Jump to content

Template talk:Historical American Documents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labor

[edit]

Can we add a category to historical documents called 'Labor'? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This template covers the specific 18th century founding documents themselves, and maybe a better title for it would add the word 'founding'. Do you have examples of documents that you are thinking of? Maybe, if they don't fit here, a new template on the topic can be created. Randy Kryn 12:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

As a result of the TfD from April 3, there is consensus to split the template, but since there isn't a clear decision in which sections to be split, I will initiate the discussion right below here. ToadetteEdit! 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToadetteEdit, no sections should be split, this is a full navbox entitled 'Founding documents of the United States' which follows the format of hundreds of other navboxes which cover multiple sections of various topics. Gwillhickers and others discussed this major navbox, the argument for leaving it intact achieved valid points of view, and to focus on "splitting" (especially saying there was a "strong consensus to split" which, in good faith, seems both incorrect and redefines the term "strong consensus") would add several more navboxes to quite a few articles (each of the four navboxes, for example, would be placed on the National Archives display page, three on the Journals of the Continental Congress, etc.). Toadette, your decision to close to split this navbox with little explanation, just as we are entering the 250th birthday celebrations of the United States, should, hopefully, be itself reconsidered, and reopened or "Kept" as it has been since 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, ToadetteEdit — It figures that the idea of splitting has no real substance, and once again, consensus is ignoring common sense and WP:DETCON  :  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." . If the nav-box is split, then the various sections will simply be tucked away under {{navboxes}}, which in effect gives us the same nav-boxes under one heading. in the same fashion as they are listed under one title bar at present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring those who are refusing to accept the strong consensus we already have, this should be split into 3-4 discrete navboxes, one for the Constitution, one for the Declaration of Independence, with either one or two more for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association. How we split is what we need to be discussing now, not more WP:ICANTHEARYOU arguments. --woodensuperman 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "refusing to accept", just not agreeing with the reasoning, such that it is, as was clearly explained in plain English in plain view of your response.The existing nav-box consists of four different sections, one for each major subject regarding the founding documents. We can go ahead and split the nav-box into four separate nav-boxes, and then we can neatly place them under {{navboxes}}, as was suggested by another editor who voted to split. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We only need to bunch them if there are too many of them on a case-by-case basis, 3-4 navboxes are quite common ungrouped. --woodensuperman 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four subjects/nav-boxes are about the four founding documents, subjects that all intimately related and which led to the establishment of the US Government. This is why they were contained in one nav-box to begin with, so we have every reason to group them, esp for those editors who actually research and edit those articles. i.e.Easier to navigate through founding documents, rather than having these nav-boxes scattered about in different articles as if they had nothing to do with the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the articles will have all four navboxes on them, per WP: BIDIRECTIONAL, some may only have one. --woodensuperman 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one person will have all four navboxes (Roger Sherman signed all four). Some will have three or one. Majority would have two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are going off in all directions at once. This section is about a split, not about edits. If you are interested in editing then create new sections about each individual navbox-parts and not bounce around from topic to topic in a hard-to-keep-up-with wily-nilly combination of "Let's do this and then hey, let's do this" while mixing topics up. Any changes here should be done extremely carefully and with either full agreement of page topic editors or prepare a series of RfCs for what you intend. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the split was to remove redundancy. We don't need {{United States Constitution signatories}}, {{Constitution of the United States}}, and a third navbox comprising of a split from this section. We need to merge the three. Seems like you're trying to look for loopholes to avoid splitting and undermine the consensus. --woodensuperman 15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was once addressed. Once again the same name, title, event, etc can and has been mentioned more than once in an article in different sections an/or different contexts. So "redundancy" by itself in this case doesn't carry much weight when all things are considered. There was a consensus to split, anyways, but please notice that no one, including yourself, has ever addressed that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is a simple one. Add the {{United States Constitution signatories}} to {{Constitution of the United States}} and make sure there's nothing pertinent missing from the Constitution section of this one. --woodensuperman 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would say though is that we probably don't need to break the signatories down state by state in the split navbox, this seems more appropriate for the article rather than use up navbox real estate. --woodensuperman 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, they have a point. Some changes are necessary for this split to work. At the end of this, there should be four navboxes for each of the documents with all the information related to each of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, another major editor of founding documents and American founding history should be pinged for this taffy pull. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N O T I C E :
We are only here to decide how to split this nav-box ---not to decide for all editors at the
different related articles as to how many nav-boxes should be included at the given articles.
  • Woodensuperman, you quoted WP: BIDIRECTIONAL as if it was some policy (it's a guideline) that automatically supports your contention to keep the individual nav-boxes separated in most cases, when in fact it says
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL : "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include nav-boxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. (emphasis added)
So we can go ahead and split the nav-boxes, but the subjects involved for each nav-box are virtual chapters of the same story,i.e.The Founding of the United States, and as such no one has offered any viable reason why they shouldn't be grouped, but again, that is a different issue.  It was suggested that we group all four under {{navboxes}}. But how many nav-boxes to include for any given article is to be determined by individually established consensus by the editors at those articles, and should not be attempted here. We are only here to establish how to split the nav-box in question, not in some attempt to determine how they are placed throughout all of Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to transclude the navbox if the link to the article is not included in the navbox, therefore placing all four on each page that this navbox is currently transcluded on is not only against WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but also defeats the point of the split in the first place. --woodensuperman 16:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opinion, but that will be determined at the individual articles, per BIDIRECTIONAL -- .Please stay focused at the task at hand i.e.Splitting -- Gwillhickers (talk)
