User talk:Roger A. Lohmann/Archive 2

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User bio is in User:Roger_A._Lohmann

follow-up to our conversation about culture area

It occurred to me just now that you might be interested in developing an inter-disciplinary approach to the article on ethnonyms as well. It was one of the first articles I worked on here, and I've hardly looked back since, but it would be a good candidate for attention from many different perspectives. --Joe Quick 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

final version for approval on folk saint

If you have a moment, please have a look at the most recent posts here. In order to include Shamira's copyedits in the approved article, the to-be-approved version number has to be updated in the metadata by the nominating editor. Thanks! --Joe Quick 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Education History articles - merge needed

Currently, there are two articles on Citizendium concerned with this topic, to wit:

The former, written by myself, consists at the moment in an introductory section only. I wish this to be retained as it provides a general overview and perspective. However, the two artilces should be merged. Both are assigned to Workgroups "History" and "Education", though they differ as to which is the primary WG. I assigned "History" as the primary WG and I believe this to be correct.

My question is: which should be the title article and which the redirect? Your call. Let me know and I will do the merge which includes moving the references on the one article to the subpages.

(The merge is simple enough - just add my intro section to the other article or vice versa, and construct the subpages. However, you are a History WG editor, so you could overrule this, of course. In the absence of a redirect, I'm glad I did a thorough search for duplicate articles before setting to work in earnest on this subject.)

James F. Perry 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval question

Could you take a look at Seven Wonders of the Ancient World? Its not my best work but I do think it's ready for approval. I don't really see any way it could be improved except maybe formatting issues. But I'm open to suggestions.Drew R. Smith 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Railway

Hello Roger, I just nominated this one for approval. Please look it over; you're the only other history editor who would be familiar with such things. Thanks! Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval Adams-Onís Treaty draft

Roger, since I'm the author of the Adams-Onís Treaty/Draft article, I can not nominate it for re-approval and need another history editor to nominate it. Would you please look it over and consider nominating the draft for approval? Thanks. Russell D. Jones 12:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

final touches on the Grand Trunk Railway

Russell updated the version of Grand Trunk Railway to be approved to the most recent revision and the article is just about ready to go, but we need you to have a look over those changes and let us know whether you also agree with them. Once we've heard from you and Milt, Hayford or Matt can make it official. Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a bother but did you see the note I left above? I noticed that you've been on the wiki in the last couple of hours but didn't respond here or at the article talk page. --Joe Quick 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha I

In my opinion, Kamehameha I is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. Drew R. Smith 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

changes to Grand Trunk

Hi Roger, have you seen the comments on the talk page of Grand Trunk Railway? Milt and Russell are already on board for a quick re-approval. If you have a few minutes, could you stop by? Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor applications

Hi Roger, any chances that you can take a look at the editor application queue, there seem to be some there that probably need some attention. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Roger for looking into those editors, poor things were in purgatory for a long time! Is that really his name? I know there is a section of India (I think) that only uses one name. D. Matt Innis 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
So it seems! Roger Lohmann 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi Roger! Good to see you hard at work again!!! I hate to slow your progress, but I wonder if you might stop in at Eric Holder and see if you can help with a comment concerning the article content.

