User talk:Ebanony

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Durova 362 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, thank you for the messages, and the reminder. I'm still learning to use the system, but I will try to add that tilder always. I realise now that I made a couple of errors with the htmlEbanony (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oney Judge
Great work on this article. Thanks for keeping this together! bd2412 T 20:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on War of 1812. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the talk page and the notes I wrote on the reverted edits, you will see that I specifically asked these two individuals to address their concrens on the talk page, that I myself already had engaged in this very topic on the talk page & neither - as of this writing - has added anything to it on this topic. That entire article on that war is one of the most biased I've seen, and that's not just my pov. Ebanony (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm
Before you go off again, there was an IP address from about 18 months ago that wrote under the name Bully Defender backing Death and yes I am highly suspicious about it, it has nothing to do with you whatsoever that I am aware of. It is in the archives if you wish to look it up. If we are going to have words let it be for things we intend not mistakes. If you have questions about why the admin took the action he did you might contact him and ask, I did not request any admin to take action. Perhaps one of the other editors did, I don't know. There are logs that are generated when there are edit wars taking place that look like revert wars and there is a 3 rr rule you should read, you came pretty close to a block. The reason I put that warning in my revert was so that you didn't get blocked, in other words I was attempting to help you a bit. Let you and I both keep the comments to the fact that you and I disagree on the facts, while I may think some of your positions on the article are a bit out there, that in no way implies that I think that you are out there or nuts or anything like that. As for the reverts I believe that was firmly in the primary source/OR category and that isn't a talk page kind of thing. Though I did tell you that I believed it would be OR or so close to it as to not make a difference. That is the only reason I reverted it. My positions are just that, mine, I don't hate you or dislike you because you have a different opinion. As I have stated before it isn't personal.Tirronan (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't really know anything about the old problem you guys had with IP or sockpuppet, and I don't want to get involved with it. I thought it was a referenece to me, but it isn't. Now because of ignorance on that topic I was going to respond, began writing, accidently saved part of the response on the talk page and then deleted it - that's why I deleted it: I'm not getting involved in that row. Now I was also going to talk a little about the POV's, your not refuting what I wrote, but I had already written about that a while back. Hence I deleted it to avoid needless arguing.

Now I was wrong with the 3RR's because I wasn't aware of the rule. You say you warned me in a friendly way, ok. But it didn't seem like it to me at the time, but fine. Seperate from this is that some people would consider the pov I asked to be included to be 'out there', but 1) I never said here I supported it 2) I never said it was without documentary evidence 3) it's not really that far fetched, despite what some would have us believe. That's not my POV. I gave the writers, and they are respected people who did good work. I made my point, posted some of their arguments, and no one wanted it. I didn't push it further. I agreed to leave it and deleted it.

Now I did revert the edits. Why? The guy calls it 'apologia', and then hinself uses a disputed number of 2.500 men at Detroit. I do not base what I'm saying solely on Hull's writings. Yet, I'd have been happy to discuss the change in the talk page; I wrote that in the edit screen several times, and he just continued reverting it. I get a warning and not he. That involves you insofar as you then reverted it & said other editors agree with you. FIne. This is why I avoided making edits to the page itself because I wanted to avoid reverts, and I asked others to discuss possible changes. Now this guy wants to make a change.

Fine. But nobody has addressed the points I raised on the numbers I say are disputed. What can I do? I'm not defending Hull, but he wasn't as incompetent as you and others say, and there's evidence on it.

I didn't claim it was a personal issue of who hates whom or who dislikes whom is not what I said. Rather after discussing my proposed changes, I said the article seemed unfair & was ideological lacking neutrality - and it is. That's very different from 'he doesn't like me'. Now I did later on think it was a personal attack with the 3RR's and the sockpuppet references & bots. You say that's not the case, and I left it alone yesterday. I always agreed to disagree on the facts & discuss proposed changes. Gallon didn't discuss anything. No one else did. I almost got blocked. I'm not looking to get blocked, so that is why I deleted my comment (you can tell it wasn't even completed when it posted) to avoid any further problems with you blokes. I don't feel I can make any contributions to that page, so I left it alone and don't plan on returning.Ebanony (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They would have blocked you had you reverted one more time that was why I put in check your page when I revered. You don't get many letters in the edit comment box so I might have been terse.  I don't want to see anyone blocked for caring for crying out loud!  I like the fact that you are passionate about this history. I'm guessing they were looking at the logs, as for what you wrote then deleted, just forget it, I get hot headed once and awhile as well.


