Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Finn M. W. Caspersen/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Colm 19:24, 12 April 2014.

Finn M. W. Caspersen

 * Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a wealthy American business executive, equestrian, and philanthrophist who gave tens of millions of dollars to support education, rowing, and equestrians sports. Despite his unfortunate death and the circumstances surrounding it, he was a good man and touched the lives of many with his generosity, and many more by practically inventing the second mortgage market. After a very detailed GA review that was as rigorous as some of the best FAC reviewers, I believe the article is ready for prime-time.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Source for universities?
 * Standby - will take care of this in a few hours when I'm a little more awake. Done (30JAN14)--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - Added two sources.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "30 October 30"?
 * Fixed --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FN10, 11, 16, 19, 20: page?
 * Reply: I had a page number for fn19. As for the rest, the library that had the newspaper articles clipped in one of their archive files, I didn't remember seeing page numbers on the clippings. And it would be a 90-minute drive just to check. Per CITE says "page numbers are optional". I would consider news/commentary magazines to fall in this category as well (I.e. Mother Jones)--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do some periodical refs say "in work", and others just "work"?
 * Fixed - Think I caught all of them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FN45: accessdate? Nikkimaria (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for taking a quick look at the article's sources. Do you see any additional issues?--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan
This is a very strong article, which I'm prepared to support once some issues are addressed.

Business career
 * 2nd paragraph: "This business" appears twice; plus, I think that it's unclear. Please replace both with the actual business.
 * Done - rephrased 1st as "these endeavors" and on 2nd mention rephrased to "reinsurance holdings"--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the 1980s, Caspersen and Beneficial began a 15-year effort to redeveloping Harbour Island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor. Could you be more specific regarding the specific year they started this?  Also, "effort to redeveloping" feels stilted to me; how about: "In the 1980s, Caspersen and Beneficial began to redevelop Harbour Island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor, something that took them 15 years to complete."
 * Reply and fixes - I think I should rephrase it as "began a 15-year effort to redevelop" and remove the -ing -- it never was "completed", I don't have a specific year that it started, nor do I know what's the more accurate or intended definition of "start" (the initial idea? the completion of planning? the beginning of construction?) to be more specific.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The source states that he purchased Harbour Island from a Beneficial subsidiary in 1979, and "broke ground" there in 1983. The source doesn't state if he had done any improvements between '79 and '83, and exactly when the 15 years ended, in '94 or '97.  I think the solution is to say that when and from whom he purchased the island, and don't mention the 15 years.  How about this instead: "Caspersen purchased Harbour Island from a Beneficial subsidiary in 1979, and in 1983, began to re-develop the island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done as suggested.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * After seven years of dwindling business, Beneficial converted the it into office space and renamed it Knights Point in 1995. "The it"?  Are you talking about the island itself?  If so, how can you convert an island into office space?  Please clarify.
 * Done - it = the development.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ...Beneficial employed 25,000 persons... I think "Beneficial had 25,000 employees" is all right here.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, the last 2 paragraphs are too short. I think that you can combine them, as long as you make a transition between the two ideas, something like: "Caspersen's next business acquisition was Knickerbocker Management, which he founded in 1998 with a few partners.  Knickerbocker, a private investment firm that oversaw approximately $1 billion in assets of trusts and foundations, had offices in Gladstone, New Jersey and Hobe Sound, Florida."
 * Done as proposed with one minor difference--"endeavor" instead of "acquisition."--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Political activities
 * You're free to disagree with me, but I wonder, in order to deal with the short paragraphs, that you could just combine the 1st 2 paragraphs.
 * Done - combined the 1st paragraph with the following two short paragraphs.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In 2005, Caspersen sought a seat on the town commission in Jupiter Island, Florida, and ran on a platform concerning conservation and limiting development, and burying utility cables. I know you've already linked Jupiter Island in the lead, but I think you should also link it here, since it's the first time you mention it in the body.  I don't think that "a platform concerning conservation" is accurate.  How about putting a semi-colon after "Florida", and then: "...his platform focused on conservation, limiting development, and burying utility cables."
 * Done as suggested.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Last sentence: I suggest that you replace "citing" with "claiming", since you cite facts and not excuses. ;)
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal life
 * Barbara Caspersen serves as an emeritus trustee at Drew. The present tense usage here doesn't fit in with the past tense uses everywhere else.  How about: "As of [year], Barbara Caspersen has served as..."
