text:
Talk:Playing doctor

I find this a very peculiar article...
...(and in fact I originally tagged it for speedy delete). It doesn't in fact refer to a game in any formal sense; children play doctors and nurses, mothers and fathers, cowboys and indians, shopkeeper and customer, and who knows what else — they're all varieties of role-play, not distinct games deserving of encyclopædia articles. I'm inclined to go for VfD on this. Does anyone have a defence? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the other games you mention involve taboo activities. Also it seems possible that "doctors and nurses" plays a role in pyscho-sexual development, rather than just social. But actually it's disappointing that we don't have Cowboys and Indians. Kappa 12:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well actually 'mothers and fathers' can do (and I don't know what a Freudian would make of cowboys and indians...). But why should sexual content make it article-worthy?  Mind you, I can see a place for an article on children's role-playing games, just not for individual articles like this one. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If such an article existed, this could be merged there, but deleting this would just create a gap in wikipedia's coverage when there doesn't need to be one. But take it to Vfd if you'd like. Kappa 13:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to VfD if there's a useful alternative. How about moving this to Children's games (role play), and adding a brief account of the type and the varieties? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is totally unjustified to use the term "playing doctor" for a sexual activity. For the vast majority of children who "play doctor' or play "doctors and nurses" there is no sexual implication. This is like suggesting that all photographers of children are perverts (rather than just a tiny percentage). The article should be retitled, or the content entirely changed.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Royalcourtier, we've already been over this with you in the section below. The children are not engaging in the type of sexual activity that you seem to be thinking of. Like the article states, the term refers to "children examining each other's genitals. It originates from children using the pretend roles of doctor and patient as a pretext for such an examination. However, whether or not such role-playing is involved, the phrase is used to refer to any similar examination. Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity. Playing doctor is considered by most child psychologists to be a normal step in childhood development between the ages of approximately three and six years, so long as all parties are willing participants and relatively close in age. However, it can be a source of discomfort to some parents to discover their children are engaging in such an activity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I regard children examining each others genitals as sexual activity - as do the writers of the article. Don't presume that I am thinking of something else. The fact is that the article is referring to sexual activity, and states as much, but using a term for it which is at best ambiguous, and at worst quite misleading. And I stand by my belief that most children "playing doctors" are neither examining each others genitals nor doing anything remotely sexual.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you reopening this ten-year old discussion to rehash old arguments? As multiple other editors have pointed out, Wikipedia goes by sources. Many sources have been presented supporting this usage. Opinions about what is and what is not sexual activity must come from established experts. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Royalcourtier, what proof do you have that "the writers of the article" view playing doctor as a sexual activity as far as it concerns children? I am a "writer of the article" (there's not much of an article here), and I don't view the matter the way you do. I know how you feel on this topic because you stated how you feel in the  section below; in other words, that's not me presuming something. Children examining each other's genitals because of anatomical curiosity is not what I would call true sexual activity. Is it child sexuality? Yes, but human sexuality is a broad topic, and it does not all equate to sexual perversion. Either way, like Grayfell just stated above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What?!?
When I used to "play doctor" with my friends, it meant that one of us would pretend to have a broken arm and the other would wrap it up in an improvised bandage. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. Mindman1 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Seems as if this article was created merely to support the assertions of the author/s of other incest articles. As far as I know, 'playing doctor' has no sexual connotations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this is am americanism. Can someone tag it accordingly. Or delete this ridiculous article.... ORRR make a distinction between the sexual and non-sexual versions of this 'game' --80.47.36.46 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Playing doctor is not a "phrase used colloquially in the western world to refer to children examining each other's genitals". That is a sexually deviant and inaccurate definition.  Playing doctors for most children is an entirely innocent and non-sexual event.  The definition must be changed.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * No one is defending the peculiar sexual interpretation given to this term, so I propose to change it to a more conventional definition.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * , we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. And we do that with WP:Due weight. The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources define "playing doctor" in a "sexual" context (even if by "sexual," what is meant is simply examining the genitals by looking at them), so we are supposed to give significant more weight to that definition in this article, including with regard to the first sentence. And that is why I reverted you. It's a clinical matter for the children, which is what distinguishes it from child-on-child sexual abuse, which is made clear in the Playing doctor and Child-on-child sexual abuse articles. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I dispute the claim that the "vast majority" of sources define "playing doctor" in a "sexual" context. I suspect that it would only be a small percentage, and that nearly all modern and from North America. This article has been, to put it frankly, hijacked by perverts.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. This article appears consistent in that regard. While it's sometimes true that articles suffer from cultural bias, that would be addressed by introducing new sources, not by changing the article based on personal opinion. If you have sources, bring them forth. Regardless, please remember to be WP:Civil. Accusations like that only make it harder to develop the article in a positive manner. Grayfell (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * , you are of course more than free to Google the matter so that you can see that "vast majority" is indeed seemingly correct; whether on regular Google or on Google Books. Google Scholar does not appear to be much help on the matter, but you can try that as well. Whether the usage you dispute is mostly from North America or not, the article does currently state "a phrase used colloquially in the western world," so it's addressing that usage from the beginning. As for "hijacked by perverts," you should keep the WP:No personal attacks policy in mind. You are also wrong in that regard; editors having added the content you want changed are simply going by Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines, and many editors at this site know that, per WP:CHILDPROTECT, I do what I can to keep the actual perverts from using Wikipedia to advance dubious information regarding child sexuality. You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic. It's a mindset that contrasts what researchers generally state on the matter; like the article makes clear, "Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity. Playing doctor is considered by most child psychologists to be a normal step in childhood development between the ages of approximately three and six years, so long as all parties are willing participants and relatively close in age. However, it can be a source of discomfort to some parents to discover their children are engaging in such an activity. Parenting professionals often advise parents to view such a discovery as an opportunity to calmly teach their children about the differences between the sexes, personal privacy, and respecting the privacy of other children."

