User talk:Weazie

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Weazie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AniMate 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural born citizen edit

Before I go to the library, please tell me whether this edit is actually based on inspecting the relevant pages from Vermont History, which appears to be the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted material in the footnote discusses her Vermont birth; that is not disputed. But the quoted material says nothing about her U.S. citizenship. To infer U.S. citizenship from the quoted material runs into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems. If the source material confirms her U.S. citizenship (or, rather, the lack of the loss of it following her marriage and relocation), please revert. --Weazie (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to quote every word from the source that supports what is written. I would not make a statement in and edit summary that a source does not support a claim in a Wikipedia article unless I had read the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birther concerns and The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon?

Hi. Are you aware of any "birther" fascinations with the 1812 Supreme Court case The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon (also popularly known as The Exchange)? I wanted to double-check this point because someone insisted last September on mentioning this case in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark article. Wong Kim Ark is being considered a second time right now for FA, and I'm working on cleaning it up — and FWIW, the editor who pushed for bringing up The Exchange recently retired from Wikipedia. I did find some passing evidence that some people have tried prooftexting The Exchange in support of the notion that natural-born citizenship requires "full and complete" jurisdiction (i.e., born in the US of American citizen parents), though the case itself seems to me to support the opposing view (and, in any case, doesn't actually deal with citizenship issues at all, and it predates the 14th Amendment by decades). Your thoughts? — Richwales (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is rarely cited, and then usually by anti-birthers. Apuzzo once quoted it. --Weazie (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any other comments on how The Exchange is currently being mentioned in the article — and/or any other thoughts you might want to express at the article's current FAC discussion page — would be gratefully appreciated. — Richwales (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edits removing "relying heavily." Without a WP:RS, the previous language had WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. --Weazie (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the existing source (Immigration Stories, current footnote #41) does use the exact phrase "relied heavily". Even so, I'm reluctant to use such strong language in the article on the basis of only one source — though I can see the possibility of someone insisting on reinstating it on the grounds that my paraphrase is supposedly mischaracterizing what a reliable source says. That was why I wanted to know if this case might be a darling of the birthers or the anti-immigrants. — Richwales (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem more popular with the anti-immigrant crowd than with the birthers. But even then, it is cited less often than the "usual" sources. --Weazie (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I do know this article has attracted attention from people who have objected to language that did not, in their view, obsess sufficiently on the fact that Wong's parents were legal residents of the US — an issue which, to the best of my understanding, simply wasn't in the forefront of people's minds in 1898. — Richwales (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The language regarding the legal status of Wong Kim Ark's parents is dicta. I don't know if there's a WP:RS saying that, but it is obvious because no discussion of the case ever references that fact, let alone says it was necessary to the outcome. --Weazie (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court's point in mentioning the parents' legal status was to establish that they were not Chinese diplomats. This is, IMO, the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the court's short list of exceptions to jus soli. Of course, fringe theorists love to engage in prooftexting and tend to have a hard time understanding or accepting the difference between holdings and dicta. — Richwales (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor v. Happersett

Thank you for experimenting with the page Minor v. Happersett on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. I read the case of Arkeny, and it does cite the other cases. WP:UNDUE does not apply to a single sentence with a single footnote. I suggest that you read that guideline again. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix New Times is not a valid reference

You say "source is crap" is not a valid edit, yet "Another Stupid Sheriff Story" is a valid category for a Wikipedia reference? Really? Jwbaumann (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSBLOG; cheers. --Weazie (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trump comments on NBC article

I started a talk page section with a bit more details on why I didn't think Trump's comments belonged in the NBC article. Hope it makes some sense (long, crazy day already and it's barely half over). Ravensfire (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural-born-citizen clause

Please see the talk page on "Natural-born-citizen clause" for my thoughts on how the article could be improved by reorganizing the headings and topics. Please consider that those of us not from the USA might find the article quite confusing in its current state. It starts off OK then looks like a quotation war (lots of quotes from lots of people with no sentences to make them cohesive. Let me know your thoughts.Dig Deeper (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.54.196 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cVbslcFgm5xlCfz&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Watch and FOIA

Why was FOIA removed from "most of the FOIA lawsuits were dimissed"? The FOIA suits were what was being dismissed as opposed to general lawsuits according to the source that was cited. Jjdiascro (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a question better raised on the article's talk page, but, as the edit summary stated: (1) Judicial Watch primarily files FOIA suits (as the articles states); and (2) they are mostly unsuccessful (as the source stated). Adding "FOIA" was not clarifying anything, and it suggested there was a category of lawsuits (other than FOIA ones) that were mostly successful. --Weazie (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Seriously - why do you want to leave opinion within this article, as opposed to simply a statement of fact? Removing biased, opinion-based words like "falsely" and "misidentified" within the article detract from an otherwise objective article still gets the point across that Obama was born in Hawaii, without the use of opinion. JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page; that's why it is there. --Weazie (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor v Happersett

I tell you, this is driving me crazy. I have several sources, including this [1], [2] that put the case number at 1874. But then there's this from LOC [3]. When I was researching Women's suffrage in Missouri, the sources on Virginia Minor say the case was decided on October 1874. What's going on? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an artifact created by a combination of sloppy digitizing of old cases and unusual naming conventions. The case actually was argued and decided in 1785 during the 1874 Term (which started in October 1874, and ended in 1875). --Weazie (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a huge mess! Thanks for helping me understand the issue. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please don't revert my edits [4] again without a discussion or I'm going to report you to the administrators.--Libracarol (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libracarol, please do: editors do not need each other's consent to revert, and your threat is inappropriate. --Weazie (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Citizens

i have no idea who you are, but you interjected in a conversation about natural born citizens. please note that i am a nothing. a nobody. that can easily be banished or dismissed by any of the "important" peoples of this website. i am trying to add a note, either about lafayette, or about the declaration of independence. you see, it was clearly stated that lafayette was a natural born citizen and not by birthright in the united states or even by parentage. and adding to that point, the declaration itself says that "nature's god" gives us equal rights. we are all born with liberty. this is literally in the definition of our country. i am trying to mention any of this in this stupid article about "natural born citizens" because, guess what? the united states is all about freedom and people not being born into countries etc. we literally have a choice in our own citizenship and our own freedoms. that's the whole point. it even says "if anything threatens those freedoms, alter or destroy that government." that's what the united states is. that's who we are. that's what a natural born citizen is. we are not controlled by birthrights and bloodlines or some stupid 1920s birth certificate crap. we actually exist. we are still alive and we would like to note what our country is all about. if you don't mind. i don't care what my name is or who i am. i just know that i love and devote myself to this cause and the united states. that's all. i like freedom. i like representing the united states. everybody should know that's a choice and that s what the united states literally said when it declared itself and the freedom of people as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "interject"; you started a conversation on the talk page, and I responded. There are no "private" conversations on Wikipedia. --Weazie (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

somebody said that they would not discuss the subject on any talk page other than the topic's talk page. there's no "private" conversations under god, and i'm not even religious (in the common sense), but that doesn't mean there aren't designated "private" spaces. how do you talk to people if they force you to create a circus or show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not designated private spaces. Your personal beliefs about the topic aren't relevant to any article. And the only person creating a show is you. --Weazie (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep talking to yourself