User talk:Skywriter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents


[edit] Welcome

Hello, Skywriter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask me, check the help pages, or add {{helpme}} to this page, and someone'll be along shortly.

Happy editing! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I can see that you aren't that new, but it appears you havn't been welcomed yet. Send me the HZ pic links when you get the chance.
Thank you, Mysekurity. These are all helpful suggestions, and I can see there is much study ahead. I am a professional editor but, as you have noticed, I have been editing and adding to this page with one or both hands behind my back, editing by imitation rather than seriously knowing what I am doing. Again, I appreciate the tips!

Skywriter 21:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment to my (and your) talk page(s). My welcome note is not protected, meaning that you inadvertantly edited it (my fault, sorry). Thanks for the comments, and let me know if I can help with the HZ article. All the best, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 21:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Zinn

Thanks for your contributions to Howard Zinn. It would be helpful if you could cite your sources, however, as at least one of your changes was incorrect (Zinn's degrees are in political science, not American history). RadicalSubversiv E 19:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is incorrect. Zinn's graduate degrees are in both History and Political Science Skywriter

[edit] Good to see you back

Welcome back to Wikipedia! Thanks for deleting the repeated discussions on Talk:Howard Zinn. How's the book coming? Any progress? As for people changing birthdates, I think you were right to ask the user directly, but in the future, if you see vandalism, like a person changing dates or facts, or deleting article content, you can add the template {{Test}} to their talk page (or, if they already have that template, {{Test2}}, {{Test3}}, and so on, at which point you should probably contact an administrator [like me!]). But really, it's good to see you back. Any thoughts for the plane crash article? -Mysekurity 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi-- Last we left it, I uploaded some Zinn photos to the common area and I think I sent you the names of those files. I do not know how to move them from there to the Zinn page, or to redesign the page so it looks a little more attractive. I was hoping you would help with that. I can go look for those photos again or (??). I've been working a lot, trying hard to stay one step ahead of creditors. I have written several chapters and am refining the outline to the book on the Gander crash (and even spoke to one agent!) I can't promise anything but will try to put up an article by December 12, the 20th anniversary. I have to finish a large indexing project before I can write anything. But I agree it would be an important thing to do as the families and friends of the dead soldiers are gathering at Fort Campbell, Ky., and nearby Hopkinsville, and Arlington Cemetery on 12/12/2005, and there will be a memorial service in Gander, Newfoundland on that date. Some of the children of these soldiers were toddlers (or even unborn) when their daddies were killed, and now, at least one is in Iraq. They all have a strong need to know why that bird went down. Good chatting with you. (I just checked in to make sure nothing momentous happened on the Zinn page.) skywriter 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keeper of the Zinn

In looking at your user contributions, it looks like you're all Zinn all the time. I hereby nominate you as "Keeper of the Zinn". Dude, that's not healthy for your perspective -- what about music? art? film? city life? I sincerely wish you peace of mind. Morton devonshire 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I have many interests but can only be the keeper of one page on Wikipedia. I have much more to say on other topics, but no time to make adds now, or my book would not get written and the book is on a totally other subject. Thanks for taking the time to chat, Morton. skywriter 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of anti-war template from Zinn page

Hi, I'm not sure I disagree with your removal of the template, but please come discuss it at the Anti-war Wikiproject talk page, where we were thinking of putting the anti-war template on prominent anti-war individuals' pages. I was initially in favor but am coming down on the side of not doing so because of the issues you cite. If you want to make that case... Kalkin 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Sorry about not putting a project link in there; I'm afraid I still don't really know how to deal with searches and links to internal Wikipedia stuff. I should learn... Peace. Kalkin 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


DO NOT TOUCH MY USER PAGE AGAIN!. Since you are relatively inexperienced here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but spamming another's userpage is vandalism, and bad etiquite.