 * In other words, you are seeing perversion in something where there is no perversion, unless child-on-child sexual abuse is actually involved. Notice that I put "sexual" in scare quotes above. Though I very recently called on Legitimus at a different Wikipedia article, perhaps he is interested in weighing in on this playing doctor matter. That is, if he's not annoyed with me for using WP:Echo to ping him again so soon. Like me, he has a lot of knowledge on child sexual abuse topics, and other sexual and/or psychological topics. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * It sounds to me like we are debating the linguistic meaning, rather than the "clinical" meaning. In professional sources it certainly varies, in that the phrase appears in both works about children's expression of vocational interest (as stated by the original poster) and in "sexual" meaning, with the generally consensus leaning towards the latter with more recent sources.  Lamb & Coakley, 1993  use this term explicitly to mean, "This age-old game was one of the most frequently reported childhood sexual games by the respondents. For most subjects, pretending that one child was the doctor (or nurse) and the other child was the patient merely served as a framework in which the removal of clothes and the examination of bodies (especially the genitals) was permitted, and because of this, was coded separately from other fantasy games."
 * As others have said, some kind of source is needed as to what is the prevailing meaning. You categorically cannot just blurt out personal opinions and expect them to be accepted as fact.Legitimus (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is wrong with suggesting that the term "playing doctors" does not generally have a sexual context. I may or may not be correct in this. However to say that "You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic" is clearly personal abuse. I suggest that you should avoid calling editors perverted.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * In the section below, you implied that the current state of the article is due to perverts. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * And I was not calling that editor a pervert with the following line: "You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic." He was calling me and others a pervert! That is the reason I made that comment -- because of his ignorance, and insufficient knowledge on this topic. But nice attempt to the spin actual "You're a pervert" offender, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to make this a redirect
I've alrady made Doctor (game) a redirect to a new article, Children's games (role play), and I did the same for this. Another editor, Kappa, disagrees, and has reinstated it. My objections to it as a separate article are: I'd appreciate some thoughts on this, so that consensus can be reached on keeping it or making it a redirect. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not encyclopædic
 * 2) Its content is over-generalised and lacks citations (what on earth are 'parenting professionals' anyway?)
 * 3) Nothing of worth here can't be dealt with adequately on the new page
 * 4) Aside from Kappa's addition of a link on the new article, and a number of redirects, only one article – a list of 'traditional children's games' – links here.
 * I think basically the reason it should be separate is that it's not the same as the other roleplaying games, and is not always "roleplaying" or even a "game". Other games are about fun and pretending to be something else. This activity is about satisfying curiosity. Incidentally, I see that it's mentioned in Child sexuality. Kappa 08:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But of course it's different in some ways, but unless one thinks that sex is different in kind from other human activities, the differences aren't significant here. Besides, 'mothers and fathers' can share most if not all of its features.  And if it's neither role-playing nor a game, then what qualifies it to be called 'doctor'?  You seem to be using the title to refer to any sexual exploration by young children. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't think of one
I'm kinda with Aranel on this one. That's what I and everyone else I knew did. Nothing risque. Just plastic first aid kits. As a matter of fact, I think only dirty twenty-somethings ever seem to be the ones that ever call this that. I think most proper parents would call this "horrid" and end up giving their kids a good whipping and confining them to quarters or something of the like for a very long time. I never knew a kid of the age group Kappa seems to envision to do this, and I have a feeling few kids think of this on their own. It's only been ten or so years since I was this age. I also think I've heard other terms for it (might be better?). I certainly think it's horrid to have a children's game article link to this. Please move it. Just for propriety. Thanks.
 * Different strokes for different folks, I guess...though giving your kids a good whipping is completely uncalled for and useless, but whatev. —lensovet–talk – 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as-is
Just my opinion Radishes 09:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded, it's fine. Though it could use an explanation as to why the game is called by this name. My condolences to those who discovered that their innocent triage center and surgery roleplay games shared a common title with this one. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History
When and where did the link was there a link established between the game and sexuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Claim
" Typically in such a game, children play roles of doctor and patient, using the imaginary clinical setting as a pretext to examine one another without clothes. " is a huge, extremely provocative and overly generalized claim; and if a credible citation is not given, I will remove it from the article and will also remove other related material from other paragraphs. I tagged above mentioned line in October 2007. Believe me, I hate you! (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any books on childraising on hand, but plenty of them do mention this behavior under this specific name. I know I've used the term since childhood.  I'll see if I can find a better reference later.  Franzeska (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is known in the sexual sense in Scandinavian Nordic countries too. Harjasusi (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Harjasusi (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Martin.
 * This entire article is based on a falsehood. "Playing doctor" is not a euphemism for "children examining each other's genitals". Some people may use the term as a euphemism for this, but that is not the meaning of the term. "Playing doctor" means precisely what it says. This article should either be deleted or entirely re-written by someone who has neither an agenda nor sexual perversions.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * LOL, ah, yes, the sexual perversion/agenda claim again; we already covered this in the section above. I wonder which logged-out editor you are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What this article is about
It's not about a simple role-playing game -- or else there would be no need for it. We don't need an article on children pretending to be doctors and patients any more than we need an article on children pretending to be gardener and homeowner, or tree and rock. Provocative/shocking/disgusting as one might find this topic, playing doctor is a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity. Whether you've heard the term before or not, it does exist, this does occur with most children, and it's even considered normal, so kindly get over your shock and disgust and remember we're not censored. I've added several references to this effect, and you can see here for more info: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/playingdoctor/Playing_Doctor.htm. Thanks.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:53, 25 Dec 2008 (UTC)
 * "Playing doctor" is not "a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity". That is how you chose to use the term. I have heard the term used many times in the past, never with any perverted sexual undertones.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If what is meant is children's sexual activity, then another title should be used.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Cider with Rosie
The meadow chapter in Laurie Lee's book Cider with Rosie (1959) might be worth citing/linking. —Sladen (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Passage itself is on Page 204. —Sladen (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 * A work of fiction does not assist with the improvement of the article. In any case I believe that the term is not used in the book.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Would add, but too much of a newbie to edit the article.
There should be at least a short explanation about children roleplaying without the intent to look at the other's genitals. I imagine that it is rather common for a child to agree to play without knowing the intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Since it's a different topic on a different subject, it's covered at role-playing and in-depth at make believe. —Sladen (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC) updated

This sentence makes no sense...
"Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity." So there is either "examining each other's genitals" or "rape", no middle ground? I beg to differ. "Playing doctor" is also used as a game in order to engage in sex of any sort. "Examination" is when they haven't learned about sex and genitals yet, sure, but after that, "playing doctor" would be used to simply mean "sex" or "sexual play" of any nature. Swiftpaw (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Swiftpaw, as noted in the section above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. As for your assertion that "'playing doctor' would be used to simply mean 'sex' or 'sexual play' of any nature," the article used to include the following line: "Adults also use the phrase 'playing doctor' facetiously in similar reference, to refer to adult sexual activity." But it was recently removed (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Flyer22, me and my cousins and friends did all that when we were young, so we disagree with the assertion that "playing doctor" means either genital examination, or rape. It's an excuse to lead into sexual playing of all different sorts, and doesn't just stop at "genital examination".  The "examination" is simply foreplay.  Just stating facts, but I hear you about needing a source.  Perhaps I should write an article about my own experiences and source that?  Thanks for the comments.  Swiftpaw (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Swiftpaw, you mean write a Wikipedia article? That wouldn't pass the WP:Notability standard because of the sourcing issue. But if you mean a personal blog, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Playing doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116190323/http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor to http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Playing doctor


text:
Stutterfly

Stutterfly was a post-hardcore/alternative metal band formed in 1998, in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, with four members: Chris Stickney (vocals), Jordan Chase (bass, vocals), Bradyn Byron (guitar, vocals), and Craig Langerud (drums). In 2003, Jason Ciolli (guitar) joined the band, and the next year Ryan Loerke took over on drums. 2007 saw Stickney leave the band and after recruiting vocalist Charles Furney the band decided to form Secret and Whisper rather than carry on under the Stutterfly banner.

History
Stutterfly was well established at MP3.com and was a popular download. With the help of Los Angeles–based Freeze Management, Stutterfly made a deal with Madonna's Maverick Records in the summer of 2004, and later toured with fellow labelmates Story of the Year.

Stutterfly's second full-length album “And We Are Bled of Color” was released in 2005. Music videos were produced for the songs "Gun in Hand" and "Fire Whispers". “And We Are Bled of Color” was a commercial disappointment, selling less than 100,000 albums. Stutterfly was dropped from Maverick, with lead singer Chris Stickney leaving the band amicably in August 2007. Charles Furney, formerly of thebleedingalarm, joined as the new vocalist later in 2007.

On Stutterfly's Facebook page they announced that Stutterfly is no longer a band. Former members of the band including Byron, Chase, Ciolli and Loerke continued to work together under the Secret and Whisper moniker but have since gone on hiatus. Chase and Loerke now play in Shreddy Krueger together along with fellow Secret and Whisper member David Ecker. Stickney now plays in Shapes and Shadows formerly known as Oceans Apart.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Stutterfly


text:
File:Dude Wheres My Car movie.jpg

summary
Dude, Where's My Car? movie poster

Fair use in Dude, Where's My Car?
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a Film Poster / VHS or DVD Cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the film in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork/image.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image  is significant because it was used to promoted a notable film.
 * 6) A free image could not possibly be created that could adequately replace this one, as the film and poster are both copyrighted.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist.  Claimed as fair use.

title: File:Dude Wheres My Car movie.jpg


text:
User:Webberhan

test

title: User:Webberhan


text:
Talk:Eric Foner

Old comments
"Unnamed critics" are repeatedly referenced in this article. Any criticism should be specifically attributed and sourced. Cite your sources. -Willmcw 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Foner's marxist beliefs are universally acknowledged among anybody who knows anything about him. His defenders, some of them marxists themselves, are proud of this fact. If you don't know basic factual information about a person you should not be trying to author an encyclopedia article about him in the first place. Allow me also to recommend that you take a break from your needless deconstruction and editor stalking. You will find that he has been identified as a marxist since this article's inception. From the original version:
 * Professor Foner is considered one of today's most prominent scholars on the origins of the American Civil War and the American antebellum period. He is also a foremost intellect on racial, gender and other social issues. Professor Foner can be considered a neo-Marxist, and in his youth he was quite interested in Soviet politics (he especially admired Mikhail Gorbachev). He is often labeled by right-wing supporters as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge the ideal American history.

