Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 24 May 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography African diaspora This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of John Punch (slave) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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/search/?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)

According to a source considered reliable by the editors of the main article, the National Park Service in a history of Jamestown, states there are wills, deeds, inventories "and other documents" found among other artifacts uncovered by archeologists, which show that in the 1630s, there were instances which indicated that it was considered "customary practice to hold some Negroes in a form of life service." It would not be conjecture to state that the historians you have cited, including Russell (and, in Russell's book, Beverly - pg 18), based their assessment of Punch having been sentenced into slavery solely on the fact that his time of servitude was (presumably) extended to include loss of any prospect for freedom (and in a way which could not be amended, legally, by Hugh Gwyn). Though the NPS source appears to self-contradict (a matter which I intend to address with NPS Colonial National Historic Park Superintendent Dan Smith, his director, Joe DiBello, and NPS historian Dr. Bob Selig), what is the difference between the documentation cited by the NPS as a secondary source and the documentation cited by McIlwaine as a secondary source (see "Preface," pages 14 through 21), and how is one considered by the editors to be more or less reliable than the other? It would appear, at first blush, the sources indicate the documentation of the first cases of servitude for life refer to the 1630s. PresidentistVB (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To 24.138.73.44, Ruodyssey (talk), and (talk): I concur completely with your respective comments. PresidentistVB (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To Speciate (talk): To which documents are you referring? And on what definition of "slavery" are you basing your agreement? I've published all of the documentation I could find pertaining to Anthony Johnson, including a specific section devoted to the "Legal Argument," and I see nothing to support any interpretation that John Casor was "declared" a slave (by anyone other than a couple of 1970s historians on the John Casor page, and we all know that not one historian nor, even, a gaggle of them, can serve as judge or jury), and certainly nothing exists to support the oft-rewritten statement, that he was the subject of a legal "first" in a case which paved the way for the Virginia Slavery Laws of 1705. If that were true, then the claims made about John Punch (slave) could not be. PresidentistVB (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To TuckerResearch (talk): I'm not clear on the statement you are making, but I think I agree with you. I know I agree with your statement, "There is a difference." The truth is, I fear too many people don't know that there was a very big difference between the two during the first half of the 17th C, particularly as regards how masters could legally treat each. It was, in a nutshell, the difference between humane and inhumane. I wish more "historians" would consider what they are writing when they ascribe such a designation. If we were to, for a moment, believe Casor's statement (along with that of the witness, Captain Samuel Goldsmith), that he had been held seven years past his covenant, then he must not have been treated so harshly or he would likely have fled from Johnson years earlier. Those who make the claim he became a slave (remember, runaways were viewed most unfavorably by the courts by this time, especially blacks) are, in essence, saying, he could then be legally subjected to torture, rape and, in some cases, murder. Considering Parker was a white gentleman who owned his own servants, and a conspirator in the matter (who paid a penalty for it), the court was being asked to rule in favor of a black whose servant had run away or a white who took the servant in. It has been written that Johnson nearly lost the case... that he did not want to fight the 1-1/2 year battle, and his family pleaded with him to set Casor free. It has also been written that Johnson paid for the passage of 5 servants, all of whom were indentured. There is no disagreement among historians that Anthony and Mary were Christian. (Angola had been visited for nearly a century prior by Catholic priests.) Does anyone believe for a minute that Casor would have been the one to take the brunt of the punishment and become a slave, particularly when the Council carefully avoided use of the word, knew Johnson, himself, had once been an indentured servant and had been given 250 acres of land in headrights for 5 servants, one of whom was, most likely, John Casor? Certainly not. The court had no choice but to believe Johnson, so it remanded Casor back into his care, just as Johnson had requested. Casor only acted on what he believed - that his term had expired, a belief confirmed (by deed, not word) by a white witness, who used it in his own defense. But Parker had no credibility, since he knew better and, as the only defendant in the matter (Johnson sought only to have Mr. Parker return his servant), he was found guilty of the crime. Had Parker brought suit against Johnson on behalf of Casor, it is likely the court would have ruled in his favor. After all, Casor was, most likely, telling the truth. Given the way things happened, and the facts that Johnson was considered well-respected in his community and also by the Northampton Co. courts, it is far-fetched to believe a Christian negro landowner would ever conceive of himself as owner of a negro slave. The fact that historians are still accusing him of it really turns the stomach... (mine, at least). WP:WINARS PresidentistVB (talk) 09:34, 12 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)

