Talk:Mary Ellen Pleasant

I dont know where to begin with this one. First of all, the bias is quite blatant. For example, what scholarly reference states that Mary Ellen Pleasant is smarter than the press that demonised her? I have little doubt that the pro-white right wing media shunned her at the time. This is a valid point to make. There are also a number of controversial aspects to her life, such as contradicting accounts of her activities at certain times. Also useful and interesting to state in the article. To state that she is 'considered by some to be be the "mother of the civil rights struggle in California"' is also acceptable.

The tone and content of this article is better.[1] I propose it is the first point of call to improve the article.--ChrisJMoor 18:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for comments

Hi Chris,

I am struggling to see your remarks as helpful to the writer(s) of this article. First, I wish you had described the bias you detected in the article.

If you know something about MEP, it would be helpful to be specific in your comments in this discussion section: for instance, of the, “contradictions in accounts of her activities at certain times”. What period did you have in mind? And what source convinced you? THAT would be helpful.

Also, I find the remark, “I have little doubt that the pro-white right wing media shunned her at the time” confusing. What in the world do you mean by pro-white, right wing? Think about the press back then: it(owned by white males) most certainly did not shun her. The major SF newpapers had negative articles about her starting in the 1880’s.

If you know of other credible sources than the ones in the article, than please add them to the resource section; I, for one, would gladly read them.

I read the article .[1] you recommend. It was not helpful, either. It gives no sources and reports several things as facts that neither Bibbs nor Hudson was able to corroborate on the basis of their primary source research- such as Philadelphia as MEP’s place of birth. Even Holdredge doubted that. The wiki article reports the scholarship and opinions of recognized authorities on Mary Ellen Pleasant. Neither you, nor your reference, does.

She is already recognized as the "Mother of Civil Rights in California", "by some"- That is such a minor caveat unless you say who would oppose that recognition? You? If so, why? I never heard of anyone else opposing that title.

I couldn’t find any comment in the article about stating that Mary Ellen Pleasant "is smarter than the press". If such a comment was ever in there, it wasn’t mine and someone took it out. I never saw it. However, on the basis of your requiring "scholarly references" for that remark, I find it inconsistent that you extol an article with no references.(click on "[1]" above). ???

My references are clear: Bibbs, Hudson, Holdredge, in that order, and Holdredge is a distant 3rd. (You will never find a more biased account than Helen Holdredge’s- between her racism and her uncritical use of Teresa Bell’s diaries, which, by the way, other scholars can’t access.) Quetlin 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I cut some of the opinion and conjecture, but i will return to fix this page for its lack of detail.

Hank Chapot 68.164.171.135 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello.... I am currently reading the Ballantine paperback edition of the Holdredge book. It appears to have been edited pretty well & has a bibliography & acknowledgments section in the back that perhaps didn't exist in the earlier Hardback publication. It does mention the previous publication (Of '53) in the frontispiece but seems remarkably evenhanded for a book written first in '53 considering the subject matter & the times. Since its tone is rather admiring of MEP's achievements, is it possible that the original text was heavily revised for the paperback re-issue? Also I have to say, Holdredges book is a great read, I can hardly put it down. I wish I could make a Miniseries about this lady, very remarkable life. Just sayin' .

71.6.81.62 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)--mbd--71.6.81.62 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this story is not made into a drama until the facts are ascertained. To continue to give credence to anything printed in the newspaper because it is more interesting, is so unfair to her memory. In fact, those unproven newspaper accusations have kept her from becoming an UGGR heroine to American children, which she justly deserves. Quetlin (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Quetlin

Response to I do not think we read the same Helen Holdredge book-except that she didn't write two of them. Her book reads like a true crime novel. (This is in the discussion section, so I will not cite.) It is full of pejorative adjectives that make her seem like she would be capable of some of the acts Holdredge describes as truth. The source for most of the material for her book besides Teresa Bell's diaries is the press, specifically William Sharon's newspaper. William Sharon was the defendant in a broken contract case in which MEP was called as a witness. She was a very strong witness and so Sharon began to smear her in his own newspaper, which is the source of stories like she was a serial killer (that is a new word, not used back then, but they say she killed a series of people), a madam, dishonest, corrupt. I would say the fact she was painted as a criminal by Sharon's minions ruined her reputation, soiled her name. The Holdredge book must be taken as gossip, except where corroborating sources are found. Quetlin (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Quetlin

Notice Pleasant's first husband was cited as being named "White" in the first mention and "Smith" thereafter. "Smith" is correct.