Talk:Black Seminoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Black Seminoles 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Black Seminoles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2005.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Black Seminoles has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Move was made and thanks for copyedits

Thanks to utschurch or whomever was kind enough to move / rename the page. This is done and the request below can be ignored. And I appreciate the en-dash and em-dash copy edits from Wayward. I did not know the proper way to format those. Austinbirdman 14:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

I'm considering seriously submitting this as a featured article, pending the peer review. The way I see it, this is already of that quality. Though I'd like to hear opinions from people more experienced with actual peer reviewing. --Kitch 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It would be great if you did nominate it, though naturally my opinion is biased! Austinbirdman 13:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Were all the items in the reference list consulted to write this (relatively short) article? A list of references is not the same thing as a comprehensive bibliography on a subject, so the list should obly contain those items consulted to write the article.--nixie 06:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As the primary author, I can assure you they were all consulted. I wrote the piece working from a much lengthier manuscript I've been working on. The footnotes boil down the key sources for the passages covered. In a few cases, I cited more than one reference for the same point, but I a) kept this to a minimum and b) only did this when it would benefit someone who wanted to follow up by checking the references themselves. Thus, if there are multiple references -- for instance, references to a primary source like the American State Papers and a secondary source like John Mahon's history of the Second Seminole War -- it is because both the primary and secondary source contain uniquely valuable information. In general, there are several references for each paragraph because the summary being offered here is uniquely of my own authorship, combining information from all of those sources. I also made sure the references included the 4-5 key contemporary sources for new students to the subject. If anyone can offer a clean, user-friendly way to highlight these, I'd like to try it. Austinbirdman 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. - Another simpler way to answer the question is that all of the items listed alphabetically under the References are cited in the end notes. "References" lists these works with complete bibliographic info, whereas the end notes give just the last name title page #. Austinbirdman 17:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. If you wanted to keep track of sources, for your own reference and for other contributors, without getting the article bogged down with hundreds of notes, you could have a visible note for the most used and invisible notes for the rest. To make things only visible in edit mode you can use <!--text here-->. Great article. --nixie 06:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This is the best article I have seen since I have been here. Can someone do the same with Race of Jesus and the William Lynch Speech? V/ M
 02:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "masssacre"

well, what of the massacre of 400 people during the rebellion, claimed in Image:Massacre-whites-fla.jpg? Obviously, the image is propaganda, but the article text doesn't even mention an allegation that hundreds were slain during the 'destruction of 21 sugar plantations' in 1835. 130.60.142.65 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "masssacre"

The "massacre" described in the caption of the lithograph was not a single event, but rather a reference to an estimate of casualties during the broad period. There are no month-by-month estimates of total army casualties during the Second Seminole War, and none at all of civilian or militia casualties. The estimate of 400 was likely a bit of an exagerration. However, consider that 105 soldiers were killed in one event (the bloodiest), Dade's Massacre, at the opening of the war in December 1835. Scores more died in battle, from wounds and from disease over the ensuing months in Florida; there were also isolated reports of attacks on individuals, familes killed during raids on plantations, and plantation family members (and slaves) killed defending their plantations.

So the illustration was a bit of propaganda, and yet it was rooted in actual historical events. You can learn more about it and see elements up close at this key images page on the Web site "Rebellion: John Horse and the Black Seminoles."

The thoroughly researched historical account of the Second Seminole War at the Rebellion site, and the essay on the site estimating the numbers of the slave rebellion, suggest 400 casualties may be off the mark but not wildly for the overall number of white casualties in Florida during the first part of the conflict. More than 1500 U.S. soldiers were listed as casualties across the entire SSW, from 1835-1842, but Dec. 1835 - May 1836 was one of if not the most intense period of the war. And the 1500 number only includes federal soldiers, not militia or civilians. --Austinbirdman 22:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language

What a pity that this article made it to Featured Article status without so much as a link to the language of the Black Seminoles, Afro-Seminole Creole. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Response to Language Comment

Did you see the third paragraph in the section on Culture? The article from its inception has contained references to Afro-Seminole, Gullah, and the Sea Islanders, and there are links in that paragraph to these topics. That is the reason I removed the reference to language from the header, where it was a bit out of place. Following your terminology of "Afro-Seminole Creole," however, the article now uses that phrase instead of just "Afro-Seminole." --Austinbirdman 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] how did the ...

freed slaves and Indians go the Florida, as described in the lead, and "from the Seminoles?" Someone who knows this stuff please fix. Sfahey 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/Talk%7EBlack_Seminoles_2f45.html"