Rangerdude 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for adding the cites. With those the original phrasing, "may be considered", is now supported. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Critics

 * Foner is criticized by political conservatives as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge traditional notions of American history.

Can we please see some of these politicial conservatives? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I search on "Foner un-american" and couldn't find any relevant citations. -Willmcw 21:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Considering that this description, save my change of "right wing" to the more NPOV "conservative," predates any edit I've made to this article, a more responsible editor would first pose the query and seek out sources himself before deleting what is most likely a valid piece of information for this article. A google search for the terms "Eric Foner" and "Un-American" minus "HUAC" reveals some 800 hits, so surely a responsible editor seeking to justify the deletion of seemingly accurate existing material would first attempt to ascertain that these did not apply. Rangerdude 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked and didn't find. Please find a source for one or more notable political conservatives who criticizes Foner as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge traditional notions of American history. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Since you edited the line, I assume you know who these critics are. Specifically, of the persons who make the criticism above, which ones are "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? Would a "responsible editor" make that change blindly? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * My edit was a minor NPOV change between two synonymous words, the latter being more neutral than the former. Using that change as a basis for removing the line, which you have now inadvertantly admitted to doing by attributing your action to my NPOV edit of the line, is not only irresponsible - it's borderline vandalism. If you have legitimate cause to doubt that conservatives criticize Foner's leftist politics please state it. Otherwise please refrain from deconstructing wikipedia. Rangerdude 04:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a very specific criticism. It doesn't say, "some conservatives probably think he's too leftist and revisionist." If it did we'd cut it out as unecyclopedic speculation. It's a specific charge of "un-americanism," which is a serious accusation. Such a charge should not made by the article without attribution. I'd like to see that attribution. When we find it, we can put add a sentence about it. Until then it's just unsourced criticism, which does not belong in this or any article. -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those critics. You are good at research. I added a description of Horowitz's criticism and dropped the inaccurate generalization. Much better now. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * It took all of 2 minutes on a simple google search of "Eric Foner" "unamerican" and -"HUAC," (hint, hint) one being the 2nd and the other being the 4th hit. As I noted previously, any responsible editor would have attempted the same before deleting long-standing and accurate material from an article. The alternative gives a very strong suggestion that an editor is seeking to remove material on a political subject from wikipedia for reasons other than the mission of bettering its content. Rangerdude 06:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Communist
What do we mean when we call Foner a "Communist"? Is he a member of the Communist Party? It is n't mentioned in the article. His use of certain Marxist concepts in scholarship does not seem sufficient evidence, nor do his uncle's ties to the CP. Any explanation? Thanks. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 07:10 (UTC)

 * Per the dozens of other names in the communist category, it seems to encompass anybody of a communist political philosophy or persuasion. Foner is openly marxist, and marxism is a subcategory under wikipedia's communist category thus the categorization of him is appropriate. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

 * Using Marxist concepts does not make one a Communist. At most it makes one a Marxist. Unless there is a source for Foners' membership in the Communist Party, or similar manifestation, the categorization does not belong. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 07:26 (UTC)
 * Marxism is by its very definition a school within communist thought, thus a marxist is also necessarily a communist. And that simple factual observation has nothing to do with "sources." Rangerdude 5 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

 * Factual observations are original research. We have a category for "Marxist historians", which describes Foner well, so I moved him there. Note that it is not a subcategory of Communism. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 08:28 (UTC)

 * I agree with Willmcw. An historian or an economist may draw upon Marxist analysis without necessarily being a card-carrying member of the CP. Given that "communist" is a for many Westerners a highly perjorative term, I prefer to use it only when the individual describes him/herself in this way, such as Pablo Picasso. -- Viajero | Talk 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Criticism Section

 * Foner's political philosophy, which often forms the basis of his historiographical work, may be considered neo-Marxist. In his youth Eric was interested in Soviet politics and became an admirer of several political icons on the left, among them Mikhail Gorbachev and Paul Robeson. His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among Columbia students.

What are our sources for these assertions? Thakns, -Willmcw 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources Needed
Hi Rangerdude. Thank you for your kind email. I tried to write you back directly, but I see you have blocked incoming messages. I am sorry about that. In any event, thank you for your helpful suggestions. I will learn to use the tags you suggested. In the meantime, I hope we can reach agreement on the few items on which we seem to disagree. These appear to be:

Neo-Marxist. The cited Radosh article does maintain that Foner is a neo-Marxist, but it seems a big stretch to leap from one person's characterization to an encyclopedia's definitive claim. As I wrote in my edit, the fact that Foner is past President of two of the country's leading historical trade associations and has done extensive work for Disney and the National Parks Service, not to mention his heaps of awards and textbook, suggests that his political views are mainstream. At a bare minimum, there is a substantial difference of opinion. Therefore, in interest of a neutral point of view, I suggest the characterization be removed.

Soviet Politics. Please provide specific verifiable evidence for this claim. Simply to say that a member of Foner's family was a communist, and therefore he was interested in Soviet politics does not constitute verifiability as defined by Wikipedia.

Gorbachev/Robson. Same comments. If you have a source, please cite it specifically, by URL if possible, so we can discuss it together and evaluate whether it meets Wikipedia standards. Even the piece on DiscoverTheNetworks, for example (which I would not consider a "credible source" as defined by Wikipedia) does not say that Foner was interested in Soviet politics in his youth, nor does it say that he was an "early admirer" of Gorbachev and Robson. All that is there is his quotation of Robson's definition of patriotism at the Columbia rally.

Eric the Red. Same observation, except that here I can't find any mention at all of the appellation in the links at the bottom.

Confederate flag. First, in the cited piece Foner does not '[write] approvingly of removing Confederate flags from public display." He takes no position on removing the flag. What he does do is put the debate in historical context. He says "One hopes that when the flag comes down ..." not that he hopes the flag will come down. Second, Foner is not a columnist for the Nation. He writes occasional articles for them and, as noted above, is on their Board.

In sum, with respect, I suggest that this first paragraph should be removed since the items it contains are not verifiable and are therefore out of place in an encyclopedia. We have not stinted in any way to describe the arguments of, and link to, Foner's critics.

Here are the sources for my additions to the Criticism section:

Mainstream opinion is effusive in its praise for Foner. "Eric Foner is one of the most prolific, creative, and influential American historians of the past 20 years," says the Washington Post. Review printed in The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. Review page.

His work is "brilliant, important" says the Los Angeles Times. Review of The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0393319628/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-6639761-6788747?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846

Presidential advisor Karl Rove has described Foner as one of his favorite authors. http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

Journalist Nat Hentoff called his Story of American Freedom "an indispensable book that should be read in every school in the land." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_200003/ai_n8891943. Review also printed in The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. Review page.

Discussion

 * Luath - Thanks for using the talk page. The info on Robeson, Gorbachev etc. is on the Discover the Networks page and several other articles about Foner online, e.g. Gorbachev entered the national scene in Soviet politics in the 1960's - coinciding with the exact period Foner was a young grad student. Foner also later did some visiting scholar under Gorbachev in the 1980's. Googling "eric the red" and "eric foner" together gives something in the range of 2000 hits. A quick look suggests most of them are conservative sites like freerepublic, which is to be expected, but the nickname is attached to his name. Your argument regarding Foner's marxist leanings is a non-sequitur, as being the president of a historian's group and having well known books to your name does not necessarily make somebody "mainstream" in their politics. Radicals from all sorts of political extremes write famous books all the time, and many of the ones in academia serve terms at the head of major scholarly organizations. In fact academia is notoriously liberal in its politics and many well known professors are very politically active (and Foner, along with people like Paul Krugman, Cornel West, and Alan Dershowitz, is among the best known politically active academics on the left). Nor have I seen a single source that disputes Foner being a leftist. From what I understand he's pretty open about it himself (i.e. writing for The Nation, attending liberal political events) and if you asked him what he thought of marxist political theory he's probably respond favorably. Given that, it is perfectly reasonable and factual to represent Foner's politics as leftist in an encyclopedia article about him. Rangerdude 06:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rangerdude - A pleasure to chat. I trust you saw my revised comments to you above. First, as discussed above, I do not consider DiscoverTheNetworks and its affiliate FrontPageMagazine "reputable or credible sources" as defined by Wikimedia. If that is the best we can do, I fear the assertion will not stand up. Please provide the "several other articles" so we can evaluate them. Moving on to the specific issues under discussion:

 * Gorbachev. The fact that Foner was a graduate student at the same time Gorbachev was starting his career does not mean that Foner was an "early supporter." Similarly, the fact that Foner was a U.S. government Fulbright professor in Moscow does not make him a supporter of Gorbachev.

