User talk:Esrever

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed section[edit]

I can see the difference that you reverted my edit removing the section off talk page seen this difference that is a talk page are not for commentary on article's subject. Why you reverted it? Oh, and I say "Hi!" to you too! --Allen talk 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself: how it might be improved, what needs to change, etc. They are not a place to leave messages documenting how much you might love or hate a particular article's subject. In this case, it's okay to leave messages saying things like, "We need to improve how the article explains American Airlines' history." It's not okay to say, "I love American Airlines." Esrever (klaT) 16:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so that's what the article talk pages related to the article only?! --Allen talk 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Esrever (klaT) 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

Well, don't insult me, and don't revert my edits. If it remains unsourced, it will have to be deleted. I am adding citations needed tags in good faith, but I could simply remove the unsourced info and then the burden will be on you to re-add it, if you can provide a source and prove that the info is significant. Yes, a map may work. It's a source. It is not clear AT ALL if it is the only private university in such an athletic conference, and this should be sourced. Also, very easy to add a reference about the Chancellor's name. Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't whether it's easy. The point is, is this a fact that a reasonable person would believe to be dubious? I'm not sure the chancellor's name would qualify. Again, not every sentence needs a citation. Esrever (klaT) 13:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Imagine you're from Japan. Would you have no idea about this obscure athletic conference? Absolutely. Perhaps if you live in Nashville, you would know about it. But that's original research. We need a reference before someone removes the info. This is an encyclopedia, not a member's club.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
From the OR policy page: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." The footnote to that point is even more explicit: "Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." Not every sentence needs a source. Esrever (klaT) 13:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"The sky is blue" is not the same as an obscure athletic conference with teenagers. There is no reasonable expectation that that private university or another one would be in this conference; it needs to be cited. Looks like you found a reference though. I "thanked" you for it, even though you insulted me earlier...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I found your whole approach to this extremely off-putting. Esrever (klaT) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I find being insulted "extremely off-putting." Totally unacceptable. The page is still dismally lacking in reliable sources btw.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, plenty of things in that article still need citations. I just don't think some of the things you think are somehow dubious actually fail the "reasonable expectation" test. Esrever (klaT) 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not about me really. It's about making sure this is encyclopedic, not unsourced ramblings. I may add more referenced info later.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen[edit]

Hi Esrever,

I've started a thread at Talk:Robert S. Nelsen#Early life to discuss this edit you recently made to the article. Some of the text you added is exactly the same as what is in a bio for Nelsen posted here on the 2010 Latino Education Conference webpage. I'm sure this is just an innocent misunderstanding, but I thought you should know because it does seem like a copyright violation. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I didn't add the text—I merely consolidated existing text on the page into a standalone section. I have zero interest in what happens to that page. Happy editing. Esrever (klaT) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
My mistake Esrever. I misread the diff. It was indeed an innocent misunderstanding, but one totally on my part. Really sorry about that. Smiley emoticons doh.gif - Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jean and Alexander Heard Library[edit]

Can you please provide inline references for the history section? I am not sure if it was made up. Thus, the unreferenced claims may end up getting removed from the page.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If they get removed, they get removed. I still think that's preferable to tagging every single sentence with a fact tag, like you're wont to do. Esrever (klaT) 05:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the point would be to cite content. Not remove it. Not say "Oh it's OK, approximatively, perhaps..." for the whole paragraph.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Literally everything in both paragraphs is from the same page. What is the point in putting a cite after every single sentence? That's not standard practice in any manual of style, including Wikipedia's. Esrever (klaT) 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Because otherwise anybody could add untrue content in the middle of a paragraph, and only cite the last sentence--the only one which would be true. Anybody can edit Wikipedia and thus add all kinds of lies. That's why we need to be very careful with Wikipedia. Citations are the backbone of Wikipedia articles. Also the fact that the information is apparently taken only from the university's website is very problematic.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess you'll have to look at the cited page, decide if any of the material isn't borne out by the citation, and remove it, then. Alas. Esrever (klaT) 05:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Putting citations next to the final punctuation of a sentence doesn't magically make the preceding statement true. That's what the "verification" part of all of this is. Editors provide reliable sources that would allow a reader to verify that the cited material is accurate. If someone really questioned whether Yale helped provide books for a new library, he or she would need to go check the cited page, regardless of whether it's directly at the end of that sentence or at the end of the paragraph. Esrever (klaT) 05:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Please try to understand that in order to make Wikipedia a valuable resource, we need to have third party inline references. Sure, these references need to be verified, but most of the time when an editor takes the time to add a reference, it's not made up. The same cannot be said about unreferenced passages. It also makes deletion of content much harder if the content is fully referenced, which is ultimately what is required. Meanwhile, feel free find third party sources from Google Books and other places and embed/inline them in that article. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to wanting to include more third-party sources. But this insistence that literally every sentence have a citation is just silly, and it's out of whack with what's standard on Wikipedia. Esrever (klaT) 06:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
More? There isn't a single one. The article is essentially an advertisement.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
So certainly feel free to find some to add. Like many of these university-related topics, though, there's not often much that's not provided by the university. This isn't my objection to your editing style, though. I don't care about where the references are from--if you want to tag articles for missing third-party sources, knock yourself out. I object to your strange idea that every sentence needs some sort of citation. Beyond that, I don't really care what you do. Esrever (klaT) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have explained this. I won't repeat myself because this is tedious. Anyway, I have inlined the advertising reference for now. I have also contacted the editor who created the page, in case they are able to add more third party references. Ciao.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Porcellian Club[edit]

