Battle of Locust Grove

	Judah P. Benjamin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2015.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted June 21, 2014 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Caribbean: U.S. Virgin Islands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United States Virgin Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Louisiana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance). Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Is there any contemporary evidence that Benjamin was ever acting president? The statement that "Evans suggests that Benjamin's actions made him the Confederacy's acting president" seems totally implausible. Chairing a cabinet meeting does not make one acting president.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's being presented as the opinion of the writer of the source, Evans. But it seems plausible enough. With the VP, Stephens, not trusted by Davis (and the VP as cabinet member is definitely 20th century), Benjamin was the senior Executive Branch official and Davis was in Tennessee and not fully in touch all the time. The fact remains he did kick out the British consuls, which is a significant policy change, before Davis knew. And, someone's got to run the war--Wehwalt (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it appears that David Levy (Yulee) converted from Judaism to Christianity after he began serving in the U.S. Senate. He became a Senator in 1845 and converted to Christianity in 1846 when he married Nannie C. Wickliffe, who was Christian, and changed his name adding "Yulee" as a surname. This would make Judah Benjamin the second Jew to serve in the U.S. Senate, not the first. This makes sense and today converting from Religion X to Religion Y in America upon the request (or demand) of a soon-to-be spouse remains a very common reason for converting -- offering an inconclusive but rational explanation for this timing. A footnote on Yulee's Wikipedia page says, "It is not clear if Yulee converted before his marriage to Nancy Christian Wickliffe or on his deathbed. Nor is the documentary evidence clear if he was seated in the U.S. before or after his reported conversion to Christianity."

Second, the "profess" wording is wiggly, wormy and weaselly. Many U.S. politicians don't "profess" anything and we certainly do not officially monitor what they "profess" down to the day. It is unhelpful regarding what most people want to know to ignore David Levy Yulee by claiming that Judah Benjamin was the first person to "profess"... whatever. Yulee was born a Jew and some would even argue this is something one cannot escape out of. Nevertheless, going with the "self-identifying" allowance to permit people to identify how they want, the burden would be on wiki-authors who wish to assert that he self-identified out of Judaism to document this given that he was born Jewish. The footnote above suggests no such documentary evidence exists.

Third, the scope of "cabinet member" should be "U.S." and not "North America" because the former is a political subdivision having cabinet members while the latter is not. Gluten is a tent test (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in support of the text, "Benjamin was the second Jew to be elected to the United States Senate, and the first to hold a cabinet position in the United States" or perhaps that should be "serve in the United States Senate" Gluten is a tent test (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lies by subject and writers

typical wikipdeia bullshit Juror1 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it a bit. Is it satisfactory?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judah P. Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226111849/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/wp-content/themes/supremecourthistory/inc/37_Judah_P_Benjamin_Pt2wfootnotes.pdf to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/wp-content/themes/supremecourthistory/inc/37_Judah_P_Benjamin_Pt2wfootnotes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if there are any reasons the fictional representations should be added. It seems to me to be unsourced and unverifiable information, as well as rather trivial. Further, there is no consensus for adding it, and it was not part of the article when it went through FAC, a consensus process.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, can you please stop edit warring and take the opportunity to discuss why you think the information should be added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the two editors, above. No sources are given for the added information, which is in any case trivia of no value to the article. IP, please approach this in a grown-up way and discuss here if you wish to gain a consensus for adding to this Featured Article. - Tim riley talk 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you "concur", you and Wehwalt are the same person. I wouldn't be surprised if SchroCat was another alt as well. If by "no consensus" you mean that literally you disagree with it, then that's a shame considering you removed it without any consensus in the first place. Imagine the loneliness you must have to pretend to have a conversation with yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8380:DB0:25F0:28B5:4C92:A42B (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silly boy (or girl)! We are three separate people living in two different countries. Do make some attempt to appear intelligent! Tim riley talk 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph on Benjamin's fictional afterlife should come at the end of the "Appraisal" section, or possibly under a new heading. It currently sits awkwardly between two paragraphs on historiographical reception. Thoughts?
This is the paragraph in question:

Benjamin appears as a character in a number of works of fiction, notably Viña Delmar's 1956 historical novel Beloved and Dara Horn's 2009 novel All Other Nights. The subject of Benjamin's fictional afterlife has been discussed by Michael Hoberman, who notes how the man's "many mysteries" have appealed to novelists as well as historians.

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The block quote is well-situated to end the article, and adding something after that is a bad idea. Having a separate subsection would be an invitation for trivia and go against the discussion at the current deletion discussion. I feel that I've compromised by agreeing to let it in, when the deletion discussion could have been allowed to spin out, and that the proposal reverts to the issue (trivia) that led to the representations in fiction article being spun off. Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair framing. The paragraph as currently worded is not a list of trivia. It's a prose summary of the fictional coverage of the subject. Plenty of articles include subsections with hatlinks pointing to spinoff articles. You worry that some editors might see that as an invitation to add content from the second article here, but I don't think that's a good reason not to present sourced information more clearly as we can always revert any indiscriminate additions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now what we have doesn't justify its own section. If high quality reliable sources per WP:WIAFA can be found to justify more text, that may change. I refer to texts that go beyond simply mentioning that Benjamin is a character but discuss it along the lines of the source that was added. I have no objection to the hatnote. Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]