User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 7
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:TheVirginiaHistorian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Revision id and permalink
TheVirginiaHistorian, you asked about permalinks in this edit. You can read about them at Help:Permanent link. Not included at that page (but perhaps it should be) is this user script that you can add to your Common.js that will make it much easier to find and use them. Now, when I go to the Revision history of any page, they are listed with every revision. Finally, you might be interested in the revision-related Magic words. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it does. Thank you very much. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War edits
copyedit suggestions
|
|---|
|
Hi, TheVirginiaHistorian. I just wanted to give you a heads up concerning the copyediting I've been doing over at the American Revolutionary War article. I don't plan on making any more edits to the article (or Wikipedia in general), but since you are a far more active one, I thought I should just let you know about a few issues with the article I've encountered. One, the (far superior) image you created for the infobox has, unfortunately, some unfortunate white lines in between all those images. Is this an issue you can't really fix? Two, the section about the Battle of Jersey has an image which incorrectly labels the black man as a Loyalist, and the alt text showing the city as an American one. I assume it must have been you who added this, but I'm sorry to say that it's actually a British city, and the black man is not a Loyalists but merely a "servant" of the recently deceased British officer (Francis Pierson). Whether or not the man was intended to be a slave or servant, there are in actuality no records of a black servant of Pierson who participated in the battle, let alone killing the French commander, so I'm not sure whether or not the image should mention the black man at all. Perhaps an image from the Black Loyalist page would be more suitable for the purpose. In addition, if you are planning to push the article to a good article status, perhaps it's probably best to reduce the article size, as it may unfortunately be too large for the average viewer. Perhaps the mention of Spain and the Dutch Republic in the lede can be cut? (They weren't really that relevant to Washington's good and ill fortunes in America, and the Continental Army triumphed over the British primarily via other means anyhow). Best regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
|
- NOTE TO SELF: Develop sections in 'Aftermath' for (1) Veterans' lives post-war for those getting freedom; land grant settlement; Order of the Cincinnati; Loyalists; Native American displacement; Hessian return and settlement. (2) military-connected aftermath in Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, border wars between Virginia & Maryland, others 1783-1796. (3) Military-connected world history in French Revolution, Latin American Wars of Independence, Haiti Revolution. (4) Memory of the ARW in the run-up to the American Civil War.
- Find online and download free-use images to Wikimedia as needed for illustrating African Americans. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Misfire on your attempted refactoring at ARW Talk page
TVH, please follow the recommendations in Talk page editing at WP:TPO, and don't edit other users' comments as you did here, except in the circumstances outlined at the guideline.
You avoided two serious TPO problems, namely, changing the actual words of other editors, or interpolating your comments inside other users' comments, so one can't tell who wrote what. So, thanks for that. Less seriously, you did alter indentation and formatting of other users' comments, in a way that changes bulleting and paragraph breaks, that may not be what that user was going for, and may obscure the discussion sequencing; see WP:TALKREPLY.
Assuming my mind-reading antenna are in good order, I *think* I can see what you were going for, in this edit in the discussion at Talk:Revolutionary War (your summary: add comments and apology to all for the procedural 'oops'). A few comments about that:
- I get your desire to avoid having long timestamps on repeated responses to multiple bullets. That's okay, as far as that goes; here's a couple of other approaches, if you want to try them:
Other approaches to unobtrusive (mini-) signatures
|
|---|
|
Some other approaches you can use to create "mini-signatures" so you don't fill up the page with your sigs:
|
- However, you also altered comments by other editors, namely me, and Tenryuu. You probably thought that was promoting consistency, by changing my comment beginning
*: I would just use parens...
- to:
:- I would just use parens...
- assuming (if my mind-reading is working) that that wouldn't matter. And it wouldn't have mattered, if you'd executed it correctly, but in this case, it does matter, because your change dropped one level of indent so that now, my comment appears to be at the same level as Tenryuu's, i.e., not a follow-up, and makes your comment immediately below it appear to be a follow-up to mine, whereas I'm pretty sure you meant it as a response to Tenryuu. And all that, just from changing an asterisk, to a hyphen!
- You also refactored Tenryuu's comments, reorganizing how he indented and bulleted his text, adding a hyphen and a paragraph break, presumably so your comment would have parallel structure, but making it look like Tenryuu was responding to himself.
Wikipedia's Diff program really sucks at showing this sort of thing, so here's a side-by-side comparison so you can actually see what's happening in the before and after versions of your change. This is just an excerpt, highlighting a portion of the changed area:
|
Tip: horizontal scroll right a bit, until both columns are completely in view. Then, vertical scroll the page, to line this comment up with window-top. Vertical scroll each column separately, to line up and compare content.
|
Next time, please don't edit others' comments, even as much as an asterisk. You're welcome to include your own comments in reply to others, please continue to follow WP:TALKREPLY as you have been doing, in order to enable everyone to follow the sequencing, and understand who said what in reply to whom. Sometimes, if other editors are using idiosyncratic methods, or made a mistake in indentation, and you want to line them up, by changing the content of other users' edits by adding/subtracting hyphens or double bullets or fixing typos or whatever it is you want to do to make the discussion clearer and easier to follow, just ask first. Another approach, if it's a bit complex like your edit was, and you have nimble fingers, is to just go ahead and make your change, and then *immediately revert yourself*. Then, ask on the TP whether it's all right with everyone if you refactor the discussion, including some alteration of other users' comments, for the reasons you describe and as shown in the reverted edit of yours, which you can link to on page.