- Secondly, your edits do not conform to Wiki's guidelines. Please review them, or simply look at one of the many featured articles to see a good example of proper editing guidelines. Ten Dead Chickens 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Secondly, your edits do not conform to Wiki's guidelines. Please review them, or simply look at one of the many featured articles to see a good example of proper editing guidelines. Ten Dead Chickens 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC: your edits lack nuance and honesty

I intended to and will comment on your talk page. Words like this on your user page describe your activities as self-appointed PC Police and Bully: "banned from too many chat rooms to mention ..."A tireless defender of Western Civilization and capitalism against"

Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done."

Is that supposed to scare people? The effect is to reinforce you as a Bully. Thanks for letting us know who you are. Your edits are not nuanced and are designed to conform with your ideological point of view, "Tireless Defender" skywriter 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn

Well he is widely seen as a leftists writer. Isn't he an avowed socialist? I dont mind removing it as long as he is a confirmed conservative writer. (Neo conservatism cant apply) etc. Thanks for asking me.

JJstroker 06:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ludlow Massacre

I agree with your comment re: citing sources. This will be a big job when I can get to it. If you'd like to do it for me, be my guest. Here is the list of sources that were cited underlying the material I used. (I think you already got the last one). from DocGov Feb. 17, 2006 (unsigned)

Deleted long biographical list from DocGov message. skywriter 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree it would be better to have particular items footnoted to particular references, and I could do that for about everything that was written, but I'll need to learn how. It's not something I've done on wiki before. I don't have time right now, but will try come back to that next weekend.--DocGov 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robeson and Feffer

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Robeson page, the Feffer page

Hi:

For weeks now, I've tried to get you to talk about and eventually reach consensus on the various edits of the Robeson page and now the Feffer page but, usually without discussion on the Talk pages, you delete, erase and revert text and sources that other people including myself add. Maybe I should have come to your Talk page sooner, asking the basis for your activities but I'll tell you this, your behavior sure does feel like harassment, aka wikistalking. Can you/will you put an end to it? I've brought up a series of well-sourced factual matters that you tend to ignore in favor of inserting your strongly held opinion. I know it is not easy to get other people to change an opinion, especially ones that are strongly held, but you know what, the purpose of Wikipedia is to exchange facts, not opinion. So, in that regard, I do not understand what you are doing. I'm asking you to think about the effect of what you're doing in destroying Wikipedia's reputation. Thanks. skywriter 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following was previously posed on Jbull's Talk page but he deleted it; this convesation is therefore moved to this talk page as a record that this conversation occurred and attempted to describe the controversy existing in the Paul Robeson article.

No, it is much more than you describe, and it is laid out in detail, line by line, on the Robeson Talk page. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Robeson that causes you to scratch, then add false and slanderous information. I wonder what you really know about this man's life. That you have a viewpoint is obvious but is there fact to back up that viewpoint?
Have you heard him sing? Have you read any of his biographies, or his autobiography?
I object to the insertion of false information into this or any article, and to the changing of facts to suit viewpoint. I've tried to be judicious in splicing out the viewpoint and careful to ask about each edit on the Talk page. Instead of responding to the splicing of viewpoint, you revert and revert and revert to viewpoint. For me, the last several weeks with this article have been like Sisyphus rolling the rock up hill.

The Feffer story should be accurate and not blown out of proportion. The crap about the finger nails? Irrelevant to Robeson. That Rapoport, a source you cite, says Feffer was a KGB agent. Jeez. You should have mentioned that. That's a red hot example of letting viewpoint get in the way of a claim by your own source, no less. You lose crediblity there, Jbull. Isn't there a tad of hypocrisy in the insistence that this be included: "Forced to communicate through hand gestures and notes because the room was bugged, Feffer indicated that Mikhoels had been murdered in 1948 by the secret police" when Rapaport, the source you cite, says he found proof Feffer set Mikhoels up to be murdered?
I have no idea what is true in this matter but I do know this: The melodrama belongs on the Feffer page. It is tangential to Robeson's life. But if you want to connect it to Robeson, tell the entire story. Don't skimp on the details about his speaking truth to power before a packed house at the concert hall in Moscow. Duberman describes it in detail as does Lewis in the biographies. That was every bit as powerful an act of defiance as busting out in La Marseillaise, to face down Nazis in Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. I included the Lewis description but, alas, like so much else, it was deleted, reversed or reverted.

