text:
Talk:James Wilson (Founding Father)

Anyone find this a bit too POV?
It doesn't appear to be from a late 19th Cen. EB, but it sure reads like one. How do we all feel about trimming it back a bit? I'm sure he's fascinating, but I think the prose might be a bit too elevated (and I still suspect either an uncredited pd source or else a copyvio, though I can't prove it). Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Answer
Edit by Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown

Well for one, James Wilson was a key founding father; most people just don't have a clue who he is. Secondly, had it not been for, it was either Franklin Roosevelt or Theodore, anyhow, they were so enthralled with the legacy that was James Wilson he was moved from his simple burial ground, and given the honor he deserved with his fellow framers. I myself am a seventh generation descendant of Wilson. I don't deny he had an incredible ambition about him. His infamy is another thing I cannot deny. He on many occasions would have to flee his home, first from the British, and then from the Americans themselves, after his plan to move people west fell through, and thus defaulting on all his loans. I believe he escaped to Virginia or Ohio, that part was a little sketchy, it's been a few years since I've read the law review or talked to my father who is the real family expert on Wilson. In any case, he was one of the most important founding father, most if you are considering the constitution, for as the law review explicitly states, (written by Roosevelt himself) that Wilson's ideas were key to the framing of the country in which we now live. Had it not been for Wilson, America would have looked dramatically different. Also, it's interesting to note, there are at least a few descendants floating around from his seven children. We are few in number, vast in infa my, and decisive in purpose. Most of the key information about Wilson that I know comes from said law review, Wilson never wrote much over the course of his own life, he instead focused on the legacy he would leave behind to a nation, and to his own children. Also, around the time most founding father’s were doing the majority of their writing Wilson was either evading the law be it the Red Coats or American Blues. Washington on several occasions was required to save his life from Red Coasts and bankers trying to exact their revenge. And no, it is not POV, it is merely honesty. If you have a problem with the truth then that's fine, be that way. America was founded on those ideals and will not be changed just because someone has a problem with that. It's called a democratic republic, ruled by the people not by dictators sir; therefore I feel shortening the truth is uncalled for. In addition, if you wish to shorten Wilson, then we must in turn shorten the entirety of the framers of our constitution. Finally, did you ever think that someone besides yourself could be a good writer? I don't know you, I'm just honestly replying to a random post, but I've read the limited material in existence about Wilson, there honestly is a vast lack of information about him, possibly due to Wilson or the family's efforts to conceal the embarrassment of his life. My father was the first person to actually hear the story of his entire family, curious family member A. tells curious family member B. all about it. But what I'm trying to point out is, is it not possibly the author spent a long time writing this, in addition, that said person might in fact be a college professor or a very well educated person? I may be a freshman in college, but I am not a dunce. If anything Wilson gave us sir, it happened to be brains. Something you perhaps are lacking in great degrees for complaining about length and openly accusing someone of a crime you have no valid proof exists on a public website. We live in a free society and country sir, and free speech is protected, however, the Supreme Court does not consider slander to be a lawful form of said speech. (Dragoon91786 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoon91786 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 March 2006

NPOV
This is article has an incredible NPOV problem. It should be totally rewritten. It hurts to have an article like this in wikipedia.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As I pointed out above this is not POV...this is truth, therefore your comments are invalid. You just have a problem with honesty. Try reading a book on Wilson and you might learn a thing or two. Might I suggest Wilson's own works or perhaps the law review I suggested, you can contact the Library of Congress, there are a few copies lying around. I was fortunatly able to get ahold on one of the last copies, WSU has one, however I'm not sure who else. Well, the Library of Congress does, but depenting on the state you live in, it might difficult to get your hands on. In any case, as I have noted before, before you call an artical verbose and unimportant, remember, this is perhaps the only public record of any complete nature availible to the public, without a vast supply of travel. So unless you can cite, and I repeat cite specific examples of inaccuracies, please refrain from commenting slander, or random faulsifications. Thank you. The intention of this website is in acordance with the pantheon of ideals that the halls of learning in any good civilization possess. Therefore, I highly suspect you truly have no real concept of what you are talking about. But this is a free country, so besides defending the page, there is nothing else I can possibly due. (Dragoon91786 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

 * Oh, just in case someone has some less than ideal comments they wish to make about my connection to Wilson, and the possibility of bias as a result, be assured, I do not deny being a six/seventh generation descendent of Wilson. However, I am fully willing to discuss in full detail to the best of my ability all of his less than illustrious deviations in life. Therefore, in so doing, I am not bias. I know the man was brash, egotistical, and in many cases, a complete wash when it came to common sense, he had big dreams and even bigger achievements. But the one thing you can say for Wilson was he knew his stuff. He may have been a fool at times, possibly a megalomaniac, but hey, I admit a bit of it runs in the family, but I do believe in all my heart, he had the best intentions for this nation, and albeit the road to hell is paved with good intentions, without them, we would not have this glorious nation we live in today. (Dragoon91786 10:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Neutrality, Clarify tags
I made a few changes to the article (take a glance at the page history) and I removed the clarify and neutrality tags. The article seems okay now but if someone finds something confusing or not conforming to the NPOV, go ahead and put those tags back up if you wish. --Sparkhurst 04:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) This is the part that is, as far as I know, innacurate

"During the Continental Congress of 1776, he largely stood by fellow Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson in opposing independence only to reverse his position in the final vote, barely tipping Pennsylvania in favor of Independence and granting the resolution the unanimity required to pass"

This is mis-information directly taken from the portrayal of Wilson in 1776. The truth is that he was NOT pivotal in the unanimity fight and he was strongly for independance. He did NOT reverse his decision in the final vote and tip anything. If you have information contrary to this, it desperately needs a citation, especially in light of the fact that this paragraph appears to be taken from the fictional musical.

I feel sad about the crap that this article has gone through. Does this happen to the Ben Franklin one? :)

(He and Wilson were great friends- in fact, Franklin referred to him as "the burly, surly Scot")
 * I hope you don't mind but I've moved your stuff down here (I'm a bit of a neat freak). From the ushistory.org website, "He was, however, in a bind. Pennsylvania was divided on the issue of separation, and Wilson refused to vote against the will of his constituents. Many members felt that it was hypocritical to have argued so forcefully and so long for Independence, only to vote against it when the occasion came. Wilson, with the support of three other members who were sympathetic to his position, managed a delay of three weeks, so that he could consult with people back home. When the vote came, he was able to affirm Pennsylvania's wish for Independence." I guess the section needs to be revised. --Sparkhurst 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, and I think what you wrote fit in much better with the article than what I did. I was just trying to get that part out there....it was late! Thanks for revising the section. Maria
 * No problem. If you feel anything else sounds a little off, please bring attention to it. Regarding the Ben Franklin article, it is usually limited to senseless vandalism. Inaccuracies such as what was presented in this article wouldn't stand a chance since a lot of people watch the Franklin article. Since the amount of people watching this article pales in comparison to the amount watching Franklin's article, inaccuracies stand a better chance of going unnoticed. --Sparkhurst 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks guys for updating the page. I'm really happy to see someone actually note the fact My ancestor was locked up in prision...-heh heh- They forget about these sorts of things in History. I finally found that law review written in 1905 in the Philidelphia Law Review on the Wilson Doctrine and Wilson the Patriot. Yes, he was a major proponent of Independence. However, I found it strange that the review spoke that Wilson was elected within the first two months to the "Commitee of Five, and was repordedly the Chairman of that Commitee. I'll include the additional information I have from Wilson into this when I get a chance to reread it. Also, there are only two-three copies of this review in existance seeing how very little has been written on Wilson at all. I'll make sure to bring this up so others can see it. I'm not sure about copyright in regards to Law Reviews, but if it's legal I could put it up somewhere so others can read it. It's very interesting. Anyhow, thanks guys. (Oh, and I have one of the only copies in existance (A photocopy but still a legitamate copy). Thanks for the effort, I really appreciate others taking the time to help make the Legacy of Wilson more known. -Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown-

