Jump to content

Talk:Socrates Nelson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSocrates Nelson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2021Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
December 28, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 7, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Socrates Nelson sold a block of land to the city of Stillwater, Minnesota, for $5 in 1867 for the building of a new county courthouse?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 11, 2021, and January 11, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Citations that could be of interest for minorly expanding the article

[edit]
  • Peterson, Brent (May 26, 2017). "Orange Walker: Marine pioneer". Stillwater Gazette. Archived from the original on December 21, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020. The Minnesota Territorial Legislature organized a boom company on the St. Croix River on Feb. 7, 1851. The incorporators were [...] John McKusick, Socrates Nelson and Levi Churchill of Stillwater

A few more:

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Socrates Nelson gave a block of land to the city of Stillwater, Minnesota in 1867 for $5 with no strings attached for the site of a new county courthouse?[1]
    • ALT1: ... that Socrates Nelson sold a block of land to the city of Stillwater, Minnesota in 1867 for $5 for the building of a new county courthouse?[1]
    • ALT2: ... that in 1867, Socrates Nelson sold a block of land to the city of Stillwater, Minnesota for $5 for the building of a new county courthouse?[1]

5x expanded by TheTechnician27 (talk) and created by RFD (talk). Nominated by TheTechnician27 (talk) at 15:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Everything looks cool here. Nice to learn about! I call this article a "good post". jp×g 11:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Dunn, James Taylor (Winter 1962). "Minnesota's Oldest Courthouse" (PDF). Minnesota History. Vol. 38, no. 4. Minnesota Historical Society. pp. 186–189. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020.

1840 census

[edit]

Nelson doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the contents of the 1840 St. Louis census, meaning it's possible – if not likely – that Nelson wasn't there by June 1840. Meanwhile, using ancestry.com's search engine, I can't find any S. Nelson whose home in 1840 makes any sense for the general region where Nelson is recorded as being in (somewhere around Illinois/Missouri) If we assume he was in Illinois, Putnam may be a good county to look in, as he was married in Hennepin four years later. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible lead on religion

[edit]

This contemporary obituary states that Betsey was a member of the Universalist church. It's completely possible Socrates was of a different religion, but this seems like a possible lead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stance on slavery

[edit]

It's not definitive, but if I'm reading the below source correctly, the writer is accusing Socrates Nelson and other contemporary Democratic politicians of being in favor of returning fugitive slaves to the South. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 05:42, December 25, 2020 (UTC)

Likely, since a) he seemed to be in favor of slavery based on his 1860 senate vote, and b) what launched the Republican landslide win in the 1860 elections (in which he lost to a Republican) was that Democrats were pro-slavery and Republicans were outraged by slavery.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical newspaper sources hosted by the MNHS

[edit]

