User talk:Number.6.freeman/sandbox

Comments from TheOriginalSoni

 * Expand lead - Give background on politics of that era
 * i am doing some research to be able to do that (i should be getting paid for this!), so i should be able to supply a brief/skeleton overview.


 * Several members of The Young Turks would become the top leaders in the nation. Citation needed. Also clarify.
 * not sure why i should need to cite a fact. i would think that if a person is appointed to (or elected to) a top political position in a country, it is assumed to be a top leadership position.
 * re "clarify" - yes, i will clarify. i thought the explanation should be in the body and not detailed within the introduction--that was why it was brief and nebulous.  since i am doing additional reading on the subject, i am putting more info into the introduction to help clarify.


 * Was this a political party? Or just a group? Clarify, and explain. What was their role in the history of politics in USA?
 * yes, good point -- it does need clarification, and i actually know enough to do that. lol
 * however, i don't know enough about their role/contributions in history--i will read up a bit more and put that in, but it still won't be very complete (unless you know someone who wants to hire me to do the research lol)


 * Also, was it secretive? What was their main motives? Anything specific they did that makes them classifiable as "Young turks" than simply "bunch of folks who think alike"
 * Good question--i wondered that myself!! i have no idea if they were open about it at first or clandestine.  i do know that they did become very blatant about it at some point--enough so, that the newspaper articles referred to them by name.  but in the beginning, they did have secret meetings to plan it...but so does everyone who wants to start up a carefully organized group.  even so, part of what they did was to conspire to take over the party via back-room politics, and i couldn't imagine they went around announcing that.  we surely need someone who is an expert to do this.


 * At the time of this writing, Bad choice of words. Its 49 years already, and if there is no consensus, then there will probably never be
 * okay--bad choice of words--mostly because even you misunderstood my intent, so someone else surely would. my intent was to nudge those who may know of a source.  as of right now, there are no public documents that are *easy to access* which elucidate on the matter.
 * how do i say that this is what everyone *who i have found* is saying, but there may be another source with more info that i'm not aware of (and would hope that someone else comes along and updates the info)???


 * who the primary instigator(s) Why instigator? Was it something criminal/illegal. If so, clarify. If not, change the word
 * no...not anything criminal or illegal...but it is the appropriate term. according to the oxford dictionary the definition is, 'a person who brings about or initiates something.'  the papers i read called them 'rebels' and other disruptive terms, and i felt that an 'instigator' was more mild and objective than calling them names.  i will find out if 'rebels' is a concensus by most writers and if so, then just footnote it.


 * However, all versions Versions of what? Replace with better word
 * okay -- fixed. i had used the word 'consensus' in the previous phrase, so i was thinking it was clear that to have a consensus, it would be derived from the different reports.  but that leaves the reader to infer since it was an implied reference to what formed the consensus.  therefore, i fixed the prev phrase to clarify that we are talking about various reports, and then when i talk about 'versions' it's much more clear i am referring to those reports.


 * That opened the door for the Young Turks. How?
 * hmmm... these were politicians, and i had just stated that they managed to subvert an established politician in a key position with one of their own people. i had thought the success of that move was sorta obvious, but since you questioned it, i added a qualifier.  it seems a bit redundant to me, but maybe it was needed.


 * that mobilized all the key players Again, choose a better word
 * actually, this is the correct term for usa political and social movements. they always talk about 'mobilizing' the groups or the members.  here is a quote i ran into while researching the Republican party for this article--it uses the same terminology...
 * "In a special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district in November 2009, Tea Partiers mobilized behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, forcing Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava from the race just days before the election."


 * Confirmed members are: Link to articles. Try not to make it multi-line
 * the list of members is fairly important--given their contributions to history. however, there is no one source with all the names--in fact, i still haven't found any source with *all* the names--only a small handful.
 * as to reducing from multi-line... it's easy enough to do if i don't include any info about the members except their state. but according to your previous question about whether they were 'top leaders' -- the positions they held would clarify that, and would be very important to researchers looking up this subject.  having their names, their region, and their credentials all in one place is valuable.  how do you think i should present their political credentials (besides a link to their wiki pages)?  how should i structure it?


 * Without other evidence, it can be assumed that the dictionary definition was the intended definition. This last statement needs to go. Replace with "It is notheworthy that Young turks means ..." (whatever the dictionary definition is)
 * what aspect regarding the way it was phrased was unacceptable? my verbiage was accurate--so i would conclude there is something unacceptable for wiki articles about what i said.  i am going to guess that it's because i talked about 'assuming' something.  i have re-phrased it to eliminate that part, and to include the dictionary definition you requested.  no matter what, please elaborate so i will understand for future similar situations.


 * I would prefer not to list these books like you have. Maybe add them in as inline citations, based on whatever they have mentioned about the topic?
 * yes -- can do...will do. i had already mentioned my rationale--that these references were just 'more of same' about the subject, but since they are official sources, i still wanted them there for anyone else who either wanted to read about the subject or edit the page.