 * Eric the Red. This kind of Google search does not constitute verifiability within the meaning of Wikipedia. Googling "eric foner" and "attila the hun" produces hundreds of hits as well, but that doesn't mean his students nicknamed him Eric the Hun.

 * Neo-Marxist. The issue is not whether sources dispute that he is a leftist. The issue is which "reputable or credible sources" affirmatively define him as a "neo-Marxist." In the absence of convincing evidence, we should remove this characterization. Indidentally, it also is irrelevant what he would say if we asked him in person, since Wikipedians are not allowed to do original research.

 * Following your advice, I am posting the paragraph under discussion here. If the items in it cannot be verified in accordance with Wikipedia policies, I suggest it be deleted:

 * Foner's political philosophy, which often forms the basis of his historiographical work, is often criticized for being neo-Marxist. Foner's liberal political leanings and activism form the basis for much of this criticism. Coming from a family of prominent communist political activists and labor union officials, Foner was interested in Soviet politics in his youth. He was an early admirer of several political icons on the left, among them Mikhail Gorbachev and Paul Robeson. His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among Columbia students. Foner has taken many liberal political stances on modern issues such as the Iraq war and writes political commentary articles for many publications. In his column for the liberal magazine The Nation, Foner wrote approvingly of removing Confederate flags from public display.[1]

Luath - Thanks for your note. Regarding your points:

1. FrontPageMag/Discover the Networks - It is true that these sources are political in nature, but that does not necessarily make them non-credible by wikipedia standards. Indeed, Wikipedia's citation standards contain a specific caveat permitting political sources when they are used to represent a position taken by that political source, and in the paragraph above the information is clearly presented as a criticism of Foner's politics by those who disagree with him. Furthermore, if you actually check the links on these sites you will see that they include direct quotations of Foner himself praising Robeson etc. So even if the source is highly partisan, several things it includes are documented matters of fact.

2. Eric the Red - while not every google hit is going to provide a match that shows the name being used in this context, a simple glance at them reveals that some of them do indeed do just that. IIRC one of the first hits was to Freerepublic - a well known conservative site. That in mind, I will agree to changing the sentence to "His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among conservative critics of his politics" instead of Columbia students.

3. Marxist - the sentence as currently phrased does not define Foner as neo-Marxist but rather says he "is often criticized for being neo-Marxist" - something that is sourced by the links to conservative critics who take issue with his politics (remember this is all under the criticisms section as well). Rangerdude 23:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rangerdude - Hi. I have edited this page to include sections to make our discussion easier to follow. I hope you find that is useful. I re-read your comments, and all the sources. I think perhaps we can reach agreement if I re-write the Criticism section to present the points you make as the views of some of Foner's political critics, rather than statements of verified fact. I will lead with the views of the mainstream press and commentators since I suppose, I hope, we can both agree those are more widely held, and then present the views of the critics you have included. Please take a look at my efforts and see what you think.

De Genova's Mogadishu Quotation
I cannot find anyone who misattributed de Genova's Mogadishu comment to Foner. Therefore, I am going to suggest that the entire "Misattributed" section be deleted. He presumably does not beat his wife either, but I don't think we need a "Misattributed Claim of Wife Beating" section.

Family Sources
Does anyone have a source supporting him being Namoi FG's brother. Some places are reporting him as her ex-husband. 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal is his first and ex wife, not his sister. I edited the article and provided a letter from Eric Foner correcting the Columbia Daily Spectator, which made the same error, as the source. Calindigo

POV
A user recently reverted my changes to his new material saying they were "POV edits with an ax to grind." They were mostly a cleanup and adding internal links. I recommend that others look through the history and see which version is less POV, as the article currently stands, David Horowitz is called an "extreme rightwing critic" and the war in Iraq is specifically "George W. Bush's Iraq war". --Cúchullain t/ c 05:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz is an extreme rightwinger who makes ad hominem attacks so frequently that anyone outside his band of acoylytes can not take him seriously.

If GW Bush did not start the war in Iraq, who did?

This is a biographical page that is supposed to be about Eric Foner, a contemporary historian and former head of the American Historical Association. This article is short on biographical details -- and deficient even in the area of his book titles-- and long on ad hominem attacks against him. skywriter 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The article is undoubtedly skewed - an editor was adding as much negative material as possible. If you can improve it please do. -Will Beback 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
I noticed that several anonymous users blanked the bio section and introduced puerile errors into the text. I have reverted all of it back to 20:27, September 11, 2006 LeoO3 (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism) While a few edits, including by me, are missed, it is better than what the little kids introduced. Skywriter 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect factual information
Kevin C. Murphy, one of his graduate students, praises Foner: "Beloved by undergraduates and reviled by right-wing ideologues, Columbia University's Eric Foner is arguably the world's foremost authority on the tumultuous period of American Reconstruction (1865-1877). Foner placed newly freed Africans-Americans at the center of the post-Civil War story and, in so doing, illustrated the brief moments of political and social possibility available for Southern blacks before the racial and economic discrimination of Jim Crow was enthroned throughout the 'New South.'" [13]

First, what is the point of having just some random graduate student's praise of Foner in here? Does this Kevin Murphy have anything that makes him more significant than another student who might criticize him?

Second, are the parentheses for Reconstruction part of Murphy's text or was it added in, because either way, the dates are wrong. Reconstruction started at least in 1863 with Lincoln's 10% plan and 1864's subsequent Wade-Davis bill. One could even argue that Reconstruction started in 1861 with the Sea Isles experiments off South Carolina. At any rate, either (a) the dates should be corrected or (b) it should be made more clear whether or not these dates are part of this Murphy's quote or was included by the editors of wikipedia. 66.10.167.1 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody pasted in the Murphy quote from Murphy's blog. The problemn with the entire article is that it says very little about Foner's ideas or scholarly contributions--it's mostly froth. It says zip about his major work on Freedom, on history of political values in GOP, in Tom Paine, etc, and does not say exactly why he's so important re Reconstruction. In all, a poor article about a major historian. Rjensen 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all accounts. There needs to be some major reworking on this article. 66.10.167.1 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:66.10.167.1, You may agree "on all accounts" but your history at Wikipedia is less than sterling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.10.167.1 Skywriter 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Norton and Ashcroft
One version of our text says: Another version says: The source says: It appears to me that the subject is criticizing Ashcroft and Norton for praising Confederate issues, not for conducting interviews. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Foner, in turn, has asked conservatives why they appeal to racism, questioning why modern conservatives such as Gale Norton and John Ashcroft continue to praise the Confederacy.
 * Foner, in turn, has attacked conservative office holders for granting interviews to reporters for magazines that previously published articles favorable to the Confederacy.
 *  Two of President Bush's Cabinet nominees--Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft and the prospective Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton--are being asked to explain their praise of the Confederacy. In a 1996 speech to a conservative group, Norton likened her struggle to preserve states' rights to the Confederate rebellion, saying, "We lost too much" when the Union triumphed. Ashcroft, in a 1998 interview, lauded the magazine Southern Partisan for defending "patriots" like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and called on "traditionalists" to vindicate the Confederate cause against charges that it represented a "perverted agenda."
 * Rjensen has described the first version, which he deprecates as a paean. I fail to see that; it is a summary of what Foner actually says. I have restored it, without the words, "asked conservatives why they appeal to racism," which (while clearly implied) may downplay Foner's qualifying reservations at the end of the article. Rjensen may want to click on paean and see what it means; this isn't even a eulogy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A net search for rjensen or Richard Jensen, defender of, apologist for and writer of paean to Strom Thurmond, will turn up that he is both a Wiki editor and owner of a conservative list. On Wikipedia, rjensen often tries to hide that he is unabashedly right wing in political orientation under the guise of either "neutrality" or "scholarship". I believe his viewpoint should be included because Wikipedia is inclusive but that rjensen's actions in removing the work of other editors who represent opposing viewpoints should be firmly dealt with. Other Wiki editors need to bear in mind that when rjensen adds or edits copy, he adds the most conservative and often the most racially offensive references, text and photos he can find. This problem afflicts the entire discussion of Reconstruction after the Civil War and most articles that link to it where rjensen is very active. So there is an inbred bias in these articles that are fundamentally hostile to an honest assessment of the history of African American people and that are favorable to sources that have long been discredited by at least the last two generations of mainstream historians.