 * As far as the historiography is concerned, it is pretty much middle of the road. I've been watching and editing this article for years when I got involved it was like a battlefield with American's and Canadian's acting like we still had a war going on.  So as much as possible we stuck to the middle of the road.  There are enough histories written about this conflict to choke a horse, and up to about 1950 they were pretty bad.  National pride had much more to do with it than scholarship.  Many myths surround this war some of them outright lies and others salves to National egos.  Separating decent well researched books from crap is one of the issues here.  Perhaps my 1 issue here is that the Indian sections need to be rewritten to a more neutral POV, but I have reclused myself, as I am 1/4 Cherokee and Andrew Jackson is a distant relative of mine.


 * Primary sourced material, there is a lot of it out there and the US National archive can supply enough to write a book without a sweat. That is great but we can't use it.  It's fine if you write a book and then you can refer to the book but you can not use it in these articles.  Its called original research and it isn't allowed.  I have some of Andrew Jackson's letters and I can't use them, I have personal family letters from the trail of tears, I can't use those either.  When you used Hull's defense it was a primary source and it went straight into that category, regardless if it was right/wrong or indifferent.


 * As for my opinion of Hull, Dearfield, and others of that ilk, they were American Revolutionary War Generals that were out of shape, too old for the demands of the field, both of them to their credit warned Congress that they didn't think they were up to the job anymore. That being said, putting troops in the field requires careful planning, how will your troops march, what will they encounter, how do you feed them, treat the sick, care for the wounded, train them carefully and completely, and what is your plan for accomplishing your mission?  There is a reason that military professionals talk about logistics and amateurs talk about tactics.  Napoleon (perhaps the greatest General of the 19th century) lost 30,000 troops in 3 days to lack of food and water.  The American Army's pitiful performance during the 1st 2 years can be laid on the doorstep of bad leadership, training, and logistics.  The US had a military engineering school, and an artillery school, both services worked very well.  It didnt' have one for Infantry and staff training and brother it did show.  So we have a has been revolutionary general leading a half starved untrained force that (surprise!) performed like rank amateurs.  I know Hull wasn't given much support that went on throughout most of the campain but compare Gen. Scott's performance against either of them and you find that he managed to train and support his troops that fought ferociously so long as they were led.


 * The America of 1812 was a very small very young country that was at war with Great Britain not Canada, getting to your last point on causes, in the end what actually caused the war? Friction, there at the time was a good deal of fear about what the US might become in the future.  The British Empire had a history of using its military power to promote her commerce over rival nations.  Check out the English/Dutch wars.  England needed American goods but highly resented its growing merchant marine, its growing economic power, and tried to stop its expansion on the North American Continent.  Britain wouldn't recognize the Louisiana Purchase had forts beyond the Canadian colonies in areas that belonged to the US and armed Indians against the Americans as part of National policy.  Simply put, the British Empire wanted the US to pretty much stop at the 13 colonies and did what she could to do that.  It wasn't enough by a long shot, she had a major war going on but it was enough to start a war She didn't want or need.


 * Put yourself at the head of the American state at the time, how desperate to you have to be to start a war you know you can't win?


 * Anyway there is the background to my thoughts and positions on the war of 1812 agree or not that is what is behind it, btw is Zimm's a peoples perspetive the book you were quoting or does he have a new one out?Tirronan (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hull and War of 1812
With regard to the recent disagreements on your insertion of a defence of William Hull into the War of 1812, you asked that I should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. As I considered that your inclusion was a very clear breach of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, that of No original research, I did not feel that there was any need to do so.

The policy states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." William Hull's defence, published many years after the war, is clearly a primary source, and by its nature, one that will be partisan. (Whether any of its assertions are correct will be immaterial, unless supported by a secondary source.)

Your justification of your second reversion, "... 2) it's not apologia or undue emphasis on a source; ..." struck me as mere naysaying, rather than reasoned argument.

Your third point, that my numbers involved at Detroit were incorrect, may well have been right, although as a minor point I was merely using the numbers from the version to which I was reverting. However, this brings up my point of undue weight. In a section labelled "Overview", a detailed rehashing of numbers, sources, subsequent events (Hull's court-martial etc), is inappropriate. It is enough merely to note that Hull surrendered Detroit. (The numbers involved may be deleted if there is any question about them.) Wider discussion belongs in the section on War of 1812.

