavery” as contemporaries also called the condition, existed as a function of their impoverishment.

Rulings on the two matters brought before the Virginia Governor's Council by Hugh Gwyn in June and July, 1640.

On 04 June 1640, Colonel "Hugh Gwyn gent" sought remedy, either for the return of or for permission to sell three servants, which had fled from his care to Maryland. It was ruled that all three should be extradited for trial before Virginia's Board. Less than a month later, on 30 June 1640, the Council passed a law authorizing the formation of a York County party of armed men for the purpose of pursuing "certain" runaway blacks.

30 June 1640 Commission authorized by Governor's Council to organize and compensate from local funds an armed band in York County, Virginia (known as "Charles River County" until 1642) to pursue runaway blacks.

It is almost certain that this party was formed to pursue John Punch, since it was the Council's own ruling in the June 4th matter, which required it and in relation to the same county as the 04 June matter; the same county of residence of the man, who was a justice and one of relatively few members of the House of Burgesses representing Charles River County at the time. [The General Assembly of Virginia, July 30, 1619 – January 11, 1978, pp 18,25,29,30.] (In 1640, he patented large tracts of land, including 700 acres "southside" and what is now known as Gwynn’s Island in present day Mathews County.) [Virginia Land Patent Book 3, pp 315.]

It would appear, then, that by any definition of "legal" (legislated, dictated or judicial), Punch's case was not the first to discriminate based on race or, specifically, against "negroes." Moreover, the introduction of the word "slave" into the earliest laws of the Colony; laws which would exist as edicts of a Virginia governor (hence, officially, until 1984), creates the requirement for a distinction of the terms "slave" and "slavery," when associated with court decisions beginning in 1640, unless the intention is to equate their severity to that decreed in 1618.

PresidentistVB (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First challenge: Unfortunately, Wikipedia's rules regarding original research prevents us from including original research in the article. So the vast majority of your post as well as any original research argument used to combat it would be irrelevant to what actually makes it into the article. It's not our responsibility or privilege, as editors, to "prove" anything. Our responsibility is to make sure the article represents the most reliable of sources on any given subject and Wikipedia provides a very clear criteria for establishing which sources are most reliable. So as long as strong reliable sources say that "Punch was the subject of the first common law ruling in Virginia" then the article will continue to say that as well. That being said, the Library of Congress source used for that portion of the article says it was "...one of the early cases that made a racial distinction..." and Tom Costa says "...this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." So I have no problem with the article representing this and this does not contradict the 1640 law because that was a statute and not a court decision or court case.

Second Challenege: I already supplied you with the definition of "slave" according to John H. Russell. You haven't given a definition of "slave" as used in the 1618 edict. So no comparison can be made and it wouldn't matter anyway since that would be a result of original research. The strong reliable sources supplied in the table recognize Punch as a slave, it doesn't matter if their definition is similar to or different than the intended meaning of the word that was mentioned in a 1618 edict.

"Technically, only two of the three servants, both of European descent, were ruled by the Council to serve as slaves, since, unlike Punch, each was also sentenced to a period of service to the colony, making each "A Slave to the Colony."

Technically, this is completely original research and Wikipedia does not allow you to take a term from an 1618 edict and apply it to a court decision in 1640. So this "technicality" of yours not only ignores what historians have defined "slavery" as, but is also irrelevant to how historians consider John Punch.

To your last point, the article already represents analysis from John H. Russell and Jeffry B. Perry that there is no direct evidence or mention that Punch was an indentured servant. However, both agree that it is most likely the he was a limited term bond servant of some sort before being condemned/reduced to lifetime slavery and this aligns with what nearly every other reliable source says. So I see no issues here.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lord, help me... I cannot resist. As to "Wikipedia's rules regarding original research prevents us from including original research in the article. So the vast majority of your post as well as any original research argument used to combat it would be irrelevant to what actually makes it into the article. It's not our responsibility or privilege, as editors, to "prove" anything. Our responsibility is to make sure the article represents the most reliable of sources on any given subject and Wikipedia provides a very clear criteria for establishing which sources are most reliable. So as long as strong reliable sources say that "Punch was the subject of the first common law ruling in Virginia" [he may very well be, if you're referring to the 30 June ruling - perhaps the historians know that] then the article will continue to say that as well. That being said, the Library of Congress source used for that portion of the article says it was "...one of the early cases that made a racial distinction..." [would be nice if you could rightly claim that it WAS, IN FACT, the first court case] and Tom Costa says "...this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." So I have no problem with the article representing this and this does not contradict the 1640 law because that was a statute and not a court decision or court case. [Read it again, "The court hath granted...]. Oh my point was, as long as the opening of this section remains on the talk page, at least it will be available for all to see, article-worthy or not. PresidentistVB (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep this numbered for you so you can easily keep track of which comment I'm responding to.

1. You don't have the authority to place or remove bans on Wikipedia. Furthermore, my demeanor hasn't changed, maybe it's your perception that's changed. You still need to produce strong reliable secondary sources and I've been saying that since the beginning.

2. The article is neutral because the article reflects information supplied by the most reliable sources presented and that's it. Just because a few editors want to create controversy over something that's well established, doesn't mean that such controversy actually exists. For example, just because geocentrists refuse to accept the heliocentrist point of view as "science" doesn't mean that the term "science" gets stricken from the article. Same with creationism and evolution. Evolution science is science as defined by a number of sources published by a peer reviewed accredited institution and so the article represents it as a science. It's the same with Punch being a slave and he's a slave because that's what the overwhelming majority of strong reliable sources refer to him as. The only controversy comes from people who can't seem to get their work published by an accredited institution.

3. It's clearly not obvious who the first slave was to appear in legal documents or assigned to slavery by a governing body. Hence why numerous reliable sources have identified Punch as such. Everyone has an equal opportunity to present strong reliable secondary sources to determine the content of the article. So the people who really need to reflect on their positions are the ones who can't meet Wikipedia's fair requirements to provide strong reliable secondary sources to support their arguments. The solution is not remedied by making the logical fallacy of special pleading and creating a new page that ignores strong reliable sources in favor of sources that haven't undergone peer-review and in favor of original research.

4. I don't more narrowly define anything, I merely quote what sources actually say. This is the key difference between our actions. You continue to put forward OR interpretations based on primary sources,while I actually submit quotes directly from strong reliable secondary sources. Since I was unable to verify what Catteral said, I merely provided an alternative from Costa. That's how WP works. People submit information, it gets checked/verified, and if it's not verifiable or demonstrably incorrect, then it gets changed. That's also the beauty of WP. If a new source gets revealed and the consensus of historians or the scientific community changes, then WP changes to reflect that new consensus. That consensus is determined by verifiable data from the strongest of reliable sources and the Punch article reflects the current consensus among historians.

5. Without a strong reliable secondary source to verify what it means, then your interpretation is considered original research by WP policies and it is not to be expressed in the article. Even if you did find a reliable source to support your definition, it would then have to explicitly put forward that argument regarding John Punch for this to be given any consideration. If what you say is true, then it should be easily verifiable by a number of strong reliable peer-reviewed sources. Please put forward those sources so editors can examine what they say and include their perspective in the article.

6. If you have a problem with this portion of the article then you can request a "citation needed" in hopes an editor can provide one. I do believe I've read that or something similar to it before. The cases you listed regard Hugh Gwyn, but none of them regard John Punch's life, save for one, the one listed in the article.

7. Regarding citation 10, neither of us have proven it has no bearing. What probably happened is a person included Catterall because the Library of Congress listed it as the source of its statement. The Library of Congress link is sufficient until a more reliable source, described by WP policy, is put forth to contradict it.

8. Numerous sources refer to Punch as an indentured servant who became a life long slave. Also, that quote about 1661 does nothing to disprove common law as established through the court system. It speaks specifically to legislation in the form of statute and doesn't speak to judicial determination. To say it does is considered original research and will remain as much until a strong reliable source is provided that makes the same assertion.

8. Actually, Wikipedia represents the current consensus in fields such as history and science. So WP is allowed to represent the interpretation of sources that have been peer-reviewed by accredited institutions in their respective fields. If historians call it slavery, then it's slavery. You're welcome to try changing WP Policy if you don't think it's fair, but such a drastic chance requires community consensus.

9. There are still no problems with this information. Russell only entertains the idea as a technicality. The majority of sources say he was an indentured servant and that is what the article reflects. The information supplied by Russell and Perry regarding this aspect is directly attributed to those historians which is what WP requires when you have conflicting information from a equally reliable source(Russell, not Perry) that presents an opinion not held by the majority of other sources. Wikipedia's voice is used to represent the views most commonly held by reliable sources and direct attribution is used for minority opinions.

10. Regarding the entire paragraph you quoted, the part you asked me to read again only says that the court decided to try and retrieve the runaways, it was not making a legal racial distinction upon issuing the equivalent of warrants.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

30 June 1640 Commission authorized by justices to organize and compensate from local funds an armed band in York County, Virginia (known as "Charles River County" until 1642) to pursue runaway blacks. PresidentistVB (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects what the strongest reliable sources say and they say he's a slave. You, nor anyone else has supplied any strong reliable sources that have said otherwise. If you don't have an equally strong source to put forward, then there is no reason to entertain this further. All of your arguments are original research by definition. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of what Wikipedia defines as OR. Wikipedia does not accept the OR arguments of climate skeptics for an article on climate change nor the arguments of geocentrists for an article on our solar system. They use the strongest sources that have been published by peer-reviewed and accredited institutions. Like I've said before, if what you say is actually backed by Historian consensus, then you should easily be able to supply strong reliable sources that verify it, just like I and others have that verify John Punch was made a slave.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Interim white flag

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Myself and multiple other editors do look at this objectively and have included exactly what the most reliable sources say on the subject. Instead of you looking at those objectively, you've instead tried to contact historians and try to change their opinions to match your own. That's the opposite of having a neutral point of view and shows the extreme opposite where you're trying to revise historical consensus to match your own point of view. John Punch was a servant who was made a slave and there isn't a single strong reliable source that refutes this and many that support it. There are also numerous strong reliable sources that say this was one of the first cases to make a racial distinction or where race was a factor. Also, if you have an argument you're trying to make, it is not other peoples' responsibility to find the evidence to support your argument. So instead of linking to a work by Ballagh, you need to provide an actual quote that is relevant to John Punch and supports your argument. Making arguments about distinctions between Christianity vs. Race are not relevant to John Punch and shouldn't be in this article, but in an article about early racism and/or colonial slavery. What is relevant is why historians consider this case and John Punch significant and that information is fairly represented in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you bother to read Ballagh's book you will find that he talks about slavery not being legal but that some servants indentured for life had a status that effectively made them slaves. He goes on to define the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. According to the book, a [male] slave's status passes to his children" "The personality of the servant was always recognized and his status could not descend to his offspring, as was the case with the slave." Punch did not pass his status to his children.