One of the most shocking abuses of Wikipedia editing by rjensen has occurred in the bio article on James Shepherd Pike in which rjensen all but erased the contributions, which were added, of Robert Franklin Durden, former chairman of the department of history at Duke University.

Why is dishonest scholarship, such as this, on Wikipedia?

Durden wrote the definitive biography of James Shepherd Pike and yet rjensen removed all references to Durden's work from the biographical article except the footnote, and one article available only by subscription.

On the cover of his book, Durden wrote that he was prompted to write his book James Shepherd Pike: Republicanism and the American Negro, 1850-1882 to answer this question: "how did James S. Pike come to write ''The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Government?" "The book, published in 1873, is a firey indictment of Radical Reconstruction and the Negro's role therein; indeed it is the verbal equivalent of Thomas Nast's bitterly satiric cartoons of the period." Why is this important? To understand the way the history of Reconstruction was written, one must go back to Pike's work of fiction (that paraded as history) which influenced an entire generation of historians who subsequently influeneced the writing of textbooks in the United States for the first half of the 20th century. Durden examined the original manuscripts and detailed how Pike had made up his version of Reconstruction.

Richard Jensen's deletions of Durden's work is serious because, in a full-length book, which the subject deserved, Durden compared Pike's fictionarl account to original manuscripts.

Pike's fictions are the linchpin of many of the racist textbooks written about Reconstruction in the early 20th century, all now firmly rejected by mainstream historians, yet thse are the texts that rjensen quotes extensively from on Wikipedia.

So while it disgusts me to see what Richard Jensen is trying to do to the article on Eric Foner, seen in the article history on the the contemporary historian known most widely for overturning the viciously racist accounts of Reconstruction history, it is not surprising that Jensen did this. It is the reason for the distortions in a wide range of articles that link to the Reconstruction, articles that are more than mildly repulsive because they falsify the history of African Americans and the struggle for Civil Rights. The articles that rjensen dominates are unfair to all readers because they distort history in non-benign ways.

Aside from Foner's contributions, there is too much solid work done by entire recent generations of scholars on the facets of the history of Reconstruction and the civil rights movement for rjensen's versions to be taken seriously by serious scholars. He pushes a viewpoint long ago discarded on the dust heap of falsified history. It is a shame rjensen has the time, in retirement, to work these articles nonstop day and night. Others have countered the narrow and racially biased viewpoint of this Energizer Bunny that champions the Dunning School which is based very much on the fictions written by James Shepherd Pike but few of us have the leisure of time to fight rjensen's history of bigotry on Wikipedia in a sustained manner.

I will add that when I saw Richard Jensen's erasure of the contributions of Robert Franklin Durden, biographer of James Shepherd Pike, from this article on Pike, I greatly cut down on my contributions to Wikipedia in disgust.

Here's one of several examples from the history of that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Shepherd_Pike&diff=61529346&oldid=61220384

Do not take my word for this. Get a copy of Durden's book on Pike and decide for yourself.

Skywriter 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate that I am not 'whistling Dixie,' I will add that the dominant photo, the largest cartoon on Reconstruction is deeply offensive to African Americans and most everyone else. Now I can hear rjensen defending its use and its size (!) with the claim that Eric Foner found and used it first. My reply is that Foner put it in context. The Reconstruction article does not do that, and all things considered, this graphic is both hostile to, and does violence to the history of African American people and it is not reflective of the work of Eric Foner, Richard Nelson Current, Robert Durden, Leon Litwack or the many other giants of Reconstruction scholarship. This article and those that link to it are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and humiliating to African American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg&action=history

There were many graphics that Richard Jensen could have been chosen to be the centerpiece of the Reconstruction article. That Richard Jensen, owner and editor of the editor of Conservativenet, chose and uploaded the most vile graphic he could find, tells volumes about the rjensen agenda.

Richard Jensen actually uploaded this piece of filth to a second article that linked to Reconstruction and I took it down.

Skywriter 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not the appropriate forum for discussing problems with editors. You might consider presenting this material in an RfC instead. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Criticism on the Criticism
If people want to include a section on criticism that is fine. I think we might want to expand it to include more important criticism (both Foner's and others). This gives people a better understanding/sense of Mr. Foner's beliefs (political and scholastic). I don't want to change the article without testing the waters because I know a lot of people have been working on and discussing this to try and make improvements. Also, his views are somewhat polarizing politically and I don't want to be accused of partisanship and bias. Some suggested criticism to add include: Foner's criticism of Ronald Radosh's book about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg upheld the standards of historical scholarship (it was a significant critique and drew the attention of Ann Coulter years later). Also, Foner has been criticized sharply for writing in the London Review of Books days after the 9/11 attacks, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Just some suggestions because I know that these are some of the more significant critiques by Foner and of Foner. Jefflerm 05:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I personally think that the existing section works just fine -- it makes the point that some conservatives disagree with Foner's politics. I don't see how adding anything by Ann Coulter will make this a better article.  What you are proposing will most assuredly result in a major expansion of a section that is unrelated to the main purpose of the article -- the biography of a major American historian.  As soon as you add Ann Coulter's opinion, that opens up the article to others' opinions of why nothing Ann Coulter says should be taken seriously. As far as the 9/11 attack quote, most of the criticism I have seen of that don't go beyond reactions to the single sentence -- fine for thirty second political adds but totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

 * Contrary to your claim, the most "significant critiques by Foner and of Foner" are related to his historical works, not his political views. If you have something to contribute concerning his works and reviews relating to antebellum America, the Civil War, and Reconstruction then maybe it has a place in the article. There are historians who have accomplished very little in the academic field and who are known primarily or exclusively because of their political works (sometimes disguised as actual history)-- Foner is not one of those historians. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jefflerm offers no evidence (citation) to support that "Foner has been criticized sharply for writing in the London Review of Books..." and so that can be safely ignored. Whatever spews from Coulter's mouth is designed to bring publicity to herself. She is not a historian or an academic and is herself grossly controversial, particularly when she calls for the assassination of people with whom she disagrees.Skywriter 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link for the criticism. Sorry I didn't include that, I linked in the wrong link. As for the thing about Coulter, the point was that Foner had made a critique that shot down a controversial, anti-communist book written by Radosh. Coulter later went on a ridiculous diatribe about it. I included the Coulter reference because I thought some of you might have remebered when she talked about it and it would refresh your memory. It has nothing to do with Coulter and I regret bringing her name up because nobody remembered her comments anyway. Sorry. His critique on Radosh's book is significant and I'm searching for the exact article right now. I can find snippets of it, but I will link it in when I find all of it because it really is some of Foner's best work. Jefflerm 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to stir the pot here, but I found it odd that the criticism section included a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with, as Tom said, "his historical works". In particular, I am talking about the critiques of David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Goldberg. These are completely unrelated to his historical/academic works. Also, the part about Ashcroft and Norton is unrelated to his historical works. That is why I thought we should change the section. Either add more or delete anything that isn't directly related to his academic work. Some of Foner's articles after 9/11 gained him some attention, and that is when I began to read him. However, some of these articles came under sharp criticism from right-wingers and families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. We don't necessarily have to use the one in the London Review of Books but I thought we should include something on that since he was an important voice during that time. Just a suggestion because the current criticism page does not all pretain to his books and other academic/scholarly work. Jefflerm 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is "Secession and the Soviet Union" at the bottom?
Hi, just making an observation; why is "Secession and the Soviet Union" at the bottom of the article under "Works by Eric Foner"? It seems a bit silly. Could someone please move it? Sorry I don't know how to.