Matt, I just tried to post this to the Talk Page of Eric Holder, but it appears you've locked it. (Can't imagine why! ;-)
This is the comment I was going to post.
I've just read this article through once without attempting to comprehend any of the comments on the Talk Page (except what was necessary to scroll to the bottom!). My initial reaction is that once again we have a problem trying to get the right focus on a politically-controversial living public figure.
And in this case, its complicated by Holder's position as Attorney General. Is he the President's man, a neutral public servant, are the two roles in conflict and do we even know yet, since he's only been in office for a few months. Moreover, with his appointment of a special prosecutor, the political controversy is likely just beginning. For CZ purposes, the current article is not yet encyclopedia; it reads a little too much like the kind of "box score" daily political commentary we have come to expect from CNN and Newsweek and the blogsphere. But, that's fine; its a good start. I didn't see any overt evidences of political biases, The article does makes the Attorney General out more to be a partisan political figure than the nation's #1 law enforcement official. (Obviously, that isn't an either or proposition.)
This is the start of a good solid encyclopedia entry. There is certainly no reason for any kind of drastic action about the article at this point. It might be a good time however for a "time out" on continuing to add to the growing body of argumentation on the talk page. Mostly, contributors are probably talking past one another anyway. (They usually do). The only contribution I can see worth making at this point would be a purely editorial one: a list of short bullet points extracted from that discussion, noting continuing issues and concerns only (and not reviewing any of the arguments pro and con.)
How about a moritorium for a week or so on additions to the main entry? Authors and critics can go on to other things for that time; like building the subpages. Meanwhile, I'll try to sift through the comments on the talk page and compile my own list (and invite a couple of other editors to do the same). Then, let's see if, a week or so we can be at a new starting point and ready to move on. In the meantime, please don't shift the discussion and pummel me with private emails, because I won't read them until later anyway.
Roger Lohmann 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger, I'll move this post to Talk:Eric Holder and keep it unlocked unless I hear from you! D. Matt Innis 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium charter drafting commitee nomination

Hi Roger, You've been nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for election to the Citizendium charter drafting committee.

If you haven't been following the discussion in the forums, we're getting ready to establish a charter for Citizendium that outlines the project's goals, ideals, and basic structure. To get the process moving, we put together a plan for electing a group of Citizens to compose a draft of the charter, which will then be submitted for community review. You can find more about the plan here.

You've been nominated by another Citizen to be a candidate for election to that committee. The next step is up to you: you may either accept or decline the nomination by going here and following the instructions at the top of the page.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Article approvals sought

Hi - I have done as much as I can with two articles, Scarborough Castle and Great Siege of Scarborough Castle (specifically the versions here and here), and am looking to move these articles into 'approved' status. I made sure to use only authoritative sources (published books, English Heritage castle literature, things like that). Can you have a look and see if you feel that there is anything preventing them being approved? Thanks. John Stephenson 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

10 editors that have never shown up

Hi Roger,

I don't know if you are following the discussion on the Editors and editorial issues forum thread, "How to recruit and retain active editors?", but Hayford claims you and David Volk have collectively and recently approved editorship for 10 editors that haven't done anything. (See that thread, reply #57). When I asked Hayford if he would contact them and ask them why they went to the trouble of having their credentials approved and then didn't do anything more, he said he didn't want to waste his time. In my view, finding out why editors are registering and then doing nothing else is an important issue. Would you be willing to contact those of the 10 that you confirmed and ask them that question? P.S. I am asking David Volk if he would do the same thing for the editors he approved. Dan Nessett 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

History Naming Conventions

Roger, there has been a revitalization of the discussion about renaming the Britain, history article. There is also, I think, a chance here to revise the naming convention for history articles. What do you think? I disagree with the format "[Topic], history" and am in favor of the more literary "History of [topic]" or what ever the topic is. Some of my reasons were expressed here. Russell D. Jones 16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I moved the article as per the naming conventions. It seems that the preferred style is "History of Topic" as it is without punctuation and that the "History, Britain" article title was left over from the early days of CZ. Russell D. Jones 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wot? Wat!

Sending a quick ‘hello’ out to all of you who wanted a weekend write-a-thon. Also, a nudge, push, and a shove to all those who haven’t made it out in a while. This Sunday, 10th January, is your Big Chance. Party theme is ‘stubs’. Now, what could be easier? Write about anything you want! (At least come on over and say ‘hi’—we’ve all been much too quiet lately and I rather miss everybody.) Aleta Curry 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger for approving my author account