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Socrates Nelson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) at 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TheTechnician27 – I'l take this article for review, and I'm sorry that you had to wait almost 3 months for a review. At first glance, the article seems strong on conciseness. At 10,491 characters, it isn't short, and seems to be at fine length for a state senator. My general comments about the article would be divided by section, and other suggestions would be separated from the review. Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: It's honestly no problem at all; I performed a couple GA reviews during that time and realize how backlogged the nominations list was and still is. If anything, I'm glad somebody got to it relatively quickly given there are 300 articles awaiting review. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27 – Yeah; backlog drive just ended some 17 days ago, and the backlog has again grown to 370 articles (the oldest article which is still under review is from December, 2020!). I'm attempting to reduce the backlog particularly in the "Politics and government" sections, and have reviewed some articles from that section. We really need more reviewers.
This article meets the GA criteria, and needs just a few concerns to be addressed. After these have been addressed, I think we'll be good to pass this. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]
  • ".. in the Wisconsin Territory and opened ..." – comma after territory
  • ".. St. Croix Boom Company with Nelson made one ..." – comma after company
    • Done.
  • ".. to November 1858 ..." → "till November 1858"
    • Done, though I went with "until", since in hindsight, two syllables fits the cadence better.
  • It would be better to leave Hilary B. Hancock un-linked; and add a footnote indicating that he was identical twin brother of later presidential nominee Winfield Scott Hancock.
  • All those "equivalent to $...." should probably look better when (inside parenthesis)
    • I'm trying to remember why I left two of them out of parentheses. While I think leaving the one for "under $1000" within commas instead of parentheses fits the cadence better, I'd have a hard time arguing that it's worth sacrificing consistency, especially within the same paragraph. Done.
  • "In 1846, Nelson was treasurer for St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory, and in 1847, he was treasurer and a county commissioner." – required a little explanation. Was he elected treasurer? appointed? nominated?
    • This is actually a really good point, and I'm going to go ahead and figure that out and add it! In fact, this just led me to finding that Nelson was appointed "Master in Chancery" for St. Croix County by the governor in 1847, which is weird given that the Court of Chancery seems to be an English and Welsh thing. Going to ask WikiProject Law about that really quick while I'm at it. It'll take me maybe 15 minutes or so to figure the former out, and I'll work on the latter in my own time.
      • Update: Done! Turns out the answer was right under my nose and I didn't need to go digging through newsppaers; the book cited does state that these were the results of elections, the first one having taken place in 1840. I still want to figure out the Chancery thing, though, so WP Law, here I come.
  • ".. and preceding Julius Georgii." – I don't think it's important to mention who he was preceding (unless Georgii is notable enough to mention)
  • ".. a total of up to $5 million ..." – Now here's the figure which really requires present value with inflation (equivalent to $176,076,923 in 2023)
    • I thought I'd put the inflation in there, but I guess I left it out by mistake; I'm glad you caught this one, since yeah, the value after inflation (~$145 million) is enormous. Done.
  • "In 1859 and 1866, he was the president ..." – "he served as the president ..."; same goes with next line.
    • Done.
  • Move that "13 Territorial Convention Site (Myrtle & Main Street)" YouTube link to External links section.
  • Done.
  • Add ISBN number to the books (if they have). Also, "Boston, MA." and other abbreviations can/should be written as "Boston, Massachusetts."
  • I would also have added 1-2 sentences in the lead about his business.
    • Sort of done. I was originally going to add "establishing the first general store" to the second sentence, but I think the lead section is just long enough as it is without feeling bloated and that the "As a businessman" section covers this well enough. Even though I've tweaked it some, I really think Howcheng got the lead length pretty much just right for this article. However, while I think expanding the lead would make it bloated, I realize that "businessman" and "merchant" can be taken as basically interchangeable, so I changed "merchant" to "general store owner" for specificity.
  • All images seem to be appropriate to use, and licensed accordingly. Earwig's copyvio detector detects highest 7.4% similarity (violation unlikely). Definitely no edit wars ad article is not edited from 53 days.
  • Overall, it is an excellent article, very well researched, with comprehensive information (as mentionned), and very understandable writing. Great efforts! Address these comments, and this would definitely be promoted! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mural

[edit]

As it turns out, Socrates Nelson was portrayed in a mural in 1961. https://www.newspapers.com/image/184690981/?terms=%22Socrates%20Nelson%22&match=1 What the artist used as a source, however, is unknown, and the picture in the newspaper is rather blurry. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from WT:FAC discussion

[edit]
FAC discussion

Posting my comments here, instead of the discussion started by Sandy, for length reasons.

  • "At some point later in his life, he came to own an Indian pony mare named Lady Maguire" - trivia, likely should not be in article
  • "Nelson served on the first board of regents alongside Isaac Atwater, Joseph W. Furber, William Rainey Marshall, Bradley B. Meeker, Alexander Ramsey, Henry Mower Rice, Henry Hastings Sibley, Charles K. Smith, Franklin Steele, Nathan C. D. Taylor, and Abraham Van Vorhes" - undue detail, even for a note
  • "Betsey D. Bartlett is referred to in various sources as 'Betsy' and 'Bertha'" - this is effectively unsourced. The two sources in this note are the census record and the one contemporary report for Martha E., which obvious can't support "is referred to in various sources ..."
  • "during his twilight months - WP:TONE issues
  • "and as of 2022, the building is the longest-standing courthouse in Minnesota" - sourcing is somewhat fudged here, as the sources are from 1962 and 2020, neither really supports "as of 2022", although I'm sure it's still true.
  • "By the summer of 1847, Nelson was shipping rafts of white pine hundreds of miles downriver to St. Louis," - source doesn't name white pine, just says that he was shipping logs and lumber
  • "– married to Elizabeth Marion (née Proctor)" - why is this level of detail about Churchill's wife necessary?