Once this is split, each navbox will only be transcluded on the articles where the article is mentioned. Any deviation from this in the first place can only be seen as an attempt to avoid consensus for the split. The two issues are intertwined, no matter how much you want to look for a loophole. --woodensuperman 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the Tfd was split. And we should be focused on doing that as best as we could. When that is done, each of the navboxes should be placed in articles relevant to the topic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BIDIRECTIONAL is not a "loophole", nor is it WP:Policy.. Again, we can split the nav-box, but how many to include for each article will be determined, not by you or I alone, but by the editors at any given article.The decision to split here does not dictate policy for WP and all the editors at the given articles.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it will be determined by the spirit of the split, and the standard convention of navbox placement, as per my comment above. Some articles will have one, some two, three or four, depending on how many navboxes each article is mentioned. Any additional navbox placement can then be discussed individually, but these tactics can only been seen in bad faith as an attempt to derail consensus and smacks of WP:ICANTHEARYOU --woodensuperman 16:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has attempted to "derail" the consensus to split, as if that somehow could ever happen without another RfC or some such forum, thank you, so please don't attempt to assert false accusations to overshadow your failed arguments. I've addressed every point you've (tried to) raise. If anyone is refusing to get it that would seem to be yourself. All that was asserted was that editors are allowed to include the various nav-boxes as determined by consensus at any given article, and as pointed out by BIDIRECTIONAL, something that you brought to the table. Thanks for that at least. Again, the decision to split here does not establish rigid policy for all the editors at the given articles. Once again, since the four subjects are corner-stone chapters in the story about the establishment of the founding, editors are very likely to group two or more of the nav-boxes together, as you mentioned, and as will be determined by consensus at any given article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you accept that some articles will only have one or two of these navboxes on it, then we're good... --woodensuperman 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way but there is rather parental tone that seems to aimed at @Woodensuperman. At least they have given suggestions from which to work from. I don't see any viable alternatives from either of the other main contributors either since it started, just constant "I don't agree". So I can understand how that can be taken as an attempt to derail.
As I said before, the end result of this should be four seperate navboxes with all the relevant links and articles in them. We can do this in a civilized manner. Please don't get into unnecessary bickering over who is using Wikipedia policy correctly. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Woodensuperman is right. What is the point of having a navbox in an article which has nothing to do with the person? Thomas Jefferson did not sign the U.S. Constitution so the navbox for U.S. constitution will not be in his article. Simple as that. I don't see how that is, in any way, a controversial position. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jefferson was US Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention, but he frequently corresponded with Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, and others, including Washington and Adams, where several of Jefferson's suggestions were accepted, including Separation of Church and State. So if the Constitution nav-box is included in his article I don't think that is going to be inappropriate. Again, that will be determined by editors at that article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he had some limited influence but he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. I think it is fair to say that he wasn't anywhere near as deeply involved as the people who attended it and he certainly isn't associated with it the same way as Hamilton and Madison were. So I would say its not appropriate to put it in an article of a person who was not even in the country, let alone directly involved in it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson was indeed not physically present, but his influence was far more than limited, as he played a major role in establishing founding principles, again, including Separation of Church and State, a major principle in US Government. Again, this should be determined by editors at the Jefferson article. Right now, we should get this split over with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be me. I've edited quite a few of the articles on the U.S. founding fathers as well as other U.S. Presidents. And I don't think its right to give him credit for the idea of "seperation of Church and State" - the idea was around for a lot longer; Jefferson coined the term in a letter from 1802 which, you will note, is long after the Constitution was signed.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who attended Convention and/or signed the Constitution should be included. And its not an insult to him. Its just historical fact. No historian would say "Jefferson played a major role in the creation of the Constitution". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't taken as an insult to Jefferson, but again, regardless of when the term Separation of Church and State was actually coined, the principle was around in the years leading up to the actual Revolution, and thereafter, and Jefferson had much to do with it, more so then a good number of other signatories. Regardless, Jefferson was a principle founder that ultimately led to the US Constitution. Bearing in mind that no one invented the political wheel all by themself, there are plenty of sources that give much credit to Jefferson for promoting that and other Constitutional principles. His influence, overall, was far more than incidental or limited. Again, this sort of issue should be determined at any given article, and if it's included in the Jefferson article I don't see this, all things considered, as anything that should amount to something at all inappropriate. That's just me also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would take the approach of most historians and that is to limit each document to the people directly involved - i.e. the signatories - rather than make some sort of connection between all founding fathers and all documents. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to say what "most historians" would do in terms of WP editing. I agree that some founders are not directly involved, but that would not include Jefferson. Involvement in the formation of Constitution involved much more than just being physically present at the signing. See this account for openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One throwaway line is not enough, I'm afraid. I've read books on the matter where he is certainly mentioned but his role is not considered a big one in any manner. And as a Wikipedia editor, I hope to make an article as accurate as I can and to not overcomplicate things.
But let's get on with the splitting rather than argue about Jefferson's role. I gave him only as an example, not to debate about his role in the document. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jefferson's involvement with the formation of the Constitution amounts to much more than some "throwaway line". He was also the first Secretary of State under Washington beginning March 22, 1790, more than a year and a half before the Bill of Rights was ratified -- a major component of the Constitution. During this time his involvement with Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, was fundamental, to say the least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant by "throwaway line" is that the link you sent mentioned it only in passing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jefferson wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights as early as December, 1887, before ratification in June 1788, and well before the Bill of Rights was actually created on September 25, 1789. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." — Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madion (December 20, 1787)[1]