Does everything pretty much work like Wikipedia? If so I probably won't need much help. I'll read through the help files a bit to look around. --Thomas Wright Sulcer 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an article on Wikipedia called "History of citizenship in the United States". It's almost all my wording (I have roughly 100 references). I think it's a solid article. Here it is: [1]. Is it worthy of importing here to Citizendium? One of my biases is that I think citizenship is important; at the same time, I included differing academic perspectives. If you have any advice about this article or another I wrote, Citizenship in the United States (see [2] although this has been edited somewhat since I wrote it a few months ago. I'm finding uploading pictures from Wikimedia Commons to be difficult.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Lohmann I've ported over "History of U.S. Citizenship" (which I wrote on Wikipedia a few months ago) to a sandbox page here: User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox2. If interested wondering your opinion, or do you know who else here on CZ might be interested in giving it a look-over before approving it for going online? The gist of the article is this: citizenship transformed from a mostly political relationship (ie participation in town hall meetings circa 1640s) to an economic relationship (consumers, workers, investors uninterested in politics). So the article tries to show how this political -> economic transformation happened. It's based on civics and history books, some academics, political philosophers (eg Tocqueville), contemporary writers (Wolf, Kaplan etc), but basically it's trying to be like a high school civics text. But instead of writing about a country, or a city, or a person, it's the history of a relationship -- citizenship. I hope it's not too boring so I tried to put lots of pictures in. One of my biases is that I think citizenship is important but I realize most Americans don't even bother to think much about citizenship. I tried to include contrasting points of view -- writers like Ginsberg feel that citizenship decline (ie political participation) is not good, while writers like Kaplan think it's not a big deal, and that lack of political participation suggests that everything is working smoothly. Wondering what you think or what I might do next. I'm having trouble getting some of the repeated references to show up. If approved, I'll work on making it better than the WP version which I wrote earlier.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Lohmann thanks for your feedback about the proposed "History of US citizenship" article. I'm getting feedback from others too and am going to work on other stuff in the time being, and let others lead. I think we agree citizenship is important but most people don't really care much; so the article may appear to be biased perhaps, since it's talking about something that most people don't want to even think about? And I read widely in a number of areas, history, philosophy, politics, etc, and civics textbooks and such, as well as lectures from the Teaching Company on Tocqueville by Professor Cook, and so the article is more or less connecting the dots, trying to piece together how the switch happened, and why people stopped showing up at town meetings, etc etc. I don't think of it as original research since I'm not a professional but only a layman; rather, it's me just trying to describe what happened. Like, wouldn't this be what high school civics teachers teach (assuming they had a course on citizenship) like it's kind of what I'd expect if I were to take a high school course on citizenship.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank Yoo

Glad to see someone is reading this! There is much connected to it, of course -- I would value your opinions, and perhaps even approval, on such things as Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration, Interrogation, Torture, and many interlinked things. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I could use your help and guidance

Roger, I have just been appointed as an Editorial Personnel Administrator by Larry Sanger (see bottom of my user page as well as the history of my user page).

In reading CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure, I find the following in the "Step-by-step application review procedure":

Before you review any applications, please go to this page and bookmark it. (The editor-in-chief has it in his "quick links" at the top of his browser.) Please get in the habit of checking that page every time you log on to the wiki.

It's not that difficult. Think of it this way:

  1. Look over the application. Make sure the person's identity is confirmed and that the person is a bona fide expert in the fields he or she has checked off.
  2. Write a little welcome message in the "Comment" field.
  3. Press "Confirm."

When I click to go to the indicated this page, I get a message that says:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Sysops, Bureaucrats, EPAs.

Now that I am an EPA, what needs be done and by whom so that I can get access to that page?? Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Roger, however the answer is that you need a Bureaucrat (a list is here) to add you to the 'EPA' user rights group (a list is here). --Chris Key 04:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris, for again helping me out. Milton Beychok 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edwin E. Witte

Roger, since you wrote the bulk of the Arthur Altmeyer article and when you have the time, could you take a look at Edwin E. Witte and make some recommendations? I don't think I have anything more to add to it. Thanks. Russell D. Jones 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Siege of Scarborough Castle

Hi, Roger. There is some discussion of whether and how to approve this article (that I wrote) here - can you see a way it could be approved? Thanks. John Stephenson 09:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review Renewable energy

Roger, since you are a Politics Editor, I would much appreciate your reviewing the Renewable energy article and editing/revising/commenting on it. Thanks, Milton Beychok 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please? Milton Beychok 08:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re an illustration for Social capital

Roger, there is a diagram on Flickr at this website:

If you will let me know if it is suitable, I will contact the copyright holder and try to get permission to use it in CZ. Alternatively, if you could email me with an attached hand-drawn sketch of a similar, suitable diagram, I will try to produce a professional-looking version that could be uploaded into CZ. My email address is Milton Beychok 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its suitable, by itself. It focuses exclusively on the economic portions (Trust and Networks, which are centrally important in social and political approaches) aren't even mentioned. Together with the Putnam map, however, it might work, with a suitable caption noting its economic orientation.

