Talk:Adams-Onís Treaty/Draft

Approval

Did this one slip through the net?

Never mind I just noticed the date is today. Chris Day 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved

Congratulations Richard and Russell for Approval of Version 1.0! D. Matt Innis 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

---

What about adding some sections to the text?

This might help the reader to quickly find out about the main points. --Daniel Mietchen 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Chris Day 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Draft Revision?

The draft of this article has been substantially reorganized and it appears nearly ready for approval as a revision (I assume it will be 1.1?) I've made a few small additional edits, but nothing of a content nature, so I intend to recommend it. First, however, the two footnotes need to be fleshed out more fully. The entry by Weeks on the Bibliography page is for a different work/edition. Cash, 1998 appears to be the one listed in the biblio. Can anyone confirm that? The Parent Topics on the related pages seem awfully general. There is an existing stub on Diplomacy so I added it. Why are West Florida and East Florida included as Related Topics, and not Alabama, Arkansas, which are both explicitly mentioned in article or book titles? I don't get the connection to the Oregon Territory at all. If we can get these few things squared away (either eliminated or clarified), I will be ready to recommend the approval of this revision. Roger A. Lohmann 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. On which page do you not get the connection to Oregon Territory: article or related articles? Russell D. Jones 13:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was able to confirm the Weeks reference but I have no access to the Cash source. These citations were added by the original author whose research I trust. Also added some more related articles. Russell D. Jones 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough. The (physical) link is fine; This is a conceptual loose end. My question was (and is) how does one get (logically) from a treaty concerning Spain and the southeast to the Oregon Territory? That seems to me to be a (logical) stretch and I think the link should be deleted. Is there some reason not to? I still don't see one. I'm not aware that the state of Florida or the Florida colonial administration had any Oregon connections. (It looks like this may be the physical artifact of a logical or conceptual connection that occurred to the original author on the fly but which never got realized in the article; as such, it remains an obscure loose end and I'm going to delete it. If there is some reason it should be there, it can be put back in. Roger A. Lohmann 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the comment immediately above before reading the final approved version of the text, which makes mention of Spain relinquishing claim to the Oregon Territory. I've restored my deletion. Roger A. Lohmann 15:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Subpage Approvals

With the additions, modifications and corrections, I'm going to go ahead and approve the subpages as well. They weren't approved in the original (and weren't ready for approval) but now they appear to be. Roger A. Lohmann 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.1

Discussion for Version 1.1 and the subpages stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

This would be a single editor approval with Roger as the approving editor and Russell as endorsing since these edits by Roger can be considered copyedits. D. Matt Innis 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We had some issues while approving, so make sure and check to make sure we have the right version! The subpages remain unprotected so that they can be updated regularly. D. Matt Innis 23:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Matt and Hayford; it seems right. And, yes, for this version Roger was approving editor as I had contributed too many authorial changes. Russell D. Jones 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I think that this article is original and that the material that also appears on Wikipedia was released by Richard Jensen over there; but I'm not sure if any other material from WP lingers. As there is no statement on these pages regarding attribution, it has been assumed that we are copying from WP. John Stephenson 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the article as it was when Jensen imported it.

Difference since then.

There seems to be a lot of the WP text that had been re-ordered but not re-written. If you want to do a rewrite, go right ahead. For now, I've reset the WP tag. I wonder if we can't reset the WP tag for the approved draft? Thanks for pointing this out. Jones 12:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through both this draft and the WP draft of May 24, 2008, and think that this draft is now no longer "imported from WP." So I'm unchecking the box. However, we have another problem in that the article now generally mirrors the WP article because WP has pretty much copied out our article. So our article still looks like it was imported from WP even though the WP article is imported from CZ. Yano, the "by" in "CC-by-sa" means attribution is required. Russell D. Jones 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably only going to get worse unless we do something about it. Does the article history uphold your claim? D. Matt Innis 01:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet done a rigorous comparison. I have only checked to make sure that our draft article has no WP content from the May 24, 2008, transfer. CZ, as you know, does respect WP's CC-by-SA license by having the tag line "Some content on this page may previously have appeared on Wikipedia." However, that tag line does not specify from which WP page (historically) the content is licensed to appear on CZ. It links only to the current page. Which means, in a case where WP is "licensing" our content, it looks like the direction of flow is happening in the other direction (that we're reproducing their content).

I think we need meta-data fields for content licensing information. Russell D. Jones 13:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. The tag should say, "The contents of this page may have previously appeared on this May 24, 2008 version from Wikipedia and was altered to conform to Citizendium standards. Any subsequent use must conform to Citizendium's CC-by-SA licensing requirements." D. Matt Innis 17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Russell D. Jones 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC): I prefer saying that it's a derivative work and what the future licensing requirements are:

Portions of this article comprise a derivative work of [{{{Import_Version_URL}}} this {{{Import_Date}}} version from {{{Import_Source}}}] copyrights protected and limited according to the original's [{{{Import_License_URL}}} {{{Import_License_Name}}}] license. Any subsequent re-use of this content must conform to both [{{{Import_License_URL}}} that original] and [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_CC-by-sa_3.0 Citizendium's CC-by-SA] copyright licensing requirements.

Where

• Import_Version_URL = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty&oldid=214612812
• Import_Date = May 24, 2008
• Import_Source = Wikipedia
• Import_License_URL = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License and
• Import_License_Name = CC-by-SA 3.0 Unported

Portions of this article comprise a derivative work of this May 24, 2008 version from Wikipedia, copyrights protected and limited according to the original's CC-by-SA 3.0 Unported license. Any subsequent re-use of this content must conform to both that original and Citizendium's CC-by-SA copyright licensing requirements.