In 1640 the addition of time for a negro runaway servant was, in a case brought before the General Court, servitude "for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere"...Servitude may thus be regarded as preparing the way both legally and practically for the institution of slavery as it existed in Virginia. "Preparing the way" seems to imply that at this time lifetime servitude was not slavery. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So nothing in those quotes say that Punch was not a slave or say that this case didn't make a racial distinction. You saying "Punch did not pass his status to his children" and then concluding "therefore, he must have not been a slave," is exactly what original research looks like. Ballagh doesn't make that argument, nor does any other strong reliable source. That argument just came directly from you and it was a conclusion you drew by combining multiple different sources which is a violation of WP:OR. You take an example from Ballagh then use information from Ancestry.com, to put together a conclusion not put forward by either of the sources.

The next part is also an OR conclusion made by your misinterpretation of Ballagh. If Ballagh had said "...preparing the way for for slavery," then you might have a point, though it would still be OR. Ballagh doesn't say that, he says "...preparing the way both legally and practically for the institution of slavery..." This means that "slavery" as an "institution" didn't exist legally or practically but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at all. As a matter of fact, Ballagh recognizes and mentions "slave" or "slavery" multiple times in the events of runaways leading to a 1640 court decision. (page 54 and 55) This shows that Ballagh believes slavery and slaves existed before 1640, which is also explain by Vaughan.

• Edit: I just realized that you manipulated Ballagh and put forward a quote that doesn't exist. He does not tie the Punch case to his statement about "preparing the way both legally and practically." The former portion, presumably the Punch case, is from the footnotes on page 68, while the latter is from the actual chapter.

Another note, Ballagh actually defines slavery as "In extent servitude was of limited duration, while slavery was for life,"(page 67) He makes no mentions here about heredity, legality, or anything else. He clearly distinguishes between servitude and slavery, and the distinction is the condition of how long they were suppose to serve. A servant served for a limited time, while a slave served for life. He does go on to explain how there were laws protecting certain freedoms of servants and how slaves didn't have those same protections, but he does not infer that because servant status couldn't pass on to children for indentured servants that it must pass on for slaves. He only explains how slaves didn't have the same protections. He certainly doesn't define "slave" as must having their condition of slave being passed on to younger generations, only that there was nothing preventing that from happening. So even your OR conclusion about Punch's kids not being slaves doesn't mean that Punch wasn't, he still was a slave and his masters could have chosen not to keep his offspring in lifetime service. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting how you addressed 1 line of my response to Wayne and ignored everything else. Yes, I was mistaken and the word "slave" directly preceding the 1640 case I mentioned was referencing a law from 1705 and other uses don't provide a specific timeline unless mentioned in the footnotes. So that particular point about Ballagh remains unverified but not false and this wasn't "grasping at straws" or "cherry picking" it was a mistake. I clearly provided the context for the usage of the word, my description of the context was just incorrect. Despite this, he still clearly describes the difference between slavery and servitude as slavery being for life and servitude being for a limited time. Now, I won't go so far as to say that Ballagh considered John Punch a slave because that would be an OR interpretation based on how Ballagh described slavery. Likewise, it is also an OR interpretation to claim "Ballagh didn't use the word slave referencing anything before XXXX, so clearly, John Punch was not a slave." Ballagh doesn't mention John Punch once, so to make any declarations about John Punch's status based on this source from Ballagh, would be a violation of WP:OR.

Now, if you can find a quote from Ballagh that says "There were no slaves until XXXX" or something similar, then we can attribute that directly to Ballagh and post it in the article. However, this would be represented as a contrasting or minority view because of the numerous other sources that have referred to John Punch as a slave, as being enslaved, or his case being a legal sanctioning of slavery and because of Vaughan who specifically identifies the historical consensus as acknowledging that there were slaves by 1640, if not sooner. In regards to your last quote, you bolded the "servant" and it serves no purpose. The article clearly describes Punch as being a servant that became a slave. So you referencing a court document mentioning "servants" that had escaped, is already addressed in the article and does nothing to refute the fact that he was sentenced to slavery. Lastly, I don't know why you're still mentioning an unverifiable post to a comment section on a website. Besides needing to verify that that post was made by Donoghue, even if it was, it's not published by an accredited peer-reviewed institution or scholarly journal. Furthermore, you're making multiple interpretations of what he said about Christianity and race and trying to apply that to John Punch's status or the racial distinction that was made during his court case. If you want to claim that Donoghue said something, then it still needs to come from a strong reliable source to have any consideration for the article and does need to be relevant to the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting for you to provide those quotes from strong reliable sources for a long time, so it sure would be nice. Also, I'm not playing semantics, so if you find a book that says "enslavement did not take place" or "Punch was not condemned to slavery" or something explicit along those lines, then those would suffice, the same way the numerous sources already provided suffice. I'm not hung up on you providing a "verbatim" source, but you do need a strong reliable source that makes the argument you're trying to make. So accusations of hypocrisy on this matter are incorrect. Also, Russell is directly quoted in article and no where does the article say Russell said "Punch was a slave". So you pointing this out is irrelevant. Next, the table was clearly limited to books published in that last 50 or so years. This is why you don't see Ballagh, Russell, and older books on the table. Why is that? Because WP articles are suppose to represent the consensus of the scientific/historical community and the older the source, the less accurate it is in representing the consensus of today. Also, yes, what you said is supposition until you're trying to argue that that material gets included in the article, then it becomes original research. Ultimately, supposition is not relevant or constructive determining what the article should actually say, which is why I don't entertain "supposition". Also, what Wayne did with picking a quote from the footnotes and then combining it with a quote from the text, that's "cherry picking" because it intentionally misrepresents what Ballagh was saying. My quote from Ballagh is not "cherry picked" and I even explained the context. He was clearly defining the difference between servants and slaves and continued by giving more examples of protections that servants had that slaves didn't necessarily have. His book wasn't about there being no slavery until after a certain time, it was about how indentured servitude was fundamental in the development of the economy and society of the colonies and how it was distinct from the institution of slavery. So supplying a quote where Ballagh specifically identifies that distinction/difference, is not a quote that misrepresents the work. Lastly, unpublished and unverified quotes from people do not count as reliable sources and those quotes become even less relevant when there are strong reliable peer-reviewed or equivalent sources already available. So, good luck in your exploration, though I find it disconcerting that you're intentionally ignoring the numerous strong reliable sources, and calling them "wrong", in search of a snippet that may support your argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this "silence" is that you're referring to, but there was no "silence". If you're referring to your suppositions, I specifically identified them as such and explained why it doesn't merit a response. That's not silence, that's me explaining how your suppositions aren't relevant to the article. So your suppositions were met with response and then disregarded. Also, thanks for admitting that you're ignoring the strong reliable sources that have been provided.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV or just an exercise in futility?

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, multiple historians have gone there before and the article reflects what the most reliable sources from those historians say. This comment regarding slavery is already,mostly, represented with the quote from Foner. Winthrop is acknowledging the fact that historians have different opinions about the status of the Negro in the early years after 1619. This quote actually refutes your argument that "all Negroes were servants" because Winthrop is saying there isn't enough evidence to support such a claim. However, this quote specifically refers to the early years after 1619, which doesn't include the actions of the colonists over 2 decades later. We know this because Vaughan clarifies this point and so does Winthrop when he refers to the Punch case as the "first definite indication of outright enslavement." So the article already represents this concept, the only tidbit that isn't included is the idea that "No historian has found anything resembling proof one way or the other." So we can certainly add that to context, but we just need to be careful that the article doesn't start to detour from discussing Punch in lieu of slavery in general. Also, I intended that you find quotes that support your argument, not refute it outright. Though there are already numerous quotes that refute your point of view, thanks for supplying another. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

True, after skimming a few posts, what you actually said was "There was no such thing as slavery in Virginia at the time of Punch's trial or before; at least not as defined by a 'period of servitude for life.'" You use this line of thought to argue that Punch was not a slave. However, this quote from Winthrop still refutes the previous assertion. If Winthrop says that there is no way to know or prove the status of the Negro in the early years after 1619 then you can't claim to know or prove that there was "no such thing as slavery" and, in turn, "no such thing as slaves." Though you're technically right that the two assertions are different, my point still remains and is applicable.

Just to clarify, Winthrop does say that. You need to go back and read the table that you have been clearly ignoring this entire time. Also, when you say "The last sentence above seems to negate any theories by proponents who believe race was a (if not, the) determining factor in the Council's decisions in July 1640," it is an example of OR if you're trying to use this as evidence to disprove the other sources. Secondly, it doesn't refute the claims of others because the defendants in the case, presumably, weren't of the same status and the other sources didn't say that whites couldn't be given the same treatment as Negros. They simply said the Punch case was one of the first to make a racial distinction (something that affect). This doesn't imply that all Negros were treated differently than all whites and vice versa. Furthermore, even if Winthrop, or anyone else, actually did say that the Punch case wasn't a racial distinction, it doesn't "negate" anything. It is simply another opinion to be considered when constructing and editing the article and when strong relatively equally reliable sources contradict each other, then we directly attribute what those sources say to the author.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you say "You need to stop showing you're not paying attention" when you've been linked and referred to the table numerous times yet you still didn't know that Winthrop said "first definite indication of outright enslavement," and tried to tell me I was wrong when the proof already exists on this very page. That is what hypocrisy actually looks like. Also, what you think is important does not affect what reliable sources have to say on any given subject. I also think it's not important and not relevant. The fact that colonists thought slavery was okay and moral 350 years ago has no relevance to how slavery is regarded today. Also, "educating" people on how slavery was regarded centuries ago doesn't belong in an article about John Punch but in an article on slavery or the etymology of the word "slavery". Please focus your attention on supplying strong reliable sources that support your position. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very relevant what people thought was slavery centuries ago. Long before the first coloured person arrived in America many white servants were either sent from England with lifetime indentures or were sentenced to lifetime servitude for crimes. If you consider lifetime servitude slavery then Punch was not the first slave not was he even the first black slave as there is evidence of lifetime servitude of blacks before 1640. Punch had freedoms a slave would never have, he married a white woman and his children did not inherit his status which they would have if he was a slave. Punch was an important step in the growth of slavery and is so only because so many records from the period are missing. Wayne (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant in an article about John Punch and WP articles are supposed to represent the today's understanding of history and science, not the understanding over 300 years ago. So, I changed the lead to directly quote from the sources so you can stop ignoring that part of the significance of Punch. The lead is suppose to represent everything significant about the subject/article and now it does by direct quote.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments have been successfully removed by author:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: You cannot claim your sources are strongly reliable without providing the criteria on which you base it. Moreover, by definition WP:NOTRS, your WP:LEDE is not reliable. Nothing shall be "put to rest" because you barked it so; we are not your slaves; and certainly I will not permit strong-arming, bullying, threatening intimidation to affect my sense and sensibility; at least not until those of us who believe you to be vandalizing the article and absconding with consensus agree to it. As of now, I do not.

