User talk:Terveuren

December 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joseph E. Davies, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Fbifriday (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Davies

Look, I've never heard of this person and edited this article by sheer chance, but, for the article sake, you've got to expand those lists or move them down - whatever any book ~in the world says, WP is an encyclopedia in its own right. It keeps its style, and we've got to follow it. For reference, check any biography article at WP:FA. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me?

Please pay more attention. You are looking for User:Fbifriday. I had nothing to do with that article. fetchcomms☛ 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Your addition to Joseph E. Davies has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Baron Larf 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Baron Larf 16:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davies article

First of all, thank you for your extensive additions to the Joseph E. Davies article. You are obviously in a position to be highly knowledgeable about this fascinating historical figure, and made this a better article.

That some of the artworks bought by the Davies were confiscated by the Stalinist government is (I presume) documented in the cited work. I have not read the book, and I do not know where the author got the information, but unless you can cite a reason not to trust this source, it has to stay. Unfortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are such that your personal knowledge or your conversations with first-hand participants cannot be used as cited sources. Notice, however, that the article does not say that the Davies knowingly bought any confiscated art, so perhaps you could add a phrase to that effect.

I have no doubt that Davies regarded the anti-Soviet attitudes among the American diplomats in Moscow as "prejudice." But that he said so in his papers does not prove his opinion. The people he accuses of "prejudice" were (I have to presume) career diplomats with more first-hand experience of the Soviet system than Davies. The distinguished diplomat Charles Bohlen, for example, criticized Davies for what Bohlen regarded as Davies' naive pro-Soviet prejudice. Davies' predecessor Bullitt arrived in Moscow with a pro-Soviet prejudice, but his opinion was turned around by experience. Who was acting out of prejudice and who was acting out of experience? We can only quote both sides and let the reader decide. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Verifiability. Plazak (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will go back to Tzouliadis's book and check the footnotes. I have already done this with a great many references re Davies (my grandfather) and surprisingly found that many statements were taken totally out of context. I am able to do that as I have ALL the books Tzouliadis references re Davies.

Also, just to remind you, Publishing houses do NOT use fact checkers any more. The New York Times does as well as the New Yorker. That's it as far as I know and was told by the well known author Dava Sobel several days ago.

I will be sending a letter of complaint to the Publishing House but want to get all my ducks in a row first. It is a big job!

I use my mother's statements re "buying," as she was the one who bought a great deal of the pieces from Government stores. We are working on HER memoirs and photos from that time, now.

Thank you for your help. Terveuren (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]