Roger Lohmann 00:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

RE Putnam map for Social capital

The image has been uploaded and can be accessed as Image:Putnam Map.png or as {{Image|Putnam Map.png|right|756px|Add image caption here.}} and of course you can make it smaller than 756px if you wish.

The information I need to go back and properly document the uploaded file is:

  • Author's name
  • Name of copyright holder
  • Source (a website, book or journal or similar)
  • Country of first publication

The licence I chose was:Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. Regards, Milton Beychok 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see..

This D. Matt Innis 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Siege of Scarborough Castle

Roger, the version that you linked on Scarborough Castle points to the Talk page. Go to the version that you want on the Main Article and hit Permanent link to get the one for the article. To test it, just click on the "this version" in the green template. Thanks! D. Matt Innis 18:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now we got it! Approved. Thanks for pulling it all together and leading this one home! D. Matt Innis 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Social capital may need to be approved again

Since the server outage ended up in loss of all edits made in June 2 (or was it June 3?), perhaps Social capital may need to be approved again by a constable??? Milton Beychok 22:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More Approvals

Roger, would you feel comfortable nominating Edwin E. Witte for approval and Richard Hofstadter/Draft for re-approval? I do not believe that I am eligible to nominate them as I am their principal author. Russell D. Jones 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created the CZ:Energy policy Subgroup and a top-level Energy policy article to which renewable energy is linked. It may be that part or all of the history section in renewable energy is more appropriate to the high level.
Actually, I'd like to explore approval of both renewable energy, as you suggested, but also a not necessarily long contextualizing top-level article. Obviously, energy policy needs work. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Roger,

I wish you'd write out the Months in your Approval dates -- I spent 25 years overseas and think in terms of the European calendar. And many, many of our contributors are Europeans also -- I'm sure, that, like me, they have to stop and think, and then think again, about what 6/7/10 means or doesn't mean. Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've spent what seems like forever using the internet which often uses US format, but I am British myself. When I see a date like 6/7/10 I have no idea if that is 7th June or 6th July. --Chris Key 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We all know it's October 7, 2006. :-D. Matt Innis 17:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
With all the different @#$%^&* numerical formats out there it might as well be! It's taken me *years* to get all my MS-DOS-based programs and Operating Systems to handle dates the way *I* want to see them! Hayford Peirce 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you can have lots of experience, but especially the first date is a challenge. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Speakin' of dates, today is D-Day, the 6th of June! Does that still mean anything anymore? Hayford Peirce 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope it has been noticed that i am now writing out the dates in my Approvals! ;-) Roger Lohmann 15:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated! Anything to make life simpler! Hayford Peirce 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits on approved articles

Roger, if you find copy-edits that need changing, a constable can do them without having to re-approve. Just make the changes in the draft (as you did) and drop a note on my page and I'll be glad to do it for you. If they change meaning in ANY way, especially on a controversial subject, it will have to be re-approved. I just made your changes on the one article. D. Matt Innis 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are still ready to do so, I will join you in nominating Renewable energy for approval

I believe that it has now been about a week since our last contact about nominating Renewable energy for approval. If you have now had a chance to review it in detail and still want to nominate it, I will join you in that nomination. Regards, Milton Beychok 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Could you have look at that, since it is a higly political article & nominated for approval? Sandy Harris 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your attention please

See this. D. Matt Innis 03:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to go along with the name change, but, as Matt puts it, it's not clear to me that this is within the authority of the Constabulary. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue was only that I would have had to revert to the old name that all three had endorsed, which would have been a pain in the behind the refrigerator. ;-) D. Matt Innis 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Roger, I've renamed your account so that all of your information (including contributions) follows your new name. This should have moved your subpages as well, but make sure and check to make sure. Your previous account will be blocked, but I will leave your old user page intact until I can see that all of your posts redirect back to this page rather than the old one. I am pretty sure that metadata pages that have your name on them will NOT be updated, so please go through your approved and nominated articles and make any necessary changes.