N --78.150.213.131 (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * A better question might be why is this section even in the article at all. A 1991 comment in a popular news magazine about the now defunct USSR?  Seems like it serves no purpose and reflects Undue Weight. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * WP:UNDUE|Undue Weight]] is correct. There is virtually nothing describing Foner's work on Lincoln or Reconstruction -- which won the history profession's highest awards -- but we have an entire section on one article in The Nation on an unrelated topic. 27 June 2011 Jonwiener (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree it is WP:UNDUE to give so much space to this one article, which is not even about his main area of work. Will summarize and reduce.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Listing journalism articles
Foner and other historians have published articles in journalism magazines, but it does not seem appropriate to list so many here. Usually articles to be listed would be those in professional journals of the academic discipline; the ones here relate to Foner as a public intellectual, drawing from his discipline as a historian to comment on US society. But these are not his main work. Maybe they should be listed in a separate category. Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/foner.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ericfoner.com/articles/101011nation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080212035003/http://www.columbiaspectator.com:80/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/30/415bac2847275?in_archive=1 to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/30/415bac2847275?in_archive=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131518333100/http://www.americanheritage.com/content/south%E2%80%99s-inner-civil-war-0 to http://www.americanheritage.com/content/south%E2%80%99s-inner-civil-war-0
 * Added tag to http://columbialawreview.org/the-supreme-court-and-the-history-of-reconstruction-and-vice-versa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228013439/http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news050205b.html to http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news050205b.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327155543/http://www.fathom.com/feature/121845/ to http://www.fathom.com/feature/121845/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925060628/http://chicagohistory.org/documents/home/aboutus/pressroom/biographies/CHM-OliviaMahoney.pdf to http://www.chicagohistory.org/documents/home/aboutus/pressroom/biographies/CHM-OliviaMahoney.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525023336/http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/263/ to http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/263/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Foner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20110210.071303&time=02%2000%20PST&year=2011&public=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407172159/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/113124-1/Eric+Foner.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/113124-1/Eric+Foner.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eric Foner


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meshari

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meshari
This page in Albanian has been listed in Pages needing translation into English since 28 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. jni 06:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 10:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, something about it just doesn't seem helpful to me... Wyss 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meshari


text:
Talk:De Mulieribus Claris

Wikisource?
This may belong on Wikisource. Alba 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the text is on Wikisource, or that it should be there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it on Wikisource. I only know of Virginia Brown's translation that was done in 2001. There is another English translation done in the mid twentieth century. Don't know of any earlier translations.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eve

 * Eve, our first mother

This looked a bit like POV to me, so I changed it. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wondering
Shouldn't this rather be called Of Famous Women rather than On Famous Women? --BiT 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Format?
On my browser, the images are straggling all over the page. Does it look this way to others? Are there any objections to changing it? Kafka Liz (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the editor that designed it this way. Apparently on some computers it comes out as you speak of. I guess it depends on resolution settings, etc (too technicial for me - setting are 1152 X 864 pixels and 1280 x 1024). I have several computers and it comes out correctly on all of mine. Also have checked it on about half a dozen other computers at various locations throughout the United States (public libraries) and it also comes out alright. My guess is that on most computers for others it displays as I designed it - that is that all the pictures line up vertically correctly from the top to the bottom, with no "staggering all over the place". I have not come across other's objection to this layout. What suggestions do you have in mind? --Doug talk 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Am presently at a public library and checked several of their computers - they all display correctly, with no "staggering all over the place" of the images displayed vertically. Thinking it is something special with your particular PC computer. Suggest you check this out at your local library computers to see how it looks. Thanks. --Doug talk 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the article name in English
Why is the name of this article "Famous Women" and not De mulieribus claris as is the case for other works, Latin and Italian, by Giovanni Boccaccio? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right! Moved to De mulieribus claris and also the Talk Page. Corrected Famous Women, On Famous Women, and Of Famous Women to redirect to De mulieribus claris.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kate Holland?
Why is "Kate Holland" included as biography 88.1? It looks like a prank insertion, with the description "a classy and unvague lady." Joe Fusion (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

'First Work Dedicated to Women's Biographies'? No.
Factually incorrect claim. Why?

The first work exclusively dedicated to women that we know of? Suetonius' "Lives of Famous Whores". Unfortunately the work itself has been entirely lost, but its testimony does exist. And I'm sure there were almost certainly female-only biographies dating from antiquity. Yevardian (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also the Catalogue of Women, which may even have directly inspired Boccaccio. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. See the investigation subpage and WP:DCGAR for more information. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:De Mulieribus Claris


text:
Townsend's mole

The Townsend's mole (Scapanus townsendii) is a fossorial mammal in the family Talpidae, and is the largest North American mole. It was named after the American naturalist John Kirk Townsend. The name was selected at the request of Thomas Nuttall as a patronym to honor Townsend's contribution.

Distribution and habitat
It is found in open lowland and wooded areas with moist soils along the Pacific coast from southwestern British Columbia to northwestern California. This animal's total range in Canada is estimated to be 20 km² (20 km2).

Conservation
Townsend's mole is classified as Least Concern by the IUCN; however, in Canada it is considered an endangered species.

Description
It has velvety black fur, a pointed snout and a short, thick, a tail with barely any hair. It is about 21 cm in length including a 4 cm tail, and weighs about 138 g. Its front paws are broad and spade-shaped, specialized for digging; the rear paws are smaller. It has 44 teeth. Its ears are not visible and it has small eyes. It is similar in appearance to the smaller coast mole.

Behavior, diet, and breeding
Townsend's mole spends most of its time underground, foraging in shallow burrows for earthworms, small invertebrates and plant material. It is active year-round. It is mainly solitary except during mating in late winter. The female has a litter of two to four young in a deep burrow.

title: Townsend's mole


text:
Southpaw Grammar

Southpaw Grammar is the fifth studio album by English alternative rock singer Morrissey, released on 28 August 1995 by record labels RCA in the UK and Reprise in the US.

The album charted at number 4 in the UK and number 66 in the US, but received a mixed response from critics. The singles lifted from the album were "Dagenham Dave" (which reached number 26 in the UK Singles Chart in August 1995) and "The Boy Racer" (which reached number 36 in December).

Content
The nature of the album is different from past Morrissey releases, such as the inclusion of two tracks which surpass the ten-minute mark, the near two-and-a-half-minute drum solo courtesy of Spencer Cobrin which opens the track "The Operation" and the sampling of a Shostakovich1 symphony. AllMusic described it as Morrissey's "art rock album, complete with strings, drum solos and two ten-minute songs." The album cover features a picture of boxer Kenny Lane.

Musical style
Spin magazine described the album's musical style as "[differing] from the crushed flowers studio formalisations of last year's Vauxhall and I, building instead on the earlier Your Arsenal, Morrissey's sly, unexpected blending of rockabilly and glam."

Release
Southpaw Grammar was released on 28 August 1995 by record labels RCA in the UK and Reprise in the US. On its release Southpaw Grammar was an eyebrow-raiser for fans and critics alike.

On 27 April 2009 Sony BMG released a remastered version of Southpaw Grammar in the UK. This version included a substantially altered running order, three previously unreleased tracks, "Honey, You Know Where to Find Me", "You Should Have Been Nice to Me" and "Fantastic Bird" (the last of which dates from the Your Arsenal sessions) as well as a single B-side "Nobody Loves Us". The digital version from iTunes Store adds live versions of "London" and "Billy Budd", recorded in London.