Re your reason for making the change; to wit: "Directly quoted from the strong reliable sources so claims of misrepresenting the sources can be put to rest. The lead is suppose to mention everything significant, not just what you agree with. This represents sources and 3O," I shall now issue a challenge to produce one of the authors you cite to support your claim, in order to face the evidence in this section and either affirm or deny, here and now, in the present time, the most current view, whether or not it agrees with what you extrapolated it to mean and proclaimed as reliable, when clearly, any dummy can see it does not and is not. (Even the Jamestown organization disagrees with the opinion of your "strong" reliable sources. That alone makes the sources less reliable than you would purport and brings into question your own judgment.) In the interim, I have contested a number of claims in the lead (too many, in fact for the opening paragraph) concerning the reliability of content for you to invite one each of the respective cited authors to defend. We'll begin there.

The undo reversion I will make if you cannot produce a "strong reliable author" (minimum of one) followed by consensus with each of its members reporting in this section (I believe it requires two others to stand with you), shall remain intact one completed, pending Admin review. If my pending reversion is undone, then I'll have no alternative save to report this article and its "consensus" members to the NPOV Noticeboard WP:POVTITLE/WP:POVNAMING and have WP:ARB offer three admins to review the credentials and fitness of the members of the exclusive status quo consensus in facing allegations of dereliction of duty. I, for one, do not trust this page unto the care of just one editor. [cc to @WLRoss: and @PresidentistVB:] Dr. Matt (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is determined by WP policy and is clearly defined in WP:reliable, WP:verifiable, and WP:source. That is the criteria that determines the strongest of sources and the sources listed in the table meet that criteria. It is not determined by a vote among involved editors and so you can not try to refute something as not reliable just because you don't agree with what the source has to say and it refutes your position. And yes, if editors are constantly deleting material because they are claiming "that's not what the sources say" then that excuse no longer qualifies when you directly quote from the source. Furthermore, WP doesn't require producing authors to defend their sources in any way shape or form. Even then, I believe, doing so would be a conflict of interest. The people at the Jamestown organization don't determine what the reliable sources are. The criteria has already been determined by WP policy and attempts at appeals to authority do not change that. Also, these sources are not questionable and are not examples of WP:NOTRS. These sources are, both, from academically peer reviewed publications and WP:NOTRS specifically pertains to sources that haven't gone through a peer review process or through academic scrutiny of scholars.

Feel free to post on the NPOV Noticeboard anytime you want, though I don't know how well you'll do providing that you haven't provided one strong reliable source to support your POV and have admittedly ignored strong reliable sources that oppose it. Also, you've littered the article with dispute tags and dubious tags without actually making a dispute/disambiguation/dubious section to discuss your concerns. Secondly, the tags are not intended for you to use them to try and question what strong reliable source directly say. It's not dubious, lacking citation, or ambiguous when directly quoted from a source. Please fix these misuses of WP tags.

Also, you say that you won't permit threatening and bullying, neither of which I've done, then you threaten anyone who reverts your reversion and try to dictate demands that aren't within WP guidelines. This is another example of what hypocrisy looks like.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Prologue

To Lead or Not to Lead

There are those who feel the opening (or "Lead") section of a Wikipedia^® article should be more than just a basic summary of the article; that it should “hook” the reader, stretched -even- so far as to employ elements with shock value, simply in order to entice.

The only real requirements for the summary are that the information be

• reflective of the article’s content
• general enough not to require detail for conveying a basic understanding, and
• accurate to the extent it will be supported.

W P : L E D E

That is Not the Question

Before the composition process even begins, however, it is useful, when “tooling” the content, to determine the article’s intended category… a shoebox, if you will, into which the information is placed and stored for ease of retrieval at a later time. In the case of “John Punch (slave),” which pertains to an historical event, an individual involved in the event, and myriad interpretations of and purported consequences resulting from the event, identifying the category is more difficult than it would, at first, appear; certainly more than it should be. It’s not a biography, as the title implies. Too little information is known about the subject, which actually plays a very small role in the plot. It is also not just about an historical event.

I hated history as a child and well into my thirties. I saw it only in terms of references to isolated events which occurred in the past… as facts established (as if written in stone) at the time. I would often defend my position by saying, “It’s history. It will be there when I am ready for it.” I realize now that I couldn’t have been more wrong.

There are three main uses of “history,” which apply to writing about an historic event. Any or all may be employed when composing an article, although confining it to just one makes it easier to clarify a purpose and relate it to a title:

• as a reference
• as a chronology
• as a study.

Half of writing history is hiding the truth. _{- Mutant Enemy/Joss Whedon}

Writing about the July 9th 1640 event, for example, purely in terms as a reference, would necessitate the use of primary source documentation, and that would clearly undermine the established perspective of the article, which incontrovertibly labels John Punch a slave. There are simply too few sources from that window of time to support any stand-alone article, much less one with such a protected perspective. Instead, the article becomes a tidy study about an event from the past. It is also a chronology.

The Question's 'Gone Fishing'

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach. _{― Aldous Huxley, Collected Essays}

Exploring an historic event chronologically is problematic if it endeavors to describe an evolution relating to any event other than that identified as the subject in the title, and I’ve already establish the fact that it is a veritable impossibility. While it may make sense to editors to elucidate the evolution of slavery, or entertain meaningful discourse on the “slave v. servant” debate, such discussions must comport with the title. As presently written, they do not. Neither does the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads like an editorial commitment to reveal content which can only be perceived as “proof” in support of an argument most people will not even know exists. So, to that end, the title is not a statement; it’s a question on a fishing trip.

DID YOU KNOW? ...English historian E.H. Carr was actually in the process of revising "History" when he died?

Much Ado About Nothing

There's another general concept which, especially with respect to Wikipedia^®, eludes me: the much-too-much ado made about reliability. Reliability itself, isn’t inherently reliable; at least, not on Wikipedia^®. Neither the Wiki article about it nor the credibility of those whose writings are considered it can truly qualify, by anyone’s standards, to stand the test of time so crucial to "reliability." Reliable is not contradicting oneself in writing. Reliable is predictable, consistent and committed. Reliable is not defined by an opinion arrived at by consensus. (That is more accurately defined as “pure democracy.”) Reliable is not information sourced from any Wikipedia^® article, nor is it characterized by interpretation based on current trends absent proof absolute. Editors who proselytize strict adherence to "reliable" reporting should remain vigilant in practicing it themselves, particularly when linking selected phrases to other Wikipedia^® articles. (They are self-described as unreliable, tertiary sources.) It almost makes the purpose of sweating over a Wikipedia^® article comedic, if not altogether futile.

W P : N O T R S

W P : R S

There's Something Rotten

The following suggested revisions to the lead attempt to excavate the stench which seeps out, almost imperceptibly, about the history of Virginia, and it avoids the use of citation templates linked to reliably unreliable content. It is written to rely solely on supported content and depart from issues prone to be contentious, if for no other reason than because they invite opponents to want to deconstruct the article. No editor, pit bull or not, can be willing and able, much less expected but for only so long, to defend the opinions of others, especially when there are so many. It may be a contradiction, but I offer the below “before, during and (elsewhere) after” paragraphs freely and without expectations of any type of acknowledgement or appreciation from the majority. Members of the “consensus" group may take it or leave it. Either way, as soon as I have posted it, because I do not wish to be reminded of my own wasted efforts (other than as written herein), I shall begin deleting my other loquacious comments germane to the subject article, which, to my knowledge, failed in meeting with approval to improve the article. I hope this will, at least, help those who read it, to see things in a slightly different light, if one even exists at the end of this tunnel.

The Dialogue

John Punch
Born	Unknown, but probably[A] Cameroon, Gabon, or Ivory Coast
Died	York County, Colony of Virginia

The Infobox

:A: Anyone coached by an attorney to prep for a deposition knows witness testimony should judiciously and correctly employ the words "possible" and "probable." They actually mean two completely different things. It is not "probable" that there is more than one place of birth, nor is it probable that it is either Cameroon, Gabon or Cote Ivoire. Just because DNA markers indicate a preponderance of sub-Saharan attributes specific to those three countries, does not mean Punch resided there. The markers could point to his father or grandmother, the DNA from whom he inherited. Using the source considered reliable enough for the editors to base all of the content of their infobox, there is revealed only one way to report Punch's place of birth without risking offense to the truth. (It would be an interesting discussion to parallel how immigrants from this area, influenced at the time by every single nation involved in the African Slave Trade: Muslim Fulani, Dutch, Portuguese and English, might have perceived slavery as status quo upon arrival at Cape Comfort. It certainly would correspond with what Ancestry.com asserts: "Slavery in the earliest decades of Virginia did not exist in the same way that it did at the time of the Civil War.")

John Punch (fl. 1630s^[1], living 1640s^[2]) was an African indentured servant^[3] who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to remain a servant^[3] for the rest of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland; in contrast, two European men^[4] who also^[5] ran away with him were sentenced to longer^[6] indentures^[3] but not total loss of freedom. For this reason, historians^[7] consider Punch the first documented^[8] lifetime slave^[9] in the colony, and his case a key milestone^[10] in the development^[11] of the institution^[12] of slavery in the United States^[13].