I foresee this particular article going through a never-ending cycle of major revisions until the title is changed to be NPOV. That alone is reason enough to remove "(slave)." It's contentious. Dr. Matt 20:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresidentistVB (talk • contribs)

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)

I'm certainly not intending for anyone to interpret this as a reliable secondary source; only that alternate opinions (which support your edits) exist. It's also cited as footnote #14 on the main article page. "What Pearl Duncan has to say about it." Dr. Hoo (talk) 09:09, 22 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:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
• Slave trade and slavery John Henrik Clarke 1970: "That 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@Scoobydunk: I'd like to see any sources which state Casor was, in any way or chronological order, made a slave. Thanks. Dr. Hoo (talk) 09:14, 22 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

Table Discussions by Source (Row #: Author)

Costa

"The third servant, 'a negro named John Punch,' was punished differently. Rather than take on additional years, he was for life. (See references A, B, C, and para. 3 of John Donoghue's How 17th Century Slavery Foreshadowed Slavery Today. Scholars have argued that (See Act X in Hening's The Statutes at Large.) PresidentistVB (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Late in 1654, "John Casor Negro" fled the service of Anthony Johnson, (It is documented that Cason fled because he believed his period of indenture under Anthony Johnson had expired; therefore, he could not have "preferred to work." His decision to run away contradicts that statement; so a source is needed.) for one of Johnson's neighbors, Robert Parker. Once away from Johnson, when he actually was an indentured servant." PresidentistVB (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(N.B. This entire section requires a definition for each, "slave" and "slavery," which clearly identifies each of the servants' unique statuses, legal protections, if any, and treatment conditions, since there are huge differences in each between a "slave" and a "servant for life;" the latter of which precisely captures the sentence the Council and court, respectively, handed down for each servant without literally rewriting Virginia's legal history. The addition of "for life" after the word "slave" is redundant, because 17th C slaves, uncommon in Virginia at the time, were already consigned to service for their lifetimes. Other than based on a change in term of service to "life," what sources offer unique attributes which support this author's use of the 17th C definition of "slave" when describing these two servants? Extending one's period of service to "life" does not automatically make one a slave. Technically, that same sentence, which, when handed down to these men, could as easily (and just as inaccurately) result, some 375 years later, in misinterpreting their new social status as prisoners. The documents from the court exist. Why is there any effort being made to insult those who so wisely chose the word "servant," when they could just as intentionally have chosen to use, instead, the word, "slave?" PresidentistVB (talk) 10:28, 6 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Since you are the second editor in as many days to tell me something about Misplaced Pages, which I find horrifically disturbing, I wish to confirm it in terms I understand: True or false? Misplaced Pages editors will permit the incorporation of content stating the color of the text of THIS paragraph is dark lime green, provided others have published secondary, reliable sources, which reiterate it, but they will not publish a statement, borne out by facts (as in what one sees with one's own eyes), that the text is actually black. The other editor I referred to stated, "Misplaced Pages doesn't care what's true; it only cares what the published sources, like the ones in the table, say is true." Please either affirm or deny. Thank you. PresidentistVB (talk) 18:24, 6 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 Misplaced Pages do not reflect the subjective interpretations and opinions of editors for this reason. Instead, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Correspondence

As I said I would, I emailed Dr. Tom.

Anyone wishing to see or receive a copy of it may email me...

(Just protecting and respecting the privacy of others...)