High Importance, Low Quality
It is shameful that the Wikipedia article for such an important figure in American history as James Wilson should be of such low quality. Parts of it look plagiarized to me, which is particularly distasteful when we are writing of someone who helped draft the US Constitution. Compare. There is no grace to the article...no balance. And what is with the constant juvenile vandalism?! They must be assigning this in junior high history courses somewhere!

Regarding British versus American English, I normally leave British spellings unchanged. However, for a uniquely American topic, I think it is appropriate to change to American. Ironically, where one should not change it is when the subject himself uses British spellings (!)...so I left the British "instil" in the Wilson quote, trusting that whoever added that to the article was faithful in copying the original.

Also note this reference in current news,, regarding the "discovery" in the archives of the Philadelphia Historical Society of a draft of the Constitution written in Wilson's handwriting.

Taquito1 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's the lede?
Something like this: James Wilson born 17xx in died 18xx was one of the founding fathers. A highly respected lawyer who trained at xx University he served in the continental congress, wrote the first draft of the constitution, and was a justice of the supreme court. Nitpyck (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Please, yes, that makes so much more sense. When so much of the article is bad, where better to improve it than the beginning? Of course, almost anything will be an improvement. This article has all the hallmarks of having no one that cares about it, not even that Mr. Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown, so I would just edit directly without prior consultation on this talk page. If anyone objects, they can take their turn. Thanks! Taquito1 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I actually do care. My big issue has been not having a lot of material to work from and not actually taking large smacks at wiki articles. It would be my honor to be the editor of this page. I just haven't done that before, and want the article to be the best possible. Sorry everyone. I'll post some materials and references. I was mostly worried about posting due to the whole "No personal research", when I really never knew what constituted this. This article and the article on Neil Postman are two pages I want to keep updated. Meh... Thanks for the help all. CMBV Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is better to add material and have everyone criticize the amount of info at a later time. I'll try that and go from there. Christopher Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CSPAN - book show? - had a young grad student on who discovered a box in an archive that had drafts of the Constitution - even on the backs of sheets. It appears he was to the Constitution what Jefferson was to the Declaration. Sounds like he would make a good book to write - I love the "Fort Wilson" story - a movie all by itself. Interesting guy, interesting ideas - like all the founding fathers - more myth than fact.159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Militia
The second paragraph of the Revolution section states "In 1775 he was a Colonel in the 4th Battalion of Associators and rose to the rank of Brigadier General of State Militia."

Can we get more details? Militia (United States) claims "The colony of Pennsylvania did not have a militia, prior to the Revolutionary war, due to the large and pacifist Quaker population.[7]" So what militia was he in? Does the militia article need correcting?

Also, Associators claims "Associators...were Loyalist irregulars who fought with the British in the American Revolutionary War". That cannot be the case here. Does the Associators article need correcting? That article does not show the "4th Battalion" of anything, so it might be better to say of what unit that was...what regiment, perhaps, assuming there was such a thing?

As for "Brigadier General of State Militia", maybe we are talking about a promotion during the war. Slightly more detail would be nice. And does that mean PENNSYLVANIA State Militia, or ALL state militias?

Anyway, thanks to Nitpyck for adding all the material to work with! Now we have something to sink our teeth into.

Taquito1 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Pa did have a militia at least as early as the French and Indian War. The pacifist sects might not have approved but Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian and Anglican sects did. They were generally defensive units used against Indian attacks from the North and West. Militia (United States) is incorrect. See the Ben Franklin article In 1756, Franklin organized the Pennsylvania Militia (see "Associated Regiment of Philadelphia" under heading of Pennsylvania's 103rd Artillery and 111th Infantry Regiment at Continental Army).  I'll see what details I can find on Wilson's military career.Nitpyck (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * There is this reference | Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia. The Benjamin Franklin article reference to Continental Army] is no longer valid, and perhaps should refer to [[List_of_United_States_militia_units_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War. That article has this, "4th Battalion of Philadelphia County Militia, 1776 {aka 4th Battalion of Associators ?}"...complete with question mark!, as well as this, "Artillery Battalion, Pennsylvania Militia 1747 {Artillery Batteries of the Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia}". It is not clear to me whether these are the same, related, or unrelated units.

 * has this, "When hostilities began, Wilson was chosen colonel of a battalion of militia that was raised in Cumberland county, with which he took part in the New Jersey campaign of 1776."

 * Ah ha! This looks credible: has this, "Commissioned Colonel of the Fourth Cumberland County Battalion, 1775". No mention of "Brigadier General of State Militia". This reference has a lot of other information that might be useful in editing James Wilson.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquito1 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * For now I replaced, "4th Battalion of Associators" with, "4th Cumberland County Battalion" (based on ). If "Associators" belongs, let's get it back in, but someone needs to understand that better than I do. Taquito1 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * About this time (1776) Wilson was elected a colonel in the Cumberland County Associators, part of the military organization established by Pennsylvania in the absence of a militia, but he never saw active service http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/wilson.htm Carlisle is the County seat of Cumberland County where Wilson was based. The important phrase is "never saw active service". Nitpyck (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Been looking at the PA Archives (all in Google books) and can confirm a militia bill was signed by Gov. Robert hunter Morris on Nov. 22, 1755. As for this article, In 1776 Wilson was one of 4 colonels for Cumberland County Associators. Associators were raised in the city of Philadelphia (Dickinson was one of Phillies' colonels) and all the counties. It seems clear, that as far as PA is concerned, Associators is to Militia as Commonwealth is to State. Nitpyck (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently bought Charles Page Smith's biography on Wilson. As soon as I figure out what I did with it, I'll look up this and a few other things. Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fort Wilson Riot
It seems to me that the Fort Wilson Riot should have its own article, given that several important men of the time, including Charles Willson Peale, were involved on one side or the other, and there is considerably more to the story than is given here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