This is not comprehensive; only the 5 or so minutes I could look at this during work. I'm not concerned that it's short; I've written an FA a decent bit shorter (4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)). Hog Farm Talk 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may tack on comments here as well, I too took a look at the article following Sandy's post. I'd argue that footnote e is trivia and f-h are just lists of names that don't add value. There are occasional instances of unnecessarily wordy writing. E.g. ... at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness" is as informative as ... at age 32 of an unspecified illness or ... at age 32 following a brief period of acute illness (if it's necessary to specify severity and duration). Although to be entirely honest, you could remove everything after the line about his obituary at no cost as it is not about the article's subject. Then just combine the 'later life and death' with 'legacy' as 'death and legacy'. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my review here (based on a cursory look at that which stood out to me only as the most obvious); I am concerned there may be deeper source-to-text problems. The WP:FAR instructions make it premature to send this to FAR: it needs to be determined if this article can be repaired in time for TFA, or if a request should be made for it to be pulled. My hope is that there is time for repair, but that depends on whether someone is willing to do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founding member of Minnesota Democratic Party should be verified with a quote, as the source given is illegible, and that sort of text was misrepresented elsewhere. This source doesn't mention Nelson, and I can't find one that does, so the information may be UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the Odd Fellows situation, which needs to be resolved, I have addressed everything I noticed. Hog Farm you mentioned the article is not comprehensive; could you supply a list of what's missing? Some of the sources are defying my aging eyesight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear enough - by "this", I meant my comments, not the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged a CN in the infobox, and the exact day/month dates of his term of office in the infobox need a source, too. Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK ... do you think we've made enough progress that the article can run TFA, and if so, do you think there is enough progress now to ping Wehwalt to adjust the TFA blurb (some unverified info needs to be removed)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're fine to run it, and have Wehwalt tweak the blurb - the big stuff has been fixed, and the smaller things shouldn't result in too sizable of changes. Assuming the work so far won't be reverted. Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe we can wait a day or two, to see how things shake out, before pinging Wehwalt. I was concerned that it should be pulled and expedited to FAR when I misinterpreted you to be saying the article wasn't comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is still quite awkward; starting in:

  • Twice, the article uses corporator, but once incorporator; why the difference?
  • I have no idea what is intended here, so can't figure out how to fix it: He would operate it scarcely over the next ten years, and it would be rebuilt in 1873 as the St. Croix Lumber Company. What was operated "scarcely", how do you scarcely operate a company, and what was rebuilt? Are we talking about a machine or a company?
  • On October 4, 1858, Nelson – alongside Charles E. Leonard – was declared the Minnesota Democratic Party's Washington County nomination for state senator. What does this mean? The source is illegible, so I'm at a loss. Was he nominated to be the candidate for state senator? Why "alongside" another person, Charles Leonard? What does he have to do with it? Then we suddenly have him serving in the senate, without ever saying he won an election.
  • in 1840 to sell goods and collect furs. Was he a collector of furs ? Or was he buying and selling them as a business ... very odd choice of words here.

That's all I've got so far, but overall, the entire article reads as if the bio was written for the purpose of mentioning a fairly irrelevant factoid about the age of a courthouse (the Dodge County Courthouse is one year younger, big deal). The article gives far too much play to this tidbit, and the prose could still use some polishing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a CN tag to "there are no accounts of any before it" in the footnote about his being the first store; we need a source stating that there are no accounts before it, or it's an original research argument from silence. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose and paragraph structure concerns: Recommend FAR
[edit]

I preface my comments by saying I've never written a biographical article. That said, this article does not meet FAC standards.