Reception
The critical reception to Southpaw Grammar was mixed. Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times described it as "the most musically dynamic album from the Messiah of Moans since he revitalized British rock with The Smiths in the mid-'80s". Al Weisel of Rolling Stone qualified it as Morrissey's "most powerful solo outing to date". Q's Phil Sutcliffe wrote that Southpaw Grammar "shapes up as the kind of severe work that accrues more honour than love, more favourable comments than sales to record-buyers", and the magazine later listed it as one of the top 50 albums of 1995. In 1999, critic Ned Raggett ranked the album at number 79 on his list of "The Top 136 or So Albums of the Nineties".

According to Uncut magazine: "On its release, Southpaw Grammar seemed to be the point where the Great British Public officially fell out of love with Morrissey. The casual Smiths fan had all but lost interest while even the scary Moz obsessives were a little puzzled." Blender's Tony Power called it an "ugly, noisy, grumpy album, recorded while Britpop stole Moz's thunder and the Mike Joyce court case loomed." Andrzej Lukowski of Drowned in Sound was more favourable in his retrospective assessment, writing that the album "is in some ways the most daring thing the ex-Smith has ever put his name to... [...] At the same time it's also pretty craven, in that it dilutes the impact of its three key tracks – 'The Teachers Are Afraid of the Pupils', 'The Operation' and 'Southpaw', dark, sprawling semi-instrumentals dominated by the remarkable drumming of Spencer James Cobrin – with lightweight fluff like 'Dagenham Dave' and 'The Boy Racer'." Brad Shoup of Stereogum named it Morrissey's "peak" and "quintessential document".

Track listing

 * Note: Given the 2009 re-release CD is a mock up of a vinyl record, the words "the heart is a lonely hunter" appear on the runout grooves.

Personnel

 * Morrissey – vocals
 * Alain Whyte – guitar, backing vocals
 * Boz Boorer – guitar
 * Jonny Bridgwood – bass guitar
 * Spencer James Cobrin – drums

 * Technical

 * Steve Lillywhite – production

title: Southpaw Grammar


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullahi Ahmed Addou

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abdullahi Ahmed Addou
This page in Somali has been listed in Pages needing translation into English since 30 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but a glance at the text makes me think it might be a poem. Anyway, delete since unintelligible to the two or three of us that don't understand Somali. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. jni 06:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 10:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. utcursch 12:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically 'cause I don't understand a word of it and last time I checked, this WP was an English sort of thing. Wyss 18:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think this should be translated; it should just be rewritten. There is a brief overview and photo of Addou at rulers.org . --Sesel 15:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Nicole Marie Lenz

Nicole Marie Lenz (born January 24, 1980) is an American model and actress.

Family and personal life
Nicole was born in 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio, to Laura Lenz, a secretary and Theodore Lenz, a contractor. She was raised in North Royalton and has a younger sister named Emilie. She's of mixed Swiss, German, English, and Italian ancestry. Lenz was raised in a small town in North Eastern Ohio. Lenz's great-grandfather was responsible for the architecture of the Terminal Tower, a landmark skyscraper located on Public Square in downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

Lenz has one daughter named Leia Elizabeth who was born in 2009.

Lenz previously shared a Los Angeles home with hotel heiress Paris Hilton.

Career
Lenz grew up in northeast Ohio and started modeling for Ford Models in her teens. She gained major public recognition in 2000, appearing in the Millennium issue of Playboy as Miss March 2000, after winning 3rd place in a worldwide contest where over 15,000 women were entered. She was also featured in the November issue of W photographed by Mario Sorrenti. She subsequently signed a modeling contract with Elite modeling agency, before appearing on the cover of men's magazines including French Playboy and Italian Max magazine. She was also ranked number 94 of the "100 Sexiest Women" in the US by Stuff and Maxim, in 2007.

Lenz made her film debut in August 2003 in Confidence, starring Dustin Hoffman and Edward Burns and has since appeared in several independent and feature films, including My Sister's Keeper starring Cameron Diaz, Seeing Other People, Toxic, and Fanboys produced by the Weinstein Company. She also appeared in an episode of CSI: NY, "Playing with Matches" in 2008.

Lenz has been featured in large campaigns doing modeling and commercial television work for Garnier, Joe's Jeans, Pantene, Matrix, Paul Mitchell, Airwalk, Roxy, Adidas, and Sephora to name a few. Lenz has been featured on the covers of Health, Italian Max, and Playboy worldwide, most notably American and French Playboy. Lenz also appeared in high fashion editorials for magazines such as Vogue (Italy and Russia).

Lenz has also appeared in several music videos, including for Elton John, Paul McCartney, Robbie Williams, and Duran Duran.

Later life and philanthropy
After her daughter's birth, Lenz gave up acting and modeling and began working professionally as a Health advocate. Lenz started her own company in healthcare, in 2014. It was one of the first companies to offer yoga covered by health insurance. Currently, she lives in Los Angeles, California.

Filmography

 * My Sister's Keeper
 * Fanboys
 * Kush
 * Toxic
 * That Guy
 * TV: The Movie
 * Confidence
 * Rent Control

title: Nicole Marie Lenz


text:
Talk:Jean Marchand

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 * EDIT:  00:33, 15 Feb 2005 HistoryBA (Why is it "insulting misinformation" to say that Marchand was concerned about the quality of his English?)

 * This comment was posted by an anonymous user (142.161.168.7). Its insulting if he never said it. This remark has been taken out of context and is an insult. Please back up your reversal of my claim with facts. Thank you. JillandJack 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, the most insulting is calling them "les trois colombes (three doves) in French." Maybe today Separatist rhetoric uses that type of mockery, but not in 1965. Again, lease back up your reversal of my claim with facts. Thank you. JillandJack 02:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This really perplexes me. Both Marchand's decision not to run because, at least in part, of his weakness in French and the use in 1965 of the term the "three doves" are well documented.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no dispute over these facts.  You, however, have stated bluntly that they are "insulting misinformation," as if there is some sort of debate as to their accurace.  Now, however, you say that they are insulting "if" they are untrue.  To the best of your knowledge, is there a debate over these facts?  On what do you base your claim that they are NPOV?  If you don't know much about the subject, why wouldn't you first raise the issue on the discussion page, rather than alleging NPOV and changing the article.  In short, what am I missing here?  HistoryBA 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, now I'm even more perplexed. You've reversed me again without responding to my comment above and without indicating why you refuse to accept Gerard Pelletier's memoirs as sufficient proof.  I ask you please to respect the spirit of good will that is supposed to govern Wikipedia and discuss things here before reverting.  HistoryBA 01:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Marchand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930050337/http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=1094 to http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=1094

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jean Marchand


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran flag

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 03:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Iran flag
This page in Persian has been listed in Pages needing translation into English since 30 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Flag of Iran, of course.  CDC   (talk)  02:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and add redirect to Flag of Iran. Megan1967 04:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 10:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. utcursch 12:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, yes she said, yes. Wyss 18:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Flag of Iran -- Longhair 18:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * redirect as above Yuckfoo 03:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Humboldt

Untitled
Go to the following for original writings by Humboldt:

http://www.geocities.com/patnoble52/humboldt.html

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
 * In Our Time indeed has Humboldt program, which belongs not on the accompanying Dab page, but on surely on Alexander Humboldt. Since i can't edit and view the ... oh, wait, i can! ....

Oh, me LIKE cookies! OK, the template needs to go to the corresponding talk page, and .....?? OK, i think i get it, i'm gonna paste on the talk page, and it's no doubt going to notice i did what i was told and maybe ask if i'm sure it's the right place. Hey, wait, earning cookies is one thing, but getting them is another (which is pretty much the same as eating them)....Hmmmm, let's copy and paste to talk:alexander Humboldt, no talk:alexander von Humboldt

OK, looks like it probably works like intended, and it says i can "change [my] cookie settings", which must be how i get my bonus!

