User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheVirginiaHistorian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
The Signpost: 04 March 2015
- From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier
- Traffic report: Attack of the movies
- Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes
- Interview: Meet a paid editor
- Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
- Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
- In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
- Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time
- Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –
- Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
Logjam
You asked how to break the logjam. Is there a logjam? What is the logjam? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't see what the logjam is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, a logjam is a mass of logs blocking a river's flow threatening its navigation downriver. Often at Wikipedia postings are so rapid and continuous I am left behind as I generally post only once or twice a day. At the mediation, mediator Sunray made a posting not long ago which had one response for a week, her latest had one response over three days among six? editors in mediation. --- so, with infrequent and partial postings from the group, it seems as though there is a logjam holding back the stream of posts at the mediation. --- In a way, you just proved me wrong, thanks for contributing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
- From the editor: A salute to Pine
- Featured content: A woman who loved kings
- Traffic report: It's not cricket
.
Re: Discussion on U.S. islander territories
Thanks for your thoughtful question. I feel bad because I've lost track of what the conflicting proposals for text to be replaced are in the territories dispute. I know there are huge legal implications for the people living there, and some of them are based on vague and ambiguous laws where the text that ends up appearing in places like Wikipedia might affect their lives, access to welfare and healthcare resources, etc., so I do know it's important, but it seems to me like it has been splitting hairs in meronomy. I agree TFD often doesn't bother with sources when imposing a subjective "common sense" and I could scarcely believe his apparently sincere suggestion that representing popular opinion was more important than representing reliable sources. Can you please show me a diff where you think he's removed a legitimate improvement to the article? EllenCT (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- All I ask for is a fair hearing for various editors who repeatedly come to the U.S. page and try to copy edit the lead sentence as Seqqis recently did, noting that the territories are left out. By a 3 to 1 majority the Dispute Resolution of 2013 proposed and the Request for Mediation of 2015 is working on language including modern islanders within the U.S. national jurisdiction, political framework, geographical area, -- despite the anachronistic constitutional arguments describing the United States of 1901 of judicial fiat which no longer pertain to modern day American islanders. Most recently, it was Golbez who reverted Seqqis edit Diff. [1], Seqqis: “The territories were left out”, Golbez Diff. [2], Golbez: "rv two edits: one, there's a discussion going on right now whether or not to include the territories, ...” -- I might have asked for a source rather than refer to a procedure which is confidential, but Golbez is a fine administrator who has brought the article to GA status. My primary concern is to improve articles with sourced contributions.
- The thread at U.S. talk was opened to explore any objections to the source which is being used in the request for mediation now addressing the geographical scope of the lead sentence -- apart from disputes about the constitutional status of the U.S. territories. Given six experts supporting a reliable U.S.G. source which I shared on the U.S. Talk page, TFD said experts do not include islanders constitutionally. But that is non sequitur anachronism (not racism as he defensively protests he is not a racist and I do not mean to imply he is one). The constitutional holding has been gutted by subsequent Congressional acts post-WWII.
- TFD reminds me of my high school friend, a member of Mensa with a photographic memory who had a hobby of taunting me with non sequiturs. TFDs hobby seems to be chiming in wherever I go to muddy the waters regarding including contemporary islanders as a part of the U.S. in some political sense. For instance at Reliable sources/notice board Diff [3], where he notes sources say that in 1901 Insular Cases began judicially making territories not “a part of the United States” … by withholding citizenship, elective self government and delegate Member of Congress as “dangerous” to the American republic. But he refuses to concede that Congress had made any law post WWII regarding contemporary islanders citizens with elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress. There is no counter to the six modern scholars including the five major territories, only his anachronistically applying what the Supreme Court did do in 1901 — which it undoubtedly did then in a racist fashion — to the 21st century islander -- including those of Northern Mariana Islands who chose constitutional "political union" with the U.S. by UN supervised plebiscite in the 1980s.
- Now there are still serious problems. While the poorest American Samoa is better off than the island-nation of Samoa, admitting hundreds of family members yearly, the richest Puerto Rico has half the mean income of the poorest state Mississippi. The EPA has required Guam to clean up WWII military hazardous waste in dump sites at territorial expense. Problems.
