Rjensen
- /Archive 1: Nov 2005 - April 17 2006.
Unlikely allies?
Hello again User:Rjensen. I now know you are a Reaganite, I always suspected but know I know. I need a favor. Please share you comments at:
The Article is up for deletion
I would like your comments: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR On every page I post this on, many people start passionate conversations about this.
I deleted Reagan from the list because people did not believe me on the deletion page. I will add it back if my article survives deletion, with your quote, which seems unlikely now.Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- done--that was fast! :) Rjensen 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can you comment about your quote and vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR, consider it a returning favor for me fighting so fiercely with you on the Dickstien page.Travb 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can you comment here?: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR--thanks Rjensen.
- It was a mistake to add Reagan, not because it isn't true, it is true, but because a lot of anti-Reaganites don't want him to be listed on the list, and are voting for it to be deleted.Travb 01:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The argument is better made by a separate article, I suggest. Drop Reagan and keep...who? Rjensen 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Have a seperate artile on those who predicted the fall of the soviet union?
- I dropped Reagan originally because I had not read your quote, and my number one concern is keeping the category. Saying Reagan predicted the fall of the USSR is an unwelcome lightening rod to my category. I figured, being yourself, you would just add it right back. Maybe you can suggest some of your friends comment on this. I will ask some of my arch conservative rivals to vote, for the sake of keeping Reagan.Travb 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Categories in fact are not much used in Wiki. The articles are much more useful, in my opinion. Rjensen 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- It will probably be deleted, and then I will rewrite it somewhere else. I may rewrite it somewhere else, anywayTravb 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- As per your comment on the deletion page: I was like wow, why didn't I think of saying that! You have a real gift with words, that is why you are such a formniable (and often terrifying) foe. I would rather be on your side than against you in future edits.Travb 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hey thanks! I was on my high school debate team in junior year. Glad to be on the same side. :) Rjensen 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- As per your comment on the deletion page: I was like wow, why didn't I think of saying that! You have a real gift with words, that is why you are such a formniable (and often terrifying) foe. I would rather be on your side than against you in future edits.Travb 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
As per your suggestion
Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR you will be happy to know that Reagan got top billing. Edit as you see fit, sir. Nice to be on the same side as you again.Travb 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nice job! I'll look it over and maybe add stuff. You should link it to the people involved and to the Cold War and USSR articles. Yes it is a pleasure to work together. Rjensen 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
question re clinton
You reverted the category Irish American on the Clinton page. I ordinarily wouldn't quibble with this, as I know nothing of his background. However, you left the explanatory comment "Irish American = Catholic." Why? I'm wondering if this is perhaps a cultural difference, are you located in Ireland. Here in the states, such designations generally mean that your ancestors are from a certain place. Sometimes it also implies that one keeps some sort of cultural affiliation with a place. I don't know whether Clinton has done this latter thing. But, in the States, your religion would never, never have anything to do with common use of such ethnic labels.
Most often, we would simply adopt whatever label the individual agrees with, subject to reason. Kind regards from an atheist Irish American, Derex 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in Denver (near my Irish Catholic inlaws). look at Irish Catholic. Clinton never joined the Irish Catholic community or to my knowledge ever claimed he was "Irish American". Rjensen 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, that's Irish Catholic. It's not the same thing as Irish American. I assure you that my grandparents are quite Irish, but they're also Protestant. Anyway, I don't really care, but he ought to be described by whatever reasonable label he chooses. I never heard him say he was Irish American either. Just thought you might be actually in Ireland, that's all. Derex 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party article name
Hello, I notice that you argued in the past for moving Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to a ___location in line with the fact that the party was actually called the Republican Party. I've tried to reopen that discussion at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States). Any comments would be welcome. john k 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- yes, I agree 100% Rjensen 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I left a comment on the talk page of the article which you might be interested in reading. I greatly appreciate your attempt at compromise, and I'm not thinking of reverting the article as it presently stands. But I do have a suggestion to make, and an explaination for my previous edits. --Mal 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
npov tag