The First Paragraph

:1: According to existing citations, the correct use of floruit requires a single date only if there exist document(s) supporting only one date; otherwise, a range indicating the documented beginning and end dates (first and last documented dates) should be provided. "It often is used in ...historical writing when a person's birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when he or she was alive. For example, if there are wills attested by John Jones in 1204, 1207, and 1229, and a record of his marriage in 1197, a record concerning him might be written as, "John Jones (fl. 1197–1229)". There being no documents to support 1630s solely, the correct use would be the range 1634-1640 (with the first date being whichever date Ancestry claims as the birth of his first child.) Instead, Ancestry carefully employs only one date as certain, "living 1640," thus removing any support for the use of "fl." Ancestry.com also claims he may have had two children ca 1636-38. If you're not even remotely certain, or if your assertion is contradicted (or would contradict; thus tear down another theory, especially that of Ancestry.com linking him to Obama, I would just omit it altogether. Besides, his period of greatest activity was in 1640; not in the 1630s.

:2: Ancestry.com is a very quotable source.

:3: I cannot believe, after all of this banter, after reading the content in the article, that the lead still reads as if Punch was definitely an indentured servant. And if he was not, then the two others sentenced in the hearing could not have received longer indentures than he did; they simply received extensions to their existing indentures. Also, the word "remain" is inaccurate if, especially in the same paragraph, it is proffered that he is a specific type of servant and that type changes... There's nothing to indicate he "remained" in any type of state or status whatsoever. Again, like the other two, his existing status was ruled to be extended; in his case, it was clarified to be for life. Whether that was an extension of time or a legal ruling to prevent Gwyn from freeing him by manumission, upon completion of an as-yet-undetermined period of time or upon purchase outright, is not certain. (I do plan to ask Ancestry to further its research to offer the "status" of Punch's children, so we may work backwards in identifying his status at the time of their respective births... contrary to what ancestry claims about the mother's status).

:4: So, let's see... it's possible Punch could have been as young as 20 years old (about 13 when first child ws born), when he ran away with two European men? to Maryland. If we don't know Punch's age, and there's no documentation to state either the dutchman or the Scotchman were actually men older than the legal "age of discretion," then how can we assert it? First, the lower case "D" in dutchman may not be an error. If not, it is a general term to distinguish from female. Viktor could have been the youngest of the three servants... 12 or 13. (Read "Huckleberry Finn" or "Tom Sawyer.") If you want to do your own research, WP:OR, as Scoobydunk is wont to write, then call them men, but put the word in quotations, to be safe. Legally, they were probably all "infants," since they (Punch especially) had not entered into any agreements to get out of their presumed contracted period of servitude; something which could have been negotiated when they turned 21. The quotation marks, at least, leave open the possibility of two of these being young teenagers who coerced their elder negro friend to help them... which may be why he suffered the most. Do we know otherwise?

:5: Who, other than the two men, ran away with Punch? "Also" is redundant and misleading.

:6: How, exactly, is four years longer than "for the rest of his life?"

:7: "...some historians..." Some, not all. Do not push a concept intentionally to mislead.

:8: There are no fewer than three reliable secondary sources showing documentation for servants having lifetime periods of servitude prior to Punch. Documentation = documents. I'd say something more accurate, like legal or or just leave that out. You expound upon it later anyway. Use that sentence again, and include the right word, but elsewhere...

:9: Please tell me that, even by your own definition, you know that use of both of these words together, creates a redundancy, which weakens, rather than strengthens your case. (Rather than appearing to reiterate the "lifetime" part, it actually makes it look as if "lifetime" is needed in order to define slavery, and your entire article is predicated on the fact that "lifetime" actually IS slavery.

:10: Employing the word "key" implies one of the most important of more than one... and since you fail to identify it as the first, then you are implying it is not the first, which fairly definitively contradicts the claims made elsewhere in the article. If it's not the first, then what's the article about? If it is the first, then just say it.

:11: Would not "evolution" be a better word? ... or better still... "gradual evolution?"

:12: I suppose it's no coincidence the double entendre... it's both good and bad, because it can be read to mean about three different things; one of them inaccurate. C'est la vie.

:13: Sources are replete with documented evidence that Virginia was not the first to institute slavery, either legally or otherwise, so I personally, would be very careful templating "Slavery in the United States." You have to be correct, first, about your assertions in the Colony, before you can claim them as firsts, also, for the nation.

My edits were driven by the WP claims that its articles cannot be considered reliable. That disclaimer does not necessarily mean editors need accept a license to make it so. Particularly in the face of reliable secondary sources existing to contradict what could be first read by the audience, it should be written to reflect the least contentious perspective which can still support the title and perspective of the article. While important to grab the reader and entice them to want to read more, in all likelihood, they won't. So get it right in the opening paragraph... Note also that it does nothing to detract from the power of the piece if it is crafted cleverly, yet correctly. Of all places, let the Lead be written so as not to incite continued opposition. The title does that well enough on its own.

What is history, but a fable agreed upon? _{- Napoléon Bonaparte}

The Epilogue

Passing the Past

There's valuable content to be found in Shakespeare's famous quotation, "What's past is prologue;" namely the concepts expressed in the first two sections and only because, with all due respect to the words "slave" and "slavery," it is the elephant in the room in the "John Punch (slave)" article on Wikipedia^®.

Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." What if it had been said, first, by John Punch... or by the whole of the Colony of Virginia? It is essentially as if they had. After all, what is written of the time is what the editors really have to work with, because they are relying on all that their reliable secondary sources had to work with --- the facts from the time and the most recent accounts about them thereafter.

Is history kind in the article... in the cited sources... to Punch... to the Colony of Virginia, both of which have rested for nearly 400 years on what their written records state? How many reliable secondary sources have written specifically on the subject, stating "what's past isn't prologue?"

My final words on the subject of this article, and one which the editors should thoughtfully consider, is the issue of credibility. Making assertions, whether or not supported by reliable sources, which contradict other sources (even if they are not as credible) only make the editors look like they are the judge and jury. Before anyone makes any changes to the main article, a thoroughly vetted discussion, which yes, means it may require expert testimony, should be contemplated. To date, I have seen nothing of the sort. Final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PresidentistVB/sandbox Dr. Matt (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This post of yours and the opinion of whomever wrote it does not override Wikipedia's policies defining how articles are written and what qualifies as a reliable source. So, how is your search for a strong reliable source that supports your point of view going? It seems from the multiple post you've made that have failed to present one, that it's not going very well at all and now your attempting red herring arguments to try and redefine what WP considers a reliable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read the dialogue section, which has nothing to do with WP policy, then look at the final mock-up... it reads far less controversial and doesn't beg for revision like yours always seem to.Dr. Matt (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really want to take on the whole of Virginia's historian collective? With one email broadcast, I can level you if for no better reason than to defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history. You are hell bent on insulting the Old Dominion. Consider our runs ins thus far as civil. If you don't believe me, push a few more buttons and abscond once more with consensus. Dr. Matt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, more threats that you said you wouldn't permit. Seems like you're perfectly fine with threats, so long as you're the one levying them. Also, I'm not concerned if the "Virginia's historian collective" can't seem to accept the clear academic consensus available on the subject. There are numerous strong reliable source (defined by WP's policies) that support the information in the article and you've yet to provide any that refute those sources. If you do, in fact, have a whole team of the "Old Dominion" on your side, then it shouldn't be hard to follow the guidelines of WP and provide equally strong sources. Likewise, if the "Old Dominion" are correct in their views, then they should have no problem getting a paper/work published by a scholarly journal or academic press. Though, I fear, even if they did, it might constitute as a conflict of interest since you're determined to "defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history," rather than acknowledge what strong reliable sources have said on the subject.

Furthermore, you had some concerns with some of the specific aspects of the lead and I've already edited the lead allowing for those concerns. I've included the term "legal" and Wayne promptly removed it and completely changed the subject the sentenced addressed. So now directly quoting form sources removes any accusations of misrepresenting or misquoting those sources. Also, none of the sources say "court-based" and this does not do justice to the historical importance placed on the issue. Yes, it is the first court-based instance of "outright enslavement" but it is also the first of any legal document to specifically include an individual, by name, as being sentenced to serve for life, which is what historians consider slavery. I've also changed the lead to include "one of the" first racial distinctions to comply with your concerns and accurately represent the source. Also, your proposed lead can not be used to replace the current lead because it essentially removed cited material from reliable sources. You are allowed to edit any problems explicitly defined by WP policies and you are allowed to add to the lead so long as the information you add is explicitly supported by a reliable source. This is why I've been asking you to provide a strong reliable source to support your POV since the beginning, so it can be included in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried not to be bothered by ignorance, but it appears your handicap is greater than mere stubbornness. Takes 6 minute to find just about anything the heart desires online. It's not hard to disprove something, if one feels it necessary. Massachusetts had the first slaves... even admitted it. Visit a book store or library sometime... best.

Or try this one beginning on page two: http://books.google.com/books?id=2H3S1OLtmagC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false You'll find the new englander's did not mince words and were not reticent about the concept of slavery. Look at a few of the cited books and get busy. You now have a whole new world of strong in sheer volume secondary source references to refute...

Let me know when you want to see census and tax records showing servants and NO SLAVES in Virginia... well into the late 17th C., and a few of Gwyn's own journals... I told you, I am friends with the lead archeologist of Gwyn's Island... sheesh.

Anything else I can do FOR you, @Scoobydunk:? [cc to @WLRoss:] Dr. Matt (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote from a reliable secondary source that supports your argument. That's what you can do, you can actually form a coherent argument supported by strong reliable sources. Also, linking to "theinternet.com" or "google.com" and claiming that I have numerous sources to disprove matches behavior described in WP:tend. You can not request that other editors find material to support your argument for you and this is exactly what you've done on multiple occasions. The first source you linked says nothing about John Punch and that goes for the second as well. The second page of "Black Bondage in the North" says nothing about the status of John Punch or the status of Negroes in Virginia. So neither of these support the statements and arguments you've previously made. The image you posted also doesn't say anything about John Punch and only makes claims based on New England's first slave holder. It doesn't actually mention who those slaves were and doesn't mention anything about their status being recognized by a legal institution. So none of these are in contention with the sources cited in the article. If the internet is so easy for you to use, why haven't you found a reliable secondary source that supports your view that there were no slaves in Virginia before John Punch's case and that John Punch was not a slave? Also, and this has been mentioned numerous times, it's not the responsibility of WP editors to refute what sources say. So, "No", I don't not have "a whole new world" of references to refute. So, again, where are those strong reliable secondary sources that support the arguments you made earlier? Maybe you should spend time looking for sources relevant to John Punch and the article instead of chasing red herring arguments about slavery in New England? Just a suggestion, good luck and fun.