On the Robeson Talk page, Jbull, I asked for an explanation of the following and you ignored the request: (I asked for explanation of this: at 8:17 am February 10, 2006 on Robeson Talk page) JBull REMOVED THIS His recording of Ballad for Americans was sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention. [September 26, 1982, The New York Times] He AND THIS: ]. in 1946, he pressed President Truman to act against the lynching of black people, and encouraged black people to fight back to defend themselves.

( Twelve days later, and countless reverts and deletions of my contributions later, I still await explanation for the above edit. What is it? More personal viewpoint? Don't like the second amendment right to bear arms? )

That Robeson spoke truth to power at the concert hall in Moscow in defense of Jewish artists and writers, and to Truman's face in Washington in defense of black people is what reveals his character. It was too easy to criticize Stalin in the United States. He'd get brownie points for that, and maybe the U.S. government would even let him travel. He took up the important stuff directly with the Soviet government in the same way he took up the important directly stuff with the U.S. government. He went mano a mano with Harry Truman in an effort to get Harry to get tough and stop the lynchings. And he did this was while Harry was guarded by gunmen, guns drawn, with their trigger fingers at the ready. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-6/robeson1.html

Robeson and a bunch of other communists, yes communists, appealed directly to Stalin in a letter to let Feffer and other artists live. Robeson Jr. says that bought Feffer four more years. Do you find that fact inconvenient?

You quote Robeson Jr. in tertiary sources or in a venue that's in print but hard to get. (I've asked my library to obtain it.) I cite him directly speaking to the issue at hand in a recent online article on a university web server. What is your objection to sourcing to that?

And by the way, the U.S. government thought it important enough to include on its web page on Robeson that the Republcan Party adopted his singing of Ballad of Americans as the theme for its 1940 convention. Either you or TDC deleted that fact, in another example of inconvenient fact not meshing with viewpoint.

I don't care about Robeson's references to Stalin. Bring it on. I object to using it as a way to lynch him, and I object to repeating what is on a web site, as I repeatedly edited it to the link, and was repeatedly reverted. I object to the deletion of information about why he was attracted to the Soviet system. That's what was deleted and that's what is pissing off people, including me. I object to facts about his life being deleted like the fact that he was a Shakespearian actor, which was deleted today. And the fact that I edited out the that he played a black laborer in Wales. What exactly does anyone expect-- that he would play a green laborer? I object to the steady deletion of biographical details about his life. That is beyond the pale.

For example, either you or TDC removed the following AND substituted interpretive personal viewpoint: Robeson was sympathetic to the Soviet Union because, there, and for the first time in his life, he was not judged by the color of his skin. He sensed a camraderie with Russian folk traditions.

Although he believed that Africa and Asia also had special redeeming features, he was so interested in the minority question in the Soviet Union that he became fluent in Russian. After a trip to Moscow in 1934, the first of several in which he and his wife would be feted, Robeson concluded that the country was entirely free of racial prejudice and that Afro-American spiritual music resonated to Russian folk traditions. Here, for the first time in my life, he said of his stay in Russia, I walk in full human dignity. New York Times, February 12, 1989

What's so hard to understand? He was a talented guy who went to Europe and Asia where he wasn't treated like crap like he was back home. He liked not being treated like crap.

