Talk:Richard Hawes

GA pass

This is an excellent article, well written and without fault - the references are great. The article is definately GA and IMO is FA. I would suggest an FA run as I think the prose, the references, the information, the images are all beyond GA level. Well done. Sorry I cant find anything to improve. I do recommend an FA run. Well done! LordHarris 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Inauguration (copied from users' talk pages)

I respectfully disagree with your recent edits to Richard Hawes. First, the historical marker "notes" that an inauguration took place. "Asserts" seems to me to cast doubt upon the fact that the event happened. The fact is, there was an event and Hawes was inaugurated governor of a group known as the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that the marker "notes" the event does not lend legitimacy to the government itself; it simply recognizes the fact that an event took place whereby Hawes assumed executive power in the group. The caption does not say Hawes was inaugurated governor of Kentucky; that would be grossly inaccurate. It does say Hawes was inaugurated Confederate governor of Kentucky; that is a fact.

Second, the Russellville Convention did enact a new constitution – one that dictated rules of operation for the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that it had no discernible effect on most Kentuckians is really irrelevant. If I declare my house and yard to be Acdixonland and draft a constitution to govern the inhabitants of Acdixonland, the fact that said constitution is totally ineffective does not change the fact that the document was created. As above, the article does not assert that the Confederate constitution supplanted the actual constitution of Kentucky; it merely states that the convention drafted a constitution, that this constitution prescribed a method of electing a new governor, and that this procedure was followed by adherents of the Confederate government. In fact, your edit is the less accurate of the two. The Russellville Convention did not affirm the Kentucky Constitution; it adopted all measures of that constitution that were not inconsistent with the document drafted at Russellville. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's doubt Hawes was inaugurated; inauguration usually includes taking the oath of office, which Hawes himself denied. (Granted, he had reason to deny it; but all I need show is doubt.)

I quote section 14 of the alleged Confederate consitution: The constitution and laws of Kentucky, not inconsistent with the acts of this convention, and the establishment of this government, and the laws which may be enacted by the governor and council, shall be the laws of this State. It describes the handful of men it set up as a "provisional Government", and looked forward to "the restoration of a permanent government". I shall rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The oath of office need not be a part of an inauguration. Wikipedia's article on the subject defines "inauguration" as "a formal ceremony to mark the beginning of something such as a president term of office." Whether Hawes took the oath of office or not is immaterial given this definition; it marked the start of his term as Confederate governor. A celebration of such a ceremony is documented; if there was no such ceremony, what did Buell interrupt? Besides, all of the government's records subsequent to the event acknowledge Hawes as governor. I highly doubt they would have recognized him as such without his having taken the oath of office. The only cause for doubt is a denial Hawes made in the aftermath of the war, when admission of disloyalty may well have been punished with death, or at least ostracism. This seems a pretty flimsy basis for doubt to me.

It also seems that your most recent edit goes to great lengths to stress the irregularity of the Russellville Convention. It seems to me that the fact that the government was in exile and traveling with an army says pretty much everything that needs to be said about the legitimacy they possessed and the efficacy with which they operated. Regarding their "affirmation" of the Kentucky Constitution, they definitely saw themselves as a provisional government, but the permanent government they hoped would eventually replace them would likely have looked much different to the one previously constituted. I'll leave your edit as-is until we hash this out a little further. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that. He had been sworn in in May, and presumably intended to act as Governor from then on; the inauguration in October should not have increased his powers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Presumably they would have, however, had Buell not showed up. If it was not an inauguration, what would you propose to call it? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were certain when Buell showed up, "attempted inauguration" would cover the matter. But as it is, the present wording covers the matter, as far as I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Every source I've seen dealing with the matter calls it an inauguration. Do you have any that call it an "attempted inauguration" or "alleged inauguration"? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy with the present wording. "Asserts" is neutral; "claims" would suggest falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Asserts" is not neutral; it implies the possibility of dissent. In fact, I think "assert" and "claim" are nearly synonymous. "Notes" (or "documents", as a synonym) is certain, and it is certain that something happened there. Every reliable source that I have seen calls what happened there an inauguration. I think the caption should return to its original wording. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why it is neutral; denying the possibility of dissent is equivalent to a positive assertion. But assert does not suggest error, as claim now does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I detest arguing semantics, I still feel like "asserts" connotes some kind of doubt that the event actually happened. Maybe it's some kind of regional nuance or something – I'm not a linguist. Still, if "notes" is completely unacceptable, I'd much prefer "documents", if you could agree to that. It actually seems to me that "documenting" is the function of a historical marker anyway, in a sense. May we adopt this one last compromise and put the issue to bed? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the constitution issue, I propose to replace "The Russellville Convention had affirmed Kentucky's Constitution, but had appointed a provisional government of a governor and ten Councillors, a majority to act as the government of Kentucky; the Governor was to be replaced, if necessary, by the Council appointing someone not of their number. The concillors duly appointed Hawes as Johnson's successor." with "In accordance with provisions adopted at the Russellville Convention, the Confederate government's ten legislative councillors selected Hawes to succeed Johnson as governor. (Under these provisions, the councillors could not select one of their own.)" This avoids any mention of either the Confederate or Union constitutions of the state. Is this agreeable? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked slightly, but agree in general; provisional seems important, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to "provisional", but I've moved it so that it describes the government, not the resolutions of the Russellville Convention. I suppose both are technically accurate, but to me, it sounds better describing the government. If you want to move it back, I'll not quibble over it, but I would suggest changing "provisions" in the parenthetical statement to "resolutions" if you do. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<Shrug>. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Hawes. 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/20081225190234/http://politicalgraveyard.com/families/1191.html to http://politicalgraveyard.com/families/1191.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)