Oh, and when you think you do find a source that supports your argument, be sure to quote the actual relevant part to the talk page so it can be seen by others, just like you attempted to do with Ballagh and Winthrop.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Portending Presence

View and comment on a proposed working draft below. Dr. Matt (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Version current as of most recent signature date stamped):

John Punch
Born	Possibly West Africa (Gulf of Guinea region).
Died	York County in the Colony of Virginia.

Coastal nations of West Africa's Gulf of Guinea

Three cases of "runaways" ruled on by the Virginia Governor's Council June-July 1640

John Punch ("living 1640, York County, Virginia"), with ancestral links to western Africa, was a servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced two of his fellow servants (one of them Dutch; the other, Scottish), with extensions to their existing indentures for running away to Maryland. By stark contrast, Punch, who ran away with them, was sentenced to a lifetime of servitude, officiating his total loss of any opportunity for freedom. It is for this very reason that some historians consider him the first court-ordered slave in the Colony, and his case, an early foothold for the insidious and pervasive institution of slavery, which would be legalized in Virginia and other colonies, evolve (and devolve) with the growing nation; and, ultimately, become the single most divisive factor of the American Civil War.

In July 2012, Ancestry.com issued a press release and announced "President Obama descends from the first African enslaved for life in America," publishing two papers [1][2], which suggested that, based on historical research, genealogical proofing and scientific analyses, Punch was his apparent eleventh great-grandfather. Punch, whose descendants are believed to have become known by the "Bunch" or "Bunche" surname, is also believed to be one of the ancestors of the 20th-Century American diplomat Ralphe Bunche,^[ibid] the first African American citizen of the United States to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Comments and Suggestions

About Prototype Lead Template

(SEE ABOVE)

Addendum to discussion and explanations in First Paragraph.

• text changed from "African" to reflect actual data provided by cited source;
• info box updated to reflect same; map provided for informational purposes;
• changed "both European" to "(one of them Dutch; the other, Scottish);"
• since source of council's ruling was not cited, the image of the three council cases re. runaways was positioned at the top but can be relocated later in main to support content elsewhere;
• "officiating" was added because it is not known if he was indentured with a definite end-of-service date or already one of a number of those in "servitude-for-life" (or living under some other arrangement), so either case may remain an option ("officiating" applies equally to all scenarios without implying one to be more likely than the others);
• while the exact phrase "court-ordered" is not written in stone, it is important to distinguish his case from other legally documented instances of "servitude-for-life;"
• as generally accepted knowledge, I shouldn't think the assertions in the last sentence of the first paragraph would require citations;
• rephrased last sentence of lead to remove WP:OR and disclaim the assertions that he fathered anyone (also added citations thereto); and
• added "in the United States" to distinguish from other African-Americans, notably, those who suffered from legalized slavery in South America and the Sugar Islands prior to its advent in the colonies.

Dr. Matt (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC). Dr. Matt (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• changed "date stamp" to "signature date stamped;"
• first sentence, ¶ 2: changed "stated" to "announced" as appropriate and to more accurately reflect what is linked;
• changed "inevitable" to "apparent," with usage as in "heir-apparent;"
• last sentence, ¶ 2: added "citizen of," since I personally do not know if he was residing in the U. S. at the time.

Dr. Matt (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

About Current Main Lead

(SEE BELOW)

Addendum to discussion and explanations in First Paragraph and further elucidated in "About Prototype Lead Template" section, immediately above..

(Version current as of most recent signature date stamped):

John Punch
Born	Unknown, but probably Cameroon, Gabon, or Ivory Coast
Died	York County, Colony of Virginia

:*Recommend specific sections, words and phrases be properly attributed in first sentence of ¶ 1. It appears as if Donoghue and Finkelman are attributed with "African" and place of residence, and, as the infobox accurately reflects, Harman, et al. are already attributed with that information in this article. (Just move the references to the specific parts of the first sentence to which they apply.)

• if "Africa" is attributed to Harman, et al., then it can be changed to "western Africa."
• similarly, there is absolutely no support for the assertion Punch was an "African" servant - only that his alleged descendants had markers pointing to sub-Saharan West Africa and, if the leap is taken to declare that link now connected, then we know only that some of his ancestors were from there. No one knows his age, where he came from, when he arrived and whether or not he traveled alone or with parents or siblings. What is possible is that he was born in the Sugar Islands to slaves and sought a freer existence in the New World, leaving his parents and siblings behind. (It was not unlike him to relocate in pursuit of something better.) He may have been of West African extraction, but he most definitely isn't known to ever have been an African native. (Let's just make him a midget, too, while we're at it.) Dr. Matt (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an African servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to serve for the remainder of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland; in contrast, two European men who also ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not total loss of future prospects for freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.

:*The sources, as the Sentry has repeatedly decreed, may be "strong" and "reliable," but the Sentry, himself, apparently is not. Whoever is doing the interpreting and quoting out of context is in absolute violation of WP:OR. @WLRoss: will likely be interested in reading the following:

• By the author's own admission, the statement cited in the main article (¶ 1), "...historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," ["his name should go down in historyas..."], but falls short in actually making the assertion that he, himself, is actually interpreting it in that manner.[Editor was quoting out of context, which is a violation of WP:OR].]

• Support for OR assertion was sought and received from author; the quotation is no longer considered to be original research. Citation attribution has been moved to the specific quote. Editors should consider appending the additional support to the footnotes section somehow..] Dr. Matt (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• By the author's own admission, the statement that historians consider Punch's case the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." can be interpreted as, but falls short in actually making the statement or recording it in history. [Editor is quoting out of context, which is a violation of [WP:OR].]

• Where is consensus when we need it? Where was consensus when this was approved as content fit for publication? Dr. Matt (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of these quotes are out of context and both represent how historians consider John Punch. The quotes are used to represent what historians have said about Punch. Not every historian has to say the same thing verbatim, but multiple strong sources support this same point of view. They recognize that the court decision was made by a legal institution and is legally binding. They recognize that this is the first documentation discovered from a legal institution, which is what is meant by "legal document", that shows "outright enslavement". I've already explained that use of the word "some" is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weasel. You've yet to submit a strong reliable source that says anything to the contrary regarding Punch or him being the first person documented to be sentenced to slavery by a legal institution. Your accusing this content of being OR is unfounded, and as you're beginning to find out as much from the authors directly, though it's not necessary because the context and their meaning is plainly clear. You providing a supposed email from the author, doesn't affect the source or its contents. If you think my directly quoting an author to be OR, then take it to the OR noticeboard and maybe you'll finally learn what OR is.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk:: I'll be happy to forward the actual email exchange to whomever you trust, since you refuse to provide a method to email you directly. Coates supported his statement to my satisfaction. Again "should go down in history" is not the same as asserting Punch was the first documented slave. I'm sorry if you don't agree. He could have just said it. Donoghue also refuses to accept the responsibility for making a similar claim about the Chesapeake. Not only does he disclaim it to be nothing more than interpretation no matter who asserts it, he additionally makes the making of such an assertion optional ("can"), thirdly, he makes the statement in a footnote; not in the body of the article. You took the quotations out of context; that is OR, esp when it changes the meaning. Moreover, your citations were in reverse order at the end of the sentence. Since all historians didn't make those cited assertions, you must attribute the quotes specifically and accurately. I'll take it to the OR whatever, but you make this jumping through hoops process obstinately confounding. Dr. Matt (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep going on about emails though you seem not to understand that they are often not verifiable, nor do they count as a reliable source. So they are ultimately irrelevant in determining the context of the article. Also, "should go down in history" is the same thing as "considers" which is exactly what the article says, it explains what historians consider. Regarding Donoghue, all historians have to offer is interpretation. It's intellectually dishonest of you to express an understanding that historian's interpret evidence earlier in your appearance on the article, and then to now, suddenly, feign ignorance to that fact. Just because Donoghue uses language that acknowledges the interpretative nature of history, doesn't make his claims hold less meaning. Secondly, the Punch article doesn't say that Donoghue said "xyz", it says "historians consider...his case as the" and then uses a quote that is representative of how historians view the Punch case in their published strong reliable sources. So there is no misrepresentation regarding Donoghue's position. Also, it's clear you don't know what "context" is. The footnote was to elaborate on a reference Donoghue made in is work. The footnote explained that he was referencing the Punch case and proceeds to explain the Punch case and its significance. That's the context of the footnote...to explain the Punch case and its significance. That's the same context of the lead of this article...to explain who John Punch is and his and his case's significance. So there is no misrepresentation of context and the quote isn't used out of context. An example of a quote out of context is if Donoghue was talking about Benjamin Franklin and I took those words he used to describe Ben and applied them to Punch, to make it appear that he was referring to Punch instead of Ben. <--That's an example of using a quote out of context, and that's an example of OR, which is clearly not what I did. Again, if you're trying to pretend that it's used out of context, then you can take that assertion to the OR noticeboard. The quote from Donoghue is representative of the interpretations historians have made. Again, they all use different words, but they recognize Punch's case as being the "first" or "earliest", recognize Punch as being a "slave", sentenced to "slavery", or "enslaved", and recognize that this was a "legal" or "official" decision/sanction/distinction made by a government institution. The quote from Donoghue properly exemplifies the positions of the historians as indicated by the supplied strong reliable sources, and you've yet to provide any strong reliable source expressing the contrary.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the concept of not asserting that any more than one historian (ONE PERSON) agrees with/stated/believes, etc. the same quotation is so hard for you to understand? Only one author wrote the first quote. Only one author wrote the other. You cannot make a general statement about what "historians" consider and then use quotes. That is OR, not to mention plagiarism. You are, in effect, stating that "historians" in general wrote the same quote as Donoghue. To do that, you at least have to modify it by stating, "Mr. X wrote, 'bah blah.' Mr. Y. wrote beh bleh.' Historians agree, considering..." (then write in your own words a summary of the two.)

You should just write the summary in the lead without quotes and later, in the content somewhere, support it with the quotes.

