Jump to content

User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Another One...

Thank God I found another unreconstructed Southerner in this den of Politically Correct liberal wackos.Avazina —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Well, I'm not exactly "unreconstructed" in the sense of refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States Government. I served active duty as a United States Marine Corps officer. I am at the service of the US President at his discretion for the rest of my life according to the laws of my country; I take my oath seriously. -- TVH
What you may read between the lines are the echos of my Virginia family. I have a cultural affinity for consensus versus the confrontational. I've read enough and lived long enough to know there lots of sides to a story, and I for one want to know more of them.
For instance, it has only been over the last ten years or so that I read enough 'unit histories' to know that NO Confederate diary says, 'tomorrow I know I will die. the richest slave-holding man in the county will be richer when this is all over.' It is true that the Civil War was about slavery in a macro economic and nationally political sense. But it does not explain why men fought on. 'Tomorrow I know I will die. When Joe gets home, he will take care of you and the children.' That is a different reality, a different history. If we write a narrative with one eye on the Confederate soldier, even as we look at charts of GNP, and respect the runaway slave in Union blue, we will have a different tone, a different voice. - TVH

Image tagging for File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png

Thanks for uploading File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages:* Wikipedia:Image use policy* Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

aaaaarrrrrgggg I was in a sandbox, its from Wiki Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg . I last left this in punch cards and (no suffix) FORTRAN. Bill Gates made everything too user-friendly. Curses, Bill. - TVH.
This is one of the reasons I hate bots on Wikipedia.... they don't have any sort of human emotion or reason behind what they do other than their pre-programmed instructions. That certainly isn't friendly to new users like yourself.
I have nominated this file for "speedy deletion" as it duplicates existing content on Wikipedia. If you need some help in terms of how to use Wikipedia, I would certainly be willing to help you out. I cut my programming teeth on punch tape, cards, and programming in COBOL and FORTRAN, so I do know where you are coming from here. The Wikipedia community is a bit bewildering with a bunch of youngsters that seem to be in charge. To let you know, there are also a few of us here that are a bit older too that try to keep these young ones in shape and to keep their hormones under control. I'm not always successful but I sometimes do make a difference. You can too.
I hope this doesn't discourage you from further contributions to Wikipedia. If you stick with it, the contributions you can make here are very satisfying and impact far more people than you could possibly imagine. You will also get to meet some very interesting people in the process of contributing here. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee's at-large congressional district

Do you have a copy of the Martis book? I don't, but I've seen it and I know it's a great resource. If you do have it, can you check something for us: when did Tennessee's at-large congressional district have six seats? I'm not sure about 1813-1823. Can you confirm if these seats were at-large or by district. Thanks.—Markles 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yes...I'll try to get back to you tomorrow with the look-up.
There is a copy in lots of county libraries, and community college media centers. I believe that it is on enough 'recommended' lists, even though it is out of print, that if yours does not have a copy, you can probably ask for a to be procured (used) by the one nearest you and they might just use their shrinking funds to get one...my county library accepts emails for requests...as one of my bosses in finance once said, 'If you don't ask, you don't get kissed.'...
  • I have shamelessly asked for monographs that I could not possibly have afforded myself and they have come through for me, 2-4 volumes a year...basically if it is reviewed by an history journal, the New York Times Book Review and the Washington Post, my county buys it for me, and deposits it in the branch nearest my home. It's my birthday four times a year. -TVH.

Tennessee at-large answer

Martis distinguishes four kinds of election methods in the states (Introduction Section 2, p.6-7 and Section p.59)

(1) Single Member Districts are denoted with a number in their geographic outline, such as 1, 2, 3.
(2) Plural Congressional Districts are artificially divided into subsections geographically, and labeled such as 6a, 6b, 6c.
(3) General Ticket Districts are state-wide slates of a single party tickets. Representative districts are labeled ‘GT’, state maps show diagonals with A, B, C etc as a place-holder on the map for each seat. The largest number of votes for a party seats the entire ticket.
(4) At-Large Districts are state-wide elections of individual candidates, labeled ‘AL’ within the state boundaries. If there are three seats to fill, the three candidates with the most votes state-wide are elected.

He notes that General Ticket districts had the political effect to “ensure election of an entire state delegation by one dominant party”. At-Large districts were mostly used in the Congress following reapportionment, where they might give advantage to a dominant party, or not disrupt incumbents by mutual agreement.

Tennessee had three General Ticket districts in the 8th Congress, 1803-1805, as did NH, CT, RI, NJ and GA.
There were six TN representatives in the apportionment for the 13th Congress, 1813-1815, all Single Member Districts; although there is still territory in grey, which I know to be Cherokee lands in the southeast along the Georgia border, but I do not know of the others.

Tennessee will continue with single member districts for the subsequent Congresses. The 43rd had a tenth district At-Large.

I did find that in the 73d Congress of 1933-1935, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri used General Ticket Districting. (Not Tennessee.)
This was right about the time of the transfer of control in the Democratic Party from the Martin organization to the Byrd organization (No, sir, we don’t say ‘machine’ in the Old Dominion). Minnesota also had General Ticket Districting, but somehow ended up electing Representatives from three different parties. Missouri’s Tom Pendergast was expanding out of the family base in Kansas City to win statewide and federal elections... –TVH TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You may enjoy my ACW gallery at Commons.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

April Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 

Secession in the United States

Since I have deferred to your judgment and you hold my proxy, you should be aware that another editor is falsifying sources. The sources either do not support the statements, or only in the most trivial way. E.g., see footnotes 15 and 16. One could find other examples of plagiarism, and past complaints, if so inclined. The captioned page is in your capable hands. I have enjoyed working with you.74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry the discussion moved, so quickly. I will look forward to your future postings when you find the time. Enjoy your time with your family. With highest regards from a descendant of the Pendletons,74.192.7.135 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski

Hi, I've left comments on this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. regards Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
TVH is a major contributor to the excellence of the United States Constitution article. Through a series of carefully crafted tweaks and major edits, the article is moving forward to (once again) receive a well-deserved WP:FA designation thanks to TheVirginiaHistorian's efforts. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a slice of pie.

