This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Recent edits have asserted these without providing a source, reliable or otherwise: claiming that legislative debates in the wake of Gabriel Prosser's conspiracy were secret, giving specifics on Mercer's political inclinations (beyond or modifying the NPOV text already present in the topic) and commenting on personal attacks on Mercer. The latest edit provides only unveriable/obscure sources. Some of the existing data in the topic is removed, no editing rationale has been provided. Looks like either (a) original research or (b) cut/paste from some third-party unspecified source. Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC
The fact that sources appear obscure to Tedickey hardly makes the "obscure." One of those labeled as such by Ted, Mercer's 1845 book, may be purchased on amazon. Or the fact that the Virginia legislature held the post-Gabriel conspiracy behind closed doors and then kept the debates out of most copies of their official record is hardly news and first appeared in P.J. Staudenraus's 1961 book on colonization and Liberia. This is the problem with wikipedia; people who have no clue what they are saying can seize control of an entry. Ted needs to spend more time reading early national history and less vandalizing entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egertondr (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 September 2008
Well, then you could start by sourcing it properly. So far it doesn't look as if you're doing more than making assertions. Tedickey (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
For instance, if you are indeed "Douglas R. Egerton", I'd have expected a better presentation than something which appears to have been written by a high school student. Presumably the edits yesterday were not your work, so let's see your edits. Have a nice day. Tedickey (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The book's available (actually not all that good - too much opinion as I recall it). But a more constructive approach would be to add reliably-sourced material. So far, no progress. Tedickey (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, back in 2007, a well-meaning editor confused Robert S. with another Robert S. Garnett, possibly the son of the first, who was in fact in the Confederate Army. He in turn had a cousin and West Point classmate, Richard B. Garnett, who was killed in Pickett's Charge. Once the two Roberts were confused, it was a quick and hasty step to mistake James F. for Richard B.
What this all shows is that the Garnett family articles need more work. Rklear (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)