Dr. Hoo (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Schwartz

Foner

Higginbotham

Riches

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 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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

Jordan, Winthrop

Finkelman

Welch

Coates

Donoghue

Vaughan

The Virginia Society, SAR gives an annual financial contribution to the VHS. I've put in a request for the complete article and have requested Peggy Haile-McPhillips, Norfolk City Historian, to send me a copy if the Norfolk Public Library has one. If anyone has this article in its entirety, can you please email it to me or, otherwise, link me to a posted copy online? You can originate an email to me by going to my user page and, in the left column under tools, click the link to "Email this user." Thank you. Dr. Hoo (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Table Discussions (Miscellaneous/General)

Arranged by Section Title

Lead/Intro

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

Life

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. Misplaced Pages 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.

18th Century

19th Century

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

20th Century

21st Century

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

Significance

Indentured Status

Descendants

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)

??? PresidentistVB (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Though much of the content found in the cited section of this source is unsubstantiated, I did spend a good bit of time looking, as I always do, for a clear definition of the words "slave" and "slavery" as intentioned by the author in reference to the time period 1635-1640. I emerged unsuccessful. Can anyone help me out with a little clarity or, preferably, where I may find the author's understanding within the source itself? The first half of the 17C was so active in "metamorphosis-of-identity" in most every respect, that attempting to apply a meaningful definition from one year to another less than 4 years later is challenging. Thank you in advance. (Has Scoobydunk seen this yet?)

PresidentistVB (talk) 02:22, 9 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)

Not certain how Wikibots work or the association of Scoobydunk and Parkwells, but the actual revision from 30SEP13 has disappeared from the history. (The link from "cited" in paragraph two of this section is now broken. The two 30SEP13 revisions were made at 8:12PM and 8:35PM, respectively.) The message referred, specifically, to pg 30, which can be found in the mini-compilation of the pages referenced thus far in this section. PresidentistVB (talk) 20:41, 9 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

I don't know anything more than I have stated, nor do I know why you are the one to answer in defense of what I have stated. I did include the page number in my post above yours, and I supplied both the revisions and the pages from the initial reference (p 30) and yours (p 18). I am not the one who originally referenced the source, so don't shoot the messenger. PresidentistVB (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I know it won't be long before your attitude is checked. PresidentistVB (talk) 06:10, 10 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)

SEARCH GOOGLE

Alf Mapp occupies the Louis I. Jaffee chair at Old Dominion University. His two volumes of studies and reflections on Jefferson continue to earn praise from scholars and presidents. Mapp makes a point that is relevant to our understanding of great presidents. He states that most American presidents considered great or near great have captivated their fellow citizens with inspiring visions that are more important than day-to-day efficiency in administration. Jefferson reached out to the people as Washington and Adams before him had not done. In fairness, their task was to establish...

ccs. Neil P. Quinn (talk), Wayne (talk)

PresidentistVB (talk) 07:11, 10 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policies regarding multiple sources and establishing which ones are most reliable. To cite a small portion of WP:reliable and ignore everything else Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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.

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.

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.

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. (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.)

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)

• The first challenge: prove the 30 June 1640 ruling is directly related to the 03 June 1640 matter, and you may continue to assert that John Punch was the subject of the first common law ruling in Virginia in which race was a factor. The second challenge: define "slave" in Virginia in the context, which applied to John Punch, if different than the definition in 1618. (One might consider including in such a discussion the instances (cause and effect) of, along with the frequent references to, "former slaves," like Anthony and Mary Johnson.)

• 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."

• It was also stated somewhere on this or another talk page (and, I believe, a consensus reached), that Punch was indentured and Cason was not. Actually the reverse is true. Punch was a servant, absent any categorical proof that he was born into it, indentured or, for that matter, that his period or servitude wouldn't already have been "for life" prior to 09 July 1640. Ample evidence exists, including the testimony of Messrs. Robert Parker and his brother, George, along with that of Captain Samuel Goldsmith and the alleged holder of the covenant document, Mr. (at least 3 whites, possibly 4, 1-2 of them military, 1 of them holding the evidence "on the other side of the Baye") that John Casor was one of five indentured servants, for each of which Anthony Johnson had received 50 acres in head rights land. The Council's ruling, essentially stripping Casor of his status as an indentured, provided legal cause for the 50 acres his son, Richard, would escheat to the Sovereign following Anthony's death. {The Provincial Court knew that, had the two counties attempted the process while Anthony was alive, he could have released Casor in fulfillment of the alleged contract (a move his family had urged him to consider prior to appealing his initial loss); effectively annulling the escheatment proceedings. David C. Wallace writes on page 156 of his book, Twenty-Two Turbulent Years 1639-1661, "One commentator said that Johnson may have feared losing his head rights land if the case went to court."}

PresidentistVB (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First challenge: Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Ban has been removed, because I appreciate what I am perceiving as your attempt at civility. (Thank you.)