References

  1. ^ "From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 20 December 1787". founders.archives.gov. United States National Archives and Records Administration. December 20, 1787. Archived from the original on January 30, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2023.

Splitting

[edit]

Hopefully, we can agree that the nav-box be split up into its four major sections, as they are. After that, the resultant individual nav-boxes can be added to the various related articles, with any additional editing that might be needed. I would suggest that we let Randy Kyrn make the split, as he is a major contributor to the nav-box itaself and is more than familiar with editing nav-boxes. If there are no reasons not to, we should at long last move forward from here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for suggesting the workload Gwillhickers, but part of it is easy. The discussion above about the documents navboxes being included on the signers pages is already handled (the signers already have related navboxes on their pages, ({{Signers of the Continental Association}}, {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} which just survived a deletion attempt, etc.). There is no need to put the full topic navbox on their page. Of course the document navboxes would continue to include the signers names, with links, for historical context). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The signatories should be incorporated into the main navbox for each of the four topics, and it is these main navboxes that should be transcluded into each article, thus making the purely "signers" navboxes redundant. This is what has been mooted in the split discussion. --woodensuperman 12:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already included in the main navboxes, sorted by states but not alphabetically. I may agree with you on this one, and can see the value in adding the full-document navboxes to each signer's article (which would get more eyes on the full range of articles on the topic as well). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think splitting by states is unnecessary. It takes up more room, and if someone is really interested this information is available in the article. --woodensuperman 13:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean splitting by states? The signatories? Of course they should be split by states on the single topic navboxes, they were appointed into their state delegations, often voted as states (Declaration of Independence), and agreed to portions of the documents as states. Delegates were even assigned various roles by their states. Not really getting why you'd want to now begin lessening information on the individual navboxes even after gaining your way on a split. And please look at the size of the navboxes, they will all be medium size after a split, none very large, so space is not a problem. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not split by state on the "signers" navbox, I don't think we need to do it on the new one. --woodensuperman 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is getting convoluted, once again. We should just effect the basic four way split, and then take up any following matters of opinion regarding placement, etc, when and where appropriate. Otherwise, we will be here indefinitely and in the process the existing nav-box will not get split. We have a consensus to split. We do not have any consensus to do anything else here for the simple reason that this is not the place. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split with page history