If you don't understand this, then I cannot help you. Dr. Matt (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. "Neither of these quotes are out of context and both represent how historians consider John Punch." By "historians," I assume you mean more than one, as in "two." I don't know how you know that any single other historian on earth agrees with the statement, verbatim, "first official slave in the English colonies." They'd be pretty stupid if they did. The first official slaves in the English colonies were in the Sugar Islands, where slavery was legislated before 1640. That is what I mean - at least one example of - when I say "out of context." You are presuming, which I believe it considered OR. And I could care less what you or WP think about emails from authors. It satisfied me, and that, alone, is enough for me. Stop pretending you are better than everyone else. Have you corrected the tags I "bombarded" the article with yet? I am not deterred by rodents. Have you corrected the citation errors Ishdarian told you about yet? Stop lecturing and start repairing the injuries you create. Dr. Matt (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=6K-DocgDY6gC&pg=PA54&dq=sugar+islands+17th+C+slavery&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iCWFU6HHA4H4oASQooAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://hnn.us/article/150438
• Dr. Matt (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple historians have expressed beliefs that are accurately articulated by Donoghue. I've already explained this and you haven't refuted it. It doesn't have to be verbatim to be true in nature and accurately reflect what other historians have written. What is it that you don't understand about this? Also, there is no plagiarism. I didn't say "all historians have written x", I said "historians consider" and then used a quote from a historian that is properly attributed to that historian to represent what historians consider. So not only have you demonstrated a lack of understanding of what context is, but now you're creating strawman arguments to levy a fallacious accusation of plagiarism. Also, you can make general statements and then use a quote to illustrate it. In basketball I can say, "Most NBA players consider defense important and that 'offense wins the game, defense wins the glory.'" As long as I properly attribute the quote to the person who spawned it, this is perfectly acceptable and doesn't try to give credit to every NBA player for creating that quote. To assume that is an egregious display of feeble reading comprehension or is a patently dishonest attempt at creating a strawman argument. BTW, the summary was written without quotes until another editor intentionally started to suppress the significance of Punch by removing anything that referenced him as a slave on the basis of OR. So the quotes were used to remove any accusation of OR since the information is directly quoted by sources and not interpreted. If a historian came up with sufficient and accurate way of explaining something, then I can quote it as being representative of the general consensus of historians which is further supported by their individual sources.

You also keep saying "verbatim" and the article doesn't say that historians said this "verbatim". So this is another strawman argument. It's not relevant and an idea doesn't have to be expressed verbatim for it to still be applicable to multiple people. That quote is a sufficient way to represent the sentiment held by historians, for which there is much more proof than the argument you've put forward that there were no slaves before 1640 and that Punch was not a slave.

Lastly, it's not my job to correct the tags you littered the article with. If your claim that your intention is to make a stronger article then you should be the one solving those tags. Instead, you just attempt to throw up roadblocks, litter the article with tags, and expect other people to beckon to every new demand/issue you raise with the article. I edit the content I'm interested in and the only thing Ishdarian commented on was the relation to Bunche, which I'm not particularly interested in. I've never been concerned about the relationship between Punch and the Bunche family and I don't have to be. Sure, maybe if there's time, I'll adjust the article to satisfy those inquiries. However, I'm more interested in the slavery aspect of Punch and the role he played in the timeline of slavery and I take an active interest whenever slave apologists try to rewrite the article to reflect their unreliably sourced perception of slavery in the colonies. Also, I didn't create any "injuries", just because you want to complain about something doesn't make those complaints valid or merited in nature.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In July 2012, Ancestry.com published a paper suggesting that Punch was an eleventh-generation maternal grandfather of Barack Obama, on the basis of historic and genealogical research and Y-DNA analysis. Punch, whose descendants became more commonly known by the Bunch or Bunche surname, is also believed to be one of the ancestors of the 20th-century American diplomat Ralph Bunche, the first African American to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and others in his line.

Dr. Matt (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Legal" "Official" "Documented" Which?

I said, "court-ordered?"  You @Scoobydunk: said, "no."  "No sources use that phrase."  

That's too bad. I believe you'll find in your own sweet time that there already existed legally-documented (ergo, "official") servants-for-life long before Punch. (I think a written contract still counts as a legal document, right?)

Please don't correct me unless you know what you're saying. Ours may not be secondary sources yet, but Kelso has already alluded to them. How hard can it be to get him to update his webpage?

"Court-ordered" would be the only way I know of to get Punch into the Guinness Book with a "legal" first.

Wow, champ. You had better get busy. You've got some strong reliable secondaries to hunt down. Make sure they say something along those lines <w> [cc to @WLRoss: @PresidentistVB:] Dr. Matt (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I already have numerous sources that speak to that effect and the lead directly quotes those reliable sources. You're the one lacking any reliable secondary sources that prove otherwise. Just because you enjoy ignoring sources doesn't meant they don't exist. Also, the article reflects exactly what reliable secondary sources say, so your attempts to use OR arguments to try and disprove them are fruitless.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we even on the same planet? Prove what otherwise? What are you talking about? Dr. Matt (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are, since you think I'm the one who has sources to hunt down when, in reality, you're the one who has sources to hunt down. I've already provided my sources and they are directly quoted and cited in the article. You've yet to provide anything from a reliable source that refutes the sources already listed in the article. Hence, John Punch was made a slave and his case was one of the first racial distinctions until you provide reliable sources that say otherwise. Even then, that wouldn't disprove what numerous sources say about Punch, it only gets added with direct attribution. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to follow, but if there is anything else I can assist you with, just let me know.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you have an agenda, and it makes no sense, since you claim that you've supported your assertions with satisfactory secondary reliable sources.

I have clearly indicated agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. As its tyrannical editor, a position which seems to have been acquired by self-appointment and the perception of having won every challenge, you should consider the suggestions of others and try to justify making changes which may actually improve the accuracy. Instead, you bitterly defend what you have written.

Noted is the protocol which seems to be required for you to actually make changes. It almost always results in a fight, or the need for threats or unconscionable degrees of childish behavior (like reporting the page, involving authors, getting a state's entire historical community involved or typing words, which portray some sort of personally threatening intent) - all of it unnecessary - none of it acceptable or, for that matter, endorsed by WP policy.

No sooner had I asked that no one make any changes to the lead until they read the alternate-concept lead I was working on, that you, almost defiantly, went to the main article, the MAIN ARTICLE, and made major, contentious changes... the first in many weeks, Why? It is as if you sit on some imaginary throne coming up with any dare you can for anyone to battle you. It's not a game, Scooby.

I've advised you in the past the areas which needed improvement. You ignored me. So I went on and marked them in the lead. Basically, other than inconsequential minor claims (fl 1630s, etc.), there remain, I think, only 3 main areas of dispute, since we now agree on the discrimination matter as being one of the early examples (not the first):

• 1 - indentured servitude as Punch's status prior to 07-09-1640
• 2 - made a slave-if this claim is going to stick, you have to have a section like those I directed you to: "Contemporary v historical meaning"
• 3 - any reference to VA having first slave and the weight of its influence on evolution of the institution in the rest of the colonies.

Beyond that, in answer to some of your points, which, incidentally, missed the point:

• • I do not care to have my version become the version used. I do care if it is not studied and if the consensus simply dismisses it outright. There are valuable suggestions in it; among them, discontinuing the practice of hyperlinking to unreliable content, "homing in" on a more accurate place of birth, use of the image to speak 1000 words and use of Ancestry.s own assertions (so we don't risk our own credibility) to pinpoint POB, removal of "fancy used-only-to-impress" things like "fl 1630s" which have no foundation and take up space (it's like saying "he ate, he breathed, he had sex, he pooped," etc.).
  • It is interesting to me that you've entitled this article to read like a bio, but you completely evade any bio information about him in the lead, in exchange for promoting the political and non-neutral point of view. That is the smoking gun, as far as I am concerned. @WLRoss: has also skimmed that issue... no mention whatsoever of the birth of the children, the most important fact, when tying Punch to Obama and the root of a definite curiosity as far as his flight to MD.
  • Learn from the tone and timbre of the prototype I wrote... It is NPOV and matter-of-fact in its presentation. (I am not saying I agree with everything contained in it, as I have already noted in the tags in the main article lead).
  • I will ask you again to try and curtail your finger-pointing. Not only is it ineffective with me, it actually becomes counter-productive to your (hard to understand) effort. If you tell me to produce sources (which I have told you three times not to), my first and only response (as you surely know by now) is to do everything and anything but!

Thanks for your (sincere?) offer of help. (That was not.) I don't think my understanding of the word "help," however, is the same as yours.

I perceive it as just another invitation to battle...

(Incidentally, I've created a new section for you to list your "To the victors go the spoils" edicts. It will help contributors and future editors understand the "rule by decree" policy, which has replaced "rule by intelligent discourse and consensus." in this talk area, and others. You should go in and begin your list of requirements…