The lede para says that, "Socrates Nelson (January 11, 1814 – May 6, 1867) [1] was an American businessman, [2] politician, and [3] pioneer who served one term as a Minnesota state senator from 1859 to 1861." This is fine. The rest of the paragraph then lists a further six things that SN "was": 4. involved in the early community of Stillwater, 5. an early member of the first Independent Order of Odd Fellows lodge in Minnesota, 6. general store owner, 7. lumberman, 8. real estate speculator, 9. associated with numerous companies in the insurance and rail industries.

I should be able to get sense of who SN was from the topic sentence of the lede paragraph, but I don't.

The "was's" continue in the second paragraph: Nelson was: 10, a member of a committee that submitted an 1848 petition to the U.S. Congress that led to the establishment of the Minnesota Territory...11. a county treasurer, territorial auditor, and county commissioner, and a member of the University of Minnesota's board of regents before being elected to the senate...12. later elected as a delegate for the 1864 Democratic National Convention.

The third paragraph has too many ideas in it. The lede sentence is: "In 1867, he donated a block of land for what is Minnesota's oldest standing courthouse, and a plaque on the courthouse commemorates Nelson's donation." This is fine. But as a topic sentence flagging what the paragraph is about the next two sentences of the paragraph i.e. "Nelson died in Stillwater of tuberculosis. The Nelson School in Stillwater was named after him." have nothing to do with what the paragraph is supposed to be about.

In the Early Life section, the topic sentence of the first paragraph is, "Socrates Nelson was born in Conway, Massachusetts, on January 11, 1814,[2] to Socrates Nelson and Dorothy Boyden.[3]" This is fine. However the topic sentence of the following paragraph is, "Later that year, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse,[4][16][17][c] and Betsey joined him soon after.[22]". There is no logical flow from "born... on January 11, 1814" to "Later that year...". That second topic sentence is unnecessarily long: "Later that year, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse,.[4][16][17][c] and Betsey joined him soon after.[22]".

The topic sentence fo paragraph three flags to the reader that it is about events occurring in 1848: "On September 22, 1848, the Nelsons had twin daughters, Emma A. and Ella, but Ella died in infancy on October 23, 1849.[26][2][27]" This is fine. But the third sentence then says, "Along with state legislator Mahlon Black, Nelson became one of the first two men in Minnesota to be initiated into the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, later co-founding Minnesota Lodge No. 1 in Stillwater in 1852.[failed verification][30][31]" Well, yes, but did their initiation into the IOOF occur in the same year? Not to mention the failed verification.

The Business Ventures section starts, "Nelson entered the lumber business in earnest on February 7, 1851, as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature.[7][32][33]" This is fine. I am going to learn about SN in the lumber business. But the paragraph switches tack half way through: "In early March 1853, he became one of the corporators of the Louisiana and Minnesota Railroad." What does this have to with being in the lumber business?

Para three starts: "On January 27, 1867 Nelson became a corporator of the Stillwater & St. Paul Railroad.[52]" and this is fine. But later on the same paragraph says, "Following Nelson's death that May, Betsey, alongside local businessman and court clerk Harvey Wilson (d. November 13, 1876), continued to manage his business affairs, both trustees under Nelson's will.[56][57]" Why is it necessary to mush these two ideas into the same paragraph?

Paragraph 1 of the Political Career section, includes this passage: "He was one of a seven-man committee whose petition to Congress and its sixty-one signatures at the August 26, 1848, Stillwater convention." The way commas are used here is awkward.

The opening sentence of the Later Life and Death section says, "In 1859 and 1866, Nelson served as the president of the Old Settlers Association,[93] having been one of its charter members.[94]" Yet the last sentence of the immediately previous section says, "Nelson served on the Stillwater City Council from 1863 to 1865,[90]" Cleary, the Later Life section is not about his later life.

It seems to me that during PR and FAC not enough attention was applied to the calibre of prose and paragraph construction.