James Wilson's religious affiliation
Somebody recently changed James Wilson's religious affiliation from "Unitarian" to "Christian." I changed it to "Episcopal" per the following website: Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't know if the tag at the beginning of the article should be footnoted, and I don't know if this is a reliable source, but I suppose it's a place to start. Right now the article doesn't say anything about Wilson's religious views; perhaps a new section should be added. --Other Choices (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I noticed that change myself. BTW, I have Charles Page Smith's book around my house. Still looking for it, but from what I've read he stipulates that Wilson was "very religious". He was raised as a member of a denomination based upon Calvinism. When James was young his parents would take him to lectures presented by George Whitefield. I found this one http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/James_Wilson.html which says that he was both an Episcopalian and Presbyterian. Given that Scotland was the foundation of Presbyterianism it would seem only likely James was Presbyterian. Especially, considering this UPENN article, which clinches my initial thoughts. He was studying at St. Andrews in his fifth year to become a Presbyterian minister. Presbyterianism is a form of Calvanism. http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/wilson_jas.html CMVB Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I will go ahead and update the information on the main page. Thanks everyone for your assistance. :) CMVB Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dates
As this is about an American, why are the dates written British-style?? Very annoying. Last I looked, Wikipedia was an American, not British, website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:1470:A448:4FED:77BA:F96 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Wilson. 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/20150710163946/http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/Signers/wilson.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wilson.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710163946/http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/Signers/wilson.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wilson.htm

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) 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wilson's opposition to the Bill of Rights
I added information in regard to James Wilson's opposition to the proposed Bill of Rights to the Constitution. (Wilson, like Hamilton [See Federalist 84] opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights) He talked about it in his Statehouse Yard Speech.

"This distinction being recognized, will furnish and answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights, a defect in the proposed constitution: for it would have been superfluous and absurd, to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges, of which we are not divested either by the intention of that act that has brought that body into existence."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Wilson. 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/20051109210539/http://www.law.upenn.edu/about/history/photogallery/Insidegallery/wilson.html to http://www.law.upenn.edu/about/history/photogallery/Insidegallery/wilson.html

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) 11:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Wilson (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The label "Founding Father"
I think it's a bit odd for the title of the article to include the parenthetical "Founding Father." The term has a sentimental connotation. It is celebratory, as opposed to scholarly. If we do need a parenthetical descriptor, I think "lawyer," "jurist," or "politician" would be better choices. This is not to be anti-Wilson, I think he's a cool guy.
 * It is rather difficult to find a disambiguator for the common combination of given name and surname, "James" and "Wilson", which would not conflict with another lawyer, jurist, or politician. BD2412  T 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since an easily recognizable disambiguator does not exist under Wilson's lawyer, jurist, or politican endeavors, the present title seems an adequate and accurate descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:James Wilson (Founding Father)


text:
Stephan Vuckovic

Stephan Vuckovic (born 22 June 1972 in Reutlingen) is an athlete from Germany, who competes in triathlon.

Vuckovic competed at the first Olympic triathlon at the 2000 Summer Olympics. He won the silver medal with a total time of 1:48:37.58. His split times were 18:35.59 for the swim, 0:58:52.10 for the cycling, and 0:31:09.89 for the run.

Vuckovic began competing in International Triathlon Union races before competing in World Triathlon Corporation races. Beginning in 2005 he competed in several long distance triathlons, finishing on podium of the Ironman Canada 2005 (2nd place) and the Ironman Lanzarote (3rd) in 2007. His results at the World Championship race in Hawaii included a tenth place in 2005, earning him the title of 'best rookie' that year. The following year, he finished with a 14th place at the 2006 championship event.

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

title: Stephan Vuckovic


text:
User talk:MisterWiggs

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:MisterWiggs


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How to distinguish a monocot from a dicot

I'm not sure where to note this, but the deleted page is still linked! --Menchi 03:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to have been recently recreated. Thus, I've marked it as a "speedy".  Alai 02:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914)

Ernst August, Hereditary Prince of Brunswick, Prince of Hanover (Ernst August Prinz von Hannover; 18 March 1914 – 9 December 1987) was head of the House of Hanover from 1953 until his death in 1987. From his birth until the German Revolution of 1918–1919 he was the heir apparent to the Duchy of Brunswick, a state of the German Empire.

He was born at Braunschweig, Germany, the eldest son of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, the only daughter of Emperor Wilhelm II, Ernest Augustus's third cousin in descent from George III the United Kingdom. Ernst August's parents were, therefore, third cousins, once removed. From his birth, he was the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick. He was also, shortly after birth in 1914, made a British prince by King George V of the United Kingdom, and was heir to the titles Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale and Earl of Armagh. His German titles were abolished in 1919 by the Weimar Republic, while his British titles were suspended under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. Nonetheless, he carried both as titles of pretence during his lifetime.

Life

The christening of Ernst August in the summer of 1914 was the last great gathering of European monarchs before the start of World War I. He had an illustrious list of godparents: George V of the United Kingdom, Franz Joseph I of Austria, Nicholas II of Russia, Ludwig III of Bavaria, Frederick Francis IV, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Prince Adalbert of Prussia, Prince Oskar of Prussia, Prince Maximilian of Baden, the 1st Royal Bavarian Heavy Cavalry Regiment, and all four of his grandparents: the German Emperor and Empress and the Duke and Duchess of Cumberland.

He ceased being heir to the duchy of Brunswick at the age of four, when his father abdicated in 1918. After his father's death in 1953, he became head of the House of Hanover.

During World War II, he fought at the Russian Front as Oberleutnant in the staff of Generaloberst Erich Hoepner. He was seriously injured near Kharkiv in spring 1943. After the 20 July plot in 1944, he was imprisoned for a few weeks by the Gestapo in Berlin.

He had joined the SS in 1933 and remained a member for one year. His official "denazification" certificate from 1949 vetting his Third Reich associations classified him as "a nominal Nazi supporter", without being a Nazi party member, and according to a Foreign Office record.

In 1938 his sister, Princess Frederica had married the later King Paul I of the Hellenes and in 1946 his younger brother Prince George William married Princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark, thus becoming the brother-in-law of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

Ernest Augustus was himself an heir to the British titles of Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, recognised ad personam for Ernst August's father as well as for him and his siblings by King George V of the United Kingdom on 17 June 1914, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh, which however were all suspended under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. In addition to being a German, he also held British nationality, after successfully claiming it under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 in the case of Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover. Nonetheless, a problem arose as foreign royal titles cannot be entered into a British passport. Therefore, the titles Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg could not be mentioned there, nor could the British titles due to the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. The name which was finally entered into his British documents, was thus Ernest Augustus Guelph, with the addition of His Royal Highness. Guelph is thus also the British last name of his siblings and children, all styled Royal Highnesses in the United Kingdom.

In 1961 he sold his remaining properties at Herrenhausen Gardens, including the site of Herrenhausen Palace which had been destroyed by a British bombing raid in 1943. He kept however the Princely House, a small palace built in 1720 by George I of Great Britain for his daughter Anna Louise. Ernest Augustus converted Marienburg Castle into a museum in 1954, after having moved to nearby Calenberg Demesne, which caused a row with his mother, who was forced to move out. He also sold the family's exile seat, Cumberland Castle at Gmunden, Austria, to the state of Upper Austria in 1979, but his family foundation based in Liechtenstein kept vast forests, a game park, a hunting lodge, The Queen's Villa and other property at Gmunden. The family property is now managed by his grandson Ernst August.

