I don’t want to get into the what’s in/what’s out debate, but the existing title isn’t accurate. “The Americas” includes the USA but those killers are excluded from this page. Is there any objection to retitling it “List of Rampage Killers in the Americas (Other than the United States)”? Yes, the title could be qualified in many other ways, but United States killers represent about two thirds of those in “the Americas”. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The British Library attributes composition of 'The Star' to Jane Taylor: it is unclear why you think there is no evidence for it. Do you have a RS that casts doubt on it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sharif" vs. "Sherif"
The "a" is correct as being the way most Arabic people translate the title into the Roman alphabet used for English, but for some unknown reason Lean's scripts appear to have used "sherif." I'd speculate that Lean wanted to avoid confusion between Ali's title and his actual name, but that's just a guess. Your edit to "sharif" seems to me to be both logical and correct. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Humphrey Tribble! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
- There are some gadgets I use which should be available in your preferences like ProveIt and refToolbar. These tools might help making citation simpler for you. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
My User page
Your thread has been archived
Sources for George Washington's Genocides
I linked you multiple peer-reviewed journal articles by Jeffrey Ostler and Rhiannon Koehler discussing the subject. The books George Washington's War on Native America, The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation, and Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas also describe in detail the Sullivan Expedition and other potentially genocidal acts carried out by George Washington and his subordinates.
Hi Editor, I invite you to partake in another discussion on Anthony Wayne's talk page. Similar to Tarleton it has been riddled with Cartoonish or one sided edits.Dcgene (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I am too bogged down in other projects to contribute much, Dcgene (talk · contribs). You could try adding a section called myths. That is what I have in mind for Banastre Tarleton because if something is shown to be incorrect and deleted, another person might later think that a "fact" is missing. Addressing such things as part of the article keeps the documentation visible and avoids constant correction. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Appreciate it, there seems too be some sort of debate between editors there. Also one update holds more weight on how well written it is vs working through contradicting sources. If your time allows, I would be curious what your take is or any participation. Thanks! Dcgene (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
"Patriots" in America
Sorry, this is offhand without reference to notes, I recall a reference to a civil war in the Netherlands in the 1500s? where the local Protestant gentry who had rebelled against the occupying Catholic Spanish Empire in a previous century had named themselves 'Patriots'.
Many of the early 1600s militia officers in frontier Virginia county militias were veterans of English regiments fighting on the Protestant 'Patriot' side against the Catholic Empire occupying them.
The volume I was reading at the time suggested the British colonial military strategy adopted against adjacent Native Americans of burning their villages and fields in a summer-fall campaign, was the same military strategy employed in mainland European religious wars on both sides.
The raiding soldier/serfs could then return to their own fields for the friendly populace harvests. The intended result was to displace a dependent refugee population onto the winter resources of the enemy's strongholds (or their allies to the rear), and so remove the nearest forward bases from which the enemy could launch a Spring offensive.
In the next century or so, an independent Dutch New Netherlands was incorporated into the British colony of New York . . . The English regiments in the Netherlands fighting their Spanish Crown were sort of like French contingents fighting with the American 'Patriots' against the British Crown, only different.
And, BONUS, the majority faction in the sitting Dutch Parliament were the “PATRIOT” party, with whom the Congress were negotiating a trade agreement, and accepting aid from the Dutch who had tried and failed to join the first “Alliance of Armed Neutrality” formed by the Russians to oppose British hegemony in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Humphrey Tribble. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joan Ward-Harris, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Banastre (1787 ship)
Hi Humphrey Tribble, We can identify three generations of Tarletons in the slave trade, Thomas, who begat John Tarleton (slave trader), who begat John Tarleton (MP), Thomas, Clayton, and Banastre Tarleton. Banastre was not a slave trader, but he was a strong supporter of the slave trade and slavery. His three brothers were slave traders. Daniel Backhouse apparently was in a partnership with John Tarleton (MP). That does not mean that the partnership owned any vessels. My understanding is that the they each owned shares in their own name in numerous vessels, often in conjunction with the other Tarleton brothers, or other investors. I do not know how the firm styled itself legally. What I have seen is references to their ownership. Lloyd's Register, in refering to the ownership by Tarleton, or Tarleton & Co., was being economical with space and was probably simply naming the managing owner. References to Tarleton and/& Backhouse may have signaled anything from their being the only owners, to their being, together the largest owners. Tarletons & Backhouse may have been nothing more than signaling that John (MP) and one or more of his brothers were shareholders in the vessel. Tarleton and Backhouse had ownership interests in 39 vessels between 1786 and 1804; half of the vessels were enslaving ships. The lack of an article in WP about the partnership says nothing about its significance or notability, but a lot about the nature of Wikipedia. There is a lot of source material, but putting it together would require an editor with interest, access to Liverpool archives, a historical bent, and n understanding of 18th-19th century partnerships. Hope this helps, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information, Acad Ronin (talk · contribs), and for all your work on this article. I ran into a similar problem doing a little work on John Mercer and the production of cloth in Lancashire.
I am interested in the Tarleton family history, beginning with Banastre Tarleton and working back for more information about his forebears. My impression so far is that the Tarletons were firstly merchants. That led to the import/export trade in general, and finally to ownership of ships.
I admit my lack of knowledge about the slave trade. So I wonder at what point the Tarletons become slavers. The family certainly benefitted from the trade, and John Tarleton later inherited a plantation. But did they actually purchase people in Africa and sell them in America (hence, slave traders), or did they simply provide a means of carriage (i.e. shippers, of which one cargo happened to be slaves). Certainly, it makes no difference if you happen to be one of the cargo.