Another thing you can do, is not mix apples and oranges: that longish edit of yours, involved content changes of two completely different types:
- addition of article content-based responses of yours, properly indented and positioned in the discussion below the comments of other users; and:
- changes to comments by other users, refactoring them by adding/subtracting bullets, hyphens, paragraph breaks, and so on.
Next time, do them separately: add your reply comments as you wish, and hit Publish. Then, either stop and ask about refactoring on the TP, or go ahead and make a second edit, refactoring as you imagined, immediately revert it, and then ask on the TP with a link to your proposed version.
Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot:, yes thank you. Thinking my hyphens and spacing would be mere tweeks, I did not intend to be capricious, arbitrary or high-handed. I consider my ears well-boxed to good effect. I shall cease and desist. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- No worries; on the TPO scale, it's a minor one. I know your intent was good; I could tell from the way you did it. I just figured you didn't know such a tiny change could have the effects that it did. Plus, I could see you searching for a way to make small, unobtrusive sigs on short remarks in response to bullet items, and I thought you might like one of those approaches. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot:, yes thank you. Thinking my hyphens and spacing would be mere tweeks, I did not intend to be capricious, arbitrary or high-handed. I consider my ears well-boxed to good effect. I shall cease and desist. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Small signatures
Made a template to make this easier for you, but it needs one test from your side, to make sure it works right. Can you respond to me below (one or two words is enough, or as many as you like) and then, instead of signing it with WP:4TILDES, just paste this code at the end of your reply: {{subst:User:TheVirginiaHistorian/ssig}} instead. It *should* create a small sig for you, of the type you were using at T:ARW, if it's working right. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, can you respond twice, with about five minutes between each response; I need to make sure the time is being subst'd and not just generating the same timestamp. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay.
#1. —TVH 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) - Test #1. —TVH 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Test #2. —TVH 09:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Great, looks like it’s working. Can be modified as desired. You can use it *instead* of WP:4TILDES anywhere a signature is called for, and it will produce a mini-sig for you. Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. - —TVH 10:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Great, looks like it’s working. Can be modified as desired. You can use it *instead* of WP:4TILDES anywhere a signature is called for, and it will produce a mini-sig for you. Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay.
Society of orders, and Annales
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Had an idea of an article (or portion of an article) that you and I could maybe collaborate on, possibly/hopefully with the assistance of Robinvp11, if they are interested.
Somewhere in that clusterflock at T:FR, you talked about the Annales school (new to me, when you mentioned it). Later, I was checking for something completely different regarding feudal society, which is: why don't we have an article about the feudal social organization called "Society of orders", like many other European language Wikipedias do, and I was considering writing one, or maybe just adding a paragraph to Feudalism#Feudal society (with "Society of orders" redirecting to it), and a sentence to Abolition of feudalism in France. The topic is amply covered in English books.
Looking into the whole issue of Society of orders, I discovered in the French article, that they talk about how the conceptualization of "Society of orders" came about in 1960 by French historian Roland Mousnier as a counterpoint to Marxist views and the Annales School; see, e.g., fr:Société d'ordres#Naissance de la notion (in French) and Roland Mousnier#Views (English). I just added a redirect for now, and pointed it at the latter; although that's only a temporary measure, since really the redirect (if there is one) should go to an article on Feudalism, except none of them cover the topic now, so a redirect there wouldn't make sense.
But, that's really just a starting point; seems like we could have a standalone article about "Society of orders", like they do in French, German, Dutch, Catalan, and Norwegian. Anyone interested in collaborating on such an article? (Feel free to add others you think might be interested.) Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot:, this is of some interest, I've got to say. Although in reading through the Braudel trilogy, my greatest excitement came at the moment I discovered the first great economic revolution that later can support an industrial revolution is an agricultural one that feeds expanding population with a surplus who can tend machines, or in the instance, who can become cathedral stone masons.
- That applies in American history at the development of the "American System" of manufactury at the turn of the 19th century. That was not mass-production assembly lines, but "batch production" in standardized steps among village shops with a "master" and a handful of "apprentices". The system not only improved output, it destroyed the need for an apprentice to fashion a "masterpiece" to qualify for a "guild" before supporting marriage and family. So, from Braudel and French feudalism, I learned of the innovation of the 1-meter waterwheel that spread onto every seasonal creek, allowing tenant farmers to irrigate their plots as the foundation of Europe's agricultural recovery from the Black Death. Truly an awakening 'eureka' moment.