- Puerto Rico or DC might gain statehood as 60% favored it in the last plebiscite with 80% participation (and another is scheduled), but it is unlikely that any of the others will unless they join another state such as Hawaii for the Pacific islands or Florida for the U.S. Virgin Islands. So, I would favor using the Organic Acts to make delegate Members of Congress extra-constitutionally voting Representatives in the House immediately. And were PR to become a state, as it is larger than 20 smaller states in population, it would gain four seats in the House, so it should receive that count by Organic Act as well. DC is larger than only two states, it would still have one representative. Senators to follow statehood. But I have drifted of the topic of the lead sentence sourcing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to read through Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States (331 KB!) which I was unaware of until today. EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with the most recent proposal and sad that TFD hasn't been participating in mediation very frequently. There is no way I'm going near the intro, though. All of my efforts are going to be suggesting proposals to consolidate the economy section to reflect the declining real incomes of the middle class and the reasons for them in a more accessible way. On reflection after reading through that mediation, that section and it's subsection are terrible. EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fact-check. I found the collaboration to cutting the history section difficult, but I think the economy section requires similar consolidation as well. I wish you well, and will chime in if I think I can help. I think that the scope discussion overlaps a bit where the U.S. reports some economic data internationally based on 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico, so consistency of the 50/DC aggregation alone for data bases should not be arbitrarily enforced by WP editors. Most important relative to the stability of the page is that the issue of constitutional status of DC, the territories and possessions not be addressed, since they are various, ambiguous and unfortunately contentious. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, TheVirginiaHistorian, I noticed your revert, would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I did wrong in your opinion? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to chime in here as I've noticed that many of the NPS links are not working anymore. (Lovely collection of HTTP 404's with their logo, and occasionally an NPS Apology Page--their name, not mine.) This now includes the ABPP summaries which stopped working in the past few days. I've had little luck in getting such things repaired by the NPS in the past. I'm in favor of using the written paper page numbers and such with paper cites rather than these completely unreliable NPS web page links. NPS IT seems to be in the habit for randomly scrambling them. Red Harvest (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. I'm slow getting back, life intervened.
- The map/illustrations probably could bear reducing as Lotje successfully did.
- But references should be open coded in standard English so the citation stands, even if the link is broken in the future. The previous edits reduced
- Fort Pulaski – National Monument, National Park Service Historical Handbook Series, “General Lee Returns to Fort Pulaski” (1961). down to http://[http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/18/hh18f.htm. and
- "Fort Pulaski National Monument, National Park Service Historical Handbook Series (1961). “Significance of the Siege” down to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/18/hh18m.htm.
- I did put in a try at reworking the link placements. I’m still not sure it is fixed right. I would appreciate Lotje giving it another go on the illustration sizing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You're invited to join WikiProject United States Constitution!
|
You are invited to join WikiProject United States Constitution, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the Constitution of the United States. You received this invitation because of your history editing the United States Constitution or United States law articles. The United States Constitution WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may introduce themselves on the talk page. |
We have lots of work to do! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Grant
Ping has been spotty for me lately, but I replied to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Territory Table
Hi. It might make sense to have a table like:
| Territory | US Citizens | US Nationals | Territorial Member of Congress | US District Court | Constitution supreme/criminal trial juries | Pres Declration Y | ETC | ETC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Puerto Rico
|
 Done
|
Done
|
name | United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico | |||||
 Guam
|
|||||||||
 US Virgin Islands
|
...and so on and so forth whatever makes sense - all refernenced for easy viewing. If you made that, I think it will be easy to understand for RfC. Just a thought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
| United States Territory | Geographically, US national jurisdiction | US Citizens/Nationals | Estimated population | Territory in Congress (Delegate MoC) | Local self governance | US Constitution supreme | US District Court | Presidential vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 District of Columbia
|
Done
|
Done 1801 US citizenship
|
658,000 | Done 1971 Ms. Norton
|
Done 1975
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC
|
Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
|
 American Samoa
|
Done
|
Done 1904 US nationals
|
57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population) | Done 1981 Mr. Faleomavaega
|
Done 1978
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
AS Supr Ct; DC or HI | citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court |
| Guam
|
Done
|
Done 1950 US citizenship
|
159,000 | Done 1973 Ms. Bordallo
|
Done 1972
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU
|
while resident in a state |
 Northern Mariana Islands
|
Done
|
Done 1986 US citizenship
|
77,000 | Done 2009 Mr. Sablan
|
Done 1978
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP
|
while resident in a state |
| Puerto Rico
|
Done
|
Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)
|
3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population) | Done 1901 Mr. Pierluisi
|
Done 1948
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR
|
while resident in a state |
| US Virgin Islands
|
Done
|
Done 1927 US citizenship
|
106,000 | Done 1973 Ms. Christensen
|
Done 1970
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI
|
while resident in a state |
| uninhabited possessions | Done
|
Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra | n/a | n/a | n/a | Done fundamental provisions
|
various | n/a |
Links and dates to follow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is that Constitution column US constitution? If so add US. Population needs its own column (or different date from the other but would be clearer in own column - and your parentheticals need better clarity). For PR wasn't citizenship earlier 1917 or something; courts need links (also one of your links does not seem to be working). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Vicksburg battle 2013 U.S. stamp.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vicksburg battle 2013 U.S. stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
U.S. Constitution
I don't log in that much, but I wanted to commend you work on the U.S. Constitution article. Appreciate the rewrite of A1 and A2 powers to encyclopedic format. And thanks for your service. Endeavor51 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
Reference errors on 13 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the American Civil War page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors
Hi TheVirginiaHistorian, I noticed that since this edit there are several list defined reference errors in the bottom of the reference section, because they are no longer being used. If you are sure they are no longer required then you could either comment them out or remove them. Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
mapping discussion in various subsections of Talk:United States
Hello TheVirginiaHistorian, I've left some comments over there, but I thought this one was probably more of a usertalk type of comment. Feel free to repaste / rework / ignore it, as you think will help best.
