User talk:Frank.e.white

Welcome

Hello, Frank.e.white, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Dunnels White

Hi, I've re-reverted your addition of that book blurb. It's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and also unnecessary - just listing the book is enough. As Drmies noted in one of his edit summaries, it would be useful to add footnotes, and details, from all those sources to the article text; and that includes the book. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-reverted it to Drmies' version, and started a section at Talk:David Dunnels White explaining at greater length why the book blurb is inappropriate. If you don't understand, please post there. I also can't help but notice from your user name that you have an obvious conflict of interest; you need to be particularly careful not to promote the book here. Why not add some footnotes referring to specific pages in it? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank e. White, for the love of God, will you stop adding those "Media coverage" sections? If the references are good, use them to cite information. PLEASE stop making us do all this clean-up work. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies....for the love of God, do it right if you are insistent of putting these in references......make the list complete as below or I am going to change it again and go through arbitration......to get your gross incompletenesses out of the way......as ALL these rightly belong in additional reading

Media Articles on the David D. White Medal of Honor Case for Further Reading {external links} Boston Globe http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/27/mass_ancestor_deserves_medal_of_honor_man_says/ Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/descendant-fights-for-medal-of-honor-for-civil-war-cpl-david-d-white/2011/10/03/gIQAouheUL_story.html Oklahoman http://newsok.com/article/5375860 VFW Magazine http://heroes.vfw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8107 Army Times https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/31/civil-war-soldier-david-dunnels-white-harris-hawthorn-medal-of-honor/85044726/ Newark Star Ledger http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/who_really_captured_robert_e_lees_son_in_the_civil.html NJ.com [New Jersey] http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/index.ssf/2016/05/nj_family_seeks_medal_of_honor_for_civil_war_hero.html New Jersey 101.5 http://nj1015.com/nj-familys-mission-a-medal-of-honor-for-its-civil-war-hero/ Govtrack.us https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5363

I have removed your post at WP:DRN. It was malformed and incomprehensible. Also, as it says at the top of the page, DRN is not a substitute for article talk pages.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Atlan you you please explain what you have done again, in layman's terms.......and what was malformed and incomprehensible?

Drmies lets go into 3rd party dispute resolution the media article have no relevance to my references they are totally mispaced— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank.e.white (talk • contribs)

Hi again: I've looked at your DRN post and I'm not sure I understand your point about references vs. media articles. Both the references (footnotes, in most articles including this one, although a range of referencing methods are permitted and are used by different Wikipedians) and the "Further reading" section are for the benefit of the reader, but the references are intended to be the main "go-to" to verify the article's correctness and look up details that may be unclear or not be mentioned, while the "Further reading" means just that: if the reader wants extended material, here it is. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—a tertiary reference—we prefer secondary sources (such as newspaper reports and books) over primary sources (such as US Army documents and reports or personal diaries, or blog posts by modern subjects), the reverse of the situation with scholarly research. Our aim is to distil into a coherent account for the reader what reliable sources have said on the topic; we do not analyze or present a point of view of our own. An additional consideration that Drmies mentioned is that the Army report is not accessible to the reader; it's ok to use offline sources, including sources that require one to physically visit an archive, or online sources that require registration, but sources accessible to the reader that reliably report information are preferred. So from my point of view the Army documentation should not be removed from the article, and I have not taken it out again in my recent edits, but is more or less an extra because the reader cannot use it. It seems to me you may have these the opposite way round. As a corollary, I've made more extensive use of a couple of the news reports after reading them, to reference and fill out what the article says, rather than leaving the reader to do that work by accessing them as "Further reading".

By the way, make a signature and time-stamp after your posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the symbol showing either a scrawl or a pencil; depending on whether you are using desktop or mobile, the default skin or one of the older ones, it may be above the edit window in a row of icons or hidden somewhere like a pull-down menu. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ August 30th 2PM EDT Thank you Yngvadottir can I ask you for two favors? (1) the Media articles do not support any text in the body of the article......can you please delete for me Reference Points # 5 and #7......that cite media articles that are supposed to be supporting article text?

(2) Can you please put under a heading of "Media Coverage" [or some other heading as you see best] the following 9 news articles with their external links as outlined below? Everything that I read about doing this is in perfect harmony with Wikipedia Policy.

(1) Boston Globe http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/27/mass_ancestor_deserves_medal_of_honor_man_says/

(2) Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/descendant-fights-for-medal-of-honor-for-civil-war-cpl-david-d-white/2011/10/03/gIQAouheUL_story.html

(3) Oklahoman http://newsok.com/article/5375860

(4) VFW Magazine http://heroes.vfw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8107

(5) Army Times https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/31/civil-war-soldier-david-dunnels-white-harris-hawthorn-medal-of-honor/85044726/

(6) Newark Star Ledger http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/who_really_captured_robert_e_lees_son_in_the_civil.html

(7) NJ.com [New Jersey] http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/index.ssf/2016/05/nj_family_seeks_medal_of_honor_for_civil_war_hero.html

(8) New Jersey 101.5 http://nj1015.com/nj-familys-mission-a-medal-of-honor-for-its-civil-war-hero/

(9) Govtrack.us https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5363

Thank you Frank

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

August 30 5PM EDT Dear Yngvadottir

I see that the article has been updated again by someone.........