Marriage and children
During the Second World War, specifically in 1941, his cousin Prince Hubertus of Prussia married the noted society beauty and aristocrat Baroness Maria Anna von Humboldt-Dachroeden (1916–2003). The couple, however, divorced in 1943, after her affair with Ernest Augustus resulted in the birth of a son. Ernest Augustus however did not marry Maria Anna because his parents would not have approved, since she was considered of inadequate birth and was also a divorcée, and the marriage would have made his younger brother Prince George William heir to the headship of the House of Hanover. The child, christened Christian Ernst August Hubertus, Freiherr von Humboldt-Dachroeden, was born in 1943 and currently is a bank consultant.

On 5 September 1951, Ernest Augustus married Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (1925–1980). The wedding was attended by many important royal figures, including his sister Queen Frederica and her husband King Paul of Greece, and the heads of the houses of Saxony, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, and Baden. The wedding was followed with a reception in the Gallery Building at Herrenhausen Gardens, the only part of the House of Hanover's former summer palace still intact, as the palace itself had been burned down during World War II.

His children by his first wife are:
 * Princess Marie of Hanover (born 1952), married Count Michael Georg von Hochberg-Fürstenstein (b. 1943) and had issue.
 * Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954), married firstly Chantal Hochuli (b. 1955) and had issue, married secondly Princess Caroline of Monaco and had issue.
 * Prince Ludwig Rudolph of Hanover (1955–1988), married Countess Isabelle von Thurn und Valsassina-Como-Vercelli (1962–1988), with whom he had one son. Ludwig committed suicide shortly after discovering the body of his wife, who had died of a drug overdose.
 * Princess Olga Sophie Charlotte Anna of Hanover (born 1958)
 * Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1959), married Andreas, 8th Prince of Leiningen (b. 1955) and had issue.
 * Prince Heinrich of Hanover (born 1961), married Thyra Donata Sixtina von Westernhagen and had issue (including a son, Albert).

Princess Ortrud died in 1980.

Ernest Augustus married again in 1981, Countess Monika zu Solms-Laubach (1929–2015), daughter of Georg, 9th Count of Solms-Laubach (1899–1969) and his wife, Princess Johanna of Solms-Hohensolms-Lich (1905–1982).

He died at Schulenburg, Pattensen, Lower Saxony, Germany, aged 73, and was buried next to his first wife on a round bastion of Marienburg Castle (Hanover).

In popular culture
He was portrayed by Daniel Betts in the first season of the Netflix series The Crown.

Ancestry
Patrilineal descent, descent from father to son, is the principle behind membership in royal houses, as it can be traced back through the generations – which means that the historically accurate royal house of monarchs of the House of Hanover was the House of Lucca (or Este, or Welf).

This is the descent of the primary male heir. For the complete expanded family tree, see List of members of the House of Hanover.

 * 1) Oberto I, 912–975
 * 2) Oberto II, 940–1017
 * 3) Albert Azzo I, Margrave of Milan, 970–1029
 * 4) Albert Azzo II, Margrave of Milan, d. 1097
 * 5) Welf I, Duke of Bavaria, 1037–1101
 * 6) Henry IX, Duke of Bavaria, 1074–1126
 * 7) Henry X, Duke of Bavaria, 1108–1139
 * 8) Henry the Lion, 1129–1195
 * 9) William of Winchester, Lord of Lunenburg, 1184–1213
 * 10) Otto I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1204–1252
 * 11) Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1236–1279
 * 12) Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1268–1318
 * 13) Magnus the Pious, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1304–1369
 * 14) Magnus II, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1328–1373
 * 15) Bernard I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1362–1434
 * 16) Frederick II, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1408–1478
 * 17) Otto V, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1439–1471
 * 18) Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1468–1532
 * 19) Ernest I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1497–1546
 * 20) William, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1535–1592
 * 21) George, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 1582–1641
 * 22) Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, 1629–1698
 * 23) George I of Great Britain, 1660–1727
 * 24) George II of Great Britain, 1683–1760
 * 25) Frederick, Prince of Wales, 1707–1751
 * 26) George III the United Kingdom, 1738–1820
 * 27) Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, 1771–1851
 * 28) George V of Hanover, 1819–1878
 * 29) Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, 1845–1923
 * 30) Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, 1887–1953
 * 31) Ernest Augustus, Hereditary Prince of Brunswick, 1914–1987


text:
Jan Řehula

Jan Řehula (born 15 November 1973) is a  triathlete from the Czech Republic.

Řehula participated in the first Olympic triathlon at the 2000 Summer Olympics. He won the bronze medal with a total time of 1:48:46.64. His split times were 18:11.89 for the swim, 0:59:13.50 for the cycling, and 0:31:21.25 for the run.

His recent International Triathlon Union rankings include:
 * 2002 - 146th
 * 2003 - 93rd

title: Jan Řehula


text: User talk:144.136.149.180

title: User talk:144.136.149.180


text:
Evans Paul

Evans Paul (born 26 November 1955), also known as Compère Plume; shortened as K-Plume (KP), is a Haitian politician and former president of the Democratic United Committee. He was elected mayor of Port-au-Prince in the 1990 elections that brought Jean-Bertrand Aristide's National Front for Change and Democracy party to power, and he served as a campaign manager for a time during Aristide's 1990 campaign. He made an unsuccessful run for President of Haiti in the 2006 elections under the Democratic Alliance Party banner. On December 25, 2014, President Michel Martelly announced Evans Paul as Haiti's new prime minister. On February 2, 2016, he resigned. He remained in his position due to an agreement signed on 6 February, until a prime minister could be reached by consensus and an interim president could be elected by Parliament for a 120-day term.

He used to host the program "Plume" on Radio Caraïbes from 1974 to 1976, from where he got his nickname. From 1977 to 1980, he hosted Konbit Pitit Kay on Radio Cacique.

title: Evans Paul


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candlelight Spells

 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 no consensus, so keep.

Candlelight Spells
Delete as non-encyclopedic. There are lots of similar books of spells out there, and this one doesn't seem to have had any particular impact on the world. FreplySpang (talk) 03:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reviews at amazon seem to indicate that it's influential.  RickK 07:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which listing on Amazon you found. A sales ranking of 720,107 seems pretty poor to me.  It's one of over a dozen books published by the same author.  I can't find anything to distinguish this one.  Inclining toward delete for now.  Rossami (talk) 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rossami. Radiant_* 14:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep non-vanity books. Author also has a book ranked #104,415, must be reasonably notable in the crowded field of Spellcasting, Feasting, and Healing. Kappa 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your second sentence would seem to be an argument for keeping an article about the author (which I would support except that the current article is a copyvio). I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the comment to this article about the non-selling book.  Rossami (talk) 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that if an author is interesting to significant numbers of people, any books they might write can also be presumed to be interesting to them. Kappa 20:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't look notable. Tempshill 20:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. ("non-fiction"? I dunno about that. ;-)) RussBlau 19:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep non-vanity Citadel Press book T h e St ev e  19:29, Apr 22, 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:Talent manager

Should we change this to reflect "talent management" instead?