For your excellent work on the Constitution of the United States. Well done. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee

Thanks for your comments re the restored pictures. Their deletion appears to have been a bit of thoughtless vandalism of the drive-by variety and nothing more has been said. Your tidying up of sections of the text itself has made a significant improvement to the article. Regards Buistr (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there TheVirginiaHistorian, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TheVirginiaHistorian.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The :File:03-rawls-225.jpg | image was taken directly from Rawls WP article. Its a shame the download turns out to be non-free. The photographer stood philosopher John Rawls in the same pose as Machiavelli's famous portrait. Striking. Could it be only a format error that the bot did not pick up? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Retracing my steps, I found the image description clearly marked with a big red C. I missed it in my narrowed frame which I set up on my desktop to expedite copying image file names. The editor uploading the image still has not identified the copyrighted source, and I still will not be able to use that image from that source on my User page. rats. This case is similar to that of several prominent academics.
(a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
stumbling through linked related articles, such as Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain, I don't see publishing for indiscriminately distributed consumption as a qualifying for fair usage anywhere. Help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:03-rawls-225.jpg is correctly marked as non-free; the source page here has a copyright notice at the bottom. So under Wikipedia's rules, it can be used in the John Rawls article provided that the paperwork is filled in on the file page, but it cannot be used anywhere else. So, I'm afraid, the bot was correct in removing it from your user page. See Wikipedia:NFCC#9. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good. My second posting is correct. Check the box. Per the third posting, I need help. (a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? This is a tough one, beyond my first twenty minute search. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

a) We can hardly ever use non-free pictures from anywhere - whether it is from a newspaper or not. Unless a specific newspaper picture is somehow 'free' (e.g. very old, so public domain) then very tight criteria exist for its use. In particular, we cannot use it if a free equivalent is available, or could be created - which rules out almost all pictures of living people (because we could go take their photo). Rare exceptions are made when the photo itself is somehow "special" - of historical significance - e.g. tank man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Also it must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". For more on that, see WP:NONFREE and for any specific case, just ask on WP:MCQ.
b) As above; which means, if the building still exists, then no (because we could take a new picture of it). If it's been knocked down or changed significantly, then there is some chance we might be able to use it. Again, in specific cases, it'd be best to ask on WP:MCQ.
Copyright is an enormously complicated thing, but the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide free content for unlimited distribution; each non-free image reduces that possibility, so we do need to take great care about it. Hope that helps. Use a fresh {{helpme}} for any follow-up / other questions. Thanks. Chzz  ►  15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. the rules are the rules. or politics ain't beanbag. or something. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee ii

Thank you for your reasonable comments on Robert E. Lee's talk page regarding his wife's daguerreotype. It's good to know that there are Wikipedians who have knowledge of the subject. For a second I thought that Lee's article was a no man's land. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an article about Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias on the FAC right now. He has certain similarities with Lee's life (if we ignore some big differences). I've learned one thing when writing articles: keep the sections short and make every picture be important. Lee's article is overy detailed and seems to be a collection of different views of several editors. In sum, it's a mess. I tried to share some thoughts on Confederate States of America and tried to suggest editors to take a look at another article I wrote: Empire of Brazil. No one bothered and that article is equally a mess. And that's unfortunate since both articles have enough space to evolve into possible FAs. --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Do you know who are the main contributors to Robert E. Lee's article? Are they still active? Is there any editor there who usually behaves like a troublemaker? I'm asking you all this is because I'm seriously thinking of taking the article to FA level. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I only began participating in RELee to add something to his early Confederate career. I had expanded Battle of Fort Pulaski to Good Article, and found in research there that the contemporary 1862 newspapers and later Lost Cause memoir wars had the history very wrong. Much Confederate military activity is reported only in the Navy Records ... long story. Amazingly, Lee and Olmstead and Tattnall all performed efficiently, credibly and honorably in their own estimation, in the eyes of their comrades, and by the judgment of their opponents, both at the time and thereafter, regardless of the surrounding hysteria found in belles lettres. So I then contributed a paragraph or two to the RELee article.
My most recent reading into the Civil War is Joseph T. Glatthaar's "General Lee's Army: from victory to collapse" ISBN 978-0-684-82787-2. Most of the volume can enhance the Army of Northern Virginia article. For the Lee article, Glatthaar brings important scholarly insight into Lee as a commander of men encamped, on the march and in combat. He taught at the U.S. Army War College, Army Command and General Staff College, USMA, West Point, and the University of Houston. At book publishing, 2008, he was chair of Curriculum of Peace, War and Defense, UNC, Chapel Hill.
From everything I've read, RE Lee is worthy of a Featured Article. I would like to help out some, though as an oldie-newbie I have a double handicap. My most recent contributions are to the U.S. Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. If I were to write the article, I would not waiste any time detailing his strategies or how he won battles. This is one good mistake I often find on articles about U.S. Civil War military leaders. In the end, the article becomes huge, unreadable and a mess. I'll leave open to anyone who has the interest and desire to create and expand an article like "Military career of Robert E. Lee" or similar. Since I'm Brazilian and I'm not tainted by U.S. Civil War prejudices commonly found on Americans (which is something quite common in any controversial historical subject) I believe I'd be able to write something neutral, that will allow readers to see Lee as a man: a highly capable field commander, honourable, owner of slaves, etc... I'd still like to see you review the article once it's finish and share your thoughts so that it can be further improved. I will use three books as the main sources:
Lee (an Abridgment of 4 Volume Set in 1 volume), by Douglas Southall Freeman
Robert E. Lee: A Biography, by Emory M. Thomas
Robert E. Lee: An Album, by Emory M. Thomas (I'll use to add good photos to the article)
I won't be able to start working on it right now. Probably in January or February, but I'd still like to see you giving your imput. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Constitution

Part A
  1. The quotes should NOT be curly. The minus sign in my edit summaries means "remove".
  2. Not my place to say, though I would personally prefer to avoid such abbreviations.
Part B

(b) See WP:LQ.

--Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In United States Constitution, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution suggestions

Two suggestions: 1. I think citation 170 fits better in the abc note section. 2. You might use the {rp} method of citation rather than the short citations. (Here is a page that explains: Template:Rp.) --S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, pretty soon (ie maybe Tuesday?) I will work on the history section of United States Constitution as per talk page. Just letting you know. If you would like to work on it yourself, please go ahead, otherwise Tuesday I will have a go at it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the point of the history section edit that you propose is to take material with more-than-summary detail and move it to more narrowly focused articles. The intended result would make the "U.S. Constitution" article the center of a web of related subtopics.
If this understanding is correct, yes, of course, please lead on. I'd like to follow behind you just as soon as I learn how to do it properly myself. I'd like to shadow your first few efforts, then join in, if you would check behind me.
My resistance to editing on the U.S. Constitution page has been to capricious blanking my stuff with no discussion, citation or rationale. Also, I did not understand article overall word-length and memory-size restrictions. These made sense to me as soon as I found the applicable WP reference.
As you may see from my recent "Introduction" edits, I believe that there is very much more to do of substance to improve the article, besides the History section length, once it is short enough for a wide range of readers to load it on their computers in the first place ! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited History of the United States Constitution, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Johnson and Gordon Wood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Liberty
For excellent contributions on United States Constitution and related articles. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Excellent work!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Confederate States of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chattanooga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re CSA map

First of all, thanks for the kind comments, though it really does need some work. It's old and there's a handful of factual errors, though the broad strokes are all accurate. As for why it takes two clicks - to minimize memory usage (on the server to generate thumbnails) and bandwidth (on clients to minimize download time), animated images larger than a certain size don't get animated thumbnails, and this image easily falls above that limit. That's why you don't see it animated in an article, nor in the image page, because that is thumbnailed as well. Only when clicking through to the full version do you get it animated. Your message has reminded me that I should probably work on this more, and make an article for it along the lines of my Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States articles, so hopefully in a few weeks all you'll have to do is link to that. It wouldn't hurt to create my own thumbnailed animation as well, omitting details and much of the text. Huh, that's a good idea actually... for a thumbnail you don't need the names in the states, just an explanation of what's happening. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA Virginia/WV edits