I have many times had my own edits reverted or disputed. My actions on these occasions have been to provide citations from reliable sources to back up my claims, modify my edits where matters are in doubt, or give up. I have simply reverted only in clear cases of vandalism or personal vendettas.

May I say that your edits to the article on William Hull, where Hull's own accounts are more appropriate provided care is taken to indicate the source, and also the Siege of Detroit, were far better than those you made to the War of 1812 article, lacking pontifical judgements and anachronistic language. HLGallon (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery
I have reverted your last edit, because you blanked all the content, and I'm not convinced (at the moment) that this is necessary. If you check the talk page, I have identified several examples of plagiarism which should be rewritten as a matter of urgently, also, in several cases I have identified where the other editor (who really ought to know better) should be using and sourcing a straight quote, but you cannot list the timelines etc as copyvios, nor the statements of fact, unless there is something particularly unique or identifiable about the wording. Phrases such as "first US Secretary of State", "neoclassical mansion" and "50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence" are not really possible to restate simply.

If you wish, you can retag anything that you still think problematic but be careful to tag only the bad sections. You can also list at Copyright_problems if you think the user is contravening copyright generally. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A cup of tea


Sadads (talk) has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to apologize when it wasn't necessary. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:WikiTea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No problems at all, I wasn't worried just didn't want someone to misread. Enjoy the tea! Sadads (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A suggestion on the issues in the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and slavery articles. Why not rewrite the sections/paragraphs which Elen of the Roads agrees are particularly offensive in the Copyvio direction? You seem to be reading the sources, fairly familiar with the arguments, have the research at your finger tips and are interested in these articles at this time. This is where Being Bold and making positive changes is more important than pointing out what someone did wrong. All and all, these articles don't do too many things wrong, you might as well repair rather than incite excess talkpage discussion, and frustration for some, which takes a lot more time from editing mainspace for all of us involved. That being said, It seems that most of the issues you point out aren't large enough for the content to be outright deleted, if that is your opinion, then that is the point where consensus would be needed before you make the change. Otherwise, I don't think anyone would object to some rewriting from your direction. Sadads (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tea & input. Some background so my answer makes sense. Last year we worked on the Washington article; I was outspoken & edited some stuff; he made some good changes. Now recently I saw the Jefferson article. Again he changed some; but some need major work, and it's a real one-sided argument. Hence NPOV & talk page, which was to avoid an edit war. That's when I noticed direct plagiarised sentences, and you can see for yourself what happened. But as you say, if I continue to blame him, I'm not helping. So in that I owe him an apology, and I want to overlook it & move on.


 * We need to discuss the purpose of the article. What will the article cover - this is crucial for neutrality & yes we can consider minority pov's. Then, should we fix it or make one good summary on the main page of Jefferson? Most of the stuff is already covered in other articles (Hemings, the start of slavery etc, etc). The pg gets 1500 visits a year (mostly from repeat visitors I suspect since 60-70%% spiked in one month). Majority rule, but is that pg worth the work for such small traffic? I want to work with him if I know it's worth my time.


 * Regardless, I'd like him to understand the plagiarism problem & use the preview button (12 edits a day makes it impossible to monitor). Maybe we can work something out; I left him some constructive criticism w/ clear examples. And I feel he has a lot to offer Wpedia if he just makes a few changes. He's a dedicated bloke who cares about the topics - we need guys like him & I located some hard to find info thanks to some work he did, so I really would like to work this out & not fight.Ebanony (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hi. Your listings at the copyright problems board have come due for admin evaluation. Thank you very much for bringing these problems to light. I have blanked George Washington and slavery in keeping with the directions at WP:CP for situations where reversion/removal of copyrighted content is complex; this will give interested contributors an opportunity to propose a usable rewrite in the temporary page provided for the purpose, but keeps us from continuing to publish copyrighted content out of policy in the meantime. That one will be revisited in a week.

I see that you had blanked Thomas Jefferson and slavery, but that a decision was made to rewrite it in article space instead. You obviously researched the issue very thoroughly. Does the rewrite alleviate your concerns? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, thank you for your response. The G Washington article needs serious work, so much so in fact that I can't see how the page ahould be kept. I can't even begin to fix it, and those problems you've seen ...well, there's probably more. That Washington article should be deleted.