And then this sentence kept re-appearing despite the appearance that it was ripped from a headline off of the nutwing frontpagemag blog: Prior to his passport's return in 1958, Robeson wrote a book, Here I Stand, which made a case for some system of what would come to be known as affirmative action.
Now whose opinion other than David Horowitz is that? And, does affirmative action refer to the autobiographical chapter called Our Right to Travel in which he makes the case that the U.S. government, wearing the skirts of "democracy," had no more right to stop people from traveling than did the Soviet Union, wearing the skirts of "communism"? Or is it the chapter where he demands that the U.S. stop killing black people and the USSR stop killing Jews? If that is "affirmative action," bring it on.

The entire section about the McCarthy period is one-sided and slanted. Travel bans? Can we talk about South Africa and apartheid? That section of this article reads like the cross-dressing head of the FBI was Mother Theresa, and not the U.S. incarnation of the KGB. You want to make an argument that blacks and reds should not have free speech and it's okay to ban travel? Then make it, by citing sources. Just don't put lipstick on a pig and expect anyone to buy it.

When people edit and write about a subject, readers expect the writer/editor to know and or learn something about the subject. That's the central objection to the way this article reads, and that is why it's got all those stamps on it questioning its facts and POV.

After a vandal hit the page tonight, I give you credit for reverting to the last version by skywriter today and not to junk edits by TDC. That is an act toward consensus, which I was not expecting.

skywriter 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read your latest posting at my user talk page. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I sought consensus. But you have not distinguished between my edits and others', ascribed bad faith to me, and did not reply in a temperate manner. Rather than argue with you, I choose to suspend our discussion.--Jbull 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] John Lewis

(this section is a record from BlueBoy96 talk page) Hi, This pertains to your most recent edit of the John Lewis page. I do not understand this sentence and am hoping you can and will shed light. At the moment, it states: "His first run for elective office was in a 1977 special election for the 5th District, which resulted when Andrew Young was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations."

If Bond held that seat and left for the UN, then this sentence can not be true: "Lewis became the first African- American to represent Georgia in either house of Congress since Reconstruction."

Is there a missing beat?

Thanks

skywriter 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello BlueBoy96, It is not clear why you reverted the John Lewis page to writing that is not easy to understand. The editing I did to the page yesterday removed the confusing language and passive voice, established chronology and used active voice. Please do not ignore this message or the message on the John Lewis Talk Page. The revision also removed the error that previously stated John Lewis was the first Afircan-American to represent Georgia. Please explain why you hve reverted this page to language that is difficult to understand. And Ppease explain why you deleted John Lewis's name from his autobiography. It violates Wiki ethos to revert a page without discussing it on the Talk page, in the editing summary, or reply to messages left on your Talk page. Thank you. skywriter 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I learned about it from Wikipedia:Request for comment.--Urthogie 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Crow laws

Hi-- it is not obvious where to vote on the Jim Crow change. Is there a link? Thanks. skywriter 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi skywriter – I think this is what you're looking for. Thanks for your interest!  Best wishes, David Kernow 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post your opinion on the talk page?

Could you please continue the discussion at Talk:Paul Robeson? Your opinion has been requested. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

no deadline but two or three days would be nice.--Urthogie 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Are you Carol Valentine? Because that would explain alot. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite_book response

FYI, I responded to your question on my talk page. --J. J. 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Exactly, if the article doesn't need an NPOV tag, then no one should use one. If the facts need to be debated, fine, but if a stat is disputed it doesn't make the article biased. Whoever put the NPOV tag clearly had an axe to grind, and I doubt they are free of liberal bias. Haizum 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and guess what. I didn't make a personal attack because I didn't actually name anyone as a liberal or anti-US liberal, I just asked that those that qualify identify themselves. Guess again; if they were do to so, then it still wouldn't be a personal attack because they volunteered to show themselves, but obviously you "overlooked" that facet of preceeding logic.

eg: "Everyone in this thread that is a fool, please say so."
Who am I calling a fool? No one.