 * Done - don't know the year, so I prefaced it with "For several years,...".--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ...a fact that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden attributes to their father's generosity. Again with the present tense usage.  How about "has attributed" or "once attributed" or "in [year], attributed to"?  Who is Golden and why did make this statement?  Was he Caspersen's friend?  And was it because their father financially supported all four in law school, or was it for another reason?
 * Done - Golden wrote a book critical of the legacy of privilege and wealth in elite universities. They were not friends--or even associated with each other. It comes down to Dad gave money to his alma mater and it bought his sons seats in their respective classes. Some sources actually go as far as claiming his sons were smart enough to get it on their own--a statement that is not appropriate to add to the article. I think I've clarified that in my revision.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph: I think that you could simply combine this paragraph with the first one.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there a link to "four-in-hand competition"? If not, you should briefly define it.
 * Done linked to Four-in-hand (carriage) and added "carriage driving" to the sentence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Last paragraph: I think that you could just add this to the 1st paragraph. Please disagree if you want.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Death and aftermath
 * In the weeks after his death, accounts of massive financial difficulties began to emerge. Needs to be more formal.  How about: "In the weeks after his death, reports of Caspersen's financial difficulties began to emerge."  "Massive" is both peacocky and unnecessary, since you describe the difficulties next.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before his death, Caspersen listed his Westerly, Rhode Island home for sale... When exactly did this happen?
 * Reply - don't know exactly, I just know that this happened "shortly" before his death--how "shortly" I do not know.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Next sentence: Repetitive, since you already stated this, almost word-for-word, earlier. I think that you could remove the earlier sentence, since this is more about Caspersen's behavior before his death than his actual career.
 * Reply and addressed differently - It's a good suggestion, but I think the earlier mention should remain simply because it would be awkward not addressing the particulars of the resignation at that point since it's intrinsically connected to the political career, removing the first and keeping the second mention would make that fact seem rather disjunct and somewhat random/out-of-place without its context as the end of his career in elective office. After thinking about it, I opted to remove the second mention, since I'd venture to think the average reader would immediately pick up on the association between his pre-death behavior and the earlier mention of the "claim" he gave upon resigning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that you should rewrite the 4th paragraph; it's halting and awkward. How about: "Caspersen was facing legal difficulties as well.  The American government began a crackdown on tax havens and offshore bank accounts used by wealthy Americans to evade paying taxes, and according to The New York Times, Caspersen's name had emerged in the government's investigations.  It was reported that Caspersen's name was turned over to federal investigators by Swiss banking giant UBS earlier in the year, and in connection to Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT), a private bank controlled with Liechtenstein’s royal family.  Caspersen, who was reportedly facing audit by the Internal Revenue Service, was suspected of owing as much as $100 million in back taxes and fines or possibly facing imprisonment."
 * Done as suggested, and also combined that passage with the previous short paragraph. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Equestrian and rowing sports
 * During his 20-year tenure, he is considered "the man who put American combined driving on the international map" as American riders and drivers earned 71 medals, including 25 gold, in the Olympics, World Championships, and Pan American Games. Tense problems; could be clearer.  How about: "He was considered "the man who put American combined driving on the international map".  During his 20-year tenure, American riders and drivers earned 71 medals, including 25 gold, in the Olympics, World Championships, and Pan American Games."
 * Done as suggested. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Hamilton Farm property was owned by Beneficial and located next to the corporation's headquarters. You're missing "was" between "and" and "located".
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Education
 * In 2003, he pledged $30 million—the largest single donation in the school's history—to help jump-start the law school's capital campaign of which Caspersen was chairman. Awkward; how about: "In 2003, he was chairman of Harvard Law School's capital campaign, which he helped jump-start by pledging $30 million—the largest single donation in the school's history."
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In his honour, a special collections room in the law school's Langdell Library bears the Caspersen name. I think this is a little redundant.  How about: "The law school honored Caspersen by naming a special collections room in its Langdell Library after him."  (BTW, this is an article about an American, so it should have American spelling.)
 * Done I don't abide by WP:STRONGNAT, and happened to have written an essay against its enforcement as promoting exclusionary behaviour in an otherwise cosmopolitan project.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, in April 2012, Harvard dedicated part of a 250,000-square-foot multipurpose construction project as the Caspersen Student Center to house student organizations, journals, and social activities. Did both honors happen in 2012?  If not, I don't think that you need the word "also".  How about: "In April 2012, Harvard dedicated part of a 250,000-square-foot multipurpose construction project, which housed student organizations, journals, and social activities, to Caspersen, calling it "the Caspersen Student Center".