The Jefferson article, well, I tried to do that, but several people told me that was the wrong code, and they left a note in the talk page. There is one other editor working on the Jefferson page, and so far he's edited a lot of the stuff that was a problem in the NPOV, but I'm not sure about the plagiarised work because he's not yet finished. Too soon to answer that yet. Please check back in a few days, and then we'll know if the cut and pasted texts have been removed (as of now, only some have). Ebanony (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I will. If perchance I forget (I shouldn't, since the George Washington article will come due in a week and remind me), please nudge me. We usually have ten billion things going on at once in the copyright cleanup areas of Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, I've waited to about this time to give other editors a chance to continue working on the article & make correction to the problems therein; I will check through it today & inform you of the progress that has been made in removing cut & pasted text & questionable paraphrasing. Ebanony (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay. The page still has some of the same problems, but fewer.Ebanony (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

fugitive slave laws
could you check on the pre-colonial section of fugitive slave laws ... I think "Montana territories" is vandalism, anachronistic if the editor meant Pawnees, but I don't know how to restore/rewrite the passage. see my fugitive discussion entry ... add to the slavery in Dutch territory fragment, the English continued, did the Swedes?, add Iroquois? when you get a chance, thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the edit, it was vandalism. See the talk page for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fugitive_slave_laws#pre-colonial_and_colonial_vandalism_help Ebanony (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:
Hi Ebanony. My problem with that section was not necessarily the POV, but the fact that there was nothing there to provide the reader with an idea of what exactly the Armenian Genocide was. Rather than began with "The Armenian Genocide was...", it speaks about some resolutions being passed by Congress and other parliaments in other countries. That section is poorly suited for a reader who wants a brief summary of what the Armenian genocide was. I have a feeling this section was tampered with in the past and that information was removed almost completely or bit by bit. That is why I believed the first paragraph found on the Armenian Genocide page would provide a better introduction but I find it strange that my edit was reverted completely.

The section on the denial of the Armenian genocide, however, is rife with POV problems and it almost looks like the wording was plagiarized from another author. The wording used actually presents it as a legitimate counter-weight against the genocide when modern scholarship has entirely rejected the arguments used by the denialists. I apologize if my description of McCarthy came as somewhat harsh, but he is an individual who is on the margins of academia and his position has been roundly criticized by other historians (read about in here: Justin McCarthy (American historian)). Best,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not criticising you in the least, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I applaud your efforts to fix those sections, and I'm glad you're doing that. People presenting fringe pov's is a major problem; I've seen the same thing too! Apparantly someone has tampered with the Armenians and the Native Americans; is someone accessing the system under other editors' id's? See [] Do you think there might be a link between what you saw & the problem I highlighted in the talk page? I'm trying to alert you to this problem, that's all.Ebanony (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot say anything with any degree of definitiveness, foremost because I have not been following up on recent edits and what sort of material is added or removed. However, I would not rule it out - it's absolutely possible. The number of edits that have been carried out on that article are more than I wish to count. The topic itself is so contentious that there is bound to be an individual or two who will try to mold a section more to his liking. The word "genocide" conjures up so many emotions that, sadly, the word is too easily used and abused these days. I am, of course, mindful of the problem and sympathize with your concerns and I regret not having a more definitive answer to your question. Genocide is a topic which I haven't touched upon lately on Wikipedia (and only then, on articles relating to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust) but in case you have any questions (regarding sources or anything of the like), I'd be more than happy to help out. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I usualy try to avoid articles like that one; sometimes you see things and try and fix them. Maybe it's just a couple of people out there with an agenda. I'll just try and be more alert. Thanks mate.Ebanony (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson, Hemmings, & slavery
Ebanony --

It appears that you've got a good grasp on Thomas Jefferson's history, and I'm glad that you're here contributing to the article Thomas Jefferson. However, I'd like to suggest that you might want to cool off a bit on the talk page, and stop battling with people there over Hemmings. I promise you that if you cannot arrive at a consensus on the talk page, there are ways to do third-party dispute resolution that will generally make sure that your concerns are dealt with, if you are patient.

