Talk:Nathan "Nearest" Green

Focus on NY Times article not subject

this article is more focused on the newspaper article rather than than the subject. From a quick search on Google Books Nearest Green is mentions in a number of books about Jack Daniels and the whiskey brand. The article didn't originate this story although is has bought wider attention to it. Can we shift the focus from the newspaper and onto the man? Eartha78 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Bit suspicious

Is it confirmed that this slave taught Jack Daniel or is our only source a New York Times article? 2602:306:80A2:ED0:A4DD:8337:BEEB:DEE6 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you read the references for the article you will see there are a number of other sources. If you read the NY Times article (or any other major press coverage) you'll see it quotes Nelson Eddy, the company's inhouse historian. Eartha78 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The "sources" all appear to be from the "research" of the descendant of said individual and the "Foundation" they established. Such research has neither been verified nor stands the "disinterested and scholarly" test74.99.87.242 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you read the references, there are a number of sources which include:

• WP:NEWSORG news organisations like New York Times, USA Today and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
• WP:SCHOLARSHIP a JSTOR hosted scholarly journal
• and a couple of books from established publishers

The statements attributed to the Nearest Green Foundation are supported by the New York Times article dated August 15 2017. The recognition of Nathan Green as the first distiller of Jack Daniel's has been around for decades, at least since 1967... according to the sources. MassiveEartha (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As the founder of the Nearest Green Foundation, I can confirm what the inhouse historian for Jack Daniel, Nelson Eddy, has entered as true as he knew it until that time. There has now been more than 2,500 hours of collective research into the life and times of Nearest Green and thus there is so much more we can now confirm. (About Nearest Green). What I don't seem to be able to do, and am hopeful someone can assist, is to update the name on the page from "Nearis" (which is an incorrect spelling originally attributed to the 1880 census) to Nathan "Nearest" Green (as confirmed by the 1870 census, thousands of hours of research, his foundation and his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrskweaver01 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mrskweaver01 - and as the founder of the Nearest Green Foundation, you should know that by editing this article you are possibly in a position of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, please review. Today we removed all advertising language that was added to the article. Jooojay (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So did Dan Call teach Nearest Green how to distill whiskey?The art of distilling was pretty widely known in Tennessee by the 1850's. If not where did he learn it? Was he an entrepreneur who built his own distilling operation and experimented until he perfected it, or was he just following common practice? The article seems pretty promotional at this point and smacks of COI editing. Edison (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And now a new article Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, also having possible related suspicious issues. Jooojay (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

His birth year

The Wikipedia article says he was born about 1820. But the census of 1870, included as a reference, says he was 27 in 1870, meaning he was born about 1843. Was a 13 year old a "master distiller" in 1856, as the "Uncle Nearest 1856" whiskey brand implies? This is not to say he couldn't have been a skilled still operator by 1856 or by 1859 (the extreme "late 1850's") when he is said to have taught Daniel how to make whiskey, or by 1866 when Daniel started his own operation. Ancestry and the censuses are primary sources, but where is reliable sourcing for the claimed 1820 birthdate of Green? Daniel was born 1846 to 1849 by various accounts, so Green was not that much older to be a graybearded "mentor." Certainly he was older enough to be a journeyman teaching Daniel as an apprentice. Edison (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the 1880 census. It clearly shows him and his wife with an age of 40. The handwritten "4" is identical to the "4" in his wife Harriet's age, and quite different from the "6" in the age of a son a few lines down The census taker made his 4's and 6's quite different and easily distinguishable. So the 1870 census recorded a birthyear of about 1843 and the 1880 census recorded a birthyear of about 1840. This variation is common in old census records, since farmworkers who could not read or write might not have access to accurate records of their birth. Edison (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Appears edits are being made by Mrskweaver01 however they have not disclosed their relationship to the subject of the article (or the Fawn Weaver article), which was requested on November 2017 on this talk page. Also appears to possibly be related to Mrskweaver, Marvistak17, Marvistamom Jooojay (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Advert

Issue with language used in edits sounding like an advertisement, possibly due to the COI issue with certain editors. Jooojay (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nearst Green

When, and how did he die? 107.77.210.118 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Talks about the 1870 census and children in the home when the man would likely be a grandfather by that time.

Also an 1904 picture with a black man who is likely not beyond his 30s and is listed as his son. The article further states that he wasn't much older than Beam himself, but if he was born in 1820 he would have been part of a completely different generation. Some of this should be examined more thoroughly. Maybe Mr Green was born in the 1830s, maybe that's his grandson in the picture --these are more likely than the information in the article. 71.203.227.52 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation (is not relevant)

"Green was one of a few enslaved people who stayed on to work with Call after the Emancipation Proclamation."

This is misleading. Tennessee was never subject to the Emancipation Proclamation, as the state was under Union control at the time of the proclamation. In general, the Proclamation freed enslaved people in areas captured by the Union army after the Proclamation was enacted. Areas under Union control at that time were no longer considered to be "in rebellion," so the Proclamation did not apply in those places. Slavery was not abolished in Tennessee until early in 1865. Better to simply say "after the abolition of slavery" or something simmilar. 172.56.194.171 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)