Lotsofissues 03:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing kind of reads like a "how to" guide rather than an encyclopedic article. Maybe it needs a do over?--125.238.38.59 11:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, I really don't mind the whole "how to" format. Yes, there are other sites out there with similar guides, but what's the harm in leaving it like this? --71.102.133.171 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs big help?
This article is, at is essence, not at all encyclopedic. It's a "how to", which, while being useful, is not the intended use for a page such as this. It needs to be heavily edited, if not rewritten from scratch. I fixed the cats/spelling/lists for anyone who wants to take a crack at rewriting it using the current information in part.

Anyone not agree on this point?

--71.254.175.12 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a lot of this artice is copied word for word from the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.48.34 (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talent manager. 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/20090115173626/http://www.musicbizadvice.com/qa_how_much_does_the_average_concert_promoter_make_per_year_and_how_hard_is_the_course_of_study.htm to http://www.musicbizadvice.com/qa_how_much_does_the_average_concert_promoter_make_per_year_and_how_hard_is_the_course_of_study.htm

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) 03:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Talent manager


text:
Charles Webster (historian)

Sir Charles Kingsley Webster (25 July 1886 – August 1961) was a British diplomat and historian. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby and King's College, Cambridge. After leaving Cambridge University, he went on to become a professor at Harvard, Oxford, and the London School of Economics (LSE). He also served as President of the British Academy from 1950 to 1954.

In addition to his career in academia, Webster worked extensively in the Foreign Office, especially in the United States, and was a leading supporter of the new United Nations, as he had been of the League of Nations.

Life
After studying at Cambridge, Webster became professor of international relations at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth where he wrote his two major books on the foreign policy of Lord Castlereagh, the first (published in 1925) covering the period 1815–1822, the second (published in 1931) that from 1812 to 1815. In 1932 Webster moved to the newly established Stevenson chair of international relations at the LSE.

During World War II, he worked extensively in the Foreign Office, especially in the United States, and was a leading supporter of the new United Nations, as he had been of the League of Nations. He was involved in the drafting of the UN Charter.

He attended the first meetings of both the General Assembly and the Security Council in January 1946 and the final meeting of the League of Nations in April. He was made a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George in the new year's honours list of 1946.

Career
In 1948, Webster gave the Ford Lectures at Oxford University. In 1951, his biography of Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston was finally published. He was President of the British Academy in 1950. He was awarded honorary degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Wales, Rome, and Williams College, Massachusetts, and was made an honorary fellow of King's College, Cambridge. He retired from his chair at the LSE in 1953.

 * Professor of Modern History, Liverpool University, 1914–1922
 * Subaltern in the Royal Army Service Corps, 1915–1917
 * General Staff of the War Office, 1917–1918
 * Secretary, Military Section, British Delegation to the Conference of Paris, 1918–1919
 * Wilson Professor of International Politics, University of Wales, 1922–1932
 * Außerordentlicher (=Associate) Professor, University of Vienna, 1926
 * Nobel Lecturer, Oslo, 1926
 * Reader, University of Calcutta, India, 1927
 * Professor of History, Harvard University, USA, 1928–1932
 * Stevenson Professor of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science, 1932–1953
 * Foreign Research and Press Service, 1939–1941
 * Director, British School of Information, New York, 1941–1942
 * Foreign Office, 1943–1946
 * Member of British Delegation, Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco Conferences, 1944–1945
 * Member, Preparatory Commission and General Assembly, United Nations, 1945–1946
 * Ford Lecturer, Oxford University, 1948
 * President, 1950–1954, and Foreign Secretary, 1955–1958, British Academy

Works

 * The Congress of Vienna, 1814–1815, London: Foreign Office Historical Section, 1919
 * The Congress of Vienna, Oxford University Press, 1919 (with copyedit instructions, 1934), online at Internet Archive
 * British diplomacy, 1813–1815 : select documents dealing with the reconstruction of Europe, 1921, 409p, online at Internet Archive
 * The pacification of Europe, 1813–1815, 1922
 * The Congress of Vienna, 1814–15, and the Conference of Paris, 1919, London, 1923
 * The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh (1815–1822) Britain and the European Alliance, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1925, online at Internet Archive
 * The European alliance, 1815–1825, University of Calcutta, 1929
 * What the world owes to President Wilson, London: League of Nations Union, 1930
 * The League of Nations in theory and practice, London: Allen and Unwin, 1933
 * Palmerston, Metternich and the European system, 1830–1841, London: Humphrey Milford, London, 1934
 * Editor of British diplomatic representatives, 1789–1852, London, 1934
 * Editor of Britain and the independence of Latin America, 1812–1830, London: Ibero-American Institute of Great Britain, 1938
 * Some problems of international organisation, University of Leeds, 1943
 * Editor of Some letters of the Duke of Wellington to his brother, William Wellesley-Pole, London, 1948
 * The Foreign Policy of Palmerston, 1830–1841: Britain, the Liberal Movement, and the Eastern Question, 1951, online edition of vol 2
 * The art and practice of diplomacy, London School of Economics, 1952, online
 * British Foreign Policy since the Second World War
 * The founder of the national home, Weizmann Science Press of Israel, 1955
 * Sanctions: the use of force in an international organisation, London, 1956
 * The strategic air offensive against Germany, 1939–1945, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961, coauthor, 3 volumes, official history

title: Charles Webster (historian)


text:
To the Finland Station

To the Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History (1940) is a book by American critic and historian Edmund Wilson. The work presents the history of revolutionary thought and the birth of socialism, from the French Revolution through the collaboration of Marx and Engels to the arrival of Lenin at the Finlyandsky Rail Terminal in St. Petersburg in 1917.

Form and content
Wilson "had the present book in mind for six years".

The book is divided into three sections.

The first spends five of eight chapters on Michelet and then discusses the "Decline of Revolutionary Tradition," referencing Ernest Renan, Hippolyte Taine, and Anatole France.

The second deals with Socialism and Communism in sixteen chapters. The first four chapters discuss the "Origins of Socialism" vis-à-vis Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Robert Owen, and Enfantin as well as the "American Socialists" Margaret Sanger and Horace Greeley. The second group of twelve chapters deal mostly with the development of thought in Karl Marx in light of his influences, partnership with Friedrich Engels and opposition from Lassalle and Bakunin.

The third spends six chapters, dealing two each on Lenin, Trotsky, and Lenin again. Important writings addressed include Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" and Trotsky's Literature and Revolution, My Life, biography of Lenin, and The History of the Russian Revolution.

The book also mentions Eleanor Marx, Nadezhda Krupskaya, Annie Besant, Charles Bradlaugh and Georgy Gapon.