Also, I think that the other editors are actually being quite reasonable about not having a paragraph about Hemmings in the lead. We need to focus on broader and more historically significant issues there, and only cover Hemmings later in the section about slavery.

Anyhow, let me know if you need anything, or have any comments/questions. (Feel free to just respond here.)

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the message, and am interested in your opinion (you seem like fair-minded editor). I responded on the talk page, and used the manual of style in detail. If anyone can show me that adding - even just 1 sentence to Hemings - is undue weight or ignores the guidelines of the manual WP:LEAD, then I'll agree it should be removed. To be honest, I don't like the recent edits & additions another editor made because it inflated it too much (100% agreement). I only reverted it because all references to her were deleted (one extreme to the next), and I cannot understand how it doesn't fit in "prominent controversies". All I'm asking for is evidence. Slavery, however, must be mentioned, though I presume they'll ask that be removed next.


 * Hold on a second. This isn't first time he deleted all the info on Hemings (which was much shorter) - see []. In that same edit, he removed sourced text on slavery and changed it to the opposite of what the sources said - based on his opinion. No discussion. Nothing. I fixed it, then he & another went after the wording of slavery (I'm open to reasonable suggestion based on WP:RS). But yesterday, the same editor made some interesting comments about the historians in the talk page, and wants all of their work removed (those since the 60's): - with no evidence whatsoever. I don't want to fight (you'll notice I ignored his "obsessed" comment), but it seems to me he's not being reasonable. So I'm asking you. Do you really think Henmings doesn't deserve even 1 sentence in the lede? In the context of his previous edits, I'm not sure I trust his judgement.Ebanony (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really do believe that Hemmings doesn't belong in the lead. However, this is not saying that I don't think that it is an important topic. I just think that if we have to pick 5 one-sentence statements to make about slavery and Jefferson, I don't think that Hemmings should be in one of them. For instance, a much more notable thing than Sally Hemmings would be to talk about Jefferson's ownership of slaves, and his relation (as a large plantation owner, and member of the Virginia aristocracy) to the agricultural slave economy in general. I think this sort of thing is of greater import, and broad enough in scope, to go into the lead. I do not place Sally Hemmings on the same level of abstraction as these. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my position: I think a sentence or two about Sally Hemmings would be appropriate in the lead of Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Just not in the lead of an article about his entire life. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider the evidence: This was widely discussed when he was president []. Once they read his will, the controversy reignited because it he freed her children as part of his last act - even petitioning the legislature to allow them to remain (that's unheard of!). Since then, many scholars went out of their way to protect his reputation. Reed covered this and became the "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History for her book The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family". That's how noteworthy it is.


 * In the Slavery article, I agree, but this is something that involves almost half Jefferson's life (38 years, and is no small event), including the time as President. This Sally was a major part of his life. She was the half sister Jefferson's wife. The girl came back from France pregnant (however it may have happened) when she went with him. Reed's other book is appropriately titled THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS: An American Controversy (1997). The NYTimes said "The enduring rumor that Thomas Jefferson conducted a 38-year liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, is a story that won't be put to rest." . That was before the DNA test. Reed "is recognized as one of our country’s most distinguished presidential scholars", and that has to do with Jefferson & Hemings. I'm no fan of the Times, but look at its page on Jefferson . You'll notice at least 8 out of 32 articles on it relate directly to slavery/Hemings (including the ones at the top). So I respect your position, but I don't quite understand it. I'm willing to compromise on Hemings, but less so on slavery in the lede. In the meantime, I'll chop it down to one sentence (we all agree it's too long), and see what editors say to do on having it in the lede before we make a decision. Sound reasonable? I'm trying to accommodate others. Ebanony (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've decided not to vote, and will abide the consensus decision of the discussion of the talk page.Ebanony (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A technical hint
Hi Ebanony! Commenting on this: Did you know that you can use internal wikilinks with anchors? In other words, you can do this instead of this. Cheers! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephan Schulz, thank you for the tip. I need all the help I can get in that area. I'll learn that one straight away. Many thanks!Ebanony (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Ebanony: Thank you for your note. I assure you no harm was done. A reply is on my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

