Talk:Thomas F. Bayard

Misc

I have been doing some research into Bayard's impeachment, and will no doubt be able to add significantly to this article in the future when I have collated my results. In the meantime there seems to be little more information than already presented here on the Web regarding the rest of his life. It would be very useful (for me at least) if anyone could add anything more general to this article; for example, I believe he was a presidential candidate on at least one occasion. His views on protectionism and on international relations in general were the main subject of controversy, it seems; this is part of my research, but summaries of his views seem to be hard to come by and newspaper reports too numerous to be easily summarised. --SMeeds 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Thomas F. Bayard (1828-1898) → Thomas F. Bayard, Sr. – According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), use of a junior/senior suffix is preferred to a parenthetical disambiguator, and such parenthetical disambiguators are supposed to “avoid … anything … containing numbers”. — DLJessup (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support per naming conventions guideline, as indicated by DLJ --Francis Schonken 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Dates should be the last choice for disambiguation. Septentrionalis 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Oppose It is my intention in the very near future to flesh out this article considerably, I look forward to perhaps working together on it. There were many Bayard's, even in Delaware, and it's very hard for many people to keep them straight. I have just finished correcting several articles confused between father and son. Sr. & Jr. would seem to work in this case, because right now I know of only the two Thomas'- but there are more than two with other names, and I would prefer a consistent way of dealing with this problem. The only clean, consistent way is clearly to use dates. That's what the published encyclopedias do. The convention was written by people thinking of a smaller encyclopedia and not focused on the issue of many (say) James Smith's that were lawyers in California (for example). So why not bite the bullet and understand we need to just use dates. This concept is not original to me, see William Bradford, but would ask that everyone seriously consider it. stilltim 03:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Some questions:

• How would you handle a person for whom the dates of birth and death are not known?
• For people who are still alive, the name of the article would have to change when they died. For example, if Michael Jackson (TV) were to obey this rule, the article would have to be titled “Michael Jackson (1958—)” and, if he were to die tomorrow, the article would then have to be renamed “Michael Jackson (1958–2006)”. Would a more consistent practice be to note the date of birth only (e.g., “Thomas F. Bayard (born 1828)” or “Michael Jackson (born 1958)”)?
• Since MediaWiki 1.5+ can handle Unicode titles, should the date range be “1828<hyphen>1898” or “1828<en-dash>1898”?

— DLJessup (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

good questions-nothing's perfect is it?

• 1) I would use the existing approach if no dates are available.
• 2) I would do as you imagine with living people. Their dates won't be the only changes required when they die.
• 3) I have no idea. I don't understand the implications of these approaches. I have been using the hyphen, but only in ignorance. What would you suggest?

- stilltim 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• 2) While the dates won't be the only changes required when a person dies, it behooves us to try to minimize the necessity to change article titles due to its implications for wikilinking.
• 3) In general, en dashes are supposed to be used for ranges. However, until the MediaWiki 1.5 release, en-dashes couldn't be used in article titles, and it is somewhat easier to type a hyphen (strictly speaking, a hyphen-minus) than it is to use the insert link on Wikipedia's edit pages to enter the en-dash, so hyphens tend to be used instead.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I have proposed a change to the parenthetical disambiguation rules at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Parenthetical disambiguators that, when a parenthetical disambiguator is necessary, the dates of birth and death should be used.
• I haven't withdrawn the rename request. Until now, I have been torn, because you do have some strong arguments, particularly in your example of William Bradford, and those arguments have convinced me to make the proposal I just mentioned. However, after deliberation, I still have to support the renaming. Wikipedia's general guideline is that, with names, if a middle initial or name or suffix can be used to disambiguate, then it should be used in preference to a parenthetical disambiguator, and "Thomas F. Bayard, Sr." is not ambiguous. (In the William Bradford case, "William Bradford, Sr." and "William Bradford, Jr." are ambiguous, so we must fall back on parenthetical disambiguators, and, in that case, the date range is probably the most consistent and most professional way to disambiguate.)