Rjensen, I have good reasons for that tag. I have explicitly stated them on talk. I have a job to do, so I can't spend every second here debating you. I dispute the neutrality of that section, and I have given specific reasons for it. Pulling that tag is the height of discourtesy. You have now officially pissed me off by removing the tag repeatedly and against my repeated protestations. You will find that was a very poor decision. I'm a nice fellow, but when I run into someone pulling that sort of shit, I get highly motivated to put a stop to it. Don't fuck with me. Derex 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- what are your reasons for the tag? Rjensen 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- i've said 3 times on talk. now, i don't have the time to fool with this right now. i'll revisit it tomorrow. but that was complete crap. i don't know how long you've been around, but that's not how we operate here. not if you don't want to make enemies, and you don't want that; it makes the place rather unpleasant. Derex 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- You will live longer if you calm down, and become more respected if you can explain why other editors are POV and you are not. Rjensen 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- i've said 3 times on talk. now, i don't have the time to fool with this right now. i'll revisit it tomorrow. but that was complete crap. i don't know how long you've been around, but that's not how we operate here. not if you don't want to make enemies, and you don't want that; it makes the place rather unpleasant. Derex 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- what are your reasons for the tag? Rjensen 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not call anyone POV, I don't even know who wrote the damn thing, though I'm rather beginning to suspect it was you. I said I dispute the neutrality of that section, and I said why. Derex 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Two things, first, looking through your talk archives, I see people have objected before to you pulling tags. It's one thing to pull a tag if it's a drive-by tag with no explanation. It's another if the person has listed some specific objection. It's disrespectful whether or not you agree with the objection. That's something to be discussed on talk, and having the tag up for a day isn't going to hurt anything. Pulling the tag will, because it breeds emnity.
- Second, from your interests, your attitude, and Google, I infer that you might be an academic; perhaps not. But if so, don't assume you're the only one around, or that it gives you any sort of special privilege. What it does give you is the skills to reference your work properly and to argue your case skillfully. I'm a prof too (economics), and I learned early on to lose the attitude because it pisses people off. If you've got the skills, you don't need it. Derex 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for the complements. But I still don't know why anyone considers the heavily documented section to be POV. What would a non-POV version be like? Rjensen 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's the point isn't it? We'll kick it around in talk over the next day or two and see if we can agree on a neutral version. Perhaps other editors will contribute. Your paragraph might be perfectly NPOV, but I am not yet convinced and have disputed it. You may persuade me. This is not my specific objection, but what made me first notice was that it received a top-level section. It seemed odd to give it that much prominence in the article hierarchy, particularly since I imagine there are at least a good 90 senators who didn't condemn McCarthy early on either. Then, as I commented in Talk, the specific connection to JFK seemed quite weak. I look forward to resolving the issue with you within a couple days, and will assume your good faith so long as you assume mine. Now, I must resist my compulsion to keep procrastinating by checking in here. Derex 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok good faith assumed. Should the story get top billing -- no. Should it be told? Yes it is critical to understanding how conservative and anti-communist was JFK and RFK. (Robert was MUCH more enthusiastic about McCarthy--but then he was also JFK's campaign manager.) The split between the conservative Irish and the liberals in Dem party was very deep; many liberals violently hated and feared Joe Kennedy, for example. Rjensen 02:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- See, already you are beginning to put it in some context that helps explain the significance. It needs to be part of a narrative, not hanging out there as a random allegation in a random section. While I have no desire to whitewash events from a half century past, I'm certain my reaction was a common one: just another wingnut Wikipedia smear. So, if it is indeed an important part of his story, the context needs to be explained. That way, the story will have enough credibility that it won't quickly be dismissed as a right-wing smear job. Though I now assume it was not intended as one, it had all the tell-tale signs: no references, artificial heading prominence, little narrative connection, seemingly long on speculation and short on facts, and a very protective guardian. In a scholarly journal, you can perhaps rely on your reputation to ensure a fair hearing. At Wikipedia, overrun as it is with partisan hacks, one must be much much more careful with tone and context. Otherwise, any unflattering contributions you make will likely be quite rationally discredited by the wary reader. Derex 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- ok we're on the same wavelength. :) Rjensen 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- See, already you are beginning to put it in some context that helps explain the significance. It needs to be part of a narrative, not hanging out there as a random allegation in a random section. While I have no desire to whitewash events from a half century past, I'm certain my reaction was a common one: just another wingnut Wikipedia smear. So, if it is indeed an important part of his story, the context needs to be explained. That way, the story will have enough credibility that it won't quickly be dismissed as a right-wing smear job. Though I now assume it was not intended as one, it had all the tell-tale signs: no references, artificial heading prominence, little narrative connection, seemingly long on speculation and short on facts, and a very protective guardian. In a scholarly journal, you can perhaps rely on your reputation to ensure a fair hearing. At Wikipedia, overrun as it is with partisan hacks, one must be much much more careful with tone and context. Otherwise, any unflattering contributions you make will likely be quite rationally discredited by the wary reader. Derex 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Tobacco section?
