Talk:Nathaniel Eaton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Spacing 2 Edits by WB2 3 Colloquialism 4 Removal of information 5 Modern Nathaniel Eaton

[edit] Spacing

Does anyone know how to change the default; how to prevent justification between each line or goto 1½ spacing so that footnotes and/or endnotes don't start cramming things together? WB2 05:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by WB2

I have reverted the recent extensive edits by WB2. I did, however, remove the allegation of embezzlement against Eaton.

WB2 added a lot of information to the article, and much of it was probably good and useful. But the writing style was very poor and some of his comments struck me as eccentric. Furthermore, WB2's user page claims that much of the information he contributes "isn't available anywhere else," which would be a clear violation of the policy against original research in Wikipedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, that is, a place where widely-accepted, uncontroversial information is summarized. If it's not readily available in other references, then the information doesn't belong here. --Eb.hoop 22:55 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly sir, you are an unregistered user and did simply vandalize my additions.

Further, your understanding of "original" is incorrect; you just didn't like it when I took out your POV concerning what you called Eaton's Puritan Congregation at Cambridge.

WB2 05:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, Mr Ed.hoop, you don't cite anything, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy; you just make assertions.

WB2 05:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have cited everything and nothing I have written constitues the "original" or, as in this case, archeological discoveries that Wikipedia is talking about when they say that original information is "not allowed." Everything that I have written has been in the public domain for a long time; most of it for hundreds of years.

WB2 06:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Something like what Cotton Mather wrote about Nathaniel Eaton, or John Winthrop would be considered "original" since they cite no other source than themselves; and since they were considered to be responsible members of the community, their word was "gospel" – but like I said – most historians will agree that Winthrop is inaccurate on several accounts and even conflicts with other historians and records that were taken down at the time.

WB2 06:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right venue for questioning the established view of a historical subject, even if you think that you have the documentary evidence to back your claims. This is, I remind you, supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journal or a platform for historical debate. If you think you can show that the established interpretation of some event is false, you should take this up with the experts, not with Wikipedians. I will not revert your edits for now, but I'm putting User:Postdlf's clean-up tag up again. Your writing style is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please consult the relevant guidelines. I'm also adding an NPOV tag, since you seem to be writing as an advocate for Eaton and against Mather, Winthrop, et al. -- Eb.hoop 0:32 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Eb.hoop – unregistered user – please desist! There are others who have complained ...

WB2 05:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Again: 1) you cite nothing, that is a violation of Wikipedia policy, 2) that is not the definition of an encyclopedia, 3) being bold as opposed to wishy washy is style requirement, and you would have known that about Sam Spade's suggestions if you were a registered user, which you are not.

WB2 05:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV page says this: "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."

Although you may be a newbie, I am not treating you as such since you are coming off like a long time Wikipedia:User or even an Administrator.

WB2 06:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Eb.hoop isn't an "unregistered user", he just hasn't created a user page. An unregistered user would just show up as an IP (check this talk page's history to see that's not the case). Regardless, his comments are valid, and please be more responsive to community concerns rather than reacting to them mockingly. Postdlf 21:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Mockingly"? and obviously I'm not saying he isn't "unregistered" per se.

Again, you seem to have a personal problem with me sir.

As far as the Community is concerned, that doesn't at all seem to be what you are interested in.

You have only tried to either delete everything that I say, or come off with some erroneous allegations of needs to correct my work without any support.

WB2 23:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "mockingly" is not the word that Postdlf was looking for; I personally think "passive-aggressive" would be more appropriate. Your comments are biased toward Eaton; in Wikipedia, if something (such as the early "scandal" claims) is biased, we either mark it as such or we make it unbiased; we do not, however, spend nine paragraphs attempting to acquit Eaton of his charges. A simple way to fix the bias in the paragraph would be to change the wording of

"He was soon fired for beating the students too harshly, and because his wife served them inadequate food, perhaps as part of an embezzlement scheme on his part."

to

"He was soon fired for allegedly beating his students too harshly, though the students originating the claims had no proof and may have been linked to other unproven accusations of a similar nature."

Throughout your edits, you have come up with as many excuses as possible to exonerate Eaton from the charges, which could have been simply disproved by stating that they "may have been false." The article is not an appeal to Eaton's trial; it is an encyclopedia entry on the man. Please limit the majority of the article to his biography and the effects his life had on modern society, not to disproving one aspect of his life. That, if you wish, you can put in your user page or simply on this very discussion page, where it will be taken into consideration and, if deemed appropriate, added as unbiased information into the article.

Finally, since you have added your "righteous information" to the article one too many times, I am marking this as a page in need professional in addition to a complexly vandalized page. Though most of the complaints are now outdated, I still feel it is best that a professional examines the article.--HoCkEy PUCK 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloquialism

Where does it show that this is forbidden?

WB2 05:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Postdlf: please be more specific about colloquialism, I don't see anything in any style manuals etc. that forbid this as such – just that somebody from a foreign country may not understand, but as I was told as I was going through college: American colloquialisms are everywhere, and that its kind of funny hearing one American tell another to cut down on the colloquialisms.

It kinda sounds like you're embarrassed about us and our colloquialisms, or have waged some sort of a personal campaign to rid the world of our presumptive speach; but just like in Music, everyone wants to do The West Coast Sound, or everyone wants to be Elvis: 'cuz we did't care when we first came from foreign countries and such; it was kind of fun learning them all.

Sounds like you really had a negative teacher.

WB2 06:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a personal preference. See Wikipedia:How to copy-edit ("all main Wikipedia pages should have a formal, encyclopedic style") and Wikipedia:Manual of style generally. Postdlf 19:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, and you seem to be spending an unusual amount of time on me.

"Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. Copy-editing wikipedians will refer to this manual, and pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect."

Also, there is again, nothing in any style guide or manual that I have seen, or that you are willing to quote to me from, that says "colloquialism" is forbidden.

"Style is a little harder to quantify ..."

In the absense of any clear definition, pro or con, on the inclusion of "colloquialisms"; one must assume that their inclusion or exclusion is guided by an informal light, and that anyone who continues to insist that they must be excluded is obviously attempting to abuse the person or persons that he is insisting their exclusion from.

I will do what I can to improve the page, including uploading images, etc.; but if someone asks me to comply with something that isn't there, I will have to refer that person to a higher authority who hopefully will either expalin to him what the ins and outs truly are, or who will get off his back and stop rushing or hurrying him about.

WB2 06:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Saw this page in the copy edit requests area and, even though I'm used to editing newsprint, I did the best I could. I know nothing of the subject, so please check to make sure I didn't introduce errors (as an uninformed reader, I had a hard time figuring out what this trial that you referred to was, so my reorganization may not reflect reality) into the article. Hope I didn't step on any toes. --Our Bold Hero 01:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. WB2 06:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the article has shaped up very nicely. Good work to all in editing and enhancing. It is interesting to read the discussion about the issues here. --Habap 17:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information

Why was the detail about a confrontation with students removed? The edit summaries gave no explanation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

I couldn't find the cite, so I thought it best to remove those portions until I could either rewrite them, or put in the cite.

Dunster was forced to resign due to his opposition to infant baptism, but it wasn't really until President Hoar took over in 1672 did the students go back to the "Rah Rah Roger" business: possibly even poisoning the President to death who mysteriously died of a consumption 9 months after he resigned.

I did read something somewhere else, though, about how they immediately started off on the same foot with Dunster; but I can't find it for right now.

WB2 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Nathaniel Eaton

Your addition is welcome, but not appropriate on this page.

It is better to put it to a separate page, with its own title such as: Nathaniel Eaton (modern)

WB2 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)