• I have no intention, when supplying information for discussion, to have it appear on a page, which is, by title, unbalanced in every respect. The title should be, simply, "John Punch" or "John Punch (1640s)." Referring to him as a slave in the title necessitates content which supports it and immediately disallows anything which doesn't. How is it an article with that title can be expected to be neutral?

• To continue requesting of correspondents "reliable" secondary sources, which state Punch was not made a slave nor his case the first to reveal racial discrimination as a factor (both in Virginia), is like asking for peer-reviewed journals and books published by academically notable publishers, which state the obvious and more than once. As an example, if I were to create a page entitled, "Reading is fundamental (to life)," I could cite countless reliable secondary sources which would qualify to support it, as could you. The paren implies is it not necessarily a part of the title (though in the John Punch title, the paren implies it to be an appositive). Either way, how many reliable sources, do you suppose, could you find which specifically state that reading is not necessary for human life? We could argue what is meant by "for life," I suppose... does it mean simply in order to live (as a substantial building block of life)? ...does it imply "quality of life?" ...does it mean "for a lifetime?" ...does it even apply to humans? It all goes back to my original post on Ancestry... "in context," and I still don't see how "slavery" has been defined as anything but loss of freedom for life (though "prisoner for life" also fits that description). The editors will not even permit reliable sources to state he was a servant, not ever referring to him as a slave, as evidence, because they don't specify that he didn't need to be able to read to have the freedom to live. You are going to a lot of trouble defending your positions. Why? Does it not concern you that it is a contentious issue? Are you not bothered when you, with your own eyes, read a Common law ruling by the same Council, which clearly indicates what you cite as "reliable" is not? And how can you lend your own reputation to support something no one may ever know for sure one way or the other? And what if a document (primary source) emerges somewhere, perhaps among the artifacts my friend John Cross uncovered when excavating Gwynn's island, which shows he was given his freedom by Hugh's wife, Elizabeth, upon Gwynn's death 15 years later? What then? I don't know why it is so important to me... this one article. The world is replete with propagandist crap anyway. All I know is that, unless it's constructive criticism, no one... not me, not Wayne, not anyone, should seek to contribute anything to an article which contradicts the title. It's nonsensical. I merely provide these things to challenge YOU to think about these things. (And yes, I could devote a lifetime having sourced quotations redacted or retracted or revised, but I'd have to ask, "What's the point?") You have already identified the topic... John Punch was a slave. Unless WP were to allow a healthy opposing article "John Punch (servant)," which would require an exception to the no topic forking rule, there's no way John Punch will ever be given a fair reading. The original source documents existed for a reason. Anything other than those documents is sheer interpretation. In fact, it's little more than opinion. So many of your own sources disagree on many (albeit minor) things. It should cause to you question their reliability. Either it's an egg or it's not. You are still allowing sources which state it's not an egg to be cited, simply because your article isn't about eggs. Silly. Just silly.

• At the end of your first paragraph, you now more narrowly define your criteria - no longer is it Common Law... it's specifically "court decisions." When I return in a month and read how you've progressed, will it be down to "the first case of...with masters who had red hair?"