You can call it something else, but don't fall back on the "omfg personal attack" cushion...it weakens your position. Haizum 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial discrimination

I leapt in, especially to the lead. Have a look. I'd be interested to know what you think. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't mean Racial discrimination (which I've never touched, it's a redirect to racism). What I leapt in on was Racial segregation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Target Committee

I reverted you and FastFission on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I pulled the info from this source. It could use some cleanup, but should probably not stray far from what is in the minutes. EricR 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC

A while back I added "controversial anti-hate group" as a description to SPLC in a number of references on various articles. I did so because editors were adding all sorts of ad hominem attacks on the SPLC and it was essentially a pre-emptive compromise. More recently a well-intentioned editor removed one and soon even worse descriptions were added in its place, so we eventually we reverted to the compromise formula. If you have a better way of describing it then that'd be great. But to leave it undescribed invites others to describe it- Will Beback 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Foner

When I've told editors, "so fix it", few if any have done such a fine job as you have with Eric Foner. Thanks for improving both the article and Wikipedia. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not posted copyrighted material

I have deleted your post "Lynn Garafola" because it was identical to portions of http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news050205b.html. Please do not copy and paste material you have found elsewhere on the web. Thanks, Postdlf 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not copyrighted material. It is a news release and I rewrote it, using only facts. Facts are NOT copyrightable, only the way they are presented. You have overstepped. What are the options to appeal this decision? Skywriter 04:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn

Good edit conflicts result in more information, better sources, and greater neutrality. Bad edit conflicts result in blind reverts, contorted prose, and endless sniping. I suggest talking some more. Try to find out what they are expecting from the article, and share with them what your expectations are. Try to pin down the differences, and see if there is a compromise or a third way which will at least barely satisfy everybody. I'll go post the same adminition to the other editor to be fair. Please, let's have a good edit conflict. I don't want to get into the details of this dispute, but I know it's about a tag. Would it be possible to exchange the article-wide tag with a section tag? -Will Beback 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skywriter, I've responded to your comment on my talk page at my talk page. Pinkville 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem edits

Two things:

1. Your claim that black people who lived in Harlem in the 20th century did not view the community as being full of crime is wrong. I have put a longer discussion of this in the Talk:Harlem page. You may want to rephrase your text; if not I'll fix it myself.

2. The big block of text that you have pasted in from PBS does not help the article, I think. You make no new points but rather than insert Levering's quotes in the appopriate places in the article, you created a new section and pasted paragraphs in the middle. At the very best, it is confusing and disrupts the flow of the article. At the worst, it is a copyright violation. I'm not sure that you are correct that because it came from the PBS website, copyright does not apply. See the following for example, in which PBS instructs teachers about how to apply copyright law to their productions

http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/copyright/copyright.shtm

and this one

http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_copyright.html

PBS clearly thinks they have copyrights on this material. On what grounds do you disagree?

Would you like to rework it, to put the various quotations in context and remove irrelevant material, or shall I?

Uucp 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Well...I'm not the one placing "totaly disputed" tags and edit warring on multiple articles. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction

To-- JW1805 Hey, thanks again for your comment. Here's the reason for that tag on the Reconstruction page. Other users have long favored revision of this page. This is the most recent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reconstruction#Wiki_policy:_all_major_POV_must_be_heard If you think the arguments are invalid, or if you have something to add, your comments are welcome. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson

As to your contributions to the Jefferson page,

Your pursuit of a dialogue is useful.