Hi, I looked at your edit and tweaked it a bit, changing "August" to "June". August was when the WV statehood ordinance was passed, and changed "delegates" to voters since it was the May 23 referendum on the ordinance of secession. I haven't looked at the History of Virginia yet, I was going to redo that and the Virginia in the American Civil War sections on West Virginia because they are quite frankly inaccurate in the extreme. For instance, very few people realize of West Virginia's 49 delegates to the Richmond secession convention, while generally voting against the ordinance on April 17, 29 signed the ordinance. You can see the results on the Library of Virginia website here How Virginia Delegates Voted and Signed the Ordinance. Thanks for your help. Dubyavee (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and Exactly. The sense of community existed even in division, a notion of comity which is lost on 21st Century politicos generally. "The War of Brothers" was as real in Virginia as it was in the more celebrated divisions among Tennessee. CS General Lee's cousin US Admiral Lee commanded the South Atlantic Union blockade, just for starters. It is hard to comprehend the depth of that American tragedy, but I take exception to triumphalism on either side. I think that the tone of historical treatment ought to approximate Grant's Memoirs that were co-written with Mark Twain. These were perilous times, serious men undertaking serious enterprise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) JimWae is going to kill me for being overwrought. Thank goodness for collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

re

I'm on vacation all this week, and online mostly through a phone. So while I've done some minor minor editing, I haven't checked in to the in-depth discussion that popped up about the map. That's why ice been quiet on any new talk :) I will be able to check by Sunday at the latest. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski

I noticed that you did a good job with this article. Do you think that this is ready for GA-class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.15.202 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. yes. I'm not sure of the process, and I know there is some sort of review process that will help strengthen stylistic and technical aspects.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The GA-nomination page is here; more info on the military history assessment is on this page. You can probably also find help at the Military history project. Hope this helps. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John H. Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Praise, praise, praise

You've made excellent upgrades to the USA page. ThievingBeagles (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


For you

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll promote this to my user page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)




USA Talk

Hello TVH, There is a response to your inquiry on my talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


mail

You have mail again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Items requiring your attention

THV, you have more mail on my talk page. (I am not sure what you mean by 'ORA' and 'ORN'.) Also, there is more talk on the 'Blockade runners talk page regarding SS Fingal and citation usage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

I do not treat the article like my "personal sandbox." I am perfectly fine with valid edits there. When I see an edit that is not good, though, I will revert it and suggest it be brought up on the talk page. When you make an edit claiming "consensus" despite having nothing of the sort, that makes me question it even more. Who agreed to your edit? At all? I didn't. CMD didn't. We're the only ones in the thread at the moment. Please do not misrepresent your edits. If you want more eyes on the edit than just ours, please check with WP:RFC. But I am sure that we would be more amenable to your edits if they were presented to people first rather than put up at once and told to agree with it. For example, we would have been able to point out that "Alaska" and "Hawaii" are poorly introduced, or that too much is delinked, or what not. You aren't allowing that process to happen.

Secondly, I never claimed a "copyright issue" about that CSA map on your user page. I didn't even know it WAS on your user page. I deleted it from commons because it was an incomplete first draft, it had nothing to do with your legend, and I never said it had anything to do with your legend, so I don't know from where you got that notion. A bot then removed it from your page because it was no longer on commons.

I would love to work with you, and you have smarts and knowledge to bring to the project, but please do not accuse other editors of things they did not do, and please work within the consensus structure rather than making an edit and saying "it has consensus!" --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a short break. And thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. It really is a cool map. Please let me know when you want to have a go at the map again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Crisis

Dear VA - I edited the section before I read or saw your format for collaboration, but I acknowledged your request.

My efforts to edit the side-by-side format did not work, not sure how to access it. Is it secure? Can only our usernames edit the material? 36hourblock (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

rats. If you say you want something in box 1.a I'll put it there if I can. I hope that when I copied the code I DID NOT add a comma somewhere that blocks us both. As I have said elsewhere, i tweek the code i hate the code i tweek the code i hate the code. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

New user might need some attention

Hi there! I'm glad to see you really digging in. I spotted a single contribution from a new editor (User:Beverly Wilson Palmer) today, and given the contribution, I thought I'd bring her username to an editor like yourself, just in case she needs newbie assistance. I've not been very active for the last few weeks, and want to make sure an expert on Thaddeus Stevens like Ms. Palmer is given every chance to get early success on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I would like to try to help. out. my condition makes reluctant to hold myself out to do much more than be a cheerleader, though, don't want to be on any open list or anything. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

re China/US area dispute

See footnote c in the infobox. Depending on how you calculate it, either the PRC or the USA is the 3rd largest country. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

- Should the areal calculation for China area on the top of the world alter the geographical extent in the U.S. article first sentence? If so, why, and are there WP guides to help us determine that, or what scholarly sources exclude U.S. territory claimed by the USG due to China area calculations?
- And, I really do not want to be 'pissing in the pot' as the saying goes, I mean this as a sincere, direct question on WP policy to you -- Golbez -- you know geography better than I do, no matter how much I bicker -- here it is: to be even handed for international readers, and especially the mainland Chinese, should we not use the Kaplan source to note the Chinese Second Island Chain in the U.S. Infobox territory -- or will that simply anger so many English WP readers in Taiwan that it is 'not worth the candle' as they say. I'm not even going to write it again if you say no, I will not write it again if you make no reply to this second part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "second island chain", it should not be mentioned whatsoever. China does not control or claim anything out there, it is simply a military projection term. This has to do with your assertion that we didn't need to check all facts and figures because they would not alter the metrics of the country compared with other countries; I pointed out one metric, area, that COULD potentially be affected by including the territories. That is all. For approximately the eighth time, I am not using this as an excuse to not include the territories; I am saying, if you DO include the territories, then the facts and figures need to be checked to see whether or not they include the territories and, if not, either noted or replaced with ones that do. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "toning down" edit. I was just about to say, You must forgive me for thinking we are talking about area calculations for this, only the THIRD time. I thought we also talked about (a) judicial doctrines surrounding 'unincorporated' territory' and (b) population measures such as 'median income' before. That's why it is so intellectually rich arguing with you, we get to range everywhere over all kinds of things.
- The number -- EIGHT -- times you've said something before makes [made] me feel really small-minded. I don't think you realize, that because I respect you, the "I've-told-you-the-same-thing-eight-times-don't-you-get-it" line stings more than you probably intend. It feels [felt] like you are [were] talking down to me, not-good [better now].
- To the point, which I always feel is worth-while arguing with you. My main concern is political which wants to include the territories, and skim over geography with a general reference. Your main concern is geographic which wants to carefully calculate areal measures that will be incorporated in wikipedia's inter-country comparisons, and skim over legal definitions by place with a general reference.
- Both of us are bringing a fine sense of personal honor and scholarly integrity, those same values are then applied in different fields of government and geography, which now in a general interest country article brings about different editorial positions. I can't HELP but think there is a WP policy on country article introduction sections out there in big-hat wiki-land somewhere. WE -- you-and-I -- can-not-be the first two to wrestle with this in a WP country-article. I hate being new to this, but I am grateful for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now, the article intro states that the country consists of fifty states and a federal district. All of the numbers and facts in the article flow from that definition. If that definition were changed substantially (which it would be if you include the territories), then it stands to reason that at least some of the rest of the article would change. If they do not, we are basically saying "This is what the country is defined in the intro, but the rest of the article will ignore the territories completely," without even signalling that. That will mislead people and give them incorrect information; why would we want that, ever, even if it doesn't alter metrics? This isn't about being a wonk about facts and figures, this is the simple fact that, you are changing the definition of the country in the intro, yet appear to think the rest of the article can go without reflecting that new definition. I apologize for talking down to you, though this has been frustrating. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did not see the two as prohibitively related, political place names and place areas calculated. I thought that editors for a country article would find reliable sources to describe it. The aspects might be historical, political, geographic, demographic or economic. There would not necessarily be internal consistency by a commonly used, consolidated database across all disciplines referenced throughout the article.
- Each editor need only ensure that HIS contribution was balanced and verifiable as it related to the topic addressed, reflecting the preponderance of scholarship in each field on the subject addressed.
- I also have a writer's block or something on this subject for now. I'm going to look for some WP intro guideline or something. -- Just because I don't make an immediate reply doesn't mean I have given up, I promise. -- Are the Requests for Comment coming to a close on Dec. 15 or after? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when the RFC ends but it's been an abysmal failure as no one else has offered comment. We need to sell this better. --Golbez (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel I'm screaming in the coffee shop, I may not believe what he says, but I will defend -- to the death -- his RIGHT to say it. -- and no one looks up from their cell devices. I'm going to keep looking for a WP guideline somewhere. Well, happy holidays, until we are at it again. Looks like another round of activity over at CSA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1860 election