• Nothing is original, my friend... especially not anything I may write. It is written, specifically, what "Slave to the Colony" meant. How do you think I knew it applied to room and board? And if it were not specified somewhere, how do you interpret the sentence? Surely you must have questioned why the Council specified two different forms of servitude for the European servants... at least I hope you did. I happen to know the definition of the 1618 meaning of "Slave to the Colony." Do you know the definition for the 1640 meaning of the term "service to the colony?" Surely you should find out. After all, it's less open to interpretation, by design, than Punch's sentence. Perhaps, in the process, you'll discover that "slavery" in the 1640s wasn't so bad after all. After all, most African immigrants gladly signed up for it. Either that or they died penniless. You might also find that, as a servant for one of the wealthiest landowners in Charles River County, he was treated much better than many others, and he fled to Maryland, not to escape anything, but to pursue land of his own. It's not as if the Hon. Hugh Gwyn, who, undoubtedly had many friends on the Council, wanted him punished. Recall, he didn't care so long as he was reimbursed by whomever would become his new master.

• It is an interesting side note that the article fails to mention the June 4 matter - going so far as to state, in essence, it doesn't even exist: "The record of the court's ruling is the only surviving documentation regarding Punch’s life." Not only is that not true, it appears to be a statement which has no citation. Is it original research?

• I'll again ask you why footnote 10 has no bearing on the sentence to which it is attached.

• Footnote 11 refers to Punch (without reason) as an indentured servant, immediately following the sentence, which reads, "the association of “servitude for natural life” with people of African descent became common." That doesn't sound like indentured servitude to me. Moreover, it states, without specifying which type of laws (judicial, gubernatorial or legislative), that "Virginia was one of the first states to acknowledge slavery in its laws, initially enacting such a law in 1661." So much for your "Common Laws only" requirement...

• To your statement, "Misplaced Pages does not allow you to take a term from an 1618 edict and apply it to a court decision in 1640," I would say, "then it should not allow a term from 2014 to be applied to a court decision in 1640, either." As you admitted, it is merely "what historians have defined "'slavery.'"

• Finally, to your statements, "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.," I will see them for you:

• "Historians consider this difference in penalties to mark the case as one of the first to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants." Which is it? Indentured, limited term bond or some other sort?
• "Historians have noted that John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and became a slave." Which is it? Indentured, limited term bond or some other sort?

I've made my point, I think, on this topic.

I wish you, Neil, Parkwell and Wayne the best of luck with your article. Refine it. Make it correct. There are ways to do it, albeit perhaps a bit general, without having your own "reliable" sources contradict one another; and by "reliable sources," I refer directly to those cited in the article; not in the talk page discussions. I've mentioned before how those 22 citations cause heartburn.

I'll leave with a last word from this doctor, who is now going to take his own advice -(and, to be clear, that specifically MEANS that no one can reply to anything I've said here, or I'll have to, too...)- TAKE A BREAK ALREADY - FOR AT LEAST A WEEK!

Dr. Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Lord, help me... I cannot resist. As to "Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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)

Scoobydunk...

Space filler

I've no idea what "easily keep track of" means, because it was not at all easy keeping track of what I mistook as "merely" ten commandments. (I had to do and undo my responses to number 8 eight times.)

I most certainly do have the authority to ban any user I choose. I also have the authority to lift any such ban. (It's all a matter of context and perception.) As to providing you with sources or, as is the case, repeatedly alleging I am not honoring a promise to do so, I have stated in several places that it is not my intention to tear down an article clearly honed in on context and content. I sought to provide only FACTS and ask that you challenge yourself and question your own understanding (if that is what it is). What I provided was not intended to be contentious; but constructive. I even provided you with one of your own sources as one piece of the puzzle in support of my argument. Considering the reason comment you appended to your second "undo" of my contributions, I would not hold my breath or, for that matter, waste any more of it on additional requests.

I am not interested in reading, much less responding to, opinion. It may not be so obvious to author-historians, which write about history and simply rest on their laurels by reciting what they've been taught or ride on the coattails of what others have said; it is, however, to those who actually do their own original research. It's a difficult area to "know" well, considering the absence of documents, which, quelle surprise, are actually necessary in order to form the bases of "expert" opinions. As I stated above, I really am not interested in opinions. You, however, are.