I think you will have to sign in with your NEW user name while keeping your old password. If you have any questions or problems, let me know! D. Matt Innis 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The new user name works just fine. Roger A. Lohmann 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that you are busy renaming your metadata templates. I'll go ahead and delete your previous user page and block the other account. Let me know if there are any problems afterward! D. Matt Innis 01:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At exactly 9:43, EDT, four minutes later, I noticed that the Editor links started showing up in red (No such page), so i figured that's what you were doing. Thanks for seeing this through. Roger A. Lohmann 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Roger, you have a lot of approved articles! You've been busy! D. Matt Innis 01:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What can I say? My stint as a journal editor reminded me that I really love the challenges of editing. That, and I continue to believe very strongly that one of the - perhaps THE - key relative advantage of CZ is the approval of articles. (In contrast to those who appear to believe that it is the Forums and Talk Pages!) Given that, we need to approve some. (The Developed Articles queue just keeps piling up. I'm going to keep plugging away at that, alone or with others. Roger A. Lohmann 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Bravo! ... and touchè! D. Matt Innis 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Roger! When you get a chance, can you stop in here and leave a note that you endorse the version in the template. There have been some minor changes that you need to be aware of. D. Matt Innis 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizing Movement?

Here's the list: User:Russell D. Jones/Movement Pages

For others not 'present' in a private email exchange, the question is whether the word Movement should be capitalized in the title of an article on The Tea Party Movement (or is it the Tea Party movement)? I pulled together this list of titles of existing articles, and Russell posted it. Several others have views on the matter. It shows that we seem to be all over the place in our naming practices with capitalizing this word. This seems to raise three questions: 1) Whose decision is it? (Tea Party is a Politics workgroup project, but movements also lap over into History and Sociology, and perhaps others. 2) How to interpret existing naming policy and 3) Is this a substantive or a stylistic issue? E.g., does a particular movement's use of the word, or its capitalization (or not) influence our decision? Should workgroup editors decide or is this an issue for an EIC?

My own view is only that we ought to be consistent in capitalizing whatever names we choose. Roger A. Lohmann 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just did a little research on this in the academic journals and found that some movements that I thought would have been capitalized (e.g. Civil Rights Movement and Progressive Movement) weren't (e.g., civil rights movement, but Progressive movement). So go figure. Certainly, labor movement, social movement, and political movement. So tea party movement seems right, but Boston Tea Party and not Boston tea party. Russell D. Jones 23:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Since no one is setting the rules for these groups, we don't necessarily know the etymology. To take the apparent outlier of Progressive movement, if it derives from the Progressive Party, then it is drawing from a proper noun. If it is simply speaking of progressivism, it arguably is not.
My concern is one of priorities. Arguments over capitalization have, I believe, taken up more talk page space than discussion of the substance of the article, and the merge of a duplicate article. Sadly, this is not atypical in my experience -- people will leap into arguing about article titles but ignore the substance. Arguing about titles, of course, usually doesn't require much work--Russell, you did work on it, and that makes you an appreciated exception.
To me, this is an Editorial Council issue dealing with style in general. It certainly doesn't need to derail work on a specific article. While I created the article, Tea Party Movement, I'm actually not adamant about the capital M; I did think about it and can make arguments both way. The matter is indeed one of editorial policy; I'd appreciate any help in getting the substantive collaboration, with useful contributions from Mary Ash, back on track from where "proceduralists" have overwhelmed the actual collaboration.
By all means, Roger, your formulation above should be put on a list of issues for the EC to examine. As you point out, it's not a simple matter when different disciplines have different Style Guides, and I'm perfectly willing to defer to a future rational CZ policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never in my life seen the capitalisation of Movement in a political science text; nor would I expect to, unless that was the legal title of an institution.