Actually, maybe not; my preview shows it making a change, but one made looking different from, and perhaps made redundant by, the link to the IOT program in the Miscellaneous section; i didn't save the edit that would have added to the article the template i moved from talk:Humboldt. Will note this at talk:alexander von Humboldt. --Jerzy•t 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wretched entries
There's high likelihood that the relationships among some entries and the inclusion of likely insignificant entries on the accompanying Dab page reflect a colleague's commitment to exploiting the Dab page as a list, as exhaustive as possible, of Humboldtiana. There's a correspondingly high likelihood of entries like

(which appear in consecutive entries, formatted that way) being too obscure to serve any purpose other than having such a list on WP -- or making more feasible a pilgrimage including, for instance those two peaks, apparently otherwise insignificant (and lower than the nearby Mt. Lassen by about half their own heights). The terms "peak" and "summit" reek of worthy challenge until one recalls that they just mean a place from which there's nowhere to depart to -- except "downhill from here" or into a helicopter. The benchmark in question, for instance, surely has that name only bcz it's a useful peak to use as an aid in measuring the nearly equally un-notable peak, two miles away, named after the same guy. (He, let it be said, was an exceptional titan in the rise of modern civilization.)  (Having drawn attention, perhaps, to the template:coord that bring each entry up to one blue and one "bluish" link, permit me to note that i stand prepared to defend (despite the lack of a specific guideline) any Dab page entry that has such a pair of "live" links, as constituting a valuable feature for Dab'n of geographical locations.) --Jerzy•t 16:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Humboldt Peak (California), a California peak in the Lassen National Forest at 40.15034°N, -121.42982°W
 * Humboldt BM, a California benchmark peak west of Humboldt Peak (California) at 40.14719°N, -121.46519°W
 * I think i failed to note that
 * the "bluish" links are not to WP articles, but to rows in a WMF table of links into geo-coordinate-indexed map servers, and
 * even the orthodox choice of a link-type (blue link) to Lassen National Forest does not meet the requirement that a Dab-entry's blue link be to an article that has information about the name that the Dab pg disambiguates: in this case, that is:
 * Lassen National Forest not only fails to add information about that peak, it doesn't even mention Humboldt Peak's existence, let alone provide a RS for the info (geo-coord) that appears on the Dab page, as i think it is fair to say is implicitly implied in the Dab'n-facilitating info that we both tolerate and expect on Dab pages.
 * Thus i conclude that (while the coordinates in a Dab entry can aid the task of Dab'n for some users) we should take seriously the clear principle that a blue link to an existing WP is necessary for every Dab entry, and neither a red link for a future WP article nor a link beyond WP (nor the combination of the two) is sufficient to justify a Dab entry: every Dab entry requires a link to an existing article on the same Wikipedia.
 * (My opinion is that in the long run we should probably make it clear that geocoords can appear only on the talk page for the Dab or for the blue-linked article until they are reliably sourced on the blue-linked page.)  In the case of the accompanying Dab, i'm removing or commenting out Dab entries with no blue link to a WP article, and leaving alone the geo-coord links, pending wider discussion. --Jerzy•t 23:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Humboldt


text: User talk:64.72.87.113

title: User talk:64.72.87.113


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange/Statistics

Now that a number of categories have now been completely reviewed, the following are some statistics on the articles from these categories.

Basic statistics

 * Last updated: 00:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC).

First, a few basic project statistics. Table 1 gives the total and unique article counts for PlanetMath's database, and the number reviewed and processed from the list so far. Also given are counts of the number of articles from the Wikipedia's Main namespace which use the templates Template:PlanetMath attribution (for copied/merged text), or Template:PlanetMath reference (for citing a PlanetMath article).).

The total value is a rough estimate, based on the number of unique objects in the PlanetMath database (reaching 4000 on or about 19 January 2005), plus an unknown number accounting for multiple appearances under the AMS classification system. The number of unique articles catalogued is assumed to be approximately the number of unique objects as of the time they were catalogued for this project in late January. The current number can be found at the bottom of this page.

Other counts were obtained from the summaries given on the project page, and from the What links here page for each of the project templates.

Statistics of article reviews

 * Last updated: 00:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC).

A more detailed breakdown of reviewed articles is given in Table 2. It gives counts and percentages for each of the classifications of the relationship between a PlanetMath article and its Wikipedia equivalent. These are drawn only from the categories with status reported on the main project page.

A bit of analysis
Initially, the proportion of more complete or adequate articles on Wikipedia was higher, accounting for about two thirds of the total number (based on the Adjusted % of Table 2). This may be due to the early tendency of participants to work through the smaller categories: Wikipedia might be said to have something on almost `everything', and so would be likely to have something on most topics for which PlanetMath has something.

However, as work progresses, and the participants delve into the larger categories, the greater level of detail found on PlanetMath becomes apparent. In certain topics, PlanetMath has a great deal of detail that Wikipedians appear to have eschewed in favour of greater breadth, until now. The proportion of more complete and adequate articles is now (23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)) below 60%, and the proportion of reviewed PlanetMath articles with content to contribute is over 40%.

Caveats and disclaimer
We conclude with a few caveats. The current totals are progressive and may change significantly (both absolutely as counts and relatively as percentages) as the project continues. In particular, there has been significant bias early on in the project toward reviewing categories with few articles, and this may have an impact on the relative numbers of articles in each classification. It is difficult to assess how this bias (and other biases that may become apparent) may change the above statistics as time goes on.

Another misleading factor in the above numbers is that many articles that are more complete or adequate may have been edited slightly during processing, and hence these numbers are likely to underestimate the impact of PlanetMath on the Wikipedia. Another measure (still probably an underestimate) is the numbers of articles copying or citing PlanetMath content, given in Table 1, but this reflects only processed articles.

Finally, a disclaimer. This page is not intended to demonstrate that either of the sites is doing better or worse than the other; any conclusions you make one way or another are your own! Hopefully, however, these statistics will help to illuminate the status of both Wikipedia and PlanetMath, and the relationship between them, and to further encourage both.


text: Category:Hsinchu County

title: Category:Hsinchu County


text:
Talk:Paris-Panthéon-Assas University

Dates of alumni
Please provide the dates of study if available. --Ransouk (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You can see the dates on some of their own profiles. Otherwise it is common not to have the dates, check other pages, like Harvard's or Yale's... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

 * the first sentence should be simple. Please don’t change the page until you get consensus here, otherwise an admin will have to intervene. Thanks. --Ransouk (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not mind having an admin intervene! There were a lot of english mistakes that I corrected in this article. Sentences were poorly translated from French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You added statements in the lede that do not correspond to sources. --Ransouk (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. Which ones are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For example,the remaining professors did not go at all to Paris 1 only, as it is said in the sentence you added, they went to many other universities. To me, the first sentence is too complicated. Also, you should find more sources to say it is usually considered as the most prestigious. --Ransouk (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Only a very few Professors of the Law Faculty of Paris joined Dauphine and other universities after the split of 1970. The vast majority of those who did not join Panthéon-Assas went on to integrate Paris 1 which is totally historically accurate and verifiable. I do not know what are your sources but I actually have many. Please do check both Panthéon-Assas and Panthéon-Sorbonne's websites for further information. The first sentence totally makes sense, I see no grammatical mistakes. Paris II is a statutory name (derived from the statute that established the university) what is it that you don't understand exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Regarding the ranking and prestige of Panthéon-Assas, I urge you to check for your own benefit, among many other rankings, this one https://thotismedia.com/classement-droit-2021/ and read the methodology they followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Why censor facts when you disagree with them? this is an online encyclopedia.
 * The website of the own universities are not accurate sources. There is no source given, and, in any case, I don’t see, what it has to do with this page. --Ransouk (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I provided other sources too. You can check them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.145 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mate, stop undoing my updates, I am not letting go either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxh (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's simply false to state that all remaining professors went to Paris 1, I provided a source: René David went to Aix. You wrote yourself "The vast majority of those who did not join Panthéon-Assas went on to integrate Paris 1", without a source, but at least it says that not all, which is what your sentence means. --Ransouk (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Now you are saying that not all but the majority. Please provide a source for such a claim. Thanks. --Ransouk (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * That's what I have been saying since the beginning... Read my previous comments in the talk section... I am fine with the latest sentence. I have provided many sources! Naxh (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paris-Panthéon-Assas University