Punch is a slave, ...why? ...because writers say so? Well I can produce, as can you and quite easily if you hunt, more secondary source authors who don't say so, but that doesn't seem to satisfy the consensus. It seeks authors which actually state, "he was not a slave," adding qualifiers to define what is meant by the word. By anyone's standard, they may just as well write their professional suicide notes, particularly since a colonist could become a slave for missing just one Sunday church service.By titling your article as you have, you've turned the tables on legal precedent, if not on law altogether. The laws exist. While most at the time couldn't read, there is no excuse for those who, today, can but seem to choose not to. Your article practically belies its own title, by requiring the status quo to defend itself, when the challenger is the only legal plaintiff in this matter. Moreover, one cannot prove anything in the negative, and, essentially, that is what the Punch (slave) article sets out to do... prove Punch was not a servant. Besides, very few among us have ever known the relative freedom those three experienced when fleeing to Maryland. I don't know anyone before or since who has. Do you?

I take exception to your use of the word "merely." As to the rest of the paragraph, I ask what these reliable secondary sources used as their sources? You'll have to forgive me if I demand better proof. I am a scientist first, and scientific proof is a necessity, just as mathematical proofs are necessary. WP could not possibly disallow primary source evidence and remain either reputable or reliable in either of these two areas. Besides, without the primary sources, there could be no secondary sources. Based on your perception of adherence to WP policy, which it is noted you have parlayed into quite a fortress, I would be completely justified in creating an article, which stands solely on the fact that a consensus of reliable sources agreed. I'll disclaim by stating something impersonal, yet which will be perceived as personal, about myself, because it is important, especially with an issue as sensitive as this, that I provide context. (Remember that word.) I have at least one ancestor who is Jewish, one who is Muslim, one who is Cherokee Indian and one who is from Africa. Now, that said... I could write an entire, fully supported, unshakeable WP article, entitled, "Adolf Hitler (hero)." There already exist more than sufficient reliable source writings to fully support it, many without a blink. I need only confine my window of "relevant sources" to the time period in which he was living, and to the members of the "superior race." After all, I, like you, can bulldog, too. Everything else, including all articles which, in the interest of NPOV, express a "contradictory" perspective, would be referenced in the "Context" section. You see, at one time, and to many people, because he was their leader, a powerful and articulate motivator and spoke on a well-timed topic (the homeland), he WAS a hero to most of the Aryan race. And I believe that's the opinion WP should adopt of him. Don't you? (If you don't see what I mean by that analogy, then I wasted my time writing it.) IOW - To many people, your historian heroes, for example, Punch is a slave. There's nothing, however, to suggest he WAS. At least Hitler, in the context of his own time, during his own life, judged by his own peers, WAS a hero.

It is not I who is guilty of interpreting. If you can bring yourself to learn to admit when and if you are wrong, and do so if you figure it out for yourself, I'll confirm your discovery that (excluding assertions I have properly disclaimed as my own), not everything I cite, not every statement I make, and not even every "perceived" interpretation I forward is original, much less my own (although I'll bet not one of your sources ever had classes in the Wren Building, as I did.) Admittedly, I may have exercised literary license to tie together a few of the sourced statements with the visionary threads of logic and deductive reasoning, but I have not represented as fact anything which is not. Many, nay most, of the sources I cite in this section come from those documenting the article you so vehemently defend. I just know where to look. I don't know what "authority" WP presents in defense of the concept of consensus, much less of the members which comprise it, but it seems awfully self-aggrandizing, if you speak for the other members and as the consensus, when you maintain the position that the editors (an inclusive "like-minded members-only" group), have editing and copyright-infringement-avoiding authoring rights without having to produce their own credentials. Anyone reading the exchanges on this talk page, would likely view the setting more like that of a "pit bull pulpit," than of a proper intellectual discourse between gentlemen and scholars. (Please do not again misinterpret my WP ignorance as a defect in intelligence.)

Did you actually state, with absolute certainty, that neither the June 4 nor the June 30 court decisions regard John Punch?... inferring I am wrong to associate references to Hugh Gwyn in any way with John Punch's life? Now who is exercising original thought? If anything, mine are "alternate theories," at best; suppositions, at worst. Who would Hugh Gwyn be, historically speaking, without Punch? In fact, he is found in the mainstream historical reviews only because of his association with his most famous negro servant.