One of the map-triplets that was in your recent set, is the electoral college map. This excludes the territories, which is of course a touchy subject at the moment. Point being, although it is correct that the electoral college vote itself excludes the territories from participating, it is not the case that they are excluded entirely from the presidential election process. The major parties, at least, specifically include the territories in their national conventions, with voting delegations allocated mostly based on population (so the territories are relatively tiny when it comes to voting for a potus-nom and a vpotus-nom at the RNC and DNC conventions). However, the territories are also represented in the national RNC and national DNC membership bodies, which set the rules for potus campaigns: debate invite criteria, ordering and tempo of the state-by-state caucus and primary balloting, rules for which delegations from each state will be accepted when there is a factional battle at the state-party-level, and so on.
Point being, rather than using a map of the electoral college, which nowadays when 99.9% of the time the nominal 'members slash voters' of the electoral college are required by law and/or by tradition to vote the party line, I would suggest instead putting forth the map of the voting-strength allocated to each geographical region at the major-party conventions. The rules for delegate-allocation change all the time (cf the national RNC body), and since the 2012 convention the rules are actually able to be changed *between* elections by the national RNC body, no longer needing approval from the full convention delegation. So take these wikilinks with a large grain of salt: here is the calculation-guide for delegate-allocation according to the (now outdated) 2008 party rules: Republican_National_Convention#Delegations. Here is the 2012 Roll Call, which uses different rules than the ones at the earlier wikilink, and in particular, penalized several states for scheduling their primary-or-caucus ballots without national RNC sanction: Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Convention_roll_call. I looked around a little to see if we have on-wiki copies of the Democratic roll calls, but their last few potus-election-nominees have been pretty much decided long before the actual DNC convention, so I'm not sure we do. We have 2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Rules which is almost the same, though, and we have a superdelegate list, plus maybe a total delegates list here Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Local_contests.
Anyways, since you seem like you might have the skills needed to make an alternative map-instatiation, which shows the delegation-allocations from the states and territories and DC which contribute to the major-party-nominee-selections, which are distinct from (and arguably more crucial than) the modern electoral college splits. Once the general election rolls around, the swing-state voters are the deciding factor between team R and team D, and at that point, although it is true that none of the territories are directly participating, it is also true that the majority of the *states* are not participating either. In the 2000 election, only Florida and Ohio mattered, in picking Bush v Gore. However, at the earlier stages, when Bush and Gore were still gathering support to become the party nominees, territorial input was a non-negligible factor. In 2016 it might turn out to be a very-much-crucial factor, depending on how close the Republican race is to a photo-finish and a brokered convention. In any case, I think the states-and-territories delegation-strength-map, as opposed to the electoral-college map (or the color-coded-and-population-sized variant thereof), which are not as germane to who *picks* the two presidential nominees, as opposed to which swing-states pick *betwixt* the two nominees. I'm happy to help with number-digging and whatever else, if you want to take a crack at this delegate-style U.S. map. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am an aficionado of cartology, but Golbez is one editor with map making experience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- others interested in us congressional map making include Kurykh, Kelvinsong and Magog the Ogre. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Grant
More opinions are needed on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Note
I will continue the TJ review. Please note, I have moved all discussion about the removal of content to the talk page from the review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Jefferson philately
You mentioned you had an interest in Virginia stamps. Any chance you could help me find a source for the sentence "Jefferson has been honored on U.S. Postage since 1856, and was the second president to be featured"? Right now it's cited to "Scott Stamp Catalog, Index of Commemorative Stamps", but there's no page number, link, year, etc., so it doesn't seem to meet verifiability requirements. On the other hand, I don't know anything about philately, so if this is a sufficient reference already, just let me know and I'll remove the tag. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- The 1856 Jefferson US 5c. is noted at Arago: people, postage and the post, the website for the Smithsonian collection, [4]. The 1847 Washington US 10c. [5]. We have an article, U.S. presidents on U.S. postage stamps with a section on Jefferson for reference. As I say, I am not in favor of replicating that section in our Jefferson article as as been done at George Washington. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. And wow, that is out of control at George Washington. For Jefferson for now I'm just leaving in a single sentence on postage and a single sentence on currency, which shouldn't be too bad. After the GA review is done, we can compare to some FAs to see if even those two sentences should go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for that Virginia Stamp and your compliment on the Jefferson work. I am more grateful for its prompting me to visit your user page...now I understand the sources of your striking expertise! I am also a proud Virginian (in Richmond). If you haven't read it, I think you will very much enjoy the article on George Tucker...quite an interesting character. Thanks again and I look forward to future collaboration! Hoppyh (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson
Hi, TVH. In response to your comment of 29 Dec., I don't have an "'I-just-don't-like-it' (West Point) point of view." We established on the talk page that the bill creating West Point was not a significant event in TJ's presidency. It is appropriate, as I've pointed out numerous times, to United States Military Academy and more so to History of the United States Military Academy.