Dr. Matt (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is egregiously inaccurate to say that I've ignored your concerns. I've been addressing your concerns and making changes to the article when they were merited and if they weren't, I explained why they weren't to you on this talk page. Also note, I actually made changes to the lead before you asked editors not to and it wasn't "many weeks" since the last changes to the article, it was more like 1 week. My edits today, again, reflect that I'm addressing your concerns. I removed the word "indentured" from the lead because nearly all sources from the table just refer to him as a "servant" without the term "indentured". However, I've already explained why your second remaining concern is not relevant to this article. This article is about John Punch and his significance as described by strong reliable sources. It is not about dissecting the differences between what slavery meant 400 years ago compared to today. That concern is better served on a page about slavery, the development of slavery, or the etymology of the word "slave". Also, trying to include a section that discussed the differences between the terms in an attempt to imply that Punch was not considered a slave by colonial standards is also a violation of OR and NPOV. If, however, you find a strong reliable secondary source that directly makes a point to mention that Punch was not a slave by the colonial definition of the word, then that can certainly be added to the article in the relevant section. As for your 3rd remaining concern, I'm agreeable to changing the sentence to say "his case a key milestone in understanding the development of the institution of slavery in what would eventually become the United States of America. I skimmed the sources and I think it's more appropriate to reflect that this case is often mentioned when understanding and tracing the origin of slavery, not so much that this was the cause or necessary to the development of slavery. The lead is already written as a matter of fact and it has the proper sourcing to verify this. Your perception that it is politicized is only because you're the one with the agenda to "defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history," and are determined to, admittedly, ignore sources that speak to Virginia's involvement in the development of slavery in the colonies. I didn't name this article and identifying Punch as a slave is not a matter of politics, it's a matter of history as confirmed by numerous sources. Just because you want to take something that is a historical fact and pretend it's political, does not actually make it political and does not mean the article is in violation of WP:NPOV. Your attempt to argue this article's title as being political is what's actually a violation of NPOV, since you have no strong reliable sources that support your position and have ignored strong reliable sources that refute it. That's the opposite of being neutral and so are your attempts to contact the historians cited trying to change their mind on the subject. Despite all this, I'm glad that you've revised your concerns regarding the article, so now we can address them and move on. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do not concur that a discussion about slavery is inappropriate. It is clear that you see the article through a lens which doesn't recognize anything written inside parentheses. I presumed you were basing your comment, "This article is about John Punch and his significance as described by strong reliable sources. It is not about dissecting the differences between what slavery meant 400 years ago compared to today." on the title. But the title introduces the term "slave," which makes it part of what this article is about. That not only makes discussions about it relevant, it mandates disambiguation from other, irrelevant definitions. I have already identified how "slave" within the same 25 year period, could apply to anyone who missed attending church on any given Sunday. I have provided the statement from Ancestry.com, which states it was not then what it was 100 years later. I have shown sources which validated the fact that the early colonists knew well what the term meant (yet the reader does not), and I have stated repeatedly how the term was, perhaps intentionally, avoided in all written records of the time in Virginia (unlike in other colonies). Failing to clarify the meaning implied in the title would be a defect in the article, not only because of its ambiguity, but because it plays an important role in working backwards from the status of his children, in determining his own status. The attention paid to what type of "servant" he was prior to 07-09-1640 speaks to the issue. It is well documented and not disputed by any source that he was at least, definitely a servant. That is what one would call the "least common denominator." It is what I would have thought should have been used in the title, not only for that reason, but because those who believe he was, ultimately, made a slave, would be even more incited to read the content of the article, if only because the title departed from their understanding. The title would not have been in violation of NPOV in that case, because it is uncontested. After the court's decision was rendered, it would still be true, because all slaves are servants. (Not all servants, however, are slaves.) [Edit appended ==> The very first sentence of the main article contradicts the title: "John Punch... was an African servant,..."]Dr. Matt (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• As to your repeated request that I provide reliable sources stating he was not made a slave, the fact is borne out by the intentional use by the Council and others (all of which, as already established, knew what "slave" meant in terms of the time), of the word "servant." To be objective, it is possible the term was not as well defined as I think... one definition meant "to the Colony" for, for example, missing church, and one definition meant as defined by the slave trade. That disparity, coupled with an absence of any legal definition at the time, may have been the only reason the term was avoided. The effective "work-around" was to spell the sentence out verbatim - "for the rest of his life..."
• Do not concur that I have a conflict of interest. My prototype lead should have made that clear. No arguments here that Virginia (as the first colony) would naturally be the first to address the issue. Not going to discuss all implications here, but my concern as a Virginian speaks to the wording of the last sentence - nothing more. If you are going to state the key milestone sentence, it should be quoted and cited; although, I don't think quotations, particularly those which are -to the extent that they are bold and confrontational- unique in thought belong in the lead. It is like the sentence containing "Y-DNA." It reads as awkward, as if contrived. Breaking with parallel structure just to include it looks forced and, truly, isn't needed - it's practically contraindicated - in the lead. The way I wrote it is absolutely fine. There's a section in the content which expounds on it in detail. If you're not citing specifics of historical and genealogical, don't cite specifics of scientific. "KISS."
• Do not concur that title is not political. I did not say "partisan." Political applies to anything which chooses one path over another. Historical purists might say the title's author chose "the path less traveled." The title is not NPOV because it represents one school of thought (modern vs. historical). It is not a violation of NPOV to bring it to your attention.
• I appreciate your willingness to perfect this article. Say what you will in later sections, there's no reason to embellish the lead... nice and easy, avoiding proclamations and "wow!" statements is best.
• Do not concur that I violate OR. I can do all OR I want. OR doesn't belong in the article, but OR is not illegal, per se. That said, claims that his descendants would be known as "Bunch" or "Bunche" is OR. There's no reliable secondary source to make that connection. Even Ancestry disclaims it, though it also ignores its own admissions in its titular claims.
• It is also OR to assert he was "probably" born in Cameroon, Gabon or Cote d'Ivoire. It is "possible." It is "probable" he was born in one of the Gulf of Guinea coastal nations; not anything any more specific than that.
• Sentence structure was a primary concern. There were unnecessary ambiguities, which I identified for you. "Also" and "longer" are two. I also reordered the sentences so the flow, and the "wow" point made sense. "It is for this reason, that some historians..." It's just better. No judgments made about the original authors, who, most likely, just added sentences without rewriting the entire paragraph so the new additions fit.
• No one writes for me but me.
• Regarding the removal of the "nonsense" section... that matter is, at my request, under ARB review. Wiki-Watch is involved.
• Regarding images. The image of the three rulings by the Council may or may not be available forever. It is currently under review for possible violation of copyright. I think my case will win, but I am not the one who decides. I think it's important because it provides a setting for the rewritten phrase "one of the early." The map image, however, is entirely my own. If you ever decide to rephrase the infobox contents, you should use it. When I was done with it, I was impressed with just how informative and relevant it is. Moreover, while working on it, I read about the history of the three nations Ancestry mentioned. I was fascinated to discover that Muslims were actively spreading into these countries... nearly 400 years ago! - and, at the same time, the 4 slave trade nations were invading from the gulf coast. The poor natives of those nations had no hope - no one to turn to - no place to run to. Again, it does beg the question of "of the time" perspectives re. slavery. These negroes were already familiar with the concept of slavery; most of them were on board as slaves themselves. Did they expect not to be upon arrival? It has been well documented that they were not referred to as slaves in the same way as they were before their arrival. That change in "term of status" may have been enough to make them willing to subject themselves to lifetime service, simply because they were not doing so as slaves. I've already provided a number of sources which discuss this incidentally without actually discussing it. It is interesting to me. Not intended to be perceived by you as worthy of inclusion in the article.
• You did not mention the new section. I think I was fair and honest and, frankly, a bit more gratuitous than I should have been. The section was, itself, a double entendre... I hope you realized. Your first edict should be "Nothing is to be perceived as a personal attack. If I bark, bark back." Your second should be "I believe in strict adherence to WP policies. I will remind you when I perceive you to be in violation of any one or more of them. I reserve the right to report any such violations, I will give you several opportunities to correct them, and I will advise you if I intend to report them."

Dr. Matt (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As another editor already pointed out on your talk page, your new section/comment is inappropriate and doesn't merit a response. That's why I didn't mention it. Also, you say political means there are more than one path, but you've yet to present a strong reliable source that shows an alternative path to him being made a slave. So there isn't another path, he was made a slave and until you provide an equally reliable source that explicitly says otherwise. On top of that, your attempt to make a defense for using "servant" instead of "slave" is weak. Equally, you could say "John Punch (Human)" and then that would be the greatest common denominator and most inclusive. The point of the adding the disambiguation to titles is to clearly demonstrate what is significant about and identifiable about the individual. It is clear and supported by numerous sources that Punch was significant because of his being condemned to slavery and the title reflects this. It's not controversial, it's a historical fact. Your attempt to argue using servant as a "least common denominator" is an OR argument because you're presenting a controversy that he was not made a slave, yet have no strong reliable source to back up this position. Even if such a source existed, it would not override what numerous other sources have confirmed and changing the article to represent what 1 hypothetical source says is a violation of WP:NPOV in terms of WP:Weight. Also, there are no "Wow" statements in the lead, the lead simply reflects exactly what is significant about the article and is backed by reliable sources. Just because you can't believe that Punch was a slave, doesn't make it a "wow" statement. Also, no, including the entire history and development of slavery on every single page regarding slavery is unnecessary and it's certainly not relevant to this article. Just because Punch was a human doesn't mean we have to divulge every detail ever discovered about human history and explain the process of evolution either. None of these things are relevant to Punch and all of them distract from the focus of the article which is suppose to be about Punch and why historians consider him and his case significant. Also, your including the word "some" into the lead when referencing how historians view Punch is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weasel. Some is a weasel word and is an attempt to marginalize how historians view Punch, implying that others have differing views, though you haven't provided a single strong reliable source asserting a different view. If you want to quote Costa directly, who does say "some" then that's fine, but then you have to remove "one of the first" from the statement regarding racial distinction. Lastly, WP articles don't represent what you think is "borne out" through whatever interpretations you've arrived at because that's a violation of WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you require more from the opposition than you allow to support your own case? According to your oft-cited Donoghue source, no such certainty is offered; in fact, if you'll look at what I have denoted in red on the relevant page from the article, the author, in frank contradiction to the content of the article's opening paragraphs, just rather unassumingly begins out-of-the-blue and as matter-of-fact to refer to it as slavery - even going so far as to call the known indentured "slaves," (proof of his bias) and, further, removes himself and all accountability by disclaiming it can be interpreted as; NOT that it IS or WAS interpreted that way, especially by himself. I am not originating any controversy; that, TOO, is well documented, even by Donoghue in the same article - so much so that he decides NOT to discuss it. What is your problem, Sentry? Ground yourself, already. And why do you use the Donoghue article as a source for the information in the first sentence when Ancestry.com provides the scientific evidence pointing to western Africa, and Donoghue is merely reciting it in broader terms?? Sheesh. You now (and again) have, in one paragraph, validated everything asserted in the new section. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Matt (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. what another editor thinks about the new section, "Hoo cares?" Opinions are like interpretations. They cannot negate the facts no matter how reliable they are wonted to be. "If the shoe fits," and it certainly does. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't write "(human slave)" in the title; you wrote "(slave)." Stop wasting my time. Dr. Matt (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The only one wasting time here is you. How long has it been and you still haven't provided a strong reliable source to support your argument. I, also, don't require "more" from the "opposition". WP requires that the information you include in an article be verifiable by a reliable source and explicitly defines which sources count as reliable and "most reliable". Also, I used Donoghue for the first sentence because it's sufficient. If you were concerned about it, then you had ample opportunity to include ancestry.com as the source, instead of littering the lead with tags. The only person who needs to ground himself is you. Again, you think you can contest what has been put forward by strong reliable sources and you can't. The same way creationists can disqualify scientific studies involving evolution, you can't try to disqualify a peer-reviewed paper published by a historian just because you don't like it. It's also funny because you try and argue against using Donoghue while you were just recently trying to use what Donoghue allegedly wrote on some random website. I think there's a term for that, a term you keep demonstrating over and over again. Furthermore, as Perry, Russell, Foner, and Winthrop have all pointed out, the status of the negro can not be definitively known during the early years of the colony. So if Donoghue wants to refer to them as slaves, then he may, and it's not a contradiction when he says it was the "first legal sanctioning". The fact that he acknowledges, as a historian, that history is subject to interpretation, doesn't discredit what he says, even in the slightest. Also, authors of reliable secondary sources are allowed to be bias, so pointing out any bias he may have is fruitless. Lastly, I didn't write the title to the article. I've said this multiple times and I think it's evident that you failed to understand the example I was making with "human" vs "servant". Slave is appropriate because reliable sources refer to him as a slave, being enslaved, or being reduced to slavery and you've yet to provide a single source that contests this. Hence, there is no controversy regarding Punch being a slave except that which originates from you, an editor. If I'm wrong, provide a strong reliable source and prove it, understanding that even if that source is found, it won't override what the numerous other sources already say. In essence, you'd have to find numerous sources that refute him being a slave, assert slaves didn't exist, or something similar to try and argue that there is indeed a controversy and not just a minority viewpoint. I'd wish you luck again, but something tells me you're going to just keep making more OR arguments instead.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Anachronisms and other reference errors

a·nach·ro·nism

/əˈnakrəˌnizəm/

noun

plural noun: anachronisms

a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

"everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane"

• an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.