 * Done as suggested (with italics instead of scare quotes for consistency).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * However, Harvard's decision to name the facilities after Caspersen was criticized, citing the alleged tax evasion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden criticized that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed his four sons admission at the law school.  This could be improved, too.  Plus, we see that Golden's above comments about Caspersen's generosity weren't complimentary.  How about: "However, critics attacked Harvard's decision to name the facilities after Caspersen, citing the alleged tax evasion.  Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden claimed that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed that his four sons were admitted to the law school.
 * Done--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Caspersen and his wife have been involved with Drew University. His wife has served as trustee (currently as an emeritus trustee) and as both chairwoman and vice-chairwoman of the Methodist-affiliated liberal arts college's board. I think that you could omit the first sentence, which would mean that you'd have to revise the second.  Why is it important that you mention Drew's Methodist affliation?  How about: "Barbara Caspersen has served as trustee (currently as an emeritus trustee) of Drew University and as both chairwoman and vice-chairwoman of the the college's liberal arts board."
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In 1999, Caspersen and his wife provided a $5 million gift for expanding graduate education programs. Excuse me for my feminism, but I really don't like the phrase "and his wife".  This sentence also needs some clarification; how about: "In 1999, the Caspersens provided a $5 million gift for expanding graduate education programs at Drew."
 * Done as suggested. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In honor of their service to the university, Drew renamed its Graduate School as the Caspersen School of Graduate Studies. "Graduate School" doesn't need to be capitalized, and what graduate program?  The new name should be put in quotes, not italicized.
 * Reply - I was under the impression that we shouldn't use quotes because they can be misinterpreted as "scare quotes". I had chosen to italicize the things named after him and have done so consistently. During the GAN, the reviewer only asked that they be consistent. WP:MOSTITLE doesn't directly encourage or discourage this practice in this particular example. For which programs, I refer you to the Drew University article, in particular the Academics section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've acquiesce to your expertise, and allow others to disagree. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The university's Rose Memorial Library houses a collection of books, manuscripts, artifacts and papers of Nebraska-born author Willa Cather (1873–1947) assembled from items given by several donors—including significant contributions by Caspersen and his wife. It is regarded as one of the best collection of Cather's papers assembled in the United States. I think you could improve this, too.  How about: "The Caspersens were significant contributors to the university's Rose Memorial Library, which houses one of the best collections of books, manuscripts, artifacts and papers of Nebraska-born author Willa Cather (1873–1947) in the United States."
 * Reply I did not address this one because the suggested revision completely changes the tenor and purpose of the sentence, which is the Cather donations, instead the suggestion removes the focus on the donation of Cather's papers and focuses it on the library itself as the aim of their donation which is inaccurate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Caspersen's donated funds to build a four-level annex to Brown University's historic John Carter Brown Library, dedicated in 1991, that was named in honor of his parents. Errors and clarity problems.  How about: "In 1991, Caspersen [or the Caspersens] donated funds to build a four-level annex, named in honor of his parents, to Brown University's historic John Carter Brown Library."
 * Done - I rephrased to "dedicated in 1991" at the end, since I don't know when the money was "donated" but only know that the completed result of that donation were dedicated in that year.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Caspersen also served as a trustee of the Peddie School starting in 1970, and as the board's chairman starting in 1976, joining philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg in giving $10 million to the school in 1998. If Caspesen made the donation to Brown alone, you only need "he" here, and I don't see how being trustee and chairman are connected with his donation with Anneberg, unless it was how he bought himself on the board.  If there's no connection, I suggest separating the phrases into independent sentences.
 * Done - revised accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Caspersen Campus Center, which opened in 1996, and Caspersen History House, dedicated 2006, were named in his honor.'' Again with the italicizing.  Also, you should insert the word "in" before 2006.
 * Reply and partially done - I addressed the italics issue above, "in" inserted.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Under his stewardship, the trust provided over $118 million in the 25-year period from 1976 to 2001. You already state that he worked with the trust starting in 1976, so you don't need to say it again.  How about: "During the 25 years he worked with the trust, it donated over $118 million.
 * Done - rephrased a little differently.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When did Hood give him the honorary degree?