I do not have the authority to prove it has no bearing. I have, now twice, followed procedure and notified editors. As with most of the sources I have shown thus far, there is an applicable doctrine in American history and law, which employs an established prescient precedent: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." (I would imagine the consensus would disqualify it as from a reliable secondary source, solely by that which immediately follows it in the document.)

I am at a loss for understanding your predilection to blatantly disregard any law other than those ruled specifically by the justices of the court and only as a result of matters brought before them by plaintiffs. (Incidentally, THAT is how you are narrowing your criteria - to make it fit the sources; rather than using the sources to support the more realistic, broader palette.) Certainly, as you have stated, that is not the context to which the cited source refers, so I'll jump on Wayne's wagon here and propose the notion of cherry-picking. One doesn't create a list of foods considered healthy based only on the assertions of "reliable" vegetarians. Why would a consensus dismiss other laws, especially if cited sources don't, if not solely to contrive an elevation above the status quo? As to the second number eight, I am exercising my right to the "ten foot pole" rule.

As I've said, nothing should significantly detract from nor contradict the title of an article. It is an appropriate policy to report the minority interpretations if they are from equally weighted sources. That is NPOV. I personally do not feel the lead is the place to reveal what only the consensus (for the article) decides, whether or not it aligns with the majority. I would not, in other words, take a stand one way or the other; at least not out in the opening summary, and especially as the result of a decision made by a gaggle of editors. While "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," there are many more than just two opinions to be insulted with such one-sided assertions in the lead. I'd leave statements out of the lead, which refer to him as anything other than a servant, because that is the only way he was represented at the time, it is the only context in which your reliable sources could have begun their own assessments, and it's the least contentious and most accurate (by simplicity) portrayal. How does stating the unnecessary in the lead strengthen the article, especially if not all scholars agree on it? Then create a section to discuss the opinions of the various, heavily-weighted sources. If you don't agree, then help me out, if you know... referring, now, back to the opening phrase in your #8 (pick one), other than assertions by the secondary sources, on what do those historical authors state was the basis for their "pro-indentured" stances? Seriously, I would truly like to know how they knew it. For me, knowing why someone thinks they way they do is as important, if not more so, than what they do. You, on the other hand seem content, if not convinced, in discovering that they do.

It appears I have come full circle and am no wiser for the wear. "I've no idea..." what you read or are referring to in number "10." Certainly it is not, by your description, the court ruling of 30 June 1640, in which authority was granted, in answer to a plea made before the justices, to two Charles River County colonists in order to pursue, all expenses paid including compensation from the County's own funds, "certain runaway negroes." This was not a legislated statute. This was not a governor's edict. In conformance to your limited scope of acceptable "common law" actions, it could not have, in any way, more clearly discriminated against "negroes" if it had to. Existing Law will always trump dissenting opinion, Scoobydunk; even yours. 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 Misplaced Pages defines as OR. Misplaced Pages 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)

If you read enough of what I wrote, even skimmed it, you would have walked away from the 10 points knowing, at least, the following:

• I never stated I would entertain any requests to offer sources which meet your specific "refuting" standards;
• I stated twice in the above not to allege I am not keeping my word;
• I advised you to stop asking others to do your work;
• I stated there are plenty of more notable sources which refer to him as a servant; never once referring to him as a slave;
• I stated the absence of the assertion, "JOHN PUNCH WAS NOT A SLAVE" would not satisfy, although historians are prone to proclaim their beliefs, (or why write them?);
• I do not care - quite obviously - if my arguments are original research or not (and they are not), I am not writing anything for the purpose of changing a very sloppy article;
• I stated that already - with a title like that, which will likely be changed, there is no purpose in offering sources which should not be published only to feed an ego;
• And "like I've said before," I don't care what you say, so please stop saying it.
• You have "verified" nothing. A house of cards is, yes, a house of cards, and you could write an entire article about it, which no one would challenge. But what good is a house of cards if it can't even stand up to a little wind?
• Just because something exists (as "John Punch exists, for the moment, as a slave), doesn't make him one tomorrow, and certainly didn't make him one in 1640. As is manifested by the first image posted on this page, the law clearly was not afraid to publish the word "slave."

