Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)

Eligibility of the "John Brown Isekai" in Media

I read through WP:USESPS and related articles, but didn't come away with a strong impression in either direction, so I thought I'd ask for guidance here.

In brief, the "John Brown Isekai" (short title) is a work of fiction in which, as the name would imply, John Brown is reincarnated in a fantasy world following his death on Earth. Once there, he picks up where he left off and lays the groundwork for the total abolition of slavery, which is widespread in this new world. The work is largely explored from Brown's perspective, with occasional breaks showcasing those of both his allies, and enemies.

Normally, I'd err on the side of caution and simply not include it, on account of it being self-published. However, to date, the work has been viewed at least a million times and consists of over 100 chapters (or the equivalent of 658 pages) and 180,000+ words - at least going by the figures provided by the site the work is primarily hosted on. Reviews are consistently positive, and I've personally seen it recommended over a wide variety of platforms and communities, to the point where a voice-over of a meme based on the work has managed to receive more than 600,000 views in two years since its upload to YouTube.

Considering the work's sheer popularity and scale, as well as its predominant focus on Brown as the protagonist, could the "John Brown Isekai" be considered notable enough to warrant mentioning under the Media section?

Please let me know what you think. W0nderhat (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're going for, but I think until there's serious third-party coverage of it as a notable example of media, it'd be better left off the page. That being said, if there is a serious third-party source (that also falls under WP:RS) that talks about it, then add away!
Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's been read a lot on its home site, I personally don't think it's something actually well known or notable enough to really be included on the page. LincolnMD (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KyRon

The description of John Brown as an evangelist should be replaced with information emphasizing his role as an abolitionist and his involvement in anti-slavery efforts, as this is more historically significant and relevant to his identity. 166.196.58.29 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Assuming we're talking about the second paragraph in the lead, the article reads perfectly fine with its inclusion. It doesn't come off as slightly unusual, especially as it outlines John Brown's motive for what he did. That motive of course being his interpretation of both the Bible and the Declaration of Independence. Especially given the character of John Brown in his proper historical context, he's seen in every history class as that "crazy abolitionist dude who thought slave owners were literal demons." Because of this, your edit was not done. Brown's Christian faith is one of the most well sourced aspects of his life and it is undeniably something that deserves more than just a passing reference. It was basically why John Brown became John Brown.
MountainJew6150 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2025

2601:14D:4E80:E430:AFC8:E96:B83:2C (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i will write about Inauguration: Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, in New York City, the nation's first capital. Precedent-setting actions: As the first president, Washington was aware that his actions would set precedents for future leaders. He established the tradition of a cabinet of advisors and used his veto power sparingly, primarily based on constitutional concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
I am very confused by your request.Slomo666 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown's Birthdate

In the article, it is reported that John Brown was born in 1800 to parents Ruth and Owen. However, the article reports that Owen was killed in 1776. How could he father a child 24 years after his death? ~2025-37930-90 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown's grandfather was the one killed in 1776, not his father. Juan el Demografo (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown’s party

In the statistics it adds up to 24 combatants. Though the next section states there were 22 men. ~2025-44065-59 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about the first paragraph of Palmyra and Osawatomie where it mentions that 22 of Pate's men were taken prisoner? Juan el Demografo (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite source

In the fourth paragraph of the Last Words, death, and aftermath section, the phrase “cite source” is placed in parentheses after Robert E Lee’s name. I’m unsure what that is supposed to be conveying and it should probably be removed. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was confusing, and has been removed. Thanks for catching that. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Brown_(abolitionist)