Banastre Tarleton is an interesting character. I’m trying to sort out fact from the myth of the American war of independence. I haven’t formed an opinion about his personal attitude toward slavery. (I haven’t read his speeches yet.) He never owned slaves and was instrumental in freeing many. It is correct that he opposed British abolitionists. However, was he simply representing his constituents (including his family) just as he might have opposed someone trying to end trading in spices?
I suppose my questioning arises from some of that Tarleton myth. Those writing about Banastre Tarleton are quick to label his father as a slave trader, when they could as easily call him a former mayor of Liverpool. I like to get things right.
In the interest of getting things right, I wondered about the usage of enslaved. I have little experience with the new language, but it seems grammatically incorrect to refer to enslaving ships. Ships don’t enslave anyone, they simply carry cargo. The term slave ships is generally understood and perhaps the term enslaving ships will also become familiar. However, would an alternative be to call them ships used in the slave trade? So we would regard them simply as trading ships until they were used to transport enslaved people.
Finally, is there any evidence that the ship Banastre was named for Banastre Tarleton and not for John Tarleton’s father-in-law Banastre Parker?
Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Lot to unpack. let me start with some of the last things first. I am moving to enslaving ships by analogy to whaling ships; I am trying to avoid too long circumlocutions. I still default to slave ships when going to something else is too cumbersome.
- Banastre. I wondered about that myself. I found a cite in Thomas (1997), p.516. He states that the vessel was named for Banastre Tarleton. He might not be right, but I haven't fouon an alternate view.
- You make an interesting point re Banastre and slavery. Look at Thomas (it is available on the Internet Archive); it mentions some of his statements. I get a sense of an unsentimental realist who has an aversion to idealists.
- Slave trader versus mayor: I think John Tarleton is suffering from changing norms. Calling him a mayor can be seen as glossing over his sins. As for John, the evil that men do lives on after they die; the good is interred with their bones. There are many people who are sure that they are such good people that even if they lived in Liverpool in the 18th century, they would have been in the forefront of the abolition movement.
- The earliest mention of the Tarletons and the slave trade I have found (and I haven't looked hard) shows Thomas Tarleton as a captain/owner of an enslaving ship in 1717.
- As for the owners of vessels also buying and selling captives, that seems to have been the dominant practice. I have seen one mention where investors chartered the vessel for the first two legs of the triangular trade at a monthly rate for one voyage. They put up the trade goods and owned the captives. They also had a supercargo on board to do the actual trading. I wish I could remember which vessel it was that had this arrangement, but I don't off hand. If I can figure it out I will let you know. still, the few accounts that survive do not distinguish between vessel owner and cargo owner.
- Let me encourage you to follow up on the Tarletons. WP is not good on the British slave traders. Most of the articles are thin. WP is written by white men in the 25-60 age range. That demographic has little interest in the slave trade, trade in general, or merchant ships. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Sandown history is interesting. I noted in the Wikipedia article that more than a third of the crew died and many others deserted. So what must the conditions have been like for the captives?
I am reading about Banastre Tarleton’s parliamentary career.
The History of Parliament says: Most of his speeches in his first two sessions in the House assailed the ‘mistaken philanthropy’ of abolishing the slave trade, which Liverpool Members were instructed to oppose. ‘There’, said Tarleton to Wilberforce, pointing to some of his constituents in the gallery during a debate on the subject, ‘there are my masters.’ and later: Renewing his opposition to reduction of the slave trade, he ‘was sorry to observe that ministers were much more active in injuring the trade of the country than in providing for its defence’, 1 May. (In his view the United States would benefit most from abolition.)
On at least one other occasion he presented a petition by his constituents, on some subject, and defended it vigourously.
I am still reading, but I am forming the impression that whatever his personal opinions, he subordinated them to the interests of his constituents and the dictates of his party.
I also came across a hint that the Tarletons were not the owners of the ships they used, at least through most of their history. I will keep digging on Banastre Tarleton and note anything about the slave trade. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- There has been some work on death rates aboard ship. IIRC, there was not a strong correlation between crew death rates and those of the captives. Crew tended to die of tropical diseases contracted on the coast, especially yellow fever. Captives tended to die of dysentery. There is even evidence that the crowding of the captives didn't matter. The ship owners gave captains, doctors, and chief mates strong monetary incentives to keep the captives alive. Dolben's Act increased the incentives for captain and doctor, but Hugh Crow pointed out that the Act's incentives were trivial relative to the existing incentives. The incentives also acted to limit cruelty and maltreatment of captives. Other sources of deaths among captives were suicide, and only rarely uprisings. Even in the case of rebellions, captains tried to put them down with minimum loss of life, and hence of money. The slave trade was a lot more complex than the popular caricatures would lead you to believe. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that it was wrong, but it is consistent with Hannah Arendt's assessment of the Holocaust: the "banality of evil".
- Ownership of vessels was usually in the form of 1/16ths, with even a major owner often not owning more than 1/4. Many owners tried to diversify their risks by owning a little bit of more vessels.
- Interesting re Banastre.
- Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Striking the colors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chesapeake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Native American name controversy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to ask if you could check whether I have correctly entered the honour received from Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo, and whether I have entered it in the correct place. Thanks in advance. JackkBrown (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)