In 1972, the last year of Wilson's life, Farrar, Straus & Giroux published a new edition with an introduction by Wilson reassessing his interpretation of Soviet Communism. “This book of mine,” he explains, “assumes throughout that an important step in progress has been made, that a fundamental ‘breakthrough’ had occurred, that nothing in our human history would ever be the same again. I had no premonition that the Soviet Union was to become one of the most hideous tyrannies that the world had ever known, and Stalin the most cruel and unscrupulous of the merciless Russian tsars. This book should therefore be read as a basically reliable account of what the revolutionists thought they were doing in the interests of ‘a better world.’ “

Publication
Harcourt, Brace & Co. first published this book in September 1940. Doubleday's Anchor Books imprint published a paperback edition in 1953. Farrar, Straus and Giroux published a paperback edition in 1972. The New York Review of Books published a new edition in 2003, with an introduction by Louis Menand.

Upon publication, TIME said:

"Because it makes Marxist theory, aims and tactics intelligible to any literate non-Marxist mind, To the Finland Station is an invaluable book. It is an advantage that, like Milton with the character of Satan, Author Wilson is half in love with the human side of the curious specimens he describes."

To the Finland Station was one of the first four books ever published by major Brazilian publisher Companhia das Letras. The book's translation proved to be a successful seller.

In popular culture
This book is mentioned as the reading matter of a young Bill Clinton in Hillary Clinton's biography Living History.

title: To the Finland Station


text: User talk:68.72.23.143

title: User talk:68.72.23.143


text:
St Leonards railway station

St Leonards railway station is located on the North Shore line, serving the Sydney suburb of St Leonards including the nearby Artarmon Industrial Area and Gore Hill. It is served by Sydney Trains T1 North Shore line services.

History
St Leonards station opened on 1 January 1890 as the terminus station of the North Shore line from Hornsby. On 1 May 1893, the line was extended south to Milsons Point.

In August 1989, the station was relocated to a temporary station south of the Pacific Highway to allow the site to be redeveloped. After the redevelopment encountered financial problems and remained dormant for a number of years, the new station was not completed until February 2000 as part of The Forum shopping plaza development.

The new station was built with two island platforms to allow extra lines to be laid as part of a plan to quadruple the line.

Platforms and services
There is an unwired siding linked to the up track. It is equipped with catch points, and is 205m long (of which 168m is usable, enough to stable an 8-car suburban train). The points are manually operated by a lever next to the track. This also means the signals, which are controlled from Homebush Control Centre, cannot permit a movement to or from the siding. Additionally, as the points cannot be controlled by the signaller, any driver on the up track passing a signal at stop must proceed with caution, making sure there are no trains moving in or out of the siding. Although long enough for an 8 car suburban train, it is not electrified and generally used for track work vehicles on occasions.

Transport links
Busways operates seven bus routes via St Leonards station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 252: King Street Wharf to Gladesville
 * 254: McMahons Point wharf to Riverview
 * 265: North Sydney to Lane Cove
 * 286: Milsons Point to Denistone East (peak hours only)
 * 287: Milsons Point to Ryde (peak hours only)
 * 290: King Street Wharf to Epping
 * 291: McMahons Point wharf to Epping

CDC NSW operates three bus routes via St Leonards station, under contract to Transport for NSW (all peak hours only):
 * 602X: North Sydney to Rouse Hill
 * 612X: Milsons Point to Riley T-way
 * 622: Milsons Point to Dural

Keolis Downer Northern Beaches operates two bus routes via St Leonards station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 114: Balmoral to Royal North Shore Hospital
 * 144: Manly to Chatswood station

Transdev John Holland operates one bus route via St Leonards station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 200: Bondi Junction station to Gore Hill (peak hours only)

Transit Systems operates one bus route via St Leonards station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 320: Green Square to Gore Hill

St Leonards station is served by two NightRide routes:
 * N90: Hornsby station to Town Hall station
 * N91: Bondi Junction station to Macquarie Park station

title: St Leonards railway station


text:
Talk:Juan Pablo Duarte

Untitled
During the independecy, Duarte was exiled from the country by the Haitian government. Pedro Santana Gained the presidency due to his merits in battle. During this firs Dominican Government, an economical and social slump called referenced later by historians as "La España Boba" led Santana to annex the country once again to Spain, only to be restaured by Gregorio Luperon on August 16, 1863.

Original research
This article contains claims that are not backed by any source (mostly because they are not true). For the moment, as I don't have more time, I will post an "original research" or "unverified claims" to the article if no one provides for a correction in a reasonable amount of time. Dominican 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism
I removed the vandalism added. Dominican 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This page got lot miss information
this page need major work, i put back to a state that seem more accurate...but this article need more work on it. Avfnx 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a copyright violation
The page given as a source for a copyright violation states: "NOTE: The information regarding Dominican Republic on this page is re-published from The Library of Congress Country Studies. No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Dominican Republic HAITI AND SANTO DOMINGO information contained here. All suggestions for corrections of any errors about Dominican Republic HAITI AND SAINT DOMINGOshould be addressed to the Library of Congress." Country Studies from The Library of Congress are in the public domain. 21:04, 11 June 2007

Attempt to censor
There apparently seems to be an attempt to censor this article on a regular basis by a few editors. The facts are that there is some controversy surrounding Juan Pablo Duarte's legacy and we have an obligation to at least include this information especially if there are numerous articles from reputible news organizations that have reported on Taina Mirabal's film "Padres de Racismo" about Juan Pablo Duarte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.167.31 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a Encyclopedia right or a rumor mill...facts or fairly tales, it about facts and there no facts he was racist. The Haitians were, they didn't let white own land, killed off the mulatto population in there country...those are facts. 24.190.180.244 (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims for Juan Pablo Duarte's racism
An unregistered user has been reediting the article to denounce a supposedly unknown aspect of Duarte's life. These claims have been stated even on other articles, like the one for the Dominican Republic and even on xenophobia.

This information has consistently been removed because it is not backed by reliable sources. I will flesh out the sources given for that edit:

1. Padre De Racismo: This is a newspaper article about the controversy raised because flyers with Duarte's portrait and a message that said "Padre del Racismo" were distributed in New York City; as well as some statements made by the producers of the film. Nowhere in the article there is something that backs the racists claims. This looks like someone is trying to promote this specific news.

2. Taína Mirabal: Again, another newspaper article that does not support the point of view given. They are just reproducing Mirabal's interview. This is one person's opinion. I mean, she has the right to say whatever she wants about whoever she wants, but just because it appears in a minor online periodical publication, that doesn't make it a reliable source.

3. Los dominicanos han sido engañados: For the third time, this source is pretty much the same article, but written by a different reporter. The situation is the same, they are just repeating Mirabal's interview.

Finally, I would like to add that this information should not be included in the main article because it is only the opinion of Taína Mirabal (and maybe two wikipedia editors). Mirabal in itself is not a reputable historian. Her only work seems to be this documentary. She hasn't, so far and to the best of my knowledge, written any books, journal papers or taught history in school at any level. She doesn't even have a blog! Writing an article based on a film is like trying to re-write the history of the United States after seeing The Birth of a Nation.

Her work also seems to be stagnant. These articles first appeared on August 2007. After that, neither Mirabal or her film have gotten any reviews. Actually, if you google "Taina Mirabal", "Padre de Racismo" or "Fathers of Racism", it only links to the above mentioned articles and to wikipedia!