American imperialism
Hi- I know you've been cleaning up this article, but part of what you removed has now resulted in an incoherent sentence. For example: "Charles Beard and Andrew Bacevich U.S. imperialism discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism as far back as the writing of the Constitution.", which was previously "The conservative critique of U.S. imperialism has been identified with historians such as Charles Beard and Andrew Bacevich, part of a tradition of non-interventionism, often referred to derogatorily..." (see ). Please fix that for us, thanks. Also, I am a little concerned that you may have removed too much from that section, it seemed to describe the theories in more detail before. I totally understand removing unsourced info, but I am a little confused to why you removed sourced info, because the article now doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe you could go over the changes that you made a bit? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We're talking about copyviolations, original research, among other things. Some of the "sourced info" is not sourced or at all; other parts were based on primary sources. There were some sweeping conclusions were drawn, and it's not clear they had support. In other words, I've identified several examples of people making things up or saying things not supported by the sources. It's less of an article that makes sense, but I asked people over a month ago to correct some things. They argued with me. The implied conspiracy theory had to go.


 * Grammar errors: I'll look at straightaway since it was unintentional. As to restocking the article, it can only be done with adherence to the basic pillars. Better to have 5 paragraphs that meet basic standards than 10 that have egregious violations. Apparently there's been some sock puppetry (according to others). I'll work with you to help add new things, but those violations cannot be restored. These so called "theories" need to be identified in reliable sources, and the designation as such would need academic agreement. When you look at the sources, it's appalling how little support these actually have in them. SO I have no problem with your last edit because you added the appropriate sources. Ebanony (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought about the "sourced info" that it was biased in some way. I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to know what is valid and what's not, so I'll rely on you to help with that. It's too bad that these articles tend to get filled up with red herrings. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First I corrected the error on Beard, and I thank you for your last 2 edits. Second, I agree that the article doesn't make much sense. Here's why: The premise is imperialism is new, and those who claim the US is involved form part of a commie conspiracy in academia dating to 1898. Hence cannot be an imperial power (despite those "lefties" - they really used that word). Their sources? A misused dictionary & another on etymology (yes, I agree the English word is new, but the policy goes back to antiquity, as in the Roman Empire and its imperial power etc. Totally unrelated to Marx). Then they demanded this fictitious POV had to be followed:


 * "Debate over whether a particular political entity such as the United States is an empire has to be considered in terms of all of these defining characteristics, and whether it is still an empire if it fits only one of these definitions." - Based on this . No such claim is in that source (it's nonsense). I explained it over a month ago, but was ignored.


 * You already saw the problem with this edit here:, and you warned the editor (though he's not the only one). The Marx thing is a "communist conspiracy" theory (pure fiction with no sources). That is WP:FRINGE stuff by saying there's some "debate" (no, it's apologetics based on a select few minority pov's, and even then it's not what the article claimed). I went through these things on the talk page. The problem isn't POV, it's WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, copyright violations etc. This was put into every section -hence so many edits. Best to start from scratch and add new material to avoid getting in with that (a full rewrite). It's a lot of work but the old stuff is noticeboard territory. We can discuss ideas on the talk page if you want. I'm happy to work with you, and can say you were correct in your suspicions (you needn't be an expert, just a decent editor).Ebanony (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote needed
Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for your notice and pursuing this administratively. I had not explored the options. Yes, you've represented my position. I think we have a responsibility to reflect the scholarship, as I've repeatedly said on the Thomas Jefferson Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. For the record, you're spot on with your history.  You've made very good points and you know your stuff.  However, I worry that you over respond to Gwillickers.  I hope that it can be worked out between you.  --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I appreciate the words, really. On Gw, I'd never dealt with him till Jan, and only in the context of this article. He only wants it his way, and my error was trying to reason with the unreasonable. As far as I'm concerned, I'm deleting some of my earlier responses & won't reply to his stuff any longer (he did the same on "rape" for weeks - another headache).


 * By the way, I noticed you're an historian. We're trying to rewrite a new section that will hopefully end this controversy. You're more than welcome to assist Parkwells rewrite the new material, and I'm sure he'd appreciate your help. We're probably going to float ideas on other topics on Jefferson, and since you know the material, any contributions would be a help. On a lighter topic, the name "Joe bob attacks" makes me grin with envy. Why didn't I choose something like that?Ebanony (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, one important thing to remember is to not waste your "words" or the "man."  If you attempt to make a reasonable argument to an unreasonable person then you waste your words.  If you don't speak up in the presence of a reasonable person then waste the "man" (or woman as the case may be).  When I write/speak I try to think of that.  Will I be wasting my words on the "man?"  If the answer is yes, then I don't bother.  There's a way to fight the good fight without over-burdening yourself.  Also, there's no need to delete your earlier responses.  You made some good points, which others will want to read.