Is this 1860s tobacco chewing section really needed? Discuss "here" please :)
Image Tagging Image:Brezhnevford.jpg
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Brezhnevford.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Historian needed
Hello again. User:PMA-- a longtime history and politics editor-- expects to encounter difficulty bringing the Vladimir Lenin article up to standard, considering-- to say the least-- that the article is being trolled by at least one unreconstructed Stalinist. It'd help if a professional historian could give him some assistance. He contacted Adam Carr, who was too bogged down with other articles to offer much help. Then I told him that I wouldn't be able to find much time for the article myself. So I recommended that he'd get in touch with you. Would you be able to take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Lenin article is full of useless trivia and low-level POV, which I reduced a bit. Rjensen 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for such a quick response! Excellent work! 172 | Talk 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- thanks :) Rjensen 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for such a quick response! Excellent work! 172 | Talk 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Lenin article is full of useless trivia and low-level POV, which I reduced a bit. Rjensen 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
UK /Britain
Just a gentle encouragement to you to check out your use of UK v Britain. United Kingdom is actually the standard political term for the country where I live, and Britain is a rather looser, informal usage which is actual slightly ambiguous. See Britain and British Isles (terminology). Best wishes Gailtb 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for the tip. Reference books have a strong preference for "Britain" in most historical contexts, with "UK" used for geography. So we have "British government" and "high tide along the UK coastline." See for example The Oxford Companion to British History ed by John Cannon - Oxford University Press. 1997. I just checked the amazon.uk site and the current list of titles follows that guideline. Thus books on birds, mountains, highways, rivers use "UK". Books about historical topics use "Britain." Rjensen 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Douglas MacArthur and the NPOV tag
Until the neutrality issues I raised are resolved, the NPOV tag stays on the Douglas MacArthur article. The article is on my watchlist in case you are thinking of removing it again. I encourage you to resolve the issues and then remove the tag. At the moment the article is totally unbalanced. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
World War I
Hello,
Please be careful about accidentally inserting "Insert non-formatted text here" into the article. -- Curps 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Check this out User:Cyde/Ref converter
This is awesome, and will save A LOT of time.Travb 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for the tip! Rjensen 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Out of courtesy
Mentioned your name at: User_talk:Markles#User:Rjensen, I don't really know who User_talk:Markles is, but you probably womped him.Travb 21:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Homeschooling
As a statistician, I find fault with your homeschooling analysis section. It's probably just the way you worded it. Here's an example: based on your description, we have no way of knowing that the 64% of households with degreed fathers correlate with the 58% who have a strong religious affiliation. They could be nearly mutually exclusive. That is, it is possible a segment may have educated fathers, and another segment may have a strong religious affiliation, but rarely both. The question then is, how many in one group also exist in the other? Your presentation doesn't show this, but the analysis [t]hus the profile is a group of well educated, high income parents with numerous children and a strong commitment to fundamentalist religion implies this correlation, and that's just not proper based on the facts presented. I suspect the source you used conducted the analysis and presented the results properly - it's just the way you've presented the facts. I hope that's clear.
Let me give you a textbook example. In a room of one-hundred people, 50 are men, 50 are women, 50 are attorneys, and 50 are secretaries. How many male attorneys are in the room? The only correct answer is "maybe zero, maybe fifty, or maybe some number in-between." Of course, if I mentioned that ten of the men are secretaries, then the rest of the numbers will all fall into place. Without that last vital piece of information, we just can't be sure.