The dialog was anything but collegial: Gwillhickers' behavior is difficult to work with, as you can see on the talk page. I objected to what I called his Donald Trump approach and pointed out his "comments to Hoppyh [were] an unfair and insulting diatribe." His response was, I find your comments, petty, hypocritical, overlooking the fact that you have behaved in a far worse fashion, barking orders, making deletions with no discussion at a time when the article is already unstable. My "combative" remark was in response to Hoppy's accusation that I was combative -- and all you are accomplishing here is widening the gap and trashing the talk page with this peevish nonsense. Nothing collegial there. He finds Hoppyh combative! Sheesh!
I was as unaggressive as Hoppyh is for years at this article, but that produced no progress. Insisting on what's right hasn't either, so I have to bail out. As Hoppyh noted ( 22:15, 29 December 2015 ), there's no agreement on the basic editing philosophy. As long as Gwillhickers continues to behave as he has for years, it's pointless to try to improve the article or waste time discussing it.
I've appreciated most of your participation and felt I may owe you an explanation for my departure. Your most recent opinions have disappointed me but I could work with you on them. Unfortunately, Gwillhickers' behavior doesn't permit fruitful discussion. YoPienso (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- As you know, this is nothing new. YoPienso (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please remember that the article failed GA because of edit-warring and "a failure to understand the summary style criterion" and quote/paraphrase troubles. Yet Gwillhickers refuses to understand summary style! He rudely rejected my best effort to teach him. Your proposal to write a whole paragraph about West Point seems to me to militate against summary style.
- This is nothing personal--Gwillhickers made a kind comment to my Christmas greeting. It's his editing philosophy and talk page behavior that makes editing at TJ frustrating for me. Although I will say I take Gwillhickers' rudeness and prevarication personally. YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you take this departure as a break and not a permanent non participation status. wow that was convoluted.
- This is nothing personal--Gwillhickers made a kind comment to my Christmas greeting. It's his editing philosophy and talk page behavior that makes editing at TJ frustrating for me. Although I will say I take Gwillhickers' rudeness and prevarication personally. YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- What was established was that West Point as an academy was not the West Point of later years, it was more or less an engineering school to begin with, and so not significant as a military academy. But it was not a bad place to begin for a defensive-minded president -- before explosive projectiles could break apart defensive structures like Fort McHenry (Star Spangled Banner). That did not take place until the Civil War at the Siege of Fort Pulaski. An article which I wrote from a stub but have not been able to advance. I really am more hopeful for Thomas Jefferson.
- And I tried to concede the smaller point on West Point, but to make the larger point of Jefferson's wide ranging executive department reform to make it responsive to elected administrations at the peaceable transfer of power. The water's are muddied because some say Jefferson won the presidency in the House by promising not to make a clean sweep of Federalist appointments, and as matter of principle, after an election majority has chosen, "we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists". But I appreciate your scholarly depth, however we may disagree.
- In any event, I sincerely hope to hear from you again in the New Year. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
For your library
History of West Point : and its military importance during the American Revolution, by Captain Edward C. Boynyon -- Scroll down for download options. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous IP on "History of Virginia"
I really don't understand why you encourage that person. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Virginia Conventions
Hi. I was not familiar with the Virginia Conventions article. Yes, the Wheeling convention, or conventions, do belong in the listing. You could use Otis Rice & Stephen Brown's "West Virginia, A History" as a source ISBN 9780813118543 as a source. They cover both conventions on pages 118-123. Dubyavee (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Including them would return to my belief that the Civil War should be treated as a "war of brothers" for Virginia as well as the conventional treatments for Tennessee and Kentucky. I made many of the image gallery contributions for Union participants and civilians on both sides at Virginia in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Second amendment
Hello, and thank you for your support of my reverted edit of the Second Amendment. It's hard to fight the myth that the amendment means the unequivocal and absolute right for individual gun ownership as originally written; this is a new idea promoted by the NRA in the 1970s which gained momentum in conservative circles over ensuing decades and was given legal underpinning by the 5-4 Supreme Court decisions Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. In apparently the only Court case regarding the amendment in the 20th Century, United States v. Miller in 1939, staunch opponent of the New Deal Justice James Clark McReynolds delivered the 8-0 opinion of the Court (Douglas abstaining) in a just a few pages, and in that opinion stated the following:
- The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
The upshot of the Court opinion on the case is that only weapons that have a connection to a well-regulated militia are free from government regulation, and that the amendment does not proscribe the regulation of firearms by the Congress. Sixty-nine years later, Justice Scalia, the adamantine evangelist for the originalist view of the Constitution, spends 64 pages in the Heller opinion engaged in verbal circumlocution and hypocritical subterfuge upending his standard beliefs to make "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean what he wants it to say rather than what it was likely commonly believed to mean at the time of its composition. It's always difficult to fight what people want to believe against what is contrary to their beliefs but is in fact the truth. If people today want the Second Amendment to mean the ownership of firearms regardless of consequences to public safety or the infringement of other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, that's fine, but please do not use the Founding Fathers or the legacy of 19th and 20th Century judicial opinions to support your views, because that support is simply not there. PJtP (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @PJtP: On second thought, I think that this information will probably have a better reception at History of the United States Constitution, as much of my previous contribution to the United States Constitution has been sent there. This is good material, and important for any those with an "original intent" interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This philosophy espoused by those who favor such a reading of the Second Amendment equates the militia with today’s National Guard. However, since the National Guard of various states can and has been federalized many times, why would the framers think it necessary that a right be enumerated which apparently enables the federal government to protect itself from itself? If Congress does not desire to restrict the usage of this or that weapon by the National Guard, then all it would have to do is not do so. I fail to see the logic.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@PJtP and HistoryBuff14:The state militia, as explained in Federalist Paper 29, is to be trained and armed so as to effectively complement regular U.S. army troops to defend against all enemies of the United States, foreign and domestic.