I understand that there might be people who don't agree with the way the history about Duarte is written, but if you want it to be on a wikipedia article, then create one that is called Controversy about Juan Pablo Duarte, or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominican (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I forgot to sign. Dominican (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

we have a obligation to report
The fact is that this controversy is taking place and there has been press on it, we have an obligaton to include it. To supress this information is censorship. Taina Mirabal has gotten press and the movie has been reported on, that is a fact. She has made assertions about Duartes life and is releasing a movie about him. we have to include that in this article because it is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.167.45 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why cause one person make something up we should pay mind to them...If she says the world is flat, the it is...in no history book does it says or even implies this, it not censorship...this is place for facts not alleges that what the news is for AvFnx (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We have no responsibility to include fringe theories in an article at all. If we do include them, they must not be written as if they were fact, but clearly explained as an opinion. And, of course, controversial views such as this theory need independant sources before being listed. Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Hatred, Just facts
Reveling the true nature of Juan Pablo Duarte's motivations for a separte territory, does not equal hatred toward any group of people. Duarte was an individual who should be held responsible for what he has done. This is in no way defamation or slander nor lies; these are true facts. They may not push a nationalist agenda, but it still does not make them false at all. This is definatly not a personal thing. We have the responsiblity to tell the truth, even if we were born in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.112.232 (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

you shouldn't blame puerto ricans
Hey I'm Dominican and I agree with Taina Mirabal, so it's not just one person who is making edits here.

Also you shouldn't threaten people with violence over the internet, you can and will be put in prison. There is now a record of it and I have reported it to the authorities.

If you disagree fine, then we can create a dialoge and see how to include both sides of the story, but lets not start threatening people with violence or by hacking into their computers; that is against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La romana 31 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Duarte fue racista.
Oye mi gente,

Taina Mirabal speak the truth. Duarte fue una persona racista y los Trinitarios tambien. El es El Padre de Racismo, y yo soy Dominicano puro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony santos (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Donde esta tu prueba, dime donde lo libros de history, lo k Duarte escribio dice k el fue racista. AvFnx (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Los libros de la historia Dominicano tienen muchos mentiras de Trujillo y otros mi hermanao.Anthony santos (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Anthony Santos

Hey i study more in NYC so where in the Americans books says that for that matter give any book that been publish AvFnx (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rican?
I don't know know where you get the idea that I'm Puerto Rican, because I'm not. I think maybe some Dominicans find it hard to believe that they are some of us Dominicans that hate Juan Pablo Duarte, even if we were born there. Some of us Dominicans do have our own minds you know? Were not going to be brainwashed by schoolteachers, politicans and leaders who have been lying and stealing from us for 263 years. Wake up and open your eyes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.112.232 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There words for ya people vende PaTriiiiiiiA!!!!!! that what some Dominicans are. Let be real how can ya talk so much trash of a man gave it all, money, power, and life. For the reason so you can call Dominican, and if true then ya not been real ya cause Dominican "is a racist name", so do me a favor don't use it. AvFnx (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with all that "Dominican is a racist name" stuff. To me its just a word. But my grandfather used to tell me when I was little that Duarte and the Trinitarios were racists and there used to be alot of old people in San Pedro that said the same thing back in the days.

calm down primo
Primo! Calmate! Its not like Juan Pablo Duarte is your father or something. You shouldn't take it so personal. he was a racist, so what! That isn't going to make the palm trees or the beautiful beaches go away. Racism is a problem in our country and we have to be grown up enough to admit it. I know it first hand, I lived in DR for many years and still when I go back I see it loud and clear.

I'm not embarrased to speak the truth. Are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by La romana 31 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This how i know you got no pride, Dominicans son hijo de Duarte. I don't see the racism you talking about; where the organization like kkk in DR...name 3 you know what name ONE!!!!!!!!....im waiting. Fact matter he wasn't...where the prove, till then all trash....here my prove:

“There’s no element that I remember once reading, in anything Duarte said or wrote, that could be interpreted remotely as racism,” said Anthony Stevens, assistant director of the CUNY Dominican Studies Institute. “It’s one of those things that you see and you wonder, ‘Is this somebody nuts, who took Duarte’s name out of a bag in a raffle and decided to use it?’ ”

CUNY Professor said, you know the educated class...which your not part off. I could back up my claim, now back up yours. AvFnx (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

27 de Febrero
Just as a reminder to all of you bloody ignorants. Today is the celebration of our independence from Haiti, which I can only thank to the people who gave their lives 164 years ago and to those, including Juan Pablo Duarte, who thought that we could be a free nation and did something about it. And you can thank him also, because you are able to defame his name and his, our, interracial country.

Padre de la Patria y liberador de mi pueblo de la tiranía Haitiana. Fundador de mi tierra y motivo por el cual hoy yo tengo una nacionalidad la cual me identifica. DIOS PATRIA Y LIBERTAD // REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA

Yo tengo un Dios al que amo, una Patria a la que adoro y una Libertad que disfruto. Yo soy de República Dominicana, yo soy dominicano ¿Y tú?¿Qué tienes?

(talk) 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

El 27 de febrero dia de la independencia dominicana.

Viva Duarte!!!!!

I Propose....
Let translate the Spanish version of Duarte in to english. AvFnx (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but that something that got be done. AvFnx (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist Bias and Protectionism
It seems to me that there is a whole lot of nationalist bias and protectionism fueling an organizaed movement to hide anything negative about Juan Pablo Duarte or the Dominican Republic. Even in articles dealing with racism or fear of foriegners, anything having to do with listing the Dominican Republic is erased.

It funny how the Confederate States of America are looked at as racist for wanting to separate from the USA but the Dominican Republic is not when it did the same thing. If separation due to religion, language or culture is looked at as racism and bias in any other part of the world then we should use the same measuring stick in judging the Dominican Republic. Facts are facts, the United Nations, Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department are not all wrong about Dominican Racism. The fact is that it is a problem and the problem started with Duarte no matter how much spin the government has put on the story over then last 100 plus years. Its not the end of the world. To cover it up just makes it worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La romana 31 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments have nothing to do with why your changes are being reverted. You repeatedly insist on posting your fringe theories as if they were facts (and there's no indication they're even notable fringe theories).  Information on current racial problems in the Dominican Republic is cited.  Your contentions about the founders of the country, La Trinitaria, and their supposed inspiration for the KKK is the theory of one non-notable individual, Taina Mirabal.  Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you know DR was a free country before been invaded by Haiti...so it now the same as the south breaking from the north. We had freedom and wanted it back. By your theory any country that get invaded and conquer doesn't have the right to free it self once again. That shows you limit, you not educated, you only have no life and this how you kill time. AvFnx (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The racism theory is interesting and I won't deny you have enough reasons to start an investigation about it, but as long as your arguments are only supported by Taina Mirabal and two local newspapers that printed an interview with Mirabal (those newspapers never said they agreed with the information), it can not be considered a reliable information. Besides I want to point out a few things that anyone who has lived in the DR can testify it's true: I could go on, but I only point this out in a Juan Pablo Duarte article to show that racism is not as it may look from outside and, therefore, Duarte should not be considered as a founder of a racist nation. At least not without proper and valid sources. Dominican (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The words "negro(a)" and "moreno(a)" may be equivalent (in some cases) to "sweetheart".
 * Dark skinned entertainment, political (including presidents) and sports personalities have been praised by all segments of society as role model Dominicans.
 * Haitians (regardless of their skin color) do not have to pay foreign student tuition fees (at least in the PUCMM campuses). Some of them even have the benefit of transportation dedicated to Haitian students. They are also included in the "Tarjeta Joven Estudiante" program.
 * In the DR buildings were never built with restrooms for whites and restrooms for blacks.
 * In the DR there have never existed miscegenation laws. It was never illegal for a black and a white to get married.
 * In the DR the Supreme Court has never considered that blacks are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
 * In the DR there have never existed schools for blacks and schools for white people.
 * Accent of people in the DR is dictated by region, not by skin color, that is, a black person growing up in the Cibao will have exactly the same accent as a white growing up in the same region. This means that blacks and whites did not live in segregated societies.