[edit]

How would this be split while at the same time saving the page history? Have left a note at the closer's page (ToadetteEdit) about this. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to perform such is branching off sub navbox and placing them to separate pages

(providing attribution) and to use a tool to edit all articles thst are being transcluded so pages are being linked to relevant sub navbox. Any ideas? ToadetteEdit! 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToadetteEdit, my idea is for you to read the discussion again, especially the last few comments, and reverse your close to a Keep. The question was how to save the page history. Maybe the best way: leave one of the navboxes present on this template and just change the name (i.e. United States Declaration of Independence) which would then preserve the full history. I don't use tools, and it seems I'm assigned the task of splitting for some reason. Assistance in adding the pages would be nice, but will have to be done carefully so as to not miss anything or any pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how? I've read that discussions cannot be reopened except an uninvolved administrators, or otherwise I believe this should be taken to deletion review. ToadetteEdit! 12:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion review may be a good idea, but things are hard to change there given that the close took into account the tally of "split" editors who, for the most part, have not been involved in creating the navbox. But might try it (Gwillhickers, any ideas?) to further the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justification for a deletion review. The consensus in both discussions were very strongly in favour of the split. Is this more WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Moving this to another title and using edit summaries with links to the splits would preserve the page history and attribution. --woodensuperman 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's where the problem comes in. There was no "both discussions", but you, as nominator of the signers navbox discussion, acted as if there were, thus influencing other editors right from the start. The "first" discussion used this navbox as an example, but it did not notify any page that this navbox was under scrutiny - not this page, not this talk page, or not the various document topics involved in this navbox. Not notifying those pages puts that discussion outside of the topic of this discussion. Reference to it by the nominator Primefac should have made that clear to editors reading the documents navbox discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to accept consensus is getting incredibly tiresome. --woodensuperman 17:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close reversed to a keep

[edit]

As the process asks us to do, I took my case to ToadetteEdit' talk page (after learning of Woodensuperman's hope to now lessen the content of all four sections of the navbox). As I understand it, ToadetteEdits re-read the discussion, especially the last several edits which I had highlighted, and understood that a Keep existed within the discussion. I know they are having an interesting learning curve elsewhere, and some of their other closings have been questioned, but I must say that they have the perception and ability to admit a mistake (kind of rare but ideally essential in closers) and to get this one right. Correctly reversing a 'split' to a 'keep' has merit, shows an open mind, and allows principled editorial action to take place. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is absolute madness. Consensus for the split was clear. Will take to WP:DRV. --woodensuperman 06:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Madness? Please strike your insult. It insults the process, the editors involved, and shows a tendency towards hyperbole. When reading the entire discussion, post by post, consensus was certainly not clear. There is a definite keep within the argument, and the closer was made aware of it and agreed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a decision to simply make a basic four-way split, without the perpetual talk, the basic split could have happened. I made several appeals just to stick to making the basic split, but to no avail.  It's just as well that this discussion is over -- this page was starting to look like a wall of graffiti, which no doubt was why most of the notified editors stayed clear. I suspect, at this point, that any challenge is going to result in the same thing...perpetual talk which will again keep most editors away. Let's bear in mind that there was no pressing or viable reason to make the split in the first place, other then the duplication of names that occurred in different sections under different context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the splits should be simple. We should end up with four navboxes, without the need for separate navboxes for the signatories. We have the basic framework for some of them already, as I pointed out above, and it can easily be achieved by splits and merges. It didn't need to be discussed further really, but it seems the close was made by an inexperienced editor who suggested further discussion was necessary. It wasn't helped by certain editors refusing to accept consensus and insist that no split should be made. The overturned split should be overturned back to split shortly by the deletion review, so we can make the changes easily once this has been resolved. --woodensuperman 20:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Historical_American_Documents&oldid=1231750737"