In Switzerland with universal military service, all men from 18 to 60 maintain weapons in their home for immediate call up and integration into the standing army. IMO, if you are not mentally competent to serve six months active duty training in the U.S. National Guard, you should not own a weapon. I understand that Americans are more liberal than that, but the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment justifying accumulating automatic assault weapons of the enemies of the United States such as AK-47s, is illogical for any American patriot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Viewing the wisdom of the Second Amendment in historical hindsight is not the issue. The issue is what is the effect of the amendment. The framers did, after all, give us a constitutional amendment process which has all too often been usurped by the courts who rule by fiat exactly as an autocratic Russian tsar of yore would have. The entire idea of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the federal government. Maintaining that the Second Amendment applies to the rights of the federal government is disingenuous.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The effect of the Second Amendment is to establish well regulated state militias in conjunction with standing U.S. armed services to defend the country in its states and territories against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The intent is not to overthrow the U.S.G. monopoly of military coercion within its jurisdiction, promulgating private militias without federal or state electoral control. The idea is to have a peaceable, secure republic, and avoid the kind of tribal militias subservient to unelected local rulers as now is found in Iraq, which is a prescription for unending civil war or strong man rule. Rather, the National Guard under the authority of state Governors is constrained by constitutional officers of the people in each state, or when nationalized as provided by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, by the constitutional officers of the U.S. Government.
This provision for nationalizing state militias was objected to by Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, but he was outvoted. The framers provided for an amendment process by the American people if you are persuaded as Henry was. But Henry, when he saw he was defeated in Convention, resolved to live peaceably under the adopted Constitution. Of course, he did not go quietly, but led the majority of Anti-Administration party against Washington and his Federalists in the next session of Virginia legislature, so Virginia's first two U.S. Senators had been Antifederalists. But that is another story. If I were for widespread gun ownership, I would be particularly insistent that the safety training available in the National Rifle Association was made mandatory, similar to driver's license requirements, including both written examinations and practical tests on a firing range.
The framers gave the American people the amendment process which in the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to limit state governments in regards to due process and equal protection under the law. The state legislature corruptions led to the loss of their power to appoint U.S. Senators, so as not to corrupt the national councils in the Seventeenth Amendment. These are not usurpations, they are enactments of a sovereign, “We the People” of the United States in two-thirds of both the people in the House of Representatives, two-thirds of people in the states represented in the U.S. Senate, and three-fourths of the people in the states by their state legislature or by direct popular referendum. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- The upshot of what you have written, as I discern it, is that the Second Amendment is an entirely superfluous amendment in that it does not restrict federal power in any way and all that has been done in its presence could have been done just as well by federal legislation in its absence. If not, why not? If so, then why did the framers bother with it?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, the Second Amendment guarantees that the states will never be made defenseless by action of the national government. They will be able to furnish their own protections against armed insurrection by a domestic enemy, but those state militias will be under civilian control of the electorate of a republican form of state government, to oppose any domestic enemies such as private ethnic tribes, combinations or gangs who seek to overthrow the will of the peaceable suffrages of the people. Further, it is to be used in conjunction with the Constitution's Article I, Section 8 relative to Congressional powers over state militias, and Article II, Section 2 relative to Presidential powers over state militias. -- No Amendment of the Constitution is to be parsed without reference to the entire document. The reconciliation of the various provisions is left subsequent Acts of Congress which are Supreme Law of the Land as it explains in Article VI, and to the judiciary as established by Article III, Section 2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
- • "The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and theNaval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, although the two are linked.
- •"The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
- •"Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]"
- All these years I never realized that I personally, as a veteran, am part of the “unorganized militia.” (It must certainly be unorganized as even I didn’t know I was a part of it!)