These are not valid arguements for non-inclusion. Segregation happend after reconstruction not before. The secession of the Confederate States of America is comparable to the separation of the Dominican Republic. Same Reasons. No matter how you try and sweeten it up. It is Dis-Unity simple and plain. Separation based on langauge, religion, ethnicity or race is not looked upon as a good thing anywhere in the world. Ever. The Dominican Republic should be no exception.

Secondly the D.R. was not a "free" country before the Haitian Liberation, because slavery was still legal. That is not a free country, it is a slave country. And the name of the "country" was Spanish Haiti, where only the white were free. If that is not racism I don't know what is. Lets not pretend. Also the Dominican Republic and Dominicans did not exist before Duarte created them, unless you are talking about the memebers of the Dominican Order of the Catholic Church. The same Dominicans that murdered Jews and Moors by the thousands in Spain.

Combined all of this with the fact that everyone who is against this being included is from the Dominican Republic. It's like having a bunch of editors from the southern U.S. editing a piece on the Civil War. Your voices are not neutral, they are very baised based on nationalist pride.La romana 31 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Even if your staments are all true, that still doesn't give a reason for your repeated pushing of a non-notable fringe theory. And they aren't all true, I for one am not from the Dominican Republic. Edward321 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting and Enhancing
Friends, I am in the process of reworking this article and I would appreciate your help. My goal is to make this article one of the top quality ones, and thus, I would need your help in making it readable, polishing its language, verifying claims with sources, and adding sections and information that are relevant and can be documented. I really hope we could move beyond the unnecessary discussions and zero-in on what would make Duarte's legacy and contributions public to the world. Please, do not hesitate to leave me messages or continue with the project of making a better article. Historian (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A Plea for Historical Accuracy
As we try hard to rework this article, I hope that an increasing number of well-meaning participants join our efforts. Furthermore, I will like to plead with the contributors to keep their contribution within the limits of scholarship. There is a large number (and increasing) of books and articles recently written, in addition to lots of available primary sources on Dominican History, which should be our basis for input into the article. In other words, nothing, and I mean, Nothing, that is not substantiated from primary sources should be place in this article. Information deriving from secondary sources (books written by historians) should be (if at all) only mentioned as such—as opinions. Discredited authors or amateur historians should not feature here prominently—if at all.

Evidence is required for every single historical assertion about Duarte, particularly in relation to incendiary or controversial claims. Ahistorical (non-historical) contentions, as Duarte founding the KKK—which US confederate soldiers founded in 1866—should not be even considered for this article. I will consistently undo every contribution which violate these principles of historical interpretation, and which ignores the collective attempt of the online community. Historian (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Historian (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment is directed to user “Anthony Santos” and to any other who is trying to link Duarte to 20th Century racism. Stop all the comments about the Dominican independence being based on race consciousness or that Duarte was sent to Europe to "unlearn" any Black or Haitian acculturation because the fact is that there was no university in the Spanish-Speaking side of the island and thus any family wanting to provide any type of university-related education to their son should do what the Duartes' did with their son, namely send them to Europe. Comments that Duarte became an admirer of the inquisition or Catholic conservatism is not simply absurd (his main political problems came always from the Church), but very naive and deceiving. We have little evidence of Duarte's years in Europe and none of them point of him mingling with the reactionary/absolutist crowd--it would have been unconceivable for a patriot to be a traditional conservative. In addition to all of this, 21st Century people should understand that the concept of race that we see developing at the end of the 19th Century, which takes hold of politics and produces mass genocides in the early 20th Century has not yet been conceptualized in the early 19th Century when Duarte was just beginning his political life. The separation from Haiti was not based on race, but on economic and political issues—culture being the last of the reasons. For a serious introduction to the topic read Pedro Miró, Silvio Torres-Saillant, Moya-Ponz, and Castro. These are historians that are not only against the traditional historiography (Moya-Ponz is only with some caveat) that support the Hispanic and White identity long promoted by Trujillo and Balaguer, but they are also serious about accuracy and historicity. So, please, stop this madness, and spend some time familiarizing yourself with not only Dominican history, but history about racism and Black/White identity in the Americas, and then move to investigate primary sources BEFORE writing here. I may be as dedicated as you to provide a history that goes against the grain and one that is clean and honest about race and racism, but let us do it in the correct manner, which is based on primary sources and true to history. Historian (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I was just wondering where are you from, you seem to know so much about Dominican history, but still for some reason I get the feeling you are not Dominican.

Neutrality dispute
The tone of the article is not one that fits an encyclopedia.

Phrases like:

 * "Duarte never giving up on the principles of democracy and fairness by which he lived, would only accept if voted in by a majority of the Dominican people"

It is not the place for an encyclopedic article to be so involved. If he said that or someone else did, then only the quotation of this statement should appear.

 * "Independence could not be denied and after many struggles, the Dominican Republic was born."

A neutral article would have said: After many struggles, independence was achieved and the Dominican Republic was founded. The tone is saturated with romanticism.

 * "Juan Pablo Duarte was to look back at this affair with nostalgia, wishing that it had lasted."

This assumes knowledge about how he felt. It should have been either a quotation or not be included at all.

 * His remains were transferred to Dominican soil in 1884—ironically, by president and dictator Ulises Heureaux, a man of Haitian descent—

It is not the place for an encyclopedic article to point out irony.

 * alongside Sanchez and Mella, who at that spot fired the rifle shot that propelled them into legend.

Too much romanticism.

If in 10 days I don't get a responce, I will rework the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlagrange (talk • contribs) 05:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juan Pablo Duarte. 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/20100911085322/http://www.biography.com/articles/Juan-Pablo-Duarte-40045 to http://www.biography.com/articles/Juan-Pablo-Duarte-40045

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) 00:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Juan Pablo Duarte


text:
User talk:Ssalaff

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, !

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:
 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Brilliant prose
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 03:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ssalaff