- The 1-meter waterwheel is to plot harvest, as the computer is to typed words on a page: KA-BOOM, imho. I'll be watching for developments. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ARW Edits
Hi TheVirginiaHistorian, me again. While I commend your edits on the American Revolutionary War article, I've noticed you swapped a caption I changed (concerning the black soldier fighting alongside redcoats in a street barricade). The painting, as I believe I've mentioned to you previously, depicts British and French troops fighting in Saint-Helier during the Battle of Jersey, and the lone black figure does not depict a soldier (let alone a Black Loyalist) but instead a "servant" of the killed British commander in the battle. There no record of a black servant at the battle at all, although the image of a finely-dressed armed black man has (unsurprisingly) led many authors to include the figure on covers of ARW history books concerning Black Loyalists (which might be where the confusion stemmed from). Perhaps the painting could be moved to a section on fighting in Europe, but as it stands it's probably better to swap it out for an image of a prominent American loyalist (of which there were many) or an American loyalist unit (of which there were a few). I just wanted to give you a head's up before I made the change, as I understand with this behemoth of an article it's difficult to be on top of everything. Regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your courteous reminder. I did not ignore you, I did double-check the Wikicommons Detail description at the painting site. That is the only reason I persisted in the description. I have "no dog in that fight."
- It may be that the enslaved servant was freed by his British master, and he took on the militia uniform while still formally attached to his master's staff "family" as they still say in a general officer's mess -- down to this day (and in-between, like Eisenhower's driver in Britain ...).
- Did you have a replacement in mind? I much prefer the "action" illustrations for a "military" article, over the card-board cut-outs of uniform displays. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi TheVirginiaHistorian. I've swapped it out for an image of the Battle of Kings Mountain, which is one of the few images that I can find on Wikipedia that depicts Loyalist troops in combat. If you wish to swap it for a better one you find, do feel free to do so, however do note that there is a noticeable lack of paintings of Loyalist troops in action, which is probably less surprising than it should be, considering the British pretty much made zero paintings of their military engagements in America proper (paintings of naval battles were in the vogue then, presumably) and American Patriots painted their own troops. As a side note, if there was a black man fighting alongside the British at Jersey, he would have definitely been freed due to the Somersett case leading the British populace to incorrectly assume slavery was abolished in Britain proper and free all their slave-servants (just incase if you wish to do more research in that particular topic). I've swapped the image for the Alonzo Chappel engraving of King's Mountain, but if you plan on expanding the section concerning the fighting in Europe- Raid on Whitehaven, Siege of Gibraltar, and the First and Second Battles of Jersey, I think it would be an excellent addition to add back in. The painting is interesting because of what it represented- it was painted at a time when Britain was despondent after finally realizing that they would lose their American colonies, and so the minor victory over the French was trumped up as a propaganda effort- something that may be worth mentioning in the caption if you do decide to reinstate the article. Regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Freezingwedge, That is an outstanding selection for the replacement image! I took the liberty to trim the caption to three lines, and I found a new (for me) dynamite, in-depth account of Loyalist militia across the entire Revolutionary War (Brit: insurrection among British subjects, a "War of American Independence').
- I next intend to scour that article Loyalists fighting in the American Revolution for items that apply the ARW article. There may be some unfilled holes at ARW that need filling.
- For my percolating 'veterans' section in ARW 'Aftermath', I mean to incorporate settlers in the US republic after the war, including returning German Auxiliaries with their families, and the "soft-Tories" who remained, one of whom was a Virginian merchant supplying the British throughout the Revolution (Am: constitutional revolution from monarchy to republic, a "Revolutionary War"), who later was elected a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention for the US Constitution (as memory serves). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi TheVirginiaHistorian. I've swapped it out for an image of the Battle of Kings Mountain, which is one of the few images that I can find on Wikipedia that depicts Loyalist troops in combat. If you wish to swap it for a better one you find, do feel free to do so, however do note that there is a noticeable lack of paintings of Loyalist troops in action, which is probably less surprising than it should be, considering the British pretty much made zero paintings of their military engagements in America proper (paintings of naval battles were in the vogue then, presumably) and American Patriots painted their own troops. As a side note, if there was a black man fighting alongside the British at Jersey, he would have definitely been freed due to the Somersett case leading the British populace to incorrectly assume slavery was abolished in Britain proper and free all their slave-servants (just incase if you wish to do more research in that particular topic). I've swapped the image for the Alonzo Chappel engraving of King's Mountain, but if you plan on expanding the section concerning the fighting in Europe- Raid on Whitehaven, Siege of Gibraltar, and the First and Second Battles of Jersey, I think it would be an excellent addition to add back in. The painting is interesting because of what it represented- it was painted at a time when Britain was despondent after finally realizing that they would lose their American colonies, and so the minor victory over the French was trumped up as a propaganda effort- something that may be worth mentioning in the caption if you do decide to reinstate the article. Regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Congressional Act start-articles
Copied from editor's page: I didn't know about the various Congressional acts you mention governing apportionment. I looked up the 1842 Apportionment Act and found that there's no Wikipedia article on it. The same goes for 1872 Apportionment Act. Maybe those would be good articles to write. -User:Thucydides411
- Agree, even as a stub. I've copy-pasted your reply on my Talk, so I don't forget going forward. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Image joining
Hello, me again. I'm planning to make some new images for both the ARW article and other war articles which are made up of several articles. I see you have made the current one for the ARW, so I'm assuming you know how to do this process. If it's possible, would you mind telling me how to do this? On a side-note, I am planning on making a new combined-image for the infobox- I think that the new one should have three images as well, and they should be: Battle of the Virginia Capes- Siege of Yorktown (raising the American flag on the redoubt, and one you already chosen)- Washington crossing the Delaware. Regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I want to bring up something that you've been elating on on the ARW talk page. While I wouldn't claim to know any more than the average Joe, I'm fairly certain Washington didn't emancipate any of his slaves even after his death save one- William "Billy" Lee. The remaining 124 slaves on Mount Vernon were to be freed upon the death of his wife as stipulated in his will, although if my memory serves me correctly they were emancipated before her death. Perhaps I am being misled here (I may be confusing him with someone else in regards to their policies on their slaves) so I would just like to raise that point with you to clear it up. Freezingwedge (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- First, I partnered with editors I found at the Image Lab, they are very supportive and helpful there. That's not the full name, it will take a bit to nail down the precise link for you. By good fortune, I found the same editor who did the previous collage at ARW.