- Look, I appreciate your obviously highly educated opinions on Constitutional matters, but I’m afraid we are at an impasse as I apparently side with your illustrious favorite son Patrick Henry. To call today’s National Guard the “militia” which is referred to in the Second Amendment renders the amendment meaningless due to the clause allowing the federalization of it by the president. You seem to be asserting that the amendment guarantees the existence of an armed National Guard of the states but since control of it can be taken away from the states by the federal government at any time without the consent of the states renders it a virtual adjunct of the U. S. armed forces. Therefore, it seems absurd to maintain that the intent of the amendment was to guarantee to the federal government the right to arm its own military; and even more ludicrous, to guarantee to the federal government that it cannot forbid itself from doing so. An amendment was needed to assure that?
- Furthermore, you wrote: "No, the Second Amendment guarantees that the states will never be made defenseless by action of the national government." How does it do this when the National Guard can be federalized without the consent of the states thus leaving them defenseless by action of the national government by your logic that I quoted above?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adopting a reasonable tone with me, this disagreement is truly interesting. I knew that all commissioned officers were on the hook for the rest of their lives to serve at the pleasure of the President, I did not know that enlisted were also as a part of the “unorganized militia”, but it makes sense to me in the same way the Swiss organize themselves. That call up scenario needs to be written into the screen plays for movies of U.S.A. Commie takeover by the Ruskies and their domestic minions. It might help increase active participation in American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars local chapters, which would in turn provide greater local community support for returning veterans of today.
The assumption that the federal government can make illegitimate war on the states without consent of their constitutional officers lawfully acting under the authority of the people of the United States is mistaken. The National Guard is federalized by the request of state governors when a state of emergency is declared, or rarely when a local faction high-jacks the institutions of state government to oppose due process or equal protection under the law for all its citizens as required under the 14th Amendment. That Constitutional Amendment of the United States has been duly ratified by both the people in Congress and the people in the states, and upheld in both federal and state courts. It is "established law".
See Federalist No. 10 on Faction. The intent of Union is to ensure liberty to all American citizens even when an illegitimate faction is temporarily a state majority. All states will be republics under the rule of law, there will be no ex post facto laws in the states (as well as the federal government), etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 May 2016
- Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil
- In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post
- Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one
- Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs
- Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"
- Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!
George Tucker FA Nom
I have nominated George Tucker (politician) as FA candidate. I thought you might be interested in looking at the nom and commenting on/supporting its nomination. I would be most grateful for your time and effort. Regardless, thanks for your past collaboration(s). Hoppyh (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time and effort...would be delighted to look at the "HARV warning" but need some enlightenment. Hoppyh (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The warning is located in “External links”, Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFUnited_States_CongressT000397. When you to to edit toggle and search on T000397, you find under “External links”, {{CongBio|T000397}} This is the code generating the error message. I do not know why, since the code takes the reader to the proper page referenced with a click. I substituted "United States Congress. [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000397 George Tucker], [[Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]]." and the error message went away. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Precious
foundations of the US
Thank you for your stellar work on articles related to the history and politics of the United States. Your contributions are deeply appreciated; indeed, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Congrats! On a side note, you may be interested in Talk:John C. Calhoun/GA1, we have some debate going on there. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Accusation of edit-warring
You have accused me of edit-warring. Your use of "incising" indicates that you do not know what that word means, and I wonder whether or not you know what edit-warring is. I believe your accusation to be without any basis in fact, but if I have repeatedly overridden anybody's contributions without discussion, identify my edit and I will immediately retract it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I cannot find the reversion for your reference. I apologize. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I trust you will withdraw your public accusation. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I cannot find the reversion for your reference. I apologize. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I trust you will withdraw your public accusation. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I trust you will withdraw your public accusation. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very well,
Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very well,
- In that case, I trust you will withdraw your public accusation. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Thomas Jefferson
Hi! I'm disappointed at your recent bloviation at Thomas Jefferson. How is that supposed to help anything? It's utterly wrong for the article to ignore the prevailing revisionism in Jefferson scholarship. YoPienso (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Robert Dinwiddie
Here are The official records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751-1758, in five volumes. Apparently they are a sizable account. e.g. Vol.1 is 610 pages; Vol. 2 is 806 pages; Vol 3 is 1192 pages long, etc, all downloadable in PDF and other formats. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. This is the kind of source I want to drill down into for better knowledge of Amerindian relations. So much has been lost in modern account summaries that merely gloss over the distinctions among tribes and Native-American nations, their changing relations with settlers, governments and one another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Had a feeling these works were gonna ring your bell. While working on the George Washington page I kept coming across Dinwiddie in my reading and research. Apparently some historians (and others) blamed him for fomenting the French and Indian Wars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Book
A history of the valley of Virginia,
(1833) Samuel Kercheval; Charles James Faulkner; John J. Jacob -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Publicizing an RfC
Hi TheVirginiaHistorian. I saw various posts (this, this, this and this) that you made about the RfC at WT:NFCC#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps. I understand that you are just trying to spread the word and get more people involved in the discussion, but you should be careful with WP:CANVAS. You should probably just keep things simple and try not to add any your thoughts or interpretations on how the discussion has progressed and which side is in the majority since that might be seen by some as inappropriate. Best thing is to simply post a link along the lines of Template:Please see without going into too much detail. You might also want to consider posting something at the RfC itself to let others now who you have notified and how you notified them, just to avoid any misunderstandings, before someone else beats you to the punch with a claim of canvassing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for the introduction to Template:Please see. As I have had no interactions with editors at Wikiprojects at Numismatics, Graphic design, Visual arts and Video games notification there should not be a problem. My interactions with editors at Wikiprojects Philately have generally conformed with opponents of the proposal such as Masem, so notifying them cannot be construed as canvassing for support, rather notifying is in the interest of broadening the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, notifying others is not really the problem, but the way you notified them might be seen as one. If you simply posted something such as "There's a discussion at XXXXX regarding YYYYY. All interested editors are welcomed to comment" then nobody could mistake that for canvassing; however, your "notification" also includes statements such as "While a majority of one is found in earlier discussions ...." and "Support would ...." which are things which may not be seen as exactly neutral by those who feel differently about this issue. If you click on your Watchlist and look at the very top, you'll find two very neutral (bland) examples of RfC notifications which are only a single simple sentences with a link to the RfC. That's pretty much all that is needed with this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the follow up. At each Wikiproject, under the header "RfC", I used
Discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC).