That's the same problem I'm seeing with the section you've added. If you dig a bit more into your source and see how the author sorted this out, you'll be able to present a more logical section. This matter caught me attention because I had the following question: "what are the various demographic segments for homeschooling families?" The conclusion you presented showed only one, and that's when I noticed the flawed logic. Frankly, I suspect there exist several segments: well educated (correlates to income) sincerely religious folks (with or without many kids); well educated (ibid) religiously indifferent people with gifted children; poorly educated, low-income, religious zealots with a lot of kids; and criminals trying to keep a low profile. Of course, if you could dig up the raw data, I'd be keenly interested in checking it over. I realize my findings wouldn't go into Wikipedia (no original research), but I've got kids of my own... Rklawton 21:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I took the information directly from the scholarly source--it's online and I suggest you read it. You say that multivariate analysis might show different patterns--that is theoretically possible but it rarely happens in real life. The data seems to be accurate and the summary is accurate. The group is indeed well educated, high income and fundamentalist. (And yes I am a statistician with a published book on statistics.)Rjensen 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I figured the source and the analysis were accurate. My concern was with the wording used in the article. Had I known you were a statistician, I would have used far fewer words! As far as "rarely happens" - I test and live for those exceptions!
- You cite the author and year in the article, but you don't provide a link or a footnote. Rudner's got quite a bit of material online. If you could provide a link to the source (beyond [Rudner 1999]), I'd appreciate it. It is not my intention to second guess the analysis. I'm interested in these statistics for personal reasons. In reading the source, I may also find a better way to re-word the section so yahoos like me don't think they can nit-pik it. Rklawton 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- citation to Rudner is [1] -- with data coutesy of Bob Jones University Press! Rjensen 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- You cite the author and year in the article, but you don't provide a link or a footnote. Rudner's got quite a bit of material online. If you could provide a link to the source (beyond [Rudner 1999]), I'd appreciate it. It is not my intention to second guess the analysis. I'm interested in these statistics for personal reasons. In reading the source, I may also find a better way to re-word the section so yahoos like me don't think they can nit-pik it. Rklawton 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- yes the exceptions are the surprises. But the article in questions was full of POV and very thin on facts and so I tried to insert some. In a word: The homeschoolers are an outlier group, characterized by fundamentalist religion and well educated parents. At the 99% level I really have to reject the possibility that it is a mix of poor fundamentalists and rich others. :) Rjensen 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree with your view. I mentioned the alternative view only as a possibility given just the percentages cited in the article. I think the useful research you've added to this article is great! Rklawton 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Zoiks! Given that the data was gathered only from "[p]arents contracted with Bob Jones University...", I'd seriously consider tossing the data set. Are you affiliated or familiar with BJU? If not, I suggest reading Wikipedia's BJU article. This combination of self-selection and religious extremism isn't a good combination so long as the parents have a choice of testing institutions (and they do). In short, ask a fundamentalist family who they want to do business with - other fundamentalists or someone else - and I think you're going to end up with significant selection bias. The fee-based part of the service concerns me as well. Financially challenged families may be curious to see how their kiddies compare, but they're less likely pay for the services. As a result, I'm interested in hearing why you think this data set is suitable for homeschooling demographic studies. The study's results seem predictable on bias alone. Rklawton 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- well you start with what data exists, and worry about bias later. The other study I saw had a good sampling base and N=62. The web sites that serve these groups seems consistent with the religious effects. Rjensen 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I checked with da missus. She's an actuary (with a Ph.D. in math). She agrees, "garbage in, garbage out." Unless the author found some way to clean up the data, there's not much you can do with it short of prefacing any result with "People who..." I revisited the article and read the commentaries. Even the reviewers had problems with the data. What do we do? Options:
- Find a reasonable study
- Find a survey of literature stating there is no reasonable study
- Qualify the heck out of the study presented (as you say, start with the data you have)
1) is ideal, but not likely. 2) is reasonable and likely. 3) is most expedient and should cover our credibility butts should the popular press start citing Wikipedia's numbers. Rklawton 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. But don't knock BJU. We're talking about antiestablishment folks here, who know they need things like the Iowa tests if their kids are headed to college. If a group of homeschool parents dislikes BJU for political reasons I think they would still sign up. That is: bias probably is small. I was astonished so many of these kids are not allowed to have home computers! --surely that has changed by now Rjensen 03:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Not all homeschoolers are anti-establishment; we need decent data to sort out how many. 2) Colleges don't look at Iowa tests, they look at EDS'. 3) When given a choice of testing centers, BJU is just one of several. Folks who don't like them have no need to associate with them. 4) When we complained about the rules at Baylor University (Southern Baptist, 1990's), we were often reminded how much worse it could be had we attended BJU instead. BJU is a very special case 5) At least one whole population segment has no need for testing: the Amish (and similar groups). 6) I think you've dropped the poverty issue, and I suspect that's highly relevant (I was a debater, too =B-) ) to our demographic studies (see also point #2).