 * I'll be glad to help Parkwells in any way I can. Let me know what topics Parkwells needs help on.  I was under the impression that the Hemings matter was soon to be closed?  Is this not the case?  --Joe bob attacks (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very true. I'll keep that in mind. As to the Hemings section being over, we certainly hope that will be soon, but Parkwells is working on the text as we write. He says he 'll post it soon: Ebanony (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand how you feel (about the planters and their abuse of women), but think we would be going too far to speculate about the relationship, or add much more - there are plenty of links for readers to follow. The interracial relationships in antebellum US have been covered by historians for some time - at least 20 years, including by such scholars as Nell Irvin Painter, so there is plenty available for people who read. I don't think we should overemphasize it in this article. The historian Paul Finkelman wrote an article in 2005 in which he said he took students to Monticello and conducted a survey of visitors. 80% said they were not surprised by the DNA results re: Jefferson-Hemings, so it appears to have been mostly historians who were, and some continue to hold him up as an untouchable/untouching icon. People use the power they have - whether it is wealth, politics, control of jobs, etc., that's for sure. (copied here to make sure you see it.) Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Progress in Mid-March
Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for your steady support and knowledge for getting the full story told.Parkwells (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. Coemgenus 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )
 * Thanks for your addition to that page. I think the way you added it is fine, as I understand the rules, but I've never worked on an RfC/U before, either.  I should've dropped you a note earlier!  --Coemgenus 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, as they say. Ebanony (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I also thank you for your additions and apologize for not contacting you directly; have never worked on an Rfc/U before. Your knowledge and support helped me keep working on the TJ article. Parkwells (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm no expert on Hemings, and I focus more on slavery in general. The ideological games I saw there were upsetting. But I have to say your ability to focus on the Hemings material, write about it and not get distracted by some of the nonsense there helped me, and gave us all some much needed direction on that topic. You were objective & helped sort out a sticky web (Hemings can be a bit confusing), and the Hemings material is far better than it was a few months ago. I'm really glad you could advance beyond the additions I made, and made a more comprehensive effort to tell the whole story (in the several Hemings articles). Without your efforts, it never would have advanced to the point of reflecting the recent scholarship. We need more editors as focused on the facts with such attention to detail. I'm sorry you were vituperated just writing what is true, and that you were constantly harassed to change it. That shouldn't happen. Ebanony (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment! I just saw it (forgot to put your page on my watchlist after writing.) You and Cmguy also helped ensure that the controversy and consensus were presented first in the appropriate main article - Jefferson's.Parkwells (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson talk organization
Hi Ebanony,

would you mind reformatting your recent edit there? At the moment, the text is fairly ragged - if I start inserting answers, people will easily get lost. Also, I would find it easier to discuss the issue if we could stick with one point at a time. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd gladly do it, but I'm not sure what html to use. If you can advise in the next few minutes (before I step out), I'll do it right now.Ebanony (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it'll work now. Is that better? I'll try and hang round a bit if you're going to answer some of them now. I left space below for you to answer or you can do it elsewhere (just try and make it so people can see who is saying what). Many thanks. Ebanony (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (eced) Well, the primary thing would be to indent all your paragraphs for a single answer to the same level. To do that, you need to add the same number of leading colons (with no spaces before or between them) to every individual paragraph. I.e. whenever you hit "return", you need to start with the same colons. That also works for lists (use ::::* for an item indented 4 units). And since I'm a computer scientist, and hence a pedant, I'll have to point out that we don't write HTML, but MediaWiki markup . As for the topic organisation, I think your text starting with "A partial list" is no longer strongly connected to the ordinances topic, but lists other problems you see with the article, so I would suggest to introduce a new sub-heading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried a couple of things with that, but I'm not really good at it. If you can organise it better, then please do. I have no problem if you alter the structure. What really matters is that all of us can respond in an easy to see way, and I admit it's already looking shabby. I'm also curious to see your reasons/objections so that we can work something out. Ebanony (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Gwillhickers
 Hi, Ebanony - Coemgenus has proposed a solution, which you might want to look at again. Parkwells (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)