- Second, the carefully worded statement for Washington would be, that he provided for both manumission of the enslaved in his estate, and having made enslaved men his farm managers, abandoned tobacco-selling to London for wheat and corn crops sold to Bermuda and Bahamas, and designated producing farm acreage to give to his freedmen the ability to independently maintain their families.
- - The catch was that George deferred to Martha to determine the timing, as 60-80% of the slaves ever working on property owned by George Washington were from widow Martha's dowry, amassed from her birth family and her first wealthy husband. No one supposes George was a "women's libber", I should say, but isn't that curious? In the event, several contemporaneous sources note that Martha was fearful of being poisoned by her "servants", as their neighbor just upriver on the Potomac had been by a nephew. So she precipitously freed the field hands and their families ...
- - Washington did support the assumption that black men were capable of self government in an elective republic, so he variously encouraged efforts by private associations, the state of Virginia, and the national government to fund and sponsor an American-backed settlement of African-Americans to establish an independent nation in West Africa, and that later became Liberia. No one says Washington was the intellectual precursor to Mr. "Back to Africa" Marcus Garvey, I should say.
- - "New History" American scholars generally represent that impulse as basely-motivated racist expulsion of native-born black Americans with the Constitutional right to full participation in a 20th-21st century democracy, as of 1800. If some few Quakers published the modern view, then all Quakers then should have adopted the point of view, as well as other dissenters such as Methodists and Baptists. Wait --- at the time Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists, all had some congregations with integrated church services and both black slave and free black spiritual leaders in church offices ... What happened with the supposed March of History? "Domestic terrorism", much? It must be complicated, whatever actually did happen. But I digress ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the direction, I'll head over there (and hope they can direct me in the dark art of modern technology). I noticed you didn't comment on my choice of photos, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) which are here, here and here. Hopefully it doesn't cause offence that I'm choosing a new trio of photos over your original one, although I must "forcefully advocate" that they are of a higher technical quality, more well known and makes it easier for the reader to understand the most important moments of the war. As to you informing me on the true nature of Washington and emancipation, I humbly extend my thanks. This being said, I'll make the suggestion that I don't think the ARW article should include anything on George Washington and slavery (which is already a featured article). Washington was a typical Virginia planter, and the only reason why there has been so much effort dedicated to his views on slavery and minorities such as African-Americans and Indians is solely due to his status as the well-known "father of America". Washington's views on those two subjects were very typical, and although nowadays we tend to be more of the egalitarian type, it's prudent to remember that views such as those he held weren't uncommon and it's bad historiography to cast him as a "racist" (particularly when he, along with other colonization supporters, correctly observed that black people would face difficulties integrating in America). Trying to apply a modern sense of morality to the past is unconstructive, and this extends to the larger topic of slavery in the ARW as well. The war had nothing to do with slavery for the most part and was not a war to end or extend it, and as such apart from the already-sufficient four paragraphs on it the only mention of slavery should be about the 3/5ths compromise (as it showed an increasing divergence between south-north that would lead up to the Civil War). Writing in the article that "slavery did not end after the war" is a bad example of casting 21st century views onto an 18th century socio-economic situation. In fact, I'd probably recommend cutting the "most Americans found slavery incompatible with liberty" sentence from the final section. Most Americans immediate thoughts had little to do with slavery but more with how they were going to govern themselves, which is where the shays and whiskey rebellions came in. Slavery was an issue, to be sure, but only when it emerged as a point of contention. I think the part about slavery post-war could probably go into a north-south divide paragraph showing how northern states abolished slavery and the slave trade (while southern states also abolished the slave trade for the most part, things which should go and stay in the article, if for nothing else to allow for an example of the lofty ideals of the declaration of independence in action). The vast majority of southerners were not even slaveowners either, and were concerned with founding new settlements and monitoring with relations with Indians. Like most southerners (Washington included), they were hardly in a position to challenge this part of the social fabric of the South. In fact, the Barbary wars were from the point of view of the still-living founding fathers- a far more significant development in American history (regarding it's foreign policy) than the abolition of slavery. Not to deny the efforts made by black people to assimilate and gain their freedom as American citizens, but those don't really belong in a war between political thinkers and an insane German. Forgive me, I tend to ramble sometimes. Regards, Freezingwedge (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Freezingwedge:, on the proposed image collage, manage, group:
- (a) raising the American flag on Yorktown Redoubt No. 19-detail. Thanks.