Hey there. I've made a comment on the talk page of the article on the 1860 election concerning the changes you made there recently. Thought to leave you a note about it here considering the talk page is rather inactive. Thanks. Redverton (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

21st century territories history

  • On October 10, 2008, a case in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico declared that Puerto Rico no longer remain an unincorporated territory. The court says that although Congress has never enacted any affirmative language such as “Puerto Rico is hereby an incorporated territory,” its sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory. The court elaborated that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated. "Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" (Document). The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

Reference: Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.66.236 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian

TFD requested a bad faith Sockpuppet investigation on you just because we have a similar view related to one topic. --Buzity (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

re Palmyra

I read that exact PDF and saw that snippet. Heh. Incidentally, so far as I know, Honolulu is probably the longest city, since the consolidated city-county includes all of the northwestern Hawaiian islands. Tokyo is another contender, if it were an actual city, but the Tokyo-to prefecture includes the Ogasawara Islands which are also far out to sea. --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition of USA

TVH, I'm carrying the ball for you over at the notice board and have cited your assertions a couple of times. You might want to get in their soon and check on matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible compromise resolution
The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I see where the problem is ...

See Talk:Fascism where TFD shows pretty clearly an ability to see things being said which were not said and claims made which were not made at DR/N about "what is the US" <g> [1] which I think shows the problem faced at DRN quite nicely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It does help to see where TFD may be coming from. I will now launch on a lengthy sortie which the DRNs have cautioned me to learn how to avoid on public pages.
_ _ Much at 'Facscism' is crimped about by political science little informed intellectual history.* Not my bag. For instance, one editor struggling with marxist paraphrasing of a fascism "promoting the idea of a proletarian-based-state", would benefit in conciseness and relevance, were the writer to make the 1930s contemporary, self-described reference to the "volk". It would not only be better style, it would allow for the historical connections made into earlier intellectual developments of the concept of "nation" referenced in France, but dismissed by the narrowly academic field of the published political scientist - or wanna-be -- they ARE out there.
_ _ The connection between marxism and fascism is the idea of a uniformly virtuous body-politic led at the head by the true-believers (Hoffer). This idea is serious, powerful, important to be delt with by adherents of the federal republic. Madison wrestles with it in Federalist #10. It is nothing less than the English levelleer tradition made manifest in Cromwell's 1600s Commonwealth, not to be lightly dismissed in that 1700s time. At the end of Cromwell's experiment in corporate state virtue, transgressors were hung for dancing. Britain was saved in part because Cromwell's son inheriting power -- succession of power is ever a problem of governance -- the son was a gentle sort of courtier who did not inspire men to fight and die for the sake of a non-monarch king-in-all-but-name.
_ _ In a nutshell: Even if we were all to begin equal in wealth and opportunity, over time by circumstance, fortune and enterprise, we would find ourselves in society with unequal holdings of wealth. Whenever, whomever we would assign to re-adjust society's inequities would be by definition tyrants. These are the heads of the marxist and fascist regimes, tyrants. [Marxists and fascists are NOT democratic socialists of the modern European kind, another political beastiary classification entirely as they value individual rights apart from and above the "nation" as a body-politic.]
_ _ As Madison frames it in #10, the great issue in modern government is how to allocate and reallocate wealth and opportunity so that it benefits the entire community of residents, both in the near term and for the long run benefit of both individuals and society. That answer is a federal republic of large geographic, cultural and social diversity, where local majorities cannot oppress their minorities severely, for long, because the few can appeal to the larger sense of justice among the unbiased (disinterested, not indifferent) national majorities on the basis of individual fundamental rights and community democratic procedures.
  • I found my volume of Levinson and Sparrow. The anthology is exciting precisely because it has essays presented at a symposium, papers round-robin critiqued, polished, published and represent both political scientists stretching into history, and historians stretching into constitutional law. Great good stuff !.!.! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Virginia History

Hi TVH, while doing reference and bibliography work I stumbled across some material I thought you might be interested in. They are available in their entirety as Ebooks in PDF and/or EPUB formats. Enjoy.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding! I can use all three. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


You have mail

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your comment on my talk page