 * Done - 1983 per reference.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I believe that I am finished here. I'll accept Niikmaria's source spotchecks, and if you resolve all the above issues, I'll give my support. Thanks for educating me about an interesting figure. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at your changes; if I didn't respond, I was fine with them. I am now prepared to SUPPORT this article for FA. Nice work, and good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I'll get the chance in the next day or so to address your concerns--been tied up with some IRL matters.--ColonelHenry (talk)
 * - I have taken the time this evening to address your concerns after a busy week. I am hopeful they are adequate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from SchroCat
Support. Great article, nicely put together. I've made a couple of very minor tweaks here and there: feel free to rv if you disagree with anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Shoebox2
Support with pleasure. An elegantly written, very readable and well-organized article that despite falling well outside my usual sphere of interest caught and held my attention throughout. Shoebox 2  talk  21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Ian Rose
As I have a FAC of my own open right now I'm recusing myself from delegate duties here and there to review, so I'd like to take a look at this one in the next couple of days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Have to say I found the prose quite clunky in places. Rather than write out every concern I've cut to the chase and copyedited, but of course ready to discuss the changes. Outstanding points in the meantime:
 * I'll leave the final decision to you but I don't think it's necessary to link to 'current' countries or national groups like Norwegians, Russians and Poles. Linking both Norwegians and Norway is especially overdoing it.
 * Done - delinked them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume "was graduated" is a valid Americanism -- I'd expect simply "graduated" otherwise.
 * Reply: A person doesn't graduate, the university graduates them to a degree. It's probably a little elitist to phrase it in the transitive sense (I prefer to avoid the intransitive vulgarism for the same reason that someone saying "I am an alumni" or "he was an alumni" or "referendums" irks me)--the student earned a degree, the school graduated them and the action was done unto the student.. In another article, someone accused me of being "posh" for using the "was graduated" idiom--but the subject of that article was rather "posh" as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a practising pedant I can hardly fault you there, its just that "graduated" is so common that I fear you'll have drive-by editors changing it anyway. Personally I don't mind if you leave it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that language is what language does, and people do graduate, whatever the historical origins of the term. I worked in a university and saw hundreds of my students graduate, and indeed graduated several times myself, and in all the paperwork i ever saw, in all contexts, i never once saw reference to a university "graduating" someone. I would actually go so far as to say that such a formulation is incorrect because it is anachronistic (or is archaic? ;-)) Either way, I'd change it or, as Ian says, others will keep doing it. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: from American Heritage Dictionary: The verb graduate has denoted the action of conferring an academic degree or diploma since at least 1421. Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1998. This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel. In general usage, however, it has largely yielded to the much more recent active pattern (first attested in 1807): She graduated from Yale in 1998. Eighty-nine percent of the Panel accepts this use. It has the advantage of ascribing the accomplishment to the student, rather than to the institution, which is usually appropriate in discussions of individual students. When the institution's responsibility is emphasized, however, the older pattern may still be recommended. A sentence such as The university graduated more computer science majors in 1997 than in the entire previous decade stresses the university's accomplishment, say, of its computer science program. On the other hand, the sentence More computer science majors graduated in 1997 than in the entire previous decade implies that the class of 1997 was in some way a remarkable group. •The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1998. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage. Chances are 77 percent of the Usage Panel graduated in 1930, but still. Anyone changes it, I change it back. Best part about it being on my watchlist.--ColonelHenry (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think you just made the best case against the formulation you are seeking to defend. The Americal Heritage Dictionary, a conservative institution by your comments, found greater consensus among its panel for the usage I have suggested, then it did for the formulation adopted in this article. Furthermore, it emphasises its appropriateness when the focus is on the individual receiving the degree rather than the operation of the University, and the former is the case in both instances in this article. I think if you try to revert a change of the term back to its current use, you'll hit an issue with WP:OWN and going against the kind of consensus implicit in the AHD figures. And, given the AHC has a stronger consensus for what i would term the contemporary use, i'm puzzled as to why your defending the more anachronistic one? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Why...(1) "Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1998. This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel." (2) "The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1998. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage." I don't know what about that is NOT clear. the use of "should" implies one option among several acceptable ones. This is usage I've chosen, this is the usage I'll maintain--just like that one editor whose only contribution is changing "comprised of" wherever he finds it--sorry, I have to stand for something--even against the vulgar debauching of the language by the herd. As for WP:OWN, I couldn't care less. It's usually the go-to policy in order to avoid debating the issue--much like a thought-terminating cliché. If someone mentions WP:OWN, they've lost the battle IMHO. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have confused you. I wasn't arguing for the awful formulation "She graduated Yale", which the Panel rightly rejected: I'm arguing for the formulation that the largest proportion of the Panel recognised as acceptable and acknowledged was more prevalent in contemporary English: "She graduated from Yale". (just to be clear, i don't care about this as an FAC issue, but i don't understand why one would stick to a formulation that will trip up virtually every contemporary reader, because they won't have seen it before.)hamiltonstone (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And those are probably the same contemporary readers who say "I am an alumni of X university"...and probably majored in communications or exercise science or some other discipline lacking rigor. Sorry, it's elitist of me, but I don't think highly of them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Why are you avoiding the central argument here: that the contemporary formulation was endorsed by the highest percentage of the AHC Panel and acknowledged as more currently prevalent, not merely adopted by apparently second-rate exercise scientists? I take it you do not dispute my other contention, that the formulation adopted here is seldom if ever used in contemporary writing? Where will our readers have seen it before? I would have thought we would avoid wording any WP article in a way that made it more difficult for a reader, when an alternative wording was available that was correct? I just don't get the point of that. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When you said "i don't care about this as an FAC issue", it indicated to me that no reply seemed to be required. As far as I'm concerned, you have wasted my time arguing about the usage of "was graduated" vs. "graduated"--only an absolute drooling moron would be confused and most people would neither notice nor care about the difference. Your argument is specious and tedious since in the presence of several acceptable options, I take the liberty to choose one and I chose one--and thus am well within my right to say "piss off" if someone insists I forgo my perfectly valid choice to choose another based on a matter of preference. Therefore, I am done with this. I don't care if you didn't get the answer you wanted. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS The article in any case uses the conventional formulation elsewhere, in the "personal life" section.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed "were" added to complete the proper usage. If I really wanted to be a stickler, it was formerly preferred to say "was graduated at" instead of "from" or less "by", or muttered something about "was" and vestiges of Latin's ablative case in English.--ColonelHenry (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden claimed that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed that his four sons were admitted to the law school" -- this was highlighted in a previous section, does it deserve two mentions?
 * Reply: I mentioned it to reiterate Golden's context--however, while anticipating a reader might forget the context, I haven't been happy with this. I'd be glad to change this--the sole reason I haven't fixed it/revised it is that I've been at a loss despite my displeasure for what other, better options there could be to replace this. Can you think of a better way to accomplish the reestablishment of the context without the needless repetition? --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't really think of a "non-repetitive" way of putting it because it's the same point in two places. Because the second mention leapt out at me, I do feel you can do without it. It's true the accusation could legitimately be mentioned in either spot but to me it seems more appropriate under Personal life, where you discuss his sons' education for the first time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - I removed the second mention.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Caspersen [or the Caspersens] donated funds" -- I'm sure you haven't used this equivocal language lightly but I'd hope we could improve it for an FA-class article; can we say funds were donated in his name, for instance, which would seem to cover things?
 * Reply: - the more prominent implication in the States when someone says "funds were donated in his name" is that someone else did the donating and that the funds were not his. I don't know where that bracketed parenthetical came from, so I removed it from the text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lastly, back to the lead, as this is a content question as well as a prose one: I tweaked the sentence about his suicide in the lead as it just read abruptly to me the way it was; I also found it a bit odd that after you describe it as a surprise (and I don't doubt it was) there seem to be no expressions of shock mentioned/cited when you discuss his death in the main body... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: That tweak is o.k. with me--it is a good rationale. All deaths are a surprise, suicides all the more--so the implication is there already without having to be reminded of it. All surprises, I have learned, are primarily a form of violence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

- I've responded to your concerns above, for your review. I hope there is a better way to address the Golden comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One new point: I noticed "honour" in the lead -- shouldn't this be written in AmEng? You might need to check the whole thing for other instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply/Done - I'll alter the honours to honor (there were 4 iterations), but I've never been partial to the exclusionary rationale of the strong national ties suggestions (all predicated on the deontic modality of "should").--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

- Let me know if you see anything else needing to be addressed. I am grateful for your copyedits to the article, definitely tightened the prose well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- I think I'm done, tks for your efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.