- Just for future reference, the "Please see" template will automatically add a section heading beginning with "Discussion at..." followed by a link to Wikipage you added as a parameter ( i.e., the relevant discussion) as you can see above, so there's no real need to manually add one. In fact, it might be a bit confusing to so so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
- News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses
- Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica
- In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising
- Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks
- Traffic report: Olympic views
- Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)
- Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case
Grigsby
DYK these books were in the PD? :
- Grigsby, Hugh Blair (1855). The Virginia Convention of 1776. Da Capo Press, NY. ISBN 978-1-4290-1760-2.
- Grigsby, Hugh Blair (1891). The Virginia Convention of 1788. Da Capo Press, NY,. ISBN 978-1-4589-2204-5.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The links to go free online editions, the two Da Capo Press editions in my library are from 1969 which I omitted --rats--, and Applewood Books has a currently in print edition of ISBN 978-1-4290-1760-2 for the 1776 convention only. I think we should just go with the Da Capo Press editions and add the dates 1969. If we unlink these two from online and add them to the Further Reading section, we might rename "Further Reading" -- which is now almost all links to online Proceedings of each Convention -- to "External Links", since all but one of them will be external links. What do you think is best? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage
- Wikicup: WikiCup winners
- Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?
- Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content
- Featured content: Cream of the crop
- Traffic report: Un-presidential politics
- Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities
The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
re: Wheeling convention speeches
Hello. The only thing I can think of, aside from reading back issued of the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer on the Chronicling America website, is the Debates and Proceedings of the First Constitutional Convention, which has been put online by the WV Archives. The most interesting sections are the early months of the convention, the later debates are about apportionment, voting districts, etc, and mostly technical politics. You can find the debates at this link. [6]. Dubyavee (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Seems there's no short cut like that I used for the 1788 Ratification (Federal) Convention, Pauline Maier's Ratification: the people debate the Constitution. Thanks for the link. I wonder if an editor would look at the primary documentation and claim original research. I hope not; it seems to me that someone with a reasonable interest in the subject would want to know what some of them actually said to one another about Union v. secession, status quo or partition into another state. What Conventions generally accomplished as an outcome is covered in the article Constitution of Virginia, though all subsections do not address the franchise and apportionment which is my particular interest as they are the bellwethers of democracy, --- that in turn leads me to desire equal apportioned expression of the vote in districts for the state legislature, Congress and the Electoral College such as Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Maryland once had, or the District Plan now in force in Maine and Nebraska. Virginia's 3d and 4th Congressional Districts were again readjusted by federal courts as recently as last year. Seems that apportionment is a subject that we have a very difficult time getting right, regardless of political party in power. The League of Women Voters has a redistricting reform proposal which promises to result in contested elections with increase turnout based on results in other states, but I digress from the Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- wow. great good accounts of speeches at Proceedings of the Second Wheeling Convention. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I looked at the article. Carlile was not from Allegheny County, Pierpont was not a convention delegate, I don't know that he even was in Richmond at the time of the convention. I'm not partial to long quotations, but that seems to be a popular thing. When writing about the Pierpont government people tend to be overly emphatic and overlook some very important points. First, that they were never elected, second that they were not supported by most of the people in West Virginia. The three important votes they initiated, i.e., Statehood, the Constitution in 1862, and the Willey Amendment in 1863, were sanctioned by 24%, 25%, and 37% of the available voters, respectively. Union recruitment in West Virginia was notoriously low, with Pierpont writing to Lincoln twice to make excuses for it, in 1861 and 1862. The supposed Union advantage seen in the May 23, 1861 vote did not translate to support once the war started. The lower Ohio River counties, except for Mason, gave about half their men to the Confederacy despite having voted 3 or 4 to 1 against secession. Most of West Virginia's Richmond convention delegates returned to Richmond in June and most of them signed the secession ordinance, 29 of the 49 delegates. The statehood ordinance did great harm to Unionism in WV. Pierpont wrote to Lincoln on Dec. 30, 1862, that "The Union men of West Va were not originally for the Union because of the new state."[1] Anyway, I am going to make a few changes to the Virginia and West Virginia in the Civil War pages. I have delayed making the changes but I will do so soon. Dubyavee (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Quick look up for Carlile gives him from Harrison County in the Biographical Register of Members: Virginia State Convention of 1861, first session (1969). Thanks for the double check on that and the other items. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I looked at the Unconditional Union Party article, which I was not familiar with, and searching the West Virginia newspapers for the war I could only find 7 mentions of the phrase, and several were for Maryland. I don't think this party, as a formal party, had any real presence in West Virginia, as I had not come across the phrase before. Union Democrat is a more familiar term for WV. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Dubyavee: Thank you. Very interesting. Martis actually notes variations in his explanatory text, but for party classification purposes reports all Virginia and West Virginia Representatives as UP, Unconditional Union Party, in a summary fashion at his maps. I suppose the Union Democrats caucused with the Unconditional Union Party rather than the Copperhead Democrats. That would be interesting to find out. But that's where I was misled. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will take a look at my copy of Martis and read what he says about it. If I have any further thoughts on the matter I will post it here. Best. Dubyavee (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 21 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Virginia Conventions page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Taylor (Virginian) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)good job