- (b) Washington crossing the Delaware – a good candidate, not my preferred – Delaware shows Washington as an innovative, daring commander who recognized and deployed unique assets that the British did not have: regiments with New England winter fisherman.
- - I prefer the existing Monmouth featuring Washington’s personal leadership under fire saving a ‘disaster’ in the making. But more than that, the inspired officers and men who rallied around Washington were capable of making an effective counter-attack regimental formation out of men from disparate units from multiple states, because this was after Valley Forge, and every man “knew the drill”: same step length and pace per minute to maintain lineal formation – same rate of fire in three-ranked volleys, same bayonet training to receive attacks and to counter attack with the bayonet in an organized regimental formation (though they may have been 300 per ad-hoc behind-the-lines units, not parade-ground regiments 500 or 800 same-state rank and file).
- (c) Battle of the Virginia Capes – a good candidate, I’m leaning towards it to replace John Paul Jones – it allows for recognition of the important French seaborne assistance to the American Cause: (i) convoying French and other flagged merchantmen to Dutch Sint Eustatius in the Caribbean and to New London, CT, (ii) transporting French professional troops to America who paid local vendors in gold and silver for their provisions and services, (iii) redeploying French and American troops along the Atlantic seaboard to meet changing strategic requirements both inside theaters, and across them, (iv) joint amphibious operations for raid in both northern and southern theaters, (v) the unique French success in naval engagement with British men-of-war at the Battle of the Capes – although the strategic victory was won when de Grasse lured the British line-of-battle out to sea, allowing the French transports to slip troops, supplies, and siege guns to the Yorktown landing for Washington’s assault on Cornwallis’ engineered fortifications just north of the port-town.
- Otherwise, we seem to be on the same page, lots to parse through, I may have a couple tweeks that diverge from your initial layout above. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Freezingwedge: please use existing multi-image Templates, instead of the Graphics lab. Templates are something anyone can edit; use of fixed collages are harder to change. Only if existing templates are unable to create the collage you are looking at, should you try the harder route. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot and Freezingwedge: Good to know. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Freezingwedge: please use existing multi-image Templates, instead of the Graphics lab. Templates are something anyone can edit; use of fixed collages are harder to change. Only if existing templates are unable to create the collage you are looking at, should you try the harder route. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Confederate gov. article created on West Virginia
Hi, I finally uploaded the article a few months ago. There has been objection to it, though it is over the name of the article rather than substance. Here is the article Confederate government of West Virginia. Thanks, Dubyavee (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
About Machiavelli
Hi, I commented on the "American Civil War" page, about "civil war" vs. "war of secession". Then I looked at your profile and I found this: "For philosophers, I rely on Machiavelli in the 17th Century...". Not in the 15th-16th Century? "The Prince" was published in 1513. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Virginia and Virgineola
Hallo. Just spotted what you had written on my own talk page. Thank you, actually. I would leave Virgineola redirecting to Bermuda. The same is true for the Somers Isles.
I had not yet noticed user Patrickneil's removal of my reference to the name.
The most reliable published source on this period of Bermudian/Virginian history is Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of The Bermudas or Somers Islands, Volumes I and II, by Lieutenant-General Sir John Henry Lefroy, Royal Artillery, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Bermuda 1871–1877. (First Edition, London, 1877, but my copy is The Bermuda Memorials Edition, 1981. The Bermuda Historical Society and The Bermuda National Trust). This is an exhaustive collection of early records, with analysis. In reference to the name Virgineola (or Virginiola), see Volume I, Chapter II ("BERMUDA UNDER THE VIRGINIA COMPANY-GOVERNOR R. MOORE; AD 1612-1615"), Page 57 (the second page of the chapter) for this domestic correspondence written by John Chamberlaine to The Right Honorable Sir Dudley Carlton, Knight, His Maties (sic...obviously meant to be Majesty's) Ambassador at Venice (Lefroy referenced this "Jac. I. vol. lxviii"), dated 12 February, 1612:
2. 'There is a lotterie in hand for the furthering of the Virginia viage, and an vnder companie erecting for the trade of the Bermudas, wch have changed theyre name twise within this moneth, beeing first christned Virginiola as a member of that plantation, but now lastly resoued to be called Sommer Islands, as well in respect of the continuall temperat ayre, as in remembrance of Sr George Sommers that died there.