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your good advice. In fact I did edit the more specific articles first; about four of them which I tried to put in the economics and health sections in the United States article. You are right, and that is what the instructions say to do, but I think it would have been very unlikely that I would have known about it if it weren't for more experienced editors explaining it to me. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  MastCell Talk 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheVirginiaHistorian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The rationale for blocking me is mistaken. “Territories” has been edited using the dispute resolution wording by Collect, Gwhillhickers, Amadscientist, Rightcowleftcoast, and TheVirginiaHistorian. The unsourced edit war removing it is by Golbez, TFD/TheFourDeuces and CMD/Chipmunkdavis. The DRN is, that the US territories shall be mentioned in the first sentence of the article United States, thus, “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, […as well as several territories.], or [… with territories of varying levels of autonomy.], or [...and several territories.] Ten times DRN-like language has been placed with consensus and sources to “include territories” in the first sentence, then removed. *1a* 19 March, Collect placed “territories”. Older≠wiser/Bkonrad reverted “territories”. *1b* Gwhillhickers restored “territories”. *1c* 18:26, 19 March 2013‎ Golbez . tweeked away from the consensus, then proclaimed, (this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.) “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories.” *2* Preserve “territories#. 21:51, 19 March 2013‎ Amadscientist ‬‎ . . (I don't object to the wording just the removal of reliable sources) #Remove “territories”. --- two steps: (1) 02:09, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez. . (i made this, i can unmake this. i do not recognize the authority or veracity of that edit and should not have implemented it.) (2) 14:02, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (silly me, i reverted to the wrong, incorrect, poorly discussed, no-consensus version, when i meant to return to the status quo. thanks for pointing out my error, collect) *3* Restore “territories”. 14:13, 3 April 2013‎ Collect. . (talk pages shows this as having the most support overall - the status quo had much less support) #Remove “territories”. 14:30, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez ‬‎ . . (then pray tell why did my attempt at a consensus implementation live far longer than this horrible little tripe? choose one of my versions, this one is apparently not an option. as you made your choice that this one was bad through laziness.) *4* Restore “territories”. 00:45, 4 April 2013‎ RightCowLeftCoast ‬‎ . . (reverted change to lead per WP:BRD, no consensus was formed to revert the lead to its former worded; modified lead to closely resemble consensus wording achieved at DRN)#Remove “territories”. By TFD/The Four Deuces, 03:59, 4 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *5* Restore “territories”. 11:59, 4 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. #Remove “territories”. 17:38, 20 April 2013‎ Golbez .. (correcting per my revelation on the talk page) *6* Restore “territories”. 06:39, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‬‎ . . (no consensus to remove territories. see Talk) #Remove “territories”. 12:15, 29 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *7* Restore “territories”. 12:52, 29 April 2013‎ Collect #Removed “territories”. 14:44, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *8* Restored “territories”. 15:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian‎ . . #Removed “territories".16:16, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *9* Restored “territorities”. 17:09, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian… #Removed “territories”18:02, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *10* Restored “territories” 21:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. . #Removed “territories” by CMD/Chipmunkdavis 13:59, 1 May 2013‎ Chipmunkdavis Here are two sources supporting “including territories”. AT UNITED STATES TALK: ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." Executive Order 13423 This is a straightforward affirmative statement that the inhabited territories are a part of the country, without legalese.… Populations which were acquired under US jurisdiction as "aliens" are now incorporated in the nation; the Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian 2:58 am, 29 April 2013. Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block, i.e., edit-warring.  Sandstein  17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talkback

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Territory Issue

I think that you misunderstood Sandstein's response. You were not topic-banned from editing the article, and an administrator has no authority to topic-ban a user without consensus. You were blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. The block has expired. You may edit the article as long as you don't edit-war. What article is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States. The sourced language opposed is, "The US is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories." WP editor IgnorantArmies suggested "... district as well as five territories", I agreed, and the administrator axed it without prior discussion, bowed out after our dialogue, and the three confederates appeared. When the 1-3 became 2-3, my contributions were unsuccessfully challenged as sock-puppetry, the confederates persisted throughout the resolution stages and returned in concert with the administrator to disrupt then revert the implementation of the DR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

rationale and sources, opposition

Sought language in the US article is, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” In this case we look at the US as an internationally recognized nation-state, which is disputed. By the 1933 Montvideo Convention, Art.1. The state as a person of international law should possess: (a) population; (b) territory; (c) government; and (d) relations with the other states. Art.2, “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.” States in free association become independent in 20 years if treaty is not renewed for Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and Micronesia. But that the federal state of the US is a "sole person" in its 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories of citizens represented in Congress, is disputed.

Legal scholars (Lawson and Sloane 2009) show Puerto Rico enjoys UN criteria for democratic process, fundamental rights, self-governance and participation in national councils to comply with 1960 UN resolution 1541, allowing for “integration with an independent state” [p.1134], disputed by reference to pre-1960 primary documents without scholarly interpretation, -- though, once again -- only 3% Puerto Ricans voted ‘independence’ in the Nov 2012 referendum with 80% turnout. US citizens in the US territories are represented in the US House, --- by US constitutional practice for 220 years, once there is a path to citizenship and 100,000 Americans --- DC (elected mayor) and territories (elected governors) are listed in the Representatives directory by US place represented, equally with the states.

The opposition hinges on a) the CIA Factbook, US has a section, US government, with subdivisions, President, Congress, States, Territories. Editors synthesize from a tertiary source to suppose Congress and states are included in the US government, only Territories are not. b) It is said territories are not states so they cannot be in the US, comparing the US to the British Commonwealth or UK in non-sequiturs. c) the Insular Cases 100 years ago allowed Congress to annex territory of aliens, who would be made citizens by Congress, just as "at the ratification of the Constitution" (Northwest Territories), --- the test set forth in the Downes case for political incorporation into the US --- by Congress. But editors insist the US congress is incompetent, the Supreme Court must overturn the Supreme Court. The Court ruled good law, Territories were not to have the Uniformity Clause applied for revenue purpose as they were not states. But Editors synthesize from a legal digest, that revenue provisions bar inhabitants from the US federal republic in the matter of citizenship, --- whom Congress has made citizens with self-government and Members of Congress in the federal republic.

In brief, the discussion, mostly daily October 2012 - May 2013 revolves around the following points.

  • Primary sources. [8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1101. “Definitions. (29) The term ‘’outlying possessions of the United States’ means American Samoa and Swains Island. [p.22]. (36) The term ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [p.23]. There is no US statute declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for US law”. Also provided when contested, each statute making US citizens in 5 territories, and the .gov sites for territory Members of Congress.
  • Secondary USG - foreign. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sec.104 [8 u.s.c. 1104] The Secretary of State will administer and enforce the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws. Chap. 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), INA provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the US… [from Nov. 3, 1986], the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States”. As defined in INA, the term "outlying possession" is only American Samoa and Swains Island [p.18]. There is no State Department view of law in force declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for international purposes.” an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Secondary USG - domestic. When implementing Congressional statutes, the executive interprets ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… and five organized US territories. There is no Executive Order found stating, “US territories are not a part of the US in executing US law”. "Native-born American" include those born in the five organized US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants by Homeland Security’s US citizenship and immigration services, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." There is no source disputing US nationality in the five organized US territories, an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Scholarly sources. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). There is no scholar who says, “modern US territories are not a part of the US”, an unsourced opposition assertion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

United States talk page

Thanks TVH, for your support concerning Golbez hostile commentary. I am not sure that I can edit on the Wikipedia article United States due to Golbez continued hostile remarks. Some of Golbez hostile commentary may have been removed from the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unincorporated territories of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/50_4/05_lawson-sloane.pdf …Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered], p. 1176. Viewed June 14, 2013.</ref> In November 2008 a district court judge ruled that a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Service award

Aye there TVH, just passin' through and noticed your service award needs upgrading.

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Not all as pleasant or instructive as the Jefferson page, I fear. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil War Montage

Thank you sir for your thoughts on the civil war montage. However I must admit, the montage is not my own work. I found it in the Wikimedia Commons. I think we could even improve upon this one, perhaps adding more scenes of war to the 3 we have.

Sincerely, Themane2 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got my support. Check other long historical/war articles to see how many are usual on the "Montage Scale" for size/crowded meter.... :)
Perhaps: Massed infantry (artillery is already featured), Union gunline on blockade (riverine already featured), wagons in train along a road, or in a park--rows to the horizon! (Library of Congress photo), Grant at headquarters with telegraph wires strung to every division commander (enlisted already featured), temporary railroad bridge with locomotive pictured--engineered of cornstalks (LoC) ...
The caption could then instructively note some of the technological innovations pictured: since Napoleonic era and Crimean War, army artillery has rifled bores, infantry replaced smooth bore muskets with rifled arms on both sides, ironclads ruled the inland waterways... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Confederate States Army - Strengths and Weaknesses

Hello, Virg. Hist.