|
The Epic Barnstar | |
| for excellent work on the Virginia Conventions DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
I just read the Virginia Conventions; what a detailed and thorough article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @DarjeelingTea: Thank you. It took about year in research. I've nominated for a Good Article.
- You might also enjoy a little more detail on each Convention debate and pics of the orators in the daughter articles related to Virginia Constitutional Conventions, although I do not know yet how to make a WP:Topic.
- Virginia Conventions
- Fifth Virginia Convention
- Virginia Ratifying Convention
- Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830
- Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850
- Virginia Secession Convention of 1861
- Wheeling Convention
- Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864
- Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868
- Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1902.
- Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year, TheVirginiaHistorian!
TheVirginiaHistorian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Re: Virginia Conventions
In response to your comments on the Virginia Conventions, I do not know an author to review the article, but will let you know if I find one.
Part of the issue (at least for me) on the Tartar comment (on the Fifth Convention) is that the first party (planters) is singled out with a negative characterization but does not discuss if they brought any other things to the table (was the franchise their single issue? Probably not.) There is some characterization of the “radicals” who were younger men from western Virginia and favored independence (but nothing about their position on the franchise). There is no mention of the agenda or positions of the intellectuals (reader has to infer them based on it including Mason, Jefferson, and Madison). Another thing was the readability and the flow of the paragraph. Tartar’s comment is awkward to read (something written for a thesis or for other academics, but not for general readers). You brought up good points, addressed things beyond what is in Tartar’s comment, and put them in a better context. I do not think most readers would connect those dots based only on that one sentence by Tartar - so either leave the readers less or provide them more to understand those points. In the article on the Constitution of Virginia it states:
“Critically, the 1776 Constitution limited the right to vote primarily to property owners and men of wealth. This effectively concentrated power in the hands of the landowners and aristocracy of Southeastern Virginia. Dissatisfaction with this power structure would come to dominate Virginia's constitutional debate for almost a century.”
I think that says it better and also connects the dots for readers. The three separate parties are not discussed in that article, but the other two parties must have supported limiting the franchise or compromised on it to approve the constitution. Do you think the above should be added or paraphrased in the article?
Virginia is not alone in problems with gerrymandering. I have places in both Virginia and Florida, and the Sunshine State has been in the spotlight on redistricting. The courts forced them to redraw congressional districts proposed for a number of safe seats. While there is still a great deal of criticism, they finally got up against the clock and something approved in order to allow primaries to proceed in 2016 – better to have imperfect districts vice not meeting timelines for absentee ballots to be generated and mailed. Florida has some other issues and I thought somethings were handled better in Virginia, so I guess one can tend to be more critical of where you are than on what is occurring elsewhere.
Also once again thanks for all your work on the article. Thorkall (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer your copy edit, “Critically, the 1776 Constitution limited the right to vote primarily to property owners and men of wealth. This effectively concentrated power in the hands of the landowners and aristocracy of Southeastern Virginia. Dissatisfaction with this power structure would come to dominate Virginia's constitutional debate for almost a century.”
- I'm not sure the positive contributions of the men of property and commerce are properly, proportionately laid out in the literature. Without them there is no Revolution sustained for seven years before victory, with arms from the French and especially funding from the Dutch. The same omission or overlooking takes place in regards to Hamilton's inclusion of those holding debt during the New Nation period in his role as Treasury Secretary, I am afraid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Virginia Conventions
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Virginia Conventions you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
With this edit you reverted my edit, and added back your unsourced content. Please take a moment to add a source to your edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Virginia Conventions
The article Virginia Conventions you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Virginia Conventions for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations and great work on this article!--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mojo Hand: Thanks for your assist and encouragement. Looking at Congress of the Confederate States next, awaiting a peer review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)