This is also quoted in the introduction (Page vii) of BERMUDA under the SOMMER ISLANDS COMPANY 1612–1684; CIVIL RECORDS; Volume I; 1612–1669. EDITED AND COMPILED BY A. C. HOLLIS HALLETT, OBE, PhD. A joint publication of JUNIPERHILL PRESS & BERMUDA MARITIME MUSEUM PRESS. © 2005 Board of Trustees, Bermuda Maritime Museum Association, The Keep, The Royal Naval Dockyard, Ireland Island North, Sandys Parish, Bermuda. Production by Paul Shapiro, Brimstone Media Ltd. Volume I, ISBN 0-921992-14-9; Volume II, ISBN 0-921992-16-5; Volume III, ISBN 0-921992-18-1; The Set, Volumes I, II, & III ISBN 0-921992-20-3:
The contemporary letter-writer and social commentator, John Chamberlain, wrote that the Islands were ‘first christened Virginiola as a member of [the Virginia] plantation, but now lately resolved to be called Sommer Islands, as well in respect of the continual temperate air, as in remembrance of Sir George Sommers that died there’.
English tobacco was really established first at Bermuda as an export crop. John Rolfe reportedly carried seeds with him that he intended to sow in Virginia, and first cultivated from them in Bermuda. After the Three Kings (Carter, Chard, and Waters) left behind from the Sea Venture crew after the departure of the Deliverance and Patience, and the Patience again, in 1610 were joined by intentional settlers in 1612, tobacco was cultivated and became very successful. Bermuda had this trade of English tobacco largely to itself until the 1620s, when Virginia's exports began to outstrip it and newer colonies also adopted cultivation of tobacco as a quick path to profitability. This led Bermudians to abandon tobacco as unprofitable, starting a long conflict with the Company of the City of London for the Plantacion of The Somers Isles, and they switched to subsistence crops. They produced excess livestock and food crops and found they could sell these in colonies that were growing tobacco to the exclusion of subsistence crops, but this required them to build their own ships as the company's magazine ship would hardly assist with that trade. The company long attempted to strangle the nascent maritime economy in order to compel tobacco cultivation, leading to the Bermudians taking their complaint to the Crown (Bermudians having previously taken the side of the Crown in the Civil War was an extension of their existing struggle against the company, as most of the moneyed men who controlled the company favoured the Parliamentary cause) and to the company losing its royal charter in 1684, after which Bermudians abandoned the agricultural industry completely and focused on ship building and maritime activities.
A more recently published book that is invaluable on this subject, and which you may find more easily, is:
In the Eye of All Trade: Bermuda, Bermudians, and the Maritime Atlantic World, 1680-1783. By Michael J. Jarvis. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-7284-0. June 2012
George Washington, of course, famously (in Bermuda, in any case...see George James Bruere) addressed a letter to the people of Bermuda:
To THE INHABITANTS OF THE ISLAND OF BERMUDA
Camp at Cambridge 3 Miles from Boston, September 6, 1775.
Gentn: (In the great Conflict, which agitates this Continent, I cannot doubt but the Assertors of Freedom and the Rights of the Constitution, are possessed of your most favorable Regards and Wishes for Success. As Descendents of Freemen and Heirs with us of the same Glorious Inheritance, we flatter ourselves that tho' divided by our Situation, we are firmly united in Sentiment; the Cause of Virtue and Liberty is Confined to no Continent or Climate, it comprehends within its capacious Limits, the Wise and good, however dispersed and separated in Space or distance.) You need not be informed, that Violence and Rapacity of a tyrannick Ministry, have forced the Citizens of America, your Brother Colonists, into Arms; We equally detest and lament the Prevalence of those Councils, which have led to the Effusion of so much human Blood and left us no Alternative but a Civil War or a base Submission. The wise disposer of all Events has hitherto smiled upon our virtuous Efforts; Those Mercenary Troops, a few of whom lately boasted of Subjugating this vast Continent, have been check'd in their earliest Ravages and are now actually encircled in a small Space; their Arms disgraced, and Suffering all the Calamities of a Siege. The Virtue, Spirit, and Union of the Provinces leave them nothing to fear, but the Want of Ammunition, The applications of our Enemies to foreign States and their Vigilance upon our Coasts, are the only Efforts they have made against us with Success. Under those Circumstances, and with these Sentiments we have turned our Eyes to you Gentlemen for Relief, We are informed there is a very large Magazine in your Island under a very feeble Guard; We would not wish to in volve you in an Opposition, in which from your Situation, we should be unable to support you: -- We knew not therefore to what Extent to sollicit your Assistance in availing ourselves of this Supply; -- but if your Favor and Friendship to North America and its Liberties have not been misrepresented, I persuade myself you may, consistent with your own Safety, pro mote and further this Scheme, so as to give it the fairest prospect of Success. Be assured, that in this Case, the whole Power and Execution of my Influence will be made with the Honble. Continental Congress, that your Island may not only be Supplied with Provisions, but experience every other Mark of Affection and Friendship, which grateful Citizens of a free Country can bestow on its Brethren and Benefactors. I am &c.