Thanks for your support over the short section I added to the page on 'Confederate States Army'. No, I don't have specific references to hand. It seemed to me that the points were so well known that we wouldn't need them. (By the way, the word you thought possibly superfluous was not 'interestingly' but 'increasingly'.) Really can't see a good reason for the deletion, anyway. Valetude (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

re

"You then summarized my position, DC was not in US possession until 1972" I'm going to need a citation on that, since I do not recall making such a statement. I recall (and of course I could be wrong, hence the request for a link) saying that you said that DC was not part of the US until 1972, which as we all know is different from being a possession. Which is kind of the crux of the whole argument. --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks. you remember correctly, I said, 'DC not a part of the federal republic until people represented in 1972', you restated 'DC not a part of the United States until 1972'. The differences among interpretations of "a part of the US" is indeed the crux of the argument. If I may restate three positions summarily, we have:
a) "a part of the US" is possessions, territories, federal district and states, all admitting occupation alone does not make a place "a part".
b) "a part of the US" is admittance to the federal republic constitutionally by citizenship and representation in Congress by national practice, modern US territories, DC and states.
c) " a part of the US" are places which are or have ever been, states.
To save $3, I bought through Amazon a volume recommended by Newyorkbrad, but is taking over a week to get here versus purchase directly at Amazon. The online view of the anthology shows both b) and c) views are inconclusive in the scholarly community. Newyorkbrad observed the wikifencing between myself and Bkonrad-0uw reflected the real-world diversion of interpretations of the Insular Cases at 'unincorporated territories of the united states'. More to learn, better done in the subsidiary articles, just as you suggested. I will return to 'Unincorporated' page after reading 'Domestic in a foreign sense' entirely through, as I have my own copy of 'Louisiana Purchase and American expansion'. For the benefit of the 'United States' page, I am TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
The main issue here seems to be, you (and apparently a few others) see the "federal republic" as being a distinct entity from the "United States". I don't. To be part of one is to be part of the other. And, as I did before, to use modern terminology and law, the district was incorporated the moment Maryland was, and that cannot be undone. --Golbez (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean the moment Virginia and Maryland was. It seems so as to places for summary c) in the case of DC, as you say.
But that means rights of citizenship were reversed for residents in DC following its establishment as the federal district by state consent as provided in the constitution -- which cannot be done today in modern US territories, according to Supreme Court holdings as we discussed earlier. When I was growing up, I had a neighbor in northern Virginia who, were he about to be embroiled in a controversy over candidates at election time, he would say, "I'm not a Virginian, I'm a citizen of DC -- I don't vote, so I don't have a say in it".
Because I focus on populations in places, I would be happy to allow for defining "a part of the US" as places with organic acts of US citizenship mutually agreed to such as DC before 1972 by Virginia and Maryland legislatures, but not Puerto Rico before 1952 as its earlier citizenship was conferred without Puerto Rican consent. Nevertheless, today that would include modern territories by extension as 'a part of the US', as they all have organic acts of citizenship with more privileges than DC had, mutually agreed to by congress and local legislatures or plebiscite or both. Aside: Since 1972 DC has no more than modern US territories in the US federal republic -- except presidential electors without state-like population proportion -- it is forever three until statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was speaking to the present District, so just Maryland. The Virginia portion was returned long before 1972. And, not exactly forever three, as it's simply "the same as the smallest state"; were demographics to become really, really wonky, that number could increase from 3. As for the rest, I have no interest in pursuing an argument on such a minority position as "DC was not part of the federal republic". You may be able to find traction with that elsewhere but I see no further benefit to discussing it. Sorry to be so blunt but I just see nothing good that can come out of it. Nothing on Wikipedia will be impacted by it. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is what I mean, I have a lot to learn. I have unintentionally misled you. DC is a part of the US in my view, since 1791, and its population is a part of the federal republic since 1972. If as you say there is no distinction between 'a part of the US' and 'federal republic' using Native-American reservations as your guide because they are 'a part of the US', then just as Native American reservation places are 'a part of the US' without citizens until mid 1900s or direct congressional representation as polities, so too are modern US territories with US citizens and their own Members of Congress. They too were directly administered by the Army then the Interior Department before self-government, Puerto Rico electing its first governor in 1948.
a) The only item you address is the last because it seems here online, only the last item is responded to--not just you-- and that aside was evidently not clearly stated on my part. The amendment said, "but in no event more than the least populous State", that is, in no event more than three, unlike a state. -- the point is that DC is not taken to be a state, just as modern US territories are not to be taken to be states with presidential electors based on population or Puerto Rico would have more electors than 20 states.
b) My point is not to exclude DC, It must be included either on the grounds of places once states -- which we agree, or on the grounds of inclusion in federal republic by representation in congress, -- a point on which we part. I observe that on the basis of US constitutional practice of "incorporating" territories for 200 years, DC is on that grounds a part of the federal republic since 1972, the modern US territories are also. DC is 'a part of the US' since 1791.
On the grounds that Native American reservations have always been 'a part of the US' but have at times a) never been states, b) directly administered by the Army or the Interior Department, c) without citizens nor represented in Congress, THEN modern US territories meet the same criteria to be included as 'a part of the US', each with an organic act and citizens, self-government and Member of Congress. My copy of 'Foreign in a domestic sense' came in. Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because X had certain aspects and is a part of the country, doesn't mean Y with those same aspects is part of the country. That's the complaint all of us have had with your logic: You look at one entity, which is part, and say this other entity has characteristics of it, and conclude that of course the other entity is part of the country. This is synthesis and original research. You cannot annex an island to the country, only the country can do that. So instead of trying to find logical solutions to this, all that matters is finding adequate sourcing of annexation. Any further argument on the logic of incorporation of being part of the country or republic should be discarded immediately, as it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
(And yes, I know I have brought up logical arguments in the past, like "they can leave, so they aren't incorporated" or what not. But those took a backseat to the sourcing, which I've clearly made it a point to ask for lately, sourcing which has not been supplied.) --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. well argued. Burnett in 'Foreign in a domestic sense' points out among scholars there are two inconclusive views, --the point of her balanced anthology representing both schools of thought. The view I favor takes the explicit language in organic acts, political union as a compact, to mean political incorporation. -- key word "compact" (Burnett takes the other view, but she still includes scholars explicating my preferred take).
I did not know enough to use the term of art in a pointed way until last week reading the online view of the book from her introduction. I had quoted 'compact' in passages pertaining to Northern Marianas, but without understanding how it cemented the union -- in one view. So the answer for me will not be an either-or outcome, but scholars 'on-the-one-hand; on-the-other'. Thanks again for your patience. Gotta hit the books before further reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Bombardment of Cherbourg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Prabash.A's talk page.
Message added 13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Prabash.Akmeemana  13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg

The article Bombardment of Cherbourg you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bombardment of Cherbourg for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Architect on Jefferson page

Hi TVH, we are still discussing whether or not to include 'Architect' in the infobox and moreover, whether we should cover this better in the article itself with a subsection, so we need more informed opinions from people who have been involved with the page. -- Gwillhickers 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebooks

I was going over sources for Jefferson and architecture and came across a couple of more E'books in my travels I'd thought you'd might find interesting.