The erroneous linkages to media articles and text that will now need to be deleted is #'s 3, 5, 6 and 7

Can you help me with this as an administrator?

Thank you Frank

I'm afraid I don't understand. Those edits were mine: I read three of the media references and used them to support information in the article, and to add some (such as Hawthorne's full name and regiment, and the fact there were appeals after he was awarded the medal). I had looked partly because I wanted to check the statement that historians believed he had lied; I wound up attributing that to a specific historian and adding the Center for Military History's position. How is this material/referencing erroneous? The three accounts I checked substantially agreed, and apart from the material about White's postwar life and death, the article was clearly saying much the same. If something is incorrect, please explain what, and provide a source for the correct version. As I've suggested before, you could usefully add references to specific pages in your book, since I presume you based the book on careful research. But I'm puzzled as to what you are objecting to, so I'll hold off on making more use of the other media accounts you list above. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC) P.S.: It shouldn't make any difference anyhow, but I ought to point out that I'm not an administrator any more (I was for a couple of years).[reply]

September 1, 2016 11 AM EDT Dear Yngvadottir, thank you so very much for your reply and for your help......can I ask you a favor, since you are are very good at this. To the David Dunnels White page, can you add the following via an edit.

New Heading MEDIA COVERAGE

The Boston Globe has carried the story on the David Dunnels White Medal of Honor case and articulated the Massachusetts vs New York angle. The Washington Post articulated the Civil War angle and the importance of the Battle of Sailor's Creek. The Army Times addressed the political nature of awarding of a Medal of Honor. The various New Jersey media outlets articulated the angle of the New Jersey descendants of David Dunnels White and their desire for equity to be done in this matter. Congressman Leonard Lance (R-NJ) and Richard Neal (D-MA) introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to award a Medal of Honor to David Dunnels White. The VFW Magazine talked about the nature of Civil War Medals of Honor and their relevance the Medal of Honor process today. The Oaklahoman addressed the strong Capitol Hill support the David Dunnels White has acquired. Please see the following external links for additional information on the Media Coverage:

(1) Boston Globe http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/27/mass_ancestor_deserves_medal_of_honor_man_says/

(2) Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/descendant-fights-for-medal-of-honor-for-civil-war-cpl-david-d-white/2011/10/03/gIQAouheUL_story.html

(3) Oklahoman http://newsok.com/article/5375860

(4) VFW Magazine http://heroes.vfw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8107

(5) Army Times https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/31/civil-war-soldier-david-dunnels-white-harris-hawthorn-medal-of-honor/85044726/

(6) Newark Star Ledger http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/who_really_captured_robert_e_lees_son_in_the_civil.html

(7) NJ.com [New Jersey] http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/index.ssf/2016/05/nj_family_seeks_medal_of_honor_for_civil_war_hero.html

(8) New Jersey 101.5 http://nj1015.com/nj-familys-mission-a-medal-of-honor-for-its-civil-war-hero/

(9) Govtrack.us https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5363

Frank.e.white, the American Civil War is not a specialty of mine, and I have limited time for editing, but it does look as though all those should be in the article, and I think a few have gotten lost or you have found them and added them here on your talk page in the past couple of days. The thing is, there is no reason whatsoever to have them segregated at the bottom of the article with a summary of what angle the reporter took in each case. It's an encyclopedia article; it's supposed to be based on what the sources say; these are sources, and also contain facts, not just angles like "Mass. vs. NY". And it's the facts an encyclopedia article should be presenting above all. So if I do edit the article, it will be to work these sources in—to use them as further footnotes in support of points made in the article, or to add more points or details. Is there anything in the article right now that is inaccurate? (That Hawthorne got the Medal of Honor is not an inaccuracy, for example.) I'm going to ping Drmies, too—maybe he can help us understand each other's points of view regarding how to use the media references, and since he originally created the long footnote with all of them in it, he may have a better idea than me of whether all are useful before I embark on reading the ones I haven't yet read. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Sept 1, 7 PM EDT Thank you Yngvadottir I do believe each article has something very unique to add to the page/case......hence that is why I would like to include all of them.......as the Army is looking at this page, and the media attention is very insightful to them (per the Army) thanks for going the extra mile for me, and I look forward to seeing any edits/updates that you would like to make to the page to get in the media articles Best regards, Frank

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Dunnels White.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies please take out the media articles out of references (currently references #5 and #7) ....the media articles do not support any text in the article, and the media articles should not be used as references, so they are currently misplaced In addition , please list ALL 9 media articles with their external links however you see best......another administrator like yourself listed them under the heading of External Links, which is fine with me, but you deleted that work of another administrator in its entirity?.... Tx Frank

The media articles in fact do support most if not all of the text. I think you need to consider that this is an encyclopedia, which is based on secondary and tertiary sources. Primary material is helpful but secondary material is preferred. This is, thus, not to be written in the same way a historical book is written. Adding this "reference" is useless since practically no reader can have access to it even if it were cited correctly--besides, it's redundant since its content is verified by various articles. And what you are missing also is that the articles you keep adding are already listed in the references. Listing them twice is of no use. What the other editor did is not really my concern. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]