My comments don't represent a thorough review; they're only the things that leapt out at me. I feel it's unwarranted to "rely" on the time pressure of a forthcoming TFA to attempt to fix an article that didn't evidently meet the FAC standards when it was promoted, judging by the numerous concerns since expressed here and at FAC talk.

An FAR would be in order. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that all of these problems stem from what looks in hindsight like an attempt to pad up the article content, perhaps related to (unnecessary) concerns about its size, rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves, even if a short article resulted. It is difficult to figure out how to fix it at this stage, particularly since some of the sources aren't legible. But WP:FAR is not an option; the presumption is that articles that just passed FAC are not FAR worthy, so one must wait three to six months before moving to FAR. That is why attempting to fix the article is the best option at this point. This is an unpleasant situation all-round, and should not have happened, so it seems only fair to help out the nominator by trying to address the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh I have attempted some re-paragraphing in the Political career section; could you have a new look? Re: Paragraph 1 of the Political Career section, includes this passage: "He was one of a seven-man committee whose petition to Congress and its sixty-one signatures at the August 26, 1848, Stillwater convention." The way commas are used here is awkward. the whole thing was awkward; I attempted re-casting. Re: The opening sentence of the Later Life and Death section says, "In 1859 and 1866, Nelson served as the president of the Old Settlers Association,[93] having been one of its charter members.[94]" Yet the last sentence of the immediately previous section says, "Nelson served on the Stillwater City Council from 1863 to 1865,[90]" Cleary, the Later Life section is not about his later life. the immediately previous section is political; the Old Settlers Association is not.
I will attempt to clean up the Business section as well. Back on your comment about submitting to WP:FAR, if the article were to go to FAR, it would get the same attention it is getting here (that is, Hog Farm, Buidhe and me), so may as well think of the pre-TFA review here on talk as a FAR :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, Graham Beards, Hog Farm, and Sandbh: I've fixed all I can, cleared up the clarifications needed and failed verifications, and (I hope) solved the paragraph issues. Could you all take a close look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've had a look (not close) and can see improvements.

Several concerns remain about prose and structure.

The topic sentence of the first lede paragraph remains underdone, and not adequately capturing who Socrates was in a comprehensive, yet succient manner. Thus, the whole of the lede mentions 19 things he did or was. The topic sentence says he was a "pioneer" however what this means is neither explained nor referred to in the rest of lede. The paragraph continues to have too many was's and too many "He was's". IOW the construction of the paragraph and the variety of its prose needs more work.

For example, the first sentence of the lead would probably be more representative expressed this way...

Socrates Nelson (January 11, 1814 – May 6, 1867) was an American businessman, community administrator, real estate speculator, and politician, who served one term as a Minnesota state senator from 1859 to 1861.

...or something like that.

The topic sentence of the 2nd lede paragraph has an ugly use of two that's. It refers to a "committee" without explaining the nature and authority of the committee.

The 3rd paragraph has too many ideas, not captured in the topic sentence.

In the Early life and family section, the topic sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not well constructed.

In the third para, there is no logical flow between its topic sentence i.e. "Later in 1844," and the topic sentence of the preceding paragraph i.e.. "When has 25...". That is, the "Later in" is meaningless.

In the Business ventures section, the topic sentence for the 1st paragraph reads:

"Nelson, Churchill, and other early settlers of the Stillwater area laid claim to large tracts of land near the St. Croix River in 1845; they purchased the land from the General Land Office in 1849.[7][27]"

In what sense is this a business venture?

Paragraph 2 is less than economical:

"Riding a boom in real estate speculation and soaring land prices, Nelson and Churchill deeded 40 acres (16 ha) of land in January 1857 to St. Paul real estate salesman Robert F. Slaughter, half of which Slaughter [he] deeded in turn to Hilary B. Hancock."