  • Your addition of Annette Gordon-Reed was a positive step.
  • The problems with sourcing to Ambrose are identified. What is the point of sourcing to a page that has obvious error?
    • Like I've said, the comment I put in is not controversial in any way, and is the sort of thing that others have said about Jefferson. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You and I continue to disagree about Franklin's view of the Hemings affair. I maintain that the neutral observation that whether he did or didn't makes no difference-- the greater issue is that, as a slave master, he could. He had the legal right. He had the power. That is a far from "dumb" observation.
    • Ah, I didn't call that dumb, I called the other quote "somebody was sleeping with the slaves..." a bit dumb. Maybe "dumb" is too strong a word...let's say "not insightful". The quote you mention seems to be some kind of judgment about the moral implications about affairs with slaves in general. That doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article, at least not in Jefferon's bio. Franklin is basically making an obvious statment, "he could have". So what? Of course he could have. What does that add to the content of the article? Nothing. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, it simply states the obvious. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion of Franklin's observation and addition of the speculation of TJ's slave overseer introduces unbalanced POV to the article.
    • I don't see how the two are connected in any way. The overseer's quote has nothing to do with Hemings. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The placement of the section on slavery near the end of the article is unwaranted because of its importance through the centuries and on the history of civil rights in the United States.
    • This is a biography of Thomas Jefferson. Not an essay on history or civil rights or the evils of the slavery system. There is a big difference. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal", one of the most widely quoted statements in the world can not be honestly discussed without the universal observaltion that he did and intended to exclude black people from those five words.
    • See previous comment. Articles about historical people should take care to avoid presentism. Your blanket charge against Jefferson is also not accurate. You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the injustices of America. Every single one of the signers of the DoI could also be charged with that. Jefferson did not invent slavery. As a legislator, Jefferson tried several times in various ways to abolish or limit slavery. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thomas Jefferson's ideas are among the most influential in the world. His views on black people and slavery are not admirable, and it is fair in an encyclopedic article to examine the subjects strengths and weaknesses with equal vigor. Do you disagree?
    • Jefferson's views on black people and slavery are in the article. There is a whole section devoted to them! It mentions the contradictions of Jefferson's writings vs. his way of life. It's all there, it isn't hagiography. Let's expand it, but turning the whole article into an essay on why Jefferson was a bad man isn't the way to go. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to remove the tag if others would agree to a more rigorous discussion of the history of Jefferson's impact on African Americans, slavery and racism in the body of the article, not as an afterthought. At the moment, his defenders seem more bent on defending his honor than critically looking at the impact he had on his own and future generations. There is a society for the defense of the founders' reputations. Wikipedia ain't it.

  • You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the race-relation problems in America. There is a difference between a PhD dissertation and an encyclopedia article about a person. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, look at the quibbling with the addition of the fact that Jefferson introduced segregation into the United States Post Office with a stroke of the pen. Jefferson was a careful man. He did not write what he did not intend. And yet, his defenders on the Talk page contend (and someone even added to the article) the irrelevant fact to that paragraph that he did not veto.

    • Did Jefferson really write that law? Congress writes the laws, not the President. Early Presidents seldom vetoed legislation (in fact, Jefferson never vetoed anything), and mainly left legislation-writing to Congress. I don't know if your change against him is fair or not. I need more information. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No honest biography of a world leader neglects the impact on the population over which he rules. Do you want to argue that Jefferson should be judged differently from other world leaders in this regard?

    • No, but you are using presentist arguments instead of putting his actions into the context of the time. If George W Bush signed a law excluding blacks from the post office, that would be a Huge deal! If John Q Adams had done it, that isn't really a big deal. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I contend that Thomas Jefferson, like you and I, is/was human and subject to the same heights of brilliance and depths of folly that any of the rest of us are subject to. That he climbed to such amazing heights intellectually yet fell to certain depths in practice shows range, and I say that respectfully of range. He achieved greatness. He also did some horrible stuff. Looking at the good with the bad is what makes most interesting reading. Exploring the gray areas makes great reading. I look forward to reaching agreement. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree. But, the gray areas are in the article. Essays that blame Jefferson for everything that has gone wrong in North America for 400 years are not appropriate. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Problems on the Reconstruction page

I submitted the following revised introduction to the article:

Reconstruction was the period following the American Civil War, in which the nation decided how to handle the return of the seceded states and the status of the Freedmen (the newly freed slaves). Most scholars have accepted 1865-1877 as the boundaries for Reconstruction. The era, itself, was controversial and pitted various segments of American society against one another. Differing conceptions on how to restore the former Confederate States into the Union collided with diverse opinions concerning the status of African-Americans. The meaning of freedom itself was at stake in this crucial time period. The nascent Republican Party was divided between the mainstream which wanted a modicum of protection for blacks, and the Radicals, who wanted a thorough reorganization of Southern society. Conservative elements of this time period (in particular the Democrats) believed that the old order that governed relations between the states and between blacks and whites should remain intact. The bulk of African-Americans desired equal civil and political rights, protection of their person, and in many cases a redistribution of land and the break-up of the plantation system. These diverse perspectives enabled the period from 1865 to 1877 to be, in many ways, a grand experiment in interracial democracy, but the period was also dominated by tense political relations and a preponderous of violence across the South.

Apparently some people believe it is not the best format for the introduction. I respectfully disagree.

[edit] Personal Attacks

Thanks for telling me --David.Mestel 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] KKK article

Thanks for your interest in improving the Ku Klux Klan article. As I've said before, many of your proposed edits appear to be really good and I think the article editors would support you on them IF you would stop unilaterally making them and ignoring talk page requests for discussion. B/c you have ignored requests for discussion on the edits, I have reverted them and protected the article until this editorial dispute is over. However, I have also raised all of your proposed changes on the article's talk page and asked for comment from other editors on the changes.

I hope you can understand that this article has a long and contentious history. That said, by first gaining consensus for your edits on the article's talk page (a process I am willing to help you with) your edits will then be protected by the weight of editorial consensus, which means that a later editor will not be able to come in and change them without first achieving a new consensus to do so. While achieving consensus on your edits may take a few days, in the long run doing this will make your edits, and the article, stronger. I hope this process works for you. If there is anything else I can do to help, let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has objected to the bulk of your proposed changes. If another day or two passes w/o any other concerns being raised, we will add them in. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've worked almost all of your material into the article. Thanks again.--Alabamaboy 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Candidate

I nominated my article Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs as a featured article. If you could look it over and give me any suggestions to make it better, that would be most helpful. -- Ladb2000


[edit] User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Note

The link is where I moved your kind message, and my response to your message.

Looking forward to your suggested introduction.

Please keep up the good work. Travb (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for your suggested introduction on Talk:No Gun Ri, so we can move forward... Travb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No Gun Ri Page unprotected, please be civil. Bateman appears to be interested in editing the page too. I just emailed him back. Travb (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial segregation in the United States

So is your remark at Talk:Racial segregation in the United States supposed to refer to something? If so, would you please clarify it? If not, would you please remove it? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioned your name

User_talk:TDC#Is_skywriter_the_anon_from_WSI.3F Travb (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need a Favor

Hey Skywriter. I have been editing the Neocatechumenal Way article. I happen also to belong to the organization. Recently, a member from Italian wikipedia has been replacing my article with one that is blatantly anti the Way. Is there any way you can get the editors to put a ban on editing the article? -- Ladb2000


[edit] Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png

Hi. I noticed that Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png (which you uploaded) states that the work is licensed under GFDL, however in the email response to you (also available on that page), it is explicitly stated that the image is not GFDL'd. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, and correct it. (please reply on my talk page, thanks) --Storkk 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You said that someone had deleted the photo. I still see it. Anyway, perhaps the license should be a (c)-but-fair-use one? I refer especially to his sentence: "I am not inclined to waive my copyright on my creations in any general way". Thanks for any input. --Storkk 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I changed the licensing template to reflect what I understand you said. I changed it from {{GFDL}} to {{Promophoto}}. This is basically what I was referring to, rather than the text explanation. Please let me know if I misunderstood something. Cheers! Storkk 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Was your message a template, as it looks? If so, it needs editing. Even newbies, and I am not one, don't need that much condescension.

I've had a look; and I do not see where I have left anything unsigned. I did make one long post, and Skyemoor interrupted it; but I signed it when posted. Regards, Septentrionalis 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/y/User_talk%7ESkywriter_56ab.html"