- In short, only certain types of families are going to worry enough (or want to show off enough) to pay for testing that isn't required, won't (directly) get their kids into college, and select (or avoid) a testing service run by rather infamous zealots (they were in the news quite a bit a few years ago much to their detriment when Bush visited). Rklawton 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well you assume there is a family correlation and I think it's pretty weak. And yes, homeschoolers are vehemently anti-establishment. Listen to them talk about the public schools! (they sound like Senator Santorum I guess). If someone has better data I'd love to see it--but it can't exist or it would have entered the debates by now. Rjensen 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
- Family correlation? I'm not sure what you mean. Next, we can't judge any group based on what a few constituent loudmouths say to reporters looking for inflammatory items to publish or broadcast. What we need is real data. Hence, I propose adopting one of the three suggestions I made at 3:18. Rklawton 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do people follow their leaders? in this case I think so. There are lost of political and legal dimensions that come into play here. Rjensen 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The political and legal dimensions are interesting, but that doesn't obviate the need for good research, data, and analysis - which is this thread's topic. Rklawton 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- great data is wonderful. and rare. Look at the archaeologists who reconstruct a civilization from a couple broken pots. We can do that well. Rjensen 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The political and legal dimensions are interesting, but that doesn't obviate the need for good research, data, and analysis - which is this thread's topic. Rklawton 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do people follow their leaders? in this case I think so. There are lost of political and legal dimensions that come into play here. Rjensen 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Family correlation? I'm not sure what you mean. Next, we can't judge any group based on what a few constituent loudmouths say to reporters looking for inflammatory items to publish or broadcast. What we need is real data. Hence, I propose adopting one of the three suggestions I made at 3:18. Rklawton 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well you assume there is a family correlation and I think it's pretty weak. And yes, homeschoolers are vehemently anti-establishment. Listen to them talk about the public schools! (they sound like Senator Santorum I guess). If someone has better data I'd love to see it--but it can't exist or it would have entered the debates by now. Rjensen 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
- In short, only certain types of families are going to worry enough (or want to show off enough) to pay for testing that isn't required, won't (directly) get their kids into college, and select (or avoid) a testing service run by rather infamous zealots (they were in the news quite a bit a few years ago much to their detriment when Bush visited). Rklawton 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Archduke Franz Ferdinand
Why in the world do you keep removing any reference to this person's name in the World War I article? You've done so twice now. Given the nature of Wikipedia it makes sense that we should not only provide his name but also a wikilink to the article about him, both of which you are removing for some reason. -- Curps 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The WW1 article avoids names. He in particular did nothing at all and there is no need to know much about him except he got shot. This has to be a very brief summary, and the links should be the ones we recommnend for people to learn more. I added the link to Assassination at Sarajevo because it is quite useful. The Archduke was pretty much a zero in history and in a summary article we should only include important people and events worth reading about. Rjensen 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The history books in my high school named him; I suspect simply adding his name and link is called for in this case. The article would look pretty incomplete without this significant and early fact related to the war's flashpoint. Leaving out his name begs the question. Putting it in and letting people click for themselves is perfectly reasonable. Rklawton 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Everybody gets very full coverage in Wiki. The question is what to put in the summary. Most people ONLY read the summary. Which names should they know? The article certainly needs to talk about the assassination at Sarajevo -- but it needs to explain why it was important (Serbs kill heir to throne), not to teach people useless names . Rjensen 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I scanned the article quickly, and I think name and "heir to the Austrian throne" is sufficient. At the moment, the salient point "heir to the throne" isn't included. It should be. Imagine if terrorists killed Prince William! At any rate, I suggest leaving name and adding "heir to the Austrian throne" or words to that effect. Rklawton 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- yes I agree with you. If they had killed his wife and not the archduke it would not have started a war. Rjensen 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I scanned the article quickly, and I think name and "heir to the Austrian throne" is sufficient. At the moment, the salient point "heir to the throne" isn't included. It should be. Imagine if terrorists killed Prince William! At any rate, I suggest leaving name and adding "heir to the Austrian throne" or words to that effect. Rklawton 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)