I agree this is an unpleasant situation. The unpleasantness continues due to the unneeded pressure of a TFA deadline. I recommend withdrawing the TFA nomination and working on the prose and structure of the article in no-deadline time. The work involved is better treated as the responsibility of TheTechnician27, assisted by others, not the other way 'round as is currently happening. Sandbh (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh Thanks for having another look. I made these changes to hopefully address your (main) concerns.
Re first lede paragraph remains underdone, and not adequately capturing who Socrates was, I suspect that's because there's not much to say. He was a pioneer in the establishment of the St. Croix area, but there is not much written about him, as he wasn't, well, exactly a Rockefeller, Morgan or Vanderbilt (or in the case of Minnesota, even a Pillsbury or a Cargill). I've been through more of the sources now, and while I think the full story of how much of a pioneer he was in establishing the St. Croix area could be better told, I agree with you that's "not our job". At least as of now, the article should not be a TFA embarrassment.
Regarding your suggestion to take pioneer out of the lead, I think that is actually the main part of the man's story; it may not come across well in this article, but I don't think removing it is the way to go. I'd rather see focus on the goofy courthouse replaced with a focus on how much his sale of that land was a) to further his own business aims, but b) led to the development of Stillwater. Instead, the article had focused on the value of the land after the courthouse was built, and it being the oldest courthouse, when the real story is that it was his token sale of the land that encouraged development of Stillwater. And he was a pioneer in establishing Stillwater via the trading activity.
Re the double "that" and the committee, is this better? I lifted the better wording from History of Minnesota; like many bios of relatively less-important people, the sources here don't give us a lot to go on.
Re, the third para, I'm at a loss for how to improve that; death and legacy are often rolled into one para in bio leads. I'm not convinced the idea of topic sentences always works considering the limitations of constructing leads for Wikipedia purposes, where we aren't at liberty to develop full paragraphs with no word limitations.
Re, "Business ventures", the tracts of land were initially used for lumbering ... that is the business ... but led to development of the area. As you noticed, that part of his story was never well developed here, and it is quite miserable to have to dig back in to these old sources to improve the wording; is this better? (This is also part of what makes the "pioneer" in the pioneer story.)
I'm OK with the Slaughter sentence ... if we change it, we may open ourselves to criticism of clarity.
You may be right about asking for the TFA to be withdrawn, and that it should not be our responsibility to fix this article, but I believe it is close enough now that a) it won't create a fuss at TFA, and b) it won't be de-featured. This is, rather, an unfortunate lesson that worse than having an article you have worked hard on not promoted, is to have one promoted before it's ready (the problem in this case appears to be a lack of independent review, as two of the three supporters were previously involved). My feeling is that we've done enough here for it to get by at TFA, but if others want to ask Wehwalt to pull it, I wouldn't object. But neither do I think the article is now in WP:FAR territory. That is, not a stellar FA, but good enough at this point. Thanks for helping out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see I missed two of your points above re Topic sentences ... that was not intentional ... just feeling like I've done all I can on an article I knew nothing about a week ago. Also, on some other bios I've read, topic sentences often verge into becoming original research, so since I don't know all of the sources here intimately, I don't feel like I should try harder to fix those portions, which are simply a matter of telling the story chronologically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: Fly-by comments about topic sentences, and this paragraph:
"Nelson died in 1867 of tuberculosis. The Nelson School in Stillwater was named after him. A plaque at the Washington County Historic Courthouse commemorates his sale of the land on which the courthouse was built."
1. Writing FA standard topic sentences is hard.
2. In this case, I suggest something like:
"After Nelson died in 1867, from tuberculosis, his achievements were memorialised. The Nelson School in Stillwater was named after him. A plaque at the Washington County Historic Courthouse commemorates his sale of the land on which the courthouse was built."
Now, memorialised may be a somewhat clumsy word. "Commemorated" may be better. But I hope Ive conveyed the idea of what should go in the topic sentence i.e. that he died and there waa more to it than that. The rest of the paragraph elaborates. BTW, where is he buried? Sandbh (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The logical flow of the topic sentences is much better. Problems remain however:
"Nelson was a charter member of the Old Settlers Association,[80] and its president in 1859 and 1866.[81] In 1866, he was a trustee for the local society of Christian universalists.[82]"
When was the Old Settlers Association founded?
After being ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks,[83][84] Nelson died of tuberculosis in Stillwater on the morning of May 6, 1867, at the age of 53.[2][35] Most of the city's businesses closed that afternoon in observance of his death.[85]
Better as:
In 1867, after being ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks,[83][84] Nelson died of tuberculosis in Stillwater on the morning of May 6th, at the age of 53.[2][35] Most of the city's businesses closed that afternoon in observance of his death.[85]
(Ye gods, 53 is way to early to go.)
More later.