— DLJessup (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable position to me- dates are "the most consistent and most professional way to disambiguate" when middle names or suffixes such as "Sr." & "Jr." are not appropriate or meaningful. I appreciate you entering that point in the wider discussion. I have not yet taken the time to learn how to do that. I will move the two Thomas Bayard's, correct their links, and remove the message. I hope that is the right action to take at this point. stilltim 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't do it- I see you already moved Junior, so must ask you to do the same on Senior. I presume you are an admin. I will correct the links on both. Thanks for your help. stilltim 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not an admin. — DLJessup (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the talk page of the "people" NC yet, but it seems highly unlikely that the "people" NC would change in this sense anywhere soon. So, I propose not to take account of such speculations in this vote. The "people" NC did not change because of Roger Taylor (drummer), neither do Roger Taylor (1949) or Roger Taylor (1960) even exist as a redirect. --Francis Schonken 07:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is the only TF Bayard in ANB, and it does not seem to run in the family; for example, it was not his father's name. If further disambiguation ever becomes necessary, Thomas Francis Bayard, Sr. will probably suffice. Septentrionalis 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Delaware legislature and secession

"However others may have felt, on January 2, 1861, Bayard is widely credited for convincing the Delaware General Assembly to drop, once and for all, any thought of secession." This is a statement so vague as to be meaningless, and it's introduced with a clause that is weirdly confrontational. Furthermore, there's no citation to support it (or provide explanation of what, exactly, the article is trying to say). No mention is made of Bayard being a member of the Delaware state legislature, so presumably he didn't do this convincing by speechifying. How, then, did he do it? Binabik80 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the author is trying to defend Bayard against the charges, levelled later in his political career, that he was friendly to secession and lukewarm on the Union war effort. It's a weak sentence in a weak article. I hope to improve this to GA or FA, but I doubt I'll have time for it before 2014. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas F. Bayard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 12:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Coemgenus (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 12:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Calvin Coolidge, Winfield Scott Hancock, James II of England, Grover Cleveland, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, James G. Blaine, John Sherman, William Hayden English Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Calvin Coolidge, Winfield Scott Hancock, James II of England, Grover Cleveland, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, James G. Blaine, John Sherman, William Hayden English Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

• "By that time, Garfield had been assassinated and Arthur was president." (Can you provide inline citation?)
  • Done.
• "After four years in private life, he returned to the diplomatic arena as Ambassador to the United Kingdom." ("as Ambassador" or "as an Ambassador"?)
  • I think "as Ambassador is correct in American English.
• "Born in Delaware to a prominent family of that state, Bayard learned his politics from his father, James A. Bayard, Jr., who also served in the Senate." (or simply "learned politics"?)
  • Done.
• "When Bayard's father retired from the Senate, Delaware elected his son to succeed him in 1869." (Can you rephrase it? For example: "In 1869, Delaware elected Bayard when his father retired from the Senate.")
  • It should be less awkward now.
• "A Peace Democrat during the Civil War, Bayard spend his early years in the Senate in opposition to Republican policies, especially the Reconstruction of the defeated Confederacy." (spend or spent? Can you rephrase it? For example: "During his early years in the Senate, Bayard who was a Peace Democrat during the Civil War opposed Republican policies, especially the Reconstruction of the defeated Confederacy."?)
  • "Spend" was a typo. Fixed it.
• "His conservatism extended to financial matters, as well, as he became known as a staunch supporter of the gold standard and an opponent of greenbacks and silver coinage, which he believed would cause inflation." (Can you rephrase it, "as well" is affecting the flow?)
  • I just removed "as well". The sentence works fine without it, so I shouldn't have written it in the first place.
• "His conservatism made him popular in the South and with Eastern financial interests, but never popular enough to obtain the Democratic nomination for President, which he attempted to win in 1876, 1880, and 1884." (Is "the" missing?)
  • No, neither of those would typically take a "the".
• "In 1885, President Cleveland appointed Bayard Secretary of State." (Is "the" missing?)
  • Same as above; "the" isn't the normal construction.
• I think the sentence "As ambassador, Bayard continued to strive for Anglo-American friendship, which brought him into conflict with his successor at the State Department, Richard Olney when Olney and Cleveland demanded more aggressive diplomatic overtures than Bayard wished in the Venezuela Crisis of 1895." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • Yes, it works better as two sentences. Done.
• I think the sentence "He protested the requirement that readmitted Southern states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed equal protection of the laws to all Americans, and inveighed against the continued presence of federal troops in the South." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • Yes, it would. Done.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Coemgenus, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think these are all addressed now. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Coemgenus, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)