07:3807:38, 28 February 2024diffhist−130
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Again, this clearly displays a prior editor’s opinion and bias as the claims are contradicted by the citations below that “modern historians consider Ft. Pillow a war crime” or something similar. The way this was written mirrors Forrest’s claim, which sources state is contradictedTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
07:3107:31, 28 February 2024diffhist−86
Nathan Bedford Forrest
“U.S. media pulled out all the stops to attack [Forrest]” without citation to a reputable source appears to be opinion of a prior editor. Omission of this line from the caption is a minor edit.Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
06:0106:01, 28 February 2024diffhist+11
Joseph Alexander Smith Acklen
The source material is a quotation from a vehemently pro-slavery person in a debate over slavery pre-Civil War. The editorial interpretation of this source is highly dubious as it was cited to promote perpetual slavery (as indicated by the title) by an immensely biased source, without reference to a paper source.Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
07:1107:11, 23 February 2024diffhist+829
Patrick Henry
Slavery section editorialized stuff like “owning a property like Henry’s meant owning slaves.” No, it didn’t. He had a choice. All do. Such a sentence serves to downplay his attachment to the institution of slavery by making it preordained. Also, the article clearly implied by using weasel words that he was fighting slaves in 1778 with regard to state international slave trade ban when the sources actually state that planters did this for non-altruistic reasons peculiar to the slaveowner classTags: RevertedVisual editMobile editMobile web edit
06:2306:23, 22 February 2024diffhist−355
American Revolution
Made the introductory section more readable, drawing from terminology used in the articles for similar rebellions (Texas Revolution and Confederate Congress). The information about the specifics of the formation of Second Continental Congress, Continental Army, and so on, is far too much information that is repeated in the body. This is more consistent with the Wikipedia MOS:LeadTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
06:5806:58, 17 February 2024diffhist−6
Benedict Arnold
“American-born” is wildly anachronistic. It implies he was somehow “American.” They were ALL British subjects. See Inglis v. Trs. of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 155, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (referencing how British courts and U.S. courts agreed that prior to 1783 “All persons born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural born British subjects.”)Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
00:4000:40, 28 January 2024diffhist+1
Peckerwood
White Americans is more proper in context than “European” considering the origins of the term are within the U.S. South where White people do not identify with European ancestry.Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
17 November 2023
23:1823:18, 17 November 2023diffhist+455 m
Sherpa people
The Sherpa are a modern people who still exist. This snippet using “were a nomadic people” is used on Google with the query “Sherpa,” which gives a false impression that the Sherpa no longer exist. Also, the modern Nepali administrative district was unknown to historical nomadic Sherpa, so the edit clarifies thatTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
06:3306:33, 23 March 2021diffhist−13
Narváez expedition
Europeans and Africans are not Native American and they both saw these places at the same time meaning there’s no reason to point out the differences between the non-Native AmericansTags: Mobile editMobile web edit