Sandbh (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good suggestions (except MOS has some something to say about May 6 vs May 6th, and I prefer commemorate to memorialize); I can work in your suggestions a bit later, when not iPad editing, unless you get to them first. Will have to dig in to the hard-to-read sources first to see if there is anything on the Old Settlers dates (my eyes are unhappy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Installed, stuck with memorialized to avoid redundancy with commemorated in later sentence. Out of time for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The article runs to some 2,300 words and so far about 7,500 words have been spent discussing and addressing the concerns that it does not meet the stellar FA standard, as in "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work".

I re-looked at the article last night and saw remaining outstanding concerns about prose and paragraph structure. I then had a look at the lede section of Van Gogh, which is FA, and which I recall having some peripheral involvement quite a while I go in the lead up to submitting it at FAC. Comparing the relatively sparkling lede of Van Gogh with the lede of Socrates Nelson, confirmed my impression that the SN article does not yet cut the mustard. Yes, it may not cause embarrassment at TFA. Equally that is not an excuse, in my opinion, to let it get through as is. In this context, the TFA nominator, wrote:

"While the date isn't extremely important, I would prefer either March 3 for the founding of the Minnesota Territory or, if that's not feasible, April 11 as an Easter egg for the founding date of the Washington County Historical Society."[4]

My inclination therefore is to recommend cancelling the March 3 TFA so that User:TheTechnician27 can work on getting the prose and structure up to FA standard or getting help do so, in order to hopefully meet the April 11 suggestion. Failing that, since the date isn't extremely important, when it gets up to standard.

Of course I'd never have been involved in any of this apart from happening to see the discussion at FAC talk, and wondering what the fuss was about, which I now understand. I intend to go ahead and recommend withdrawing the TFA to Wehwalt, subject to any further thoughts of yours. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh I can't tell you what to do; I can only speak to what I would do. First, TheTechnician27 did not fail FAC; FAC failed TheTechnician27. What happened was bad enough; I don't want to further penalize them for a FAC failure. In good faith, one brings an article to FAC, expecting a serious review, and doesn't get it; think of how that feels. Second, Olympic Games just ran TFA (Feb 20) with a long list of FAR-needed issues and maintenance templates in the article. No one noticed. I don't know if we should be happy that no one complained, or depressed that no one reads TFA, but the state of this article is now much better than what gets by regularly at TFA. Which leads to ... Third, pick your battles. For me, it's not worth it to generate even more agida for the nominator over this article when they already got the short end of the stick at FAC. There are so many other things needing attention on Wikipedia. Juggling a TFA too close to the deadline creates a big fuss and problem for everyone. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA blurb

[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Son-in-law

[edit]

Does his son-in-saw squandering his estate years after Nelson's death belong in the article? The entire bit seems to have been included to mention the drunken son-in-law. Not sure if his estate going down the tubes 40 years after his death belongs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the lots that sold for "more than $1,000 apiece" were the unusual sale of three very good lots for $4,000, four years after Nelson's death. The source does not even say if they were his lots-- just, "three of the best lots in the city" (in the context that the Courthouse spurred development). Does this belong, in the context of establishing that his plan to spur development worked, albeit after his death? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved these (the lots) to a footnote, since he died one month after donating the courthouse land. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railroads, gap in story

[edit]