["Eleanor Roosevelt was the quintessential dyke"]

Origin

mid 17th century: from Greek anakhronismos, from ana- ‘backward’ + khronos ‘time.’

In Sparing Ishdarian

[This discussion has been transplanted from another user's talk page. I have opted to reply to sentences as they appear. My replies are in [green]. Sorry SD/WP.]

I don't know why Dr. Matt and Wayne are spending their time arguing on your talk page. Neither Wayne or PresidentitstVB have submitted any strong reliable source that claims Punch wasn't a slave, sentenced to slavery, or wasn't enslaved. [I agree that it is possible Punch could have been made "subject to a superstition, passion, etc.," and thus, enslaved, according to the definition of the word at the time. I have stated ad infinitim et nauseum that he was not in any way made a slave, when viewed through any lens of the time, no matter how many oxymoronic historians state otherwise. Slaves were specifically identified by the edicts of 1618 (as "slaves to the Colony"), by the slave traders and, most significantly, by the slaves themselves, especially those who converted to Christianity as slaves on board the early 17th C ships for the sole person of not being treated as slaves upon their arrival in the new world. I'm tired of trying to argue the facts with a brick wall, except to ask you, Scoobydunk, if I were to write what two other, reliable sources had considered in publications... "Scoobydunk is a brick wall," would you be able to find two reliable sources, which specifically stated, as if to state the obvious for no apparent reason, "Scoobydunk is not a brick wall?" I rest my case.] They've also failed to provide any reliable source to claim there were slaves recognized and officially documented by a legal institution before Punch. [Go ahead. Do what Tuckerresearch did at 5:36 PM (EST) on July 31st 2012, just make that leap of faith and write it!... (over and over again). [WP:OR] After all, you have already said you removed it in response to my objections, so why should I be surprised, looking at the article's history, that you wouldn't continue the "flip flop flam?"]. Wayne thinks this quote from Foner supports his argument but it doesn't because Foner is specifically talking about the institution of slavery and when historians consider the institution to have originated. I've already supplied a quote from a strong reliable source by Vaughan that further substantiates this point:

"On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989. [It is well known, WLROSS, that slavery existed long before Punch's case - it was documented in Massachusetts (in present day Somerville, I think), in the Sugar Islands (the English colony of Barbados, primarily), from where a number of our first black immigrants emigrated, and most notably, on the slave ships departing West Africa, from where Punch himself is alleged to have come.]

So, even though historians may differ on when the institution of slavery started, Vaughan clarifies that "almost everyone" recognizes the existence of both slaves and free blacks by 1640, if not, from the beginning of the colony. Wayne is trying to use his OR interpretation to pretend what Foner says contradicts what numerous historians have said about Punch, and it doesn't. He's failed to refute this fact and has repeatedly ignored this point made by Vaughan, yet keeps repeating the same tired OR unsubstantiated argument. [Stop picking on people.] Notice how he didn't supply any sources to his statement about white slaves? [Stop picking on people. I thought you were sincere when you claimed you didn't understand why Wayne and I were spending our time on someone else's talk page! Sheesh... you're oblivious to your own flaws. Stop picking on Wayne.] Wayne and I have already gone through 3O and he's since ignored the consensus [Stop picking on people. A consensus of one hardly qualifies.] that was determined by an uninvolved third party. He didn't present sources to support his argument then and he isn't supplying them now. Both of these editors have been ignoring sources or have been trying to deny what current sources say outright. [Stop picking on people.] Sorry that this has rolled over to your page, but I thought I'd address, again for the third time, the fallacious claims made against me. [What is the legal term? "Malicious prosecution?"] Scoobydunk (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [QED.] Dr. Matt (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's funny you made a whole new section to levy the same OR arguments you've been making this entire time, again, without a single reliable source to support it. Sorry, but you taking a word from the dictionary and trying to use that to imply that historian's whose work has undergone peer-review is wrong or unreliable is called original research. Also, if you feel my explanation of the behavior that you and Wayne have exhibited repeatedly on this talk page and other talk pages is "picking on" someone, then maybe you guys should cease the behavior if you're so embarrassed of it. Hey, I just found another example of hypocrisy. You have referred to me as a pit bull, a bully, a monkey, and have made numerous other personal attacks, when all I've done is asked that you follow Wikipedia policies and provide sources to substantiate your arguments. So you are telling other editors not to "pick" on people when that's all you've done since failing to meet WP requirements of providing reliable sources to substantiate your claims. Furthermore, Wayne was the one who involved himself and started making accusations against me on Ishdarian's page. I defended myself against those accusations and explained to Ishdarian Wayne's behavior. Also, regarding the "brick wall" example, if you had supplied strong reliable sources that made that claim, then I'd be perfectly happy adding it to the relevant article. If it sounded a bit outlandish, then I'd search for other reliable sources that might prove otherwise, but if I couldn't find reliable sources that said otherwise, then I'd accept that historian's consider Scoobydunk a "brick wall." I rest my case. FYI, you shouldn't try and set up a hypothetical where you can't predict the answer.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutralizing the "Punch" in the Title

Dictionaries are the most reliable secondary sources, because they do not contradict themselves, they do not opine, they do not think, and they are predictably uniform, universally accepted and timeless. About 20 such sources are replete with consistency of information. Thus far, I've fully sourced the root words "anachronism" and the meaning of the word "enslave" during its earliest (17th C.) usage. They appropriately serve as two of the citation sources for the sentence, "everything about the Wikipedia® article's treatment of 17th-Century enslavement was as true to the time as it appeared to the members of the Colony's highest court on July 9^th 1640, apart from one anachronism, the negro defendant's emergence from the courtroom as a slave."

The above-quoted sentence is irrefutably supported by very reliable secondary sources (Minutes of the Council and General court of colonial Virginia 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with notes and excerpts from original Council and General court records, into 1683, now lost is not a primary source). As the original title page clearly spells out, not only is the year 1640 not included in the collection of original transcripts (those actual transcript records were burned during the Southern Confederacy's evacuation of Richmond "on April 2/3, 1685"), the original records from that year (among others) were available to be combined and appended as a separate section by its editor, H. R. McIlwaine, only because two men, Mr. Conway Robinson and the clerk of Sir John Randolf, during separate periods and under differing circumstances, had previously transcribed them, with their own respective notes and comments, along with those recorded by William Waller Hening, the former two of whose, McIlwaine freely admits to having included in the subject-relevant sections of the "Minutes." [N.B. Robinson was also a very prolific writer of scholarly works and would subsequently become the first president of the Virginia Historical Society.]

Prima-facie evidence, it is. Primary source documentation, by its editor's own admission, it absolutely is not.

Citations just don't get much stronger than these; nor does the philosophical argument in defense of providence. Reigning above all other ironies woven throughout the history of America, the Civil War, itself, is now to be credited with having triggered the sequence of events ultimately resulting in remembering and recording, of the time and for all time, the honorable truth about the "negro named John Punch," as (and only as) a "servant."

Dr. Matt (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Monkey See, Monkey Do

There are those with "selective hearing," a term which pretty accurately describes the phenomenon of "hearing only what one wants to hear." Similarly, there are those who exhibit the phenomenon of "selective seeing," which is either "seeing only what one wants to see" or an inability outright to see what is clear to everyone else. I suppose the terms could have originated with the three see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil monkeys, but that would be just a guess. Even so, there must exist those who speak only what they want to speak...

One of the editors of this page, whom I shall refer to as "Monkey One," cannot seem to see facts as facts... even after I have repeatedly rewritten the lead to read in support of his assertions, researched his sources to verify his own claims, offered suggestions to improve (strengthen and render impervious) his content, and even spelled it out in more than one sentence that I did not desire to derail the content of his article --- no matter what I say or do, said or did, I am still and have been accused of being out to tear it all down. Moreover, because I won't give this editor sources to support his position that I oppose his work, I am somehow inferior an my every attempt perceived as a "red herring."

The user clearly has established himself as the canine pack's alpha male (or herself as the alpha bitch)...

I have my own talk page if you want to ask me something, asking me on someone else's is ridiculous. Why can't you use "Though historians disagree"? Because you haven't supplied a strong reliable sources showing there is disagreement on the status of Punch. That's why. The article already reflects that historians disagree about when the institution of slavery was started, so no, I'm not opposed to it as long as it's properly sourced and is accurately reflected in the article. To use that language in regards to Punch's status or the significance of his court case is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Like I've been saying from the beginning, find a reliable source and then the article can properly include that source. Like I've told you before, feel free to take this to dispute resolution if you want. I would, but you've made so many numerous red herring arguments that I wouldn't want you to suddenly feign ignorance and pretend that you never argued such a thing. So pick the argument or assertion you want, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Also, I didn't reference plagiarism at all. You're the only one who fallaciously made such an accusation. I've only said that emails are often not verifiable and don't count as a reliable source. Please make a stronger effort in reading comprehension before levying accusations...egregious accusations.

A person can only take so many of these types of allegations before he begins to believe the attacker is serious.

Enter mens rea.

Inasmuch as I have been found guilty of the crime by this judge (and jury of one), I've the liberty and license, now, to respond befittingly.

Enter double jeopardy.

I should have done it when I first saw it, but I guess I was courteously seeing only what the article's alpha editor wanted me to.

The good guys don't always finish last, except to laugh.

It's the best.

Monkey Two (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

. Monkey Two (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Monkey Two (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)