Regards, Aodhdubh (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment
Who was the Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment? TFD (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about the terminology. Did you search on 'Seventy-first Highlanders', or 'Scots' or just '75th'? Conway did not spend much ink on small unit histories. I took no notice of any appendices at the back of the book.
- Conway's point was that George III determined government war policy in this small-bore, but crucial way: recruitment to fight the American war would first serve the George III interest in patronage -- so the King cut off sea-first Cabinet members, and then successfully shelved land-first Cabinet members intent on winning the American war quickly for three years.
- The chapter take-away related to not only (a) George III 1775 isolated Bennington/Sandwich for crossing the King's view and promoting a sea-first American war strategy, but also (b) George III 1775-end-of-1778 held off the North-Germain proposal for the land-first American war policy to raise new regiments officered by new ambitious men.
- The King's policy carried the administration for the first three years of ARW shooting war with Americans. It underwrote the pay for existing patronage place-holders who were indifferent to contractor peace-time corruption. Without a full complement of men in their regiments, the second-son-officers from House of Lords families would have been placed on half-pay, which would have had reflected badly on George III and his influence in Parliament. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
For your archives
Was looking into information about George Merchant and came across some Washington correspondence that mentioned Merchant, a patriot and POW who smuggled copies of the Hessian treaties back to the colonies. While I was at it I also down-loaded all 12 volumes. Thought you might appreciate them. Enjoy.
The Diplomatic correspondence of the American Revolution, by Jared Sparks
|
|---|
|
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The Revolutionary diplomatic correspondence of the United States, by Francis Wharton
|
|---|
The six-volume set entitled The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, from House Miscellaneous Document No. 603 of the U.S. Serial Set, was compiled by Dr. Francis Wharton and promulgated on August 13, 1888, by both houses of Congress. The preface to volume 1 explains the usefulness of these documents for comprehending:
|
To my surprise, both these sets of books are filled, far more than I had expected, with many accounts about the arrangements made to procure Hessians. For example, Adams, while in France, 1780, writes to the president of the Continental Congress, then Samuel Huntington, that drafting of men and boys for troops to serve in the mercenary army was so intense that it caused an insurrection in Hesse-Cassell.[1] The table of contents to both sets of works are very definitive and easy to navigate.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I regret I am not keeping current here on Wikipedia every 4-hours like I used to. I've got another 'iron in the fire' that needs tending to in 4-6 hour increments --- but I am checking in at least once a day. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Every four hours? You must be one of those vigilant editors. I continue to dig into these pdf files, searchable, and am astonished as to the insights they offer. Like Jefferson, Adams was avid in his correspondence with his contemporaries. You would fare well to download all of these files. Extending thanks for your help in bringing back the ARW article to neutral grounds. In the humble words of Washington and Jefferson, hailing from California, "your humble and obedient servant", Merry Christmas, Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I regret I am not keeping current here on Wikipedia every 4-hours like I used to. I've got another 'iron in the fire' that needs tending to in 4-6 hour increments --- but I am checking in at least once a day. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.
- Delightful! Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to Let You Know
The James Wilson link on your user page goes to a disambiguation page, and not the article on him.AfricanChristmas (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I meant to feature Judge Wilson as an important figure in Convention, as everything was never all about the Virginians alone, ever . . . unlike the misrepresentations in the 8th grade history . . . also, on a more mature reflection and thinking about the American federal democratic republic in some historical perspective, the 21st century citizen sorta has to lean into Madison for the "republican" piece and into Wilson for the "democratic" piece of the ongoing experiment, "as amended" as they say on the US House floor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2021
- News and notes: Maher stepping down
- Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
- In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house
- News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia
- Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day
- Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?
- Gallery: What is Black history and culture?
The Signpost: 28 March 2021
- News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan
- News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond
- Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise
- From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes
- Obituary: Yoninah
- From the editor: What else can we say?
- Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees
- Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
Precious anniversary
| Five years! |
|---|
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello TVH. — Recently I've been working on the Risjord biography and have submitted it to DYK. Risjord is one of the few historians who specializes on the emergence of the US Party system after the American Revolution, and into the War of 1812. I feel this is enough of a basis to establish notability in the academic world, but Risjord's notability is being questioned by a DYK reviewer. You can see a list of his works in the article. In my travels today I came upon the two sources, listed below, I thought you might find interesting.
- Risjord, Norman K. (November 1967). "The Virginia Federalists". The Journal of Southern History. 33 (4). Southern Historical Association: 486–517. JSTOR 10.2307/2204473.
- Risjord, Norman K.; Denboer, Gordon (March 1974). "The Evolution of Political Parties in Virginia, 1782-1800". The Journal of American History. 60 (4). Oxford University Press: 961–984. JSTOR 10.2307/1901009.