Since Nelson was a railroad man (incorporator of two companies), why did he vote as a state senator to repeal Section 10 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched and searched for more info on this, and his pro-slavery positions, but have come up with nothing, so cannot argue a failure of comprehensiveness. They still feel like big gaps in his story, but if sources don't explain, neither can we. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything on those points yet, but something that seems significant that is not included is that in 1848, Nelson finished 3rd in a territorial representative election per this source. Essentially, when Wisconsin was carved out from Wisconsin Territory to become a state, Congress didn't specify what to do with the rest leftover territory, so the territorial government held an election for it's congressional representative and Nelson finished third as a write-in candidate, sweeping one of the eight precincts that provided returns. (The source suggests his votes came from his employees). Not finding much else that looks like a comprehensiveness issue. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swept that precinct, and got no votes anywhere else ... interesting. Writing this up would require a sentence or two on the backstory of the election; I don't have that left in me. You ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can get to that tomorrow evening most likely. `Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated Sandbh's suggestions, but have to hit the road now; out of time this morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the election, pls check: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine - I had a bunch of stuff crop up at work and forgot about it. Hog Farm Talk 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest courthouse

[edit]

The claim is to the "oldest standing courthouse". Ground was broken in 1867. The Dodge County Courthouse, the "oldest working courthouse" in MN, was built in 1865. [6]. See the footnote on page 189 on the semantics (offices weren't assigned at Dodge County until later than Washington County). The claim to oldest courthouse is semantic and dubious (and Dodge County Courthouse is still operating, Washington County is no longer a courthouse), so I will take it out of the lead as we are giving undue importance to this distinction. Stillwater today is a tourist town, thus has reason to promote the claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

[edit]

This appears to have been a significant overstatement in the text that passed FAC; could others check my read of the sources ? I have searched for alternate sources that better explain it, but have found nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of Democratic Party in territory, quote requested

[edit]

SandyGeorgia - The quote you requested about the founding member of the Democratic party is this - Pursuant to previous notice, the Democrats of Minnesota met in a mass convention at the American House in the town of St. Paul, on the evening of the 20th of October, 1849. The convention was organized by the choice of Henry Jackson, Esq., chairman, pro tem. [a couple short paragraphs about electing officers, unrelated to Nelson] On motion of Wm. Holcomb, Esq., a committee of five, consisting of Messrs Wm. Holcomb, J. R. Irvine, H. Jackson, Socrates Nelson, and R. P. Russell, were appointed by the chair to draft resolutions expressive of the sense of this convention. So at least the way I'm reading this, it's not clear that this is a founding convention.

This is an old 1959 journal article freely available online discussing the origins of the Minnesota Democratic Party. Quoting from this journal article - Rice next undertook to discredit Sibley among Minnesota Democrats. On September 24, he and his followers laid their plans, scheduling a party rally for October 20. [information about Sibley that seems irrelevant] The long-awaited evening of October 20 finally came. Rice's carefully prepared plans would now be made public. About a hundred men gathered at the American House for the caucus. The roll call included the names of many leading Minnesotans [irrelevant list of names] Of the known Democrats, only Sibley was absent. [description of why Sibley was gone, as well as a letter from Sibley read aloud in caucus] Nevertheless, after Phillips sat down, the resolutions committee proposed a platform agreed upon before the caucus. One provision was aimed directly at Sibley's nonpartisanship: "Resolved, That in organizing the Democratic party, it is important that our trusts should not be placed in any but those who are openly and unequivocally Democrats, fearlessly advocating Democratic principals at all times. Nelson is not mentioned in the journal article.

So it appears, based on the journal article, that this October 20 convention was a formalizing event for creating an official party structure. But we can't use the current source to support that, or that Nelson was a founding member, because it takes some WP:SYNTH to draw from that 1849 newspaper document that it was a founding item, rather than just a standard convention. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm; does this suffice then? (My eyes are begging for a break from trying to read these sources.) The article seemed to miss nuance in a few places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Per the various discussions, I've removed this as TFA for March 3, 2022 and ask that there be a fresh TFA/R discussion when it's desired it run.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parents

[edit]

According to Ancestry.com, Nelson's mother Dorothy Boyden lived from October 20, 1793 (b. Conway, Mass.) to June 23, 1863, while his father Socrates Nelson lived from September 26, 1791 (b. Suffield, Hartford) and died before 1843. This may or may not be true, so I'm putting it here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socrates_Nelson&oldid=1207554352"