I don't agree with the deletion of the list - for any number of reasons, some of which I will discuss below. The artwork comment is perhaps reasonable and a reference to the sculpture can be substituted, although you have discounted the reasons the sculpture exists in the first place or is placed opposite the Massachusetts State House so prominently, which, as with the design of Trinity Church Boston are entirely a function of Porcellian club connections.

As for the list - This is an unusual institution in that it functioned the same before the war as after and the members maintained close personal and family ties. It has a long operating history and extensive, if secret, records along with multi generational family ties. How such an institution adapted to major world events, and in particular the singular event of American History should be of great interest but is so only in the context of the institution itself. Many of the members are related to each other by family and then by marriage. Given the emphasis in Victorian times of marrying "among your own kind" this was not unusual - but in the context of the Civil War created historically significant overlaps. It has been said this was a cousins war - and linking the military service to this kind of an institution sheds new light on this issue.

You would have noticed from the list that many of the officers from the two sides - North or South - were classmates - while this is not unusual for West Point, this is highly unusual otherwise. The University of North Carolina, for example, contributed officers ONLY to the southern states' militias and regiments. It is only by placing this overview in the context of the club's overall existence that the import becomes clear. A group that includes not only Robert E. Lee's son, himself a general, but also Gen. George Meade is rare. Further, the research is not complete and if the list is deleted it will never be completed as it relies on the contributions of other people in order to be completed. Cross-referencing military service (especially when the actual records are 150 years old) with membership in a small, ultra-secret, highly selective club is painstaking requiring looking up the names one by one. Separating the analysis from the institution will inevitably lead to it being ignored in favor of the main entry. What is apparent thus far is that there appear to be significantly more southern officers than northern - which given that Harvard enlisted 3x ads many men in the north than the south would be a significant fact in understanding the nature of this particular organization.

I would add that it would be of equal appeal and interest to know the service of the members of Skull and Bones during World War II - completion of an article like this will encourage someone else to tackle that question.

Next, I do not think it is unusual in writing about an institution to then highlight the disposition of that institution and its members in the context of world events. For larger groups or institutions, books have been written - several on the topic of Harvard in the Civil War, many more on Harvard and WWII. For a group this idiosyncratic, this may well be the only place it will be written about -- not because it is of no interest, but only that the topic is narrow but interesting and useful only when completed.

I would add a post script that the topic of Harvard's role in the Confederate States is to this day one of high interest to historians and to alumni. Harvard is almost alone in having no memorial to its Southern dead. Yale, by contrast, lists them alphabetically with the northern soldiers. Whether to have one is hotly debated among historians, the African American scholarly community, alumni and others. As so often happens with that institution, issues that occur with regularity everywhere else become ones of national importance when the name "Harvard" is invoked. Exposing, perhaps for the first time, the role that Harvard's elite club members played in the Civil War, North and South, will become part of that debate - this is the only surviving institution of that period and is the most prestigious and select club at that University.

Finally, a great deal of work went into the research and to have it "erased" so to speak, is to put it mildly, not right.

I would suggest putting this in a discussion forum if that is appropriate. In the interim I would ask that you place a note in the article marking it for deletion and pointing to the forum, restore the work and allow it to evolve a bit more. As it is, i think you truncated it awkwardly in mid-sentence and rather than make the correction myself, at a minimum you could revisit your edit. Perhaps it should have its own article - I can't say just yet as the lists are not complete but they have already yielded such gems as Robt. Gould Shaw reporting the death of his friend who fought on the other side at Shiloh --- as I said, commonplace at military academies but not northern universities. --HansDieterUlrich (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to revisit my edit for the sake of clarity, but the list of names doesn't belong in the article, complete or not. Wikipedia is not a place to just list people who were involved in particular events, which is essentially what a list of any Civil War veterans based only on club affiliation is. Particularly notable members, like Shaw (and others who have their own Wikipedia articles), certainly do belong in the Porcellian article because of their connection to Porcellian. Certainly much of the analysis you provide above may be relevant to the article, provided, of course, that you can find reliable sources for it. But the list won't pass muster at any level, I'm afraid
Also, please place talk page comments at the bottom of the page. :) Esrever (klaT) 01:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)