Better luck next time. You failed again to address my points. I've now learned how to respond to what others write. Thank you.

I'll be making a few changes to the article, since none of you seem to. If you start a war with me, if what is printed on your talk page is true, I won't need to be the one who ends it.

Your User ID should be "broken record." PresidentistVB (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Interim white flag

At this point, until the editors step back and take a serious, objective look at the title of the main article as in conformance with WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING, I am spinning my wheels more than they are their ideals.

With every major revision (three in as many days), the notion of promoting early forms of racism becomes more clear. (With it, however, comes an equal and opposite increase in opposing forces.) That is not a neutral point of view, particularly since the editors have failed to include the sources identifying religious preference and impoverishment as the primary factors affecting treatment of servants in the first half of the 17th century, and they are completely avoided in development of the article's content. (The web is replete with reliable sources to support those facts; find them yourselves.)

Before I pursue this issue in a way which isn't productive or supportive, I've offered solutions, and I shall make one additional recommendation: Of all the sources I can find on the overall, general topic, there is one, with which I think I could actually agree (mostly). By its own admission, the concept of race is eliminated from the discussion.

The editors should make it required reading. Then form their content for the article using reliable sources to support (or refute) what it states. It is not necessary that it be considered a reliable source to be cited; only that it be referenced in formulating objectivity in selecting neutral and appropriate content for the main article.

White servitude in the Colony of Virginia: a study of the system of indentured labor in the American colonies; (1895).

This is the only way I can see my way clear to leave the article in a final form (which cannot be the way it is presently).

So, please, consider this request seriously. It is my last.

Let me know if you're willing to try and, if so, when I should revisit it.

Thank you. Dr. Matt 12:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the full text version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresidentistVB (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 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 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)

I should not be surprised that the pages cited, 54 and 55, refer to what I maintain is specifically in response to the "Hugh Gwyn cry,"

Pursuit by hue and cry... to be made by the sheriff and his posse, at the expense of the county from which the fugitive escaped.

I should not be surprised that manipulation of facts continues, as if by dictate. The text cited immediately above is from a section, which actually discusses what the Table states: the years 1642-1726. Nothing should be interpreted, unless otherwise and specifically identified, to apply to any period other than that defined by the title. On page 54, the following is what most of the citations actually represent : Hening I, pg 539 (Act XV) - 1659-1660; Hening III, pg 271 (Ch XII) - 1705 - The Slave Code Law; Hening IV, pg 173 (XVIII) - 1726; Hening IX, pg 187 (XII) - 1776. There's no better example of one's interpretation of reliable secondary sources allowing for the quotation of a section out of context. Wayne may refer to it as "cherry-picking;" I think it more aptly described as "grasping at straws." Reading the two-three cited pages in context, one gets a feel for the ebb and flow of the writing. It is not about anything prior to 1640, except when 1640 is cited in the author's development of the concept of the evolution of slavery in Virginia. And yes, Virginians knew the definition of slavery as opposed to "slave to the colony," a doctrine abolished in 1643. So by deliberate act, slavery, as a concept, did not exist for many years after 1640.

Let's add another layer, because I am not going to address every cry just to teach people how to read and understand written history. 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." Oddly, all the subject individuals were ever referred to at the time, or accurately about the time, and for good reason, was as servants. The reason? Because, as one of the editors' select authors, John Donogue, describes, the concept of race, as a more modern construct, had not yet been born; therefore, any reference to slaves prior to 1640 (and there are NONE in the passages cited) would necessarily have been in reference to other colonies and other countries. North Carolina may have absconded slaves from South Carolina or off of ships debarking from South America. Virginia may have referred to North Carolina in that context, but most likely only during a time when Virginia itself recognized the institution; otherwise, Virginia wasn't referring to its own slaves prior to 1642; it was referring to the slaves of others. The entire chapter from which those references are extracted pertains to the years 1642-1726.

Dr. Matt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed African diaspora articles
• Unknown-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Start-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Virginia
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people