When you get to the GoogleBook page 'hover' (don't click) on the red box that says, 'EBOOK FREE', then select and click on Download PDF and/or Epub. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers 11:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry I don't know what you mean

"thanks for the animated map at ACW" What's ACW? --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant CSA, Confederate States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't received this before...

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Cdtew (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

E'books

Came across these E'books in my travels. Thought you might want to add them to your E'library, but not before checking with your wife. -- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Coles volume you sent me is the citation for the latest at Thomas Jefferson-Louisiana Purchase. ... Its in the computer files somewhere. not the same as scanning a bookshelf. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's a primary source you might find useful:
The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson. Compiled from Family letters and reminiscences by his great granddaughter Sarah N. Randolph
-- Gwillhickers 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the acclaimed three volume biography, written by Henry Stephens Randall in 1858, considered the most authoritative biography written about Jefferson since he was the only biographer permitted to interview Jefferson’s immediate family.
Enjoy, -- Gwillhickers 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

More oldie-goldies

E'books:

USA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent USA 1863
CSA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent CSA 1862
Union celebrated Andrew Jackson the anti-nullifier; Confederacy celebrated the hero repulsing invasion at New Orleans

-- Gwillhickers 06:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. it's like an early christmas. I have a volume of famous American speeches that includes one of Webster's, Reply to Haynes. wow, what a different world of ideas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At Talk:Confederate States of America#Deleting Andrew Jackson celebration on both sides BusterD suggested we team up to create a Stamps of the American Civil War article. Nearby is the image that failed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is already Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States which I rewrote almost entirely some time ago where Confederate stamps and postal history are well covered and displayed. As 'Union' stamps go, many that were printed before the Civil War broke out were used through the civil War itself, while the few that were printed during the Civil War were used for some time after the war, so referring to these as Stamps of the American Civil War is perhaps not the best description. In any case, there is no reason why the Civil War page shouldn't have an example of a couple of stamps issued during that time. -- Gwillhickers 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I also think a compilation as a gallery with text of U.S. commemoratives would be interesting, which is probably what BusterD intended. But here, there is manifest confusion over stamps as commemoratives versus stamps as artifacts of documentary history. Even Rjensen thought there was nothing to the warring governments picturing of the same man because --non-sequitur-- the USPS ran commemoratives of all its presidents in the 1920-30s. I registered no point with him observing Andrew Jackson was not a Confederate president, and that was not the point of the stamps at the time in the time.
I think I still need a source on the divergent significance of Jackson on both sides before the stamps can be accepted. One editor suggested there were other illustrations of Jackson for use without cancellation marks, so stamps as artifacts is clearly not understood by editors on the page. But in addition, I thought the stamps were a two-fer, showing divergent use of the same icon, AND the disparity of technological capacities available on each side. I'm still have half-an eye out for the description I read concerning Andrew Jackson and G. Washington on both sides' stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Confederate army

Thank you for your kind comments about my proposed, but deleted section headed 'Strengths and weaknesses'. Is there such a thing as an executive editor, who makes a final judgment on these issues? Valetude (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes administrators are listed in the Talk page heading. There is an automatic interest group in the listed Wikiprojects or in this case "Task Force" at the for a third party take on the issue ... toggle [show] on the Additional Information line. They should be listed in a Request for Comment (RFC).
When I recently went to the WP:Teahouse for a strategy to avoid controversy, the advice was first use a Request for Comment on the Talk page, see the WP:RfC page.
That is assuming good faith, first try to talk it out by calling attention to the issue, --- way before anybody gets called/blocked for edit warring (three reversions without discussion on the Talk page) or the back-and-forth becomes eligible for the later 'dispute resolution'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

E'books 2

-- Gwillhickers 20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I dream of writing a compilation biography of longest serving Virginia U.S. Representatives/Senators, and William Branch Giles is on my list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to add a (hopefully) small paragraph in the First Barbary War section about Jefferson and his gunboats which later on proved to be a not so great idea. While hunting and searching through sources I found these -- I'm sure they're good for other topics also.
  • Sullivan, William (1834). FAMILIAR LETTERS ON PUBLIC CHARATERS, AND PUBLIC EVENTS FROM THE PEACE OF 1783, TO THE PEACE OF 1815, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf, Boston, 345 pages; E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas; Washington, H.A. (Ed.); (1854). The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Inaugural addresses and messages. Replies to public addresses. Indian addresses. Miscellaneous: 1. Notes on Virginia; 2. Biographical sketches of distinguished men; 3. The batture at New Orleans, Ricker, Thorne & Co., New York, 607 pages, E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas ; Dwight; Theodore Dwight (1839). The character of Thomas Jefferson: as exhibited in his own writings, Weeks, Jordan & Company, 371 pages E'book
-- Gwillhickers 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. rich rich rich. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday : Here's a page that's chuck full of primary sources : Online Books by Thomas Jefferson -- Gwillhickers 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Where do you find these, how do you mine the internet for these resources? For Jefferson, for Daniel Webster? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Further tightening of History section

Hello, I see you are back from your brief hiatus.

I'm thinking we should reign in the rest of the History section further (esp. Independence and expansion, minus Contemporary era) and have it show the "big picture" while leaving out historical details that did not have as big and direct of an impact on how the US is today, and I'm sure you will agree. While you were gone I tried going over some of them, though I still think you have a better eye than I do in terms of removing the right details to leave a concise but informative coverage. Your further proposals at Talk:United States would be welcome. Cadiomals (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

E'book and a most interesting author

See any similarity to Jefferson in Watson? -- Gwillhickers 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Scots-Irish roots I presume. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, heh, Actually I was referring to Watson's political and ideological aspirations. Both Jefferson and he disliked bloated government, despised big banks, championed the poor farmer and embraced an agrarian political ideology. His was the 'People's' Party' whereas Jefferson was referred to as the 'People's President'. Given Watson's two biographies on TJ also there seems to be more than an incidental affinity between the two. i.e.Cut from the same bolt of cloth. Anyway, I've been busy hunting and gathering for sources on Jefferson and have been adding them to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson page. Unfortunately many such sources don't come up in general google searches, so I have to go to other lengths to find them. What fun! -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Your civil war stamps draft

Is there a link to this draft on your user page? Can't seem to find one there or on my talk page where I 'thought' it was. Will have to back track my browser history to find it otherwise. Re:Image format. Use whatever works. I've always used the table format for horizontal display of several images -- easier to edit in terms of singling out which caption belongs to a given image. Again, I would recommend that you be very choosey about including stamps that are peripherally related to Civil War themes -- esp if the page isn't going to take on narrative dimensions. -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox which may translate to User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I did find a use for just about every stamp in the new category on wikimedia commons. Thanks. A couple I've found using names from the Scott's Specialty Catalogue (now in color) -- German immigration at Wikicommons, but others are not found like Irish immigration or Antietam. But I know to snag from Smithsonian when I learn how on the Mac. In the sandbox, I've made note of (placeholder) for stamps or for issues. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


"The War Between The States"?