Enjoy, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2021
- News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
- In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
- Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release
- Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
- Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way
- News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview
- Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
- Obituary: SarahSV
Disambiguation link notification for June 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norman K. Risjord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradford Perkins.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest on the Risjord review
A request was just made by me to Piotrus, the original reviewer, on the nomination page, to resume the review using notability guidelines for academics -- Just to let you know asap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2021
- News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories
- Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong
- In the media: Larry is at it again
- Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates
- Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki
- News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department
- Humour: A little verse
Phi Beta Kappa
Hi TVH. While editing the Risjord page, I added a link where the article mentions Phi Beta Kappa and wondered if you had belonged to this society (or fraternity?) while attending the College of William and Mary. Am trying to locate sources that may offer more insights into Risjord's membership and involvement, realizing that finding a source that covers this specific topic will be something of a long shot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- This angle is of interest and worth pursuing for the article. Unfortunately for any prospective membership in Phi Beta Kappa at W&M, I attended there in the late '60s at a time when it was very competitive for women. Without a quota for men at the time, enrollment by SAT score rank alone would have made the campus approach 98% coed (female). Males had an 50% iron-clad protected quota back then.
- - Additionally, I had NO interest in GPA whatsoever. For instance in my junior year, I took my first and only psychology course, one at the 400 level in Social Psychology and all my classmates were Psychology majors and Sociology majors. I awarded myself a 'B', and after the course the professor gently took me aside to explain that I had 'A' exams and the best paper in the class, but in the Psych department, students awarded themselves a grade, not the professors.
- - In my senior year, I took two courses jointly offered by the Law School and the History Department taught by tenured law professors. All of my classmates were either in law school or doctoral candidates. I earned a 'B' in one, and a 'C' in the other. Most of my contemporary History majors at W&M in their senior year racked up senior-class 'A's in all their course undertakings, sharpening their swords for graduate school in courses related to their chosen academic specialty with their favorite professors, with the aim of a profession in academia to avoid the Vietnam draft, good at least through their graduate school enrollment.
- - I still try to learn enough to understand things to my satisfaction, rather than 'win' something or other external. Part of the delight of a Virginian career in public education is that to re-certify every three years, the requirements can be met with two graduate-level history courses in that time. Thus I have acquired more than any school requirement for a doctorate in graduate history hours piecemeal, but all related to Virginia political, social, and economic history from 1500-1990 among William and Mary, James Madison University, Old Dominion University, and George Mason University.
- - Aside, I did take a Northern Virginia Community College course on the US to 1877 in my decade of construction career grabbing for the 'brass ring' - just out of intellectual curiosity - to stay up to date in the late 1980s to keep up to date on recent literature that included sources from black studies and women's studies. Towards the end of the construction stint, when I found over a dozen construction management and engineer co-workers showing up in my office at 7:00AM before the office work day started to get a 3-times a week briefings during the Gulf War. I visited the "K" Street NW bookstore with the unsurpassed map section, and got a Michelin road map of Saudi Arabia. It showed the heliports built along the Saudi-Kuwaiti and Saudi-Iraqi border that would be the logistics route for the eventual allied tank column envelopment of the Iraqi defenses for their Kuwaiti occupation. I knew then, I had to get back into teaching in the classroom. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2021
- News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban
- In the media: Vive la différence!
- Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year
- Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs
- News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia
- Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview
- Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan
- Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia
Draft article
Aye TVH. — For the last week or so I have been working on a draft article in my sandbox, soon to be moved into the WP Main space, which will be entitled, Early American publishers and printers, with a focus on how colonial printers and publishers were fundamental in promoting the ideals of Freedom of the Press, Speech and Religion, which ultimately led to the Revolution. Before the Revolution, well over a thousand colonial printers and publishers were prosecuted, and often imprisoned, for libel and sedition, as exemplified by the landmark case of John Peter Zenger. Newspapers like The Virginia Gazette and The Providence Gazette were instrumental in this effort. Points of interest include statements like, "In 1637 King Charles passed a Star Chamber decree that outlined thirty-three regulations which provided a scheme for the complete control for censoring any religious, political or other literature they deemed questionable or seditious"
, which also pertained to the colonists, esp the Puritans who routinely published these ideas in newspapers and pamphlets. Before I launch the article I'd like to get some 'educated' feed back. If you have the time, any ideas, corrections and other sources you can offer on the draft Talk Page would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well on your end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2021
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2021
- From the editor: Different stories, same place
- News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded
- Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process
- Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention
- Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia
- Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game
- Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more
- Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp
- Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality
- WikiProject report: Redirection
- Humour: A very Wiki crossword
Hello TheVirginiaHistorian,
It looks like you archived content to a wrongly titled page. There already is an existing Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 23 so I wanted to check with you to see if you could reconcile the two pages before I delete the wrongly titled page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- And if you could fix Talk:American Revolutionary War page/Archive Review 24 – 31 Aug 2020, too, that would be great. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)