Really? Have you ever heard anybody but a Southron use it? Even in the South it's got that stale tone of secesh irredentism to it; and in 35 years in Wisconsin, including studies that led to a B.A. in History magna cum laude with a specialty in 19th- and 20th-century U.S. history, I've never heard anybody use it as anything but a joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

- Scholasticism does not impress. From the age of 12 I have been fencing with PhD-LLDs who were professors-emeritus (that's Latin to you), widely and repeatedly published and acknowledged intellectual leaders of scholarly schools such as the Lost Cause and 20th Century social movements, including Virginia's Massive Resistance. Fundamental misunderstanding and scholastic mis-orientation is not compensated nor assuaged by ivory-tower credentials.
- My branch of the family were Unionists in Norfolk, Virginia, so socially, our turn-of-the century unions with Navy and Marine officers turned to New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, the eligible men compatible with the young ladies of my family having died in the late unpleasantness, and the next crop suffering early and often in the War-to-win-all-wars. I fear my personal acquaintance with Nobel prize winners is only in history and chemistry and limited to the Harvard campus, but I've had passing introductions and an occasional lunch with men in other fields introduced by family members at the Cosmos Club in DC (that's the brains one, not the money (alas)). I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to discover that world-class genius and achievement is not necessarily passed on to all succeeding generations with the same certainty that wealth may be. True story.
- I am impressed that you were ever within actual walking distance of the magnificent collection of correspondence related to the Constitution's ratification. No, wait that is Minnesota, where is Garrison Keillor when we need him? Wisconsin was the home of Fighting Bob LaFollette, Progressive, one of my all time heroes, along with Humbert H. Humphrey, Democrat from way up around there, whom I met in a Senate elevator as an intern (not well connected enough to be a page). I did get to hear him making the graduation speech for his daughter's high school in DC. Did your studies take you into the lives of either men, or did your studies take you into the world of social history? Joseph (I never call him Joe) Ellis says the utility of social history to political history is akin to taking a lacrosse stick to Fenway Park. Is that true? My roommate in college played inter-collegiate lacrosse, but I really don't know anything about baseball.
- I guess that is all by way of introduction. To the question, What is your source for the assertion, " 'The War between the states' is only used in historical scholarship as a joke." Do Yankees really say, "put up or shut up" as anything but a joke any more? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey was a Minnesotan (a fine breed of folk, of course). It is impossible to study the history of Wisconsin without dealing with La Follette and his heirs and heritage. I do have the honor of having been a friend and comrade of Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's most recent Socialist mayor, and I have an emeritus professor who remembers Harvard parties when that fellow Lehrer from Mathematics would sing his foolish little ditties. Alas, my own life is that of a humble civil servant.
As to the last query, of course they do. I was merely trying to inquire whether the term is in fact in use other than as a sort of family in-joke, akin to "the late unpleasantness" and all the Sir-Walter-Scott romanticized taradiddle of "Southron this" and "Southron that". I did not mean any discourtesy, nor to disrespect you or your own fields of study; but confess to being rather out of touch with current usages in the Land of Cotton, which I fled in 1977. (I'm literally one generation out of the cotton fields of West Tennessee, and can still hear my momma discoursing on how little fun it is to be dragging one of those bags along behind you as you pick.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. TWBS is meant mostly for the international reader which our data base says comes up with some frequency. It is not meant as a partisan statement in the same way WONA clearly is. With the last paragraph you have achieved scholastic stature in the anonymous internet, in my eyes at least. Anyone who has command of 19th Century Southron literature enough to reference Sir Walter Scott is worthy of serious consideration.
- Part of the national disfunction was that the two sections read disparate literatures, and so framed the world and its events differently. In the North the best seller was 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (about the 1850s moral paragon who laid down his life for his friends NOT the shuffling self-denegrating toady of 1880s black-face minstrel shows - you don't think the name of the character was chosen to a purpose?) -- in the South, Scott's Ivanhoe was the best seller, which, although an improvement as literature to the Scottish pseudo-history that infamously preceded it, was still romanticizing a traditional feudal society which stifled individual potential, development and achievement outside favored lairds and most favored sons.
- This sort of sectional difference in reading is one of the reasons I favor national testing standards from a core of knowledge to be shared nationally in say, literature, making up 50% of the curriculum. I'd like to see a second bloc of state-requirement at 30%, and a third bloc of buffet-family-ethno-cultural requirement at 20%. Include the big minorities, English and English translations only, German, African-American, Irish, Scots, Latin-American, East Asian, South Asian, European, Islamic, Subsaharan ... Can you tell I taught U.S. History and U.S. Government classes in Fairfax, VA? The selection should reflect the cultural diversity of each state, with a % threshold for budget. [so we would see a Portuguese writers unit available in Hawaii and Rhode Island ... not feasible before online-CD resources]
- The problem I have with state-only curriculum, is that in the case of Virginia, to take but one example from one state, the U.S. history standards wer initially written without anyone in the field at any level. All were realtors. So, Bacon's Rebellion and the Populist Era were omitted. Need I go on? Over the last twenty years there have been two revisions, so we got Populists in, but not the Railroad Strike of 1877. I guess getting Debs mentioned in labor along with Gompers, Lewis and Chavez will suffice for now, but I want Philip Randolph added.
- Even as a high school boy thrilling at the romanticism found in required reading - wow, snippets from Shakespeare's Sonnets can work on a date - I was troubled by the illustrations of ivy-covered castle ruins. Ivy roots emit an acid which decomposes mortar. They are a sign of negligence or indolence about working masonry properties. The castles are in ruins because the failed society they symbolize was overrun by the English for good reasons, cultural, social, political. All this is not to misdirect you, I am a great fan of the Scottish Enlightenment, improvability of man as individual and society, though I do not quite imagine perfectibility as one of Eric Hoffer's 'true believers' might aspire to. I mean no discourtesy.
- While I was in graduate school for education-curriculum writing, I had a friend in the history department who had spent successive summers working in fields of tobacco (cigar wrap leaf in Maine!), picking cotton and planting indigo. He said tobacco is easiest except for the harvest hours, cotton is harder because of the never-ending finger cuts that never quite heal, and indigo was the worst because the wet gave his feet a fungus and the bottle? fly bites drew blood all day. I always thought no high school U.S. history course could be complete without a box of bottle flies for students to thrust a hand into for three minutes (extra quiz credit). But alas, I am retired, and there are all kinds of public school restrictions on extra-credit now ... it could be a cross-curriculum project with the biology teachers.
- To "War Between the States", since the phrase is mentioned in the scholarly citations with some frequency ... I will try to dig up that link for you, you can search on any term or phrase over three hundred years and name your year-span ... I thought it important for the international reader to be acquainted with the term since it appears in American scholarship. Otherwise, I'm not much of a 'Moonlight and Magnolias' kind of guy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


United States

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I filed a 3rr report and you may reply here. -TFD (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hypocrite, how dare you

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive_1&oldid=1078068806"