 | | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | WikiProject United States History To-do: | edit · history · watch · purge 
| Here are some tasks you can do: - Requests: Alexander Hamilton: The article for this founding father is surprisingly contentious and POV. It is full of out-of-context material, poorly-sourced material, anti-Hamilton POV material, citations to older or marginal sources whose research has since been amended, superseded, corrected, or discredited, etc. In far too many ways, it does not reflect the current historical consensus, which it absolutely must. I have tried to fix it quite a bit, but there remain long-time editors who are bent on keeping much of its older material, and its anti-Hamilton slant. The earlier parts of the article are, by and large, better. So far, I have drastically shortened the intro. I have also recently tried to improve the structure and content of the sections. In addition, I have tried balance the POV issues somewhat, but much, much work remains to be done, and I simply do not have the time or the energy to undertake such a massive task as this on my own. I also feel the article will benefit greatly from fresh eyes--especially if thy are the eyes of good, fair historians of any stripe. Please help. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
| | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. | [edit] Canada Is Canada still preapproved? Whoa...what-if... — 217.199.130.81 08:55, 2005 Jul 7 (UTC) - No. The clause about Canada was part of the Articles only; Canada is not mentioned in the Constitution. (But modern-day Canada is not really the same as the entity called "Canada" in the Articles, anyway.) — Mateo SA | talk 17:00, 7 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] First constitution of USA I tried to change the statement in the article that says that the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America, but someone changed it back. In fact, the United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified. So the Articles of Confederation was not the first constitution of the USA, because the USA didn't exist. What did exist was a European-Union like league of independent states (nations).Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - Whether or not the "United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified", it was still called the "United States of America". It is still considered the same one nation, though it operated under two vastly-different constitutions. It is awfully hard to support the claim that the "United States of America" didn't exist when the Articles themselves give the nation's name as the "United States of America". In order to support this, you've had to add "as we know it today", which is just playing semantic games - the name of the country today is not the "United States of America as We Know It Today", but without that qualification your whole point is meaningless. Even assuming your interpretation is the correct and accepted one, putting contradictory statements like that in the article, especially without verifiable reliable sources, will just confuses readers. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) The USA under the Confederation may have had the same name as the modern-day USA, but it was not the modern-day USA. The USA (Confederation) and the USA (Union, or also called "nation"), are different entities. The argument can be made that while the USA (Confederacy) was a "firm league of friendship" among a number of "free and independent states," the USA (Union) was a separate political entity that, although it replaced the USA league, was something completely different. Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading. My point: The article as it currently stands is incorrect because it asserts that the Articles was the constitution of a union that did not yet exist, although the political body in place did have the superficial similarity of having the same name. And the verifiable reliable sources which support my interpretation are the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Perhaps I didn't express my interpretations eloquently enough to be understood, since the differences are not easy to distinguish. If I'm not clear in my explanation, point to the unclear parts and ask me to reexplain. - I had no problem understanding your explanation, eloquence or lack of it not withstanding. I'm a plain person, and speak plainly, and usually find that some people use eloquence when they wish to "obfuscate" the plain meaning of something, and to "bully" less-eloquent people into thinking they aren't as smart as the more-eloquent. I totally understand your point, but I disagree with your interpretation, as it doesn't follow the historical evidence of even the AoC itself. You wrote: "Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading." The problem is, there is only one article on the United States to link to, and it covers the history of both "entities". I'm sorry, but many people disagree with your interpretation of the DoI and AoC. The first line of this article states: ". . . the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the United States of America." It does not state: "the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the Union." If it did, or if it said "federation", you might have a point, but it doesn't. To confuse matters even more, it wasn't until the end of the US Civil War and Reconstruction that AMericans, especially those in the South, stopped thinking of themselves as citizens of their home states first,a nd of the USA second - that didn't change with the adoption of The Constitution, but took over 70 years. Anyway, if you have reliable published (print or internet) sources that back up your "interpretation", you're welcome to cite them as an alternate view in a suitable section in the main text, but I don't think the Lead is the proper place for it. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- On a side note, I don't see the comparison of the "League of Nations of America" (what else can I call it, since you are objecting to the name USA, even though its in the AOC) to the EU. Even here on Wikipedia, people can't agree on what the EU actually is - some what to call in a confederation, some want to call it a nation, while other refer to it as supra-national union. The latter is generally accepted as the best definition, but even then, you'll find the "EU-ish" (people who are citizens of EU via their member nations) trying to get the EU listed in charts such in WP article such as English-speaking Nations of the World, but not wanting to remove the member nations, such as the UK or Ireland, from the list. Of course, the UK-ish still want us to accept that England, et al, are "countries" or "nations", and include their flags in biographies, etc, even though their sovereignty is even more subordinated to their national government than the states of the US. My point is that comparing the USA under the AoC to the EU will not help to clarify the situation, since the EU's status is much more contentious than what we are discussing here! THe EU is a big mess anyway, with 25 or more mebers who all have a different idea of what the UN should be. In my opinion, the nations who want a much stronger Union (France, Germany, and some of there neighbeors) would be better off forming their own mini-EU as a tighter federation, and then have that entity be a member within a looser EU if they want to, but the rest of the EU would immediatley cry out about the return of the Napoleonic or Nazi empires, and it would all fall apart again. Of course, Europeans seldom choose simple or obvious solutions, partly why I'm glad my forebearers left Europe in the first place! - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)I'm intensely interested to see the historical evidence that supports your interpretation. I'm talking about official legal documents here. The documents show that the thirteen colonies became thirteen free and independent states with the Declaration of Independence, entered into a "firm league of friendship" with the Articles of Confederation, and created "a more perfect Union" with the USA Constitution. The "firm league of friendship" should not be thought of as synomymous with the "Union." I can't really respond to the argument you set forth because I still don't understand what it is. By the way, you might want to take a look at the Constitutional Congress Article and see if it's accurate to your knowledge after my changes (but we won't get into that much here). Besides, I think that calling the Articles of Confederation a "constitution" rather than a "charter" or "framework" for a supernational league of nations is misleading. When people see the word "constitution," I am inclined to believe that they will also think of "one nation," while that was not the case at all under the Articles. And even if the Wiki Articles page does not specify "Union" or "federation," it is still grossly misleading. - The USA became a "Perpetual Union" with the Articles of Confederation. Abraham Lincoln was insistent on this fact in his First inauguration speech in 1861. He also cited that the aim of the US Constitution was to make "a more perfect union". It is therefore clear the Union existed before the creation of the US Constitution. The Articles was also a constitution, but based on a confederation form of government. By comparison, the US Constitution was based on a federation (federal) form of government. It is therefore clear that as the Union came into being in 1781 so did its first constitution. The US Constitution was therefore the second constitution of the Union. The historical evidence is quite clear and compelling on this issue. Budfin (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Simhedges (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) A constitution is a document containing out a framework for government. I am a member of a charity that has a constitution: it doesn't make us a country. So the existence of a constitution doesn't prove that the US was a single country, a federation, a confederation, an association or a sports and social club. As to that claim that the US changed drastically between the Articles and the Constitution, well, France in 2009 is constitutionally unrecognisable compared to the France of 1066. But it's still seen as a continuing country that has evolved over time. As for a "European-Union like league of independent states": in 1776 the US was at war. The EU cannot go to war: ask the Irish and the Swedes who are neutral countries within the EU. As Budfin implies, the EU is simply too confusing to cite, although all of the 27 EU member states agree that it's not a country. Simhedges (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
whoinsamhill As a barely made it out of high school cab driver I see the Articles of Confederation phrase "United States of America" as being a perfectly acceptable description to now use to describe how the compilers of the articles saw themselves. I represent those uneducated Wikipedia viewers who want information that is READABLE. When wording is changed to be made acceptable to every dissenting professor its meaning is then fathomable only to professors. Keep it readable! Mike Coughlin (whoinsamhill) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.98.63 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Fact and NPOV Tagged since April 2009. Is there currently someone disputing the neutrality and factual accuracy? Can someone fill me in? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] What are we? 9? Removed Citation Needed on Federalists and their want for a centralized government. Come on, this was taught all Americans who passed high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.212.243 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC) - Using that argument I can say that everyone who signed the constitution was named dickbuttkiss because I'm an American who passed high school. 68.39.159.17 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true. Uncontroversial, general-knowledge statements do not necessarily need citations. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Use of fringe theories The recently added reference has several issues: - possible WP:Fringe
- not well known (recalling that a topic should reflect a consensus)
- citing information which is not accessible (without buying the book or paying for a subscription, appears to be no way for a reader to find out about the "court case").
Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 1. Read the book. That's why it is in the footnote.
2. To find out about the book, without reading it; to see it is not fringe; to see it is well known; to borrow the book for free from one of many libraries, see:
Booklist
ALA list of books for adult readers (John Adams)
Gordon S. Wood, Reading the Founders' Minds, NY Review of Books, June 28, 2007
History News Network (hnn.us/roundup/entries/40338.html)
LIBRARY JOURNAL, March 15, 2005
Logan Library: Black History Month Booklist (Jan 26, 2009)
76.177.35.39 (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) - I also have problems with the Blumrosen source. In the first place, there are no page numbers included in the footnote. This should be added to the article and I would like to see some specific quotes from the book brought to this discussion page. However the bottom line is that it is definately a small minority opinion, if not a totally fringe opinion. As such, it should not be presented as if it were generally accepted. For the purposes of THIS article, the causes of the Revolution are only covered briefly as background and it does not appear to be appropriate to expand that section in order to include such a minority view.
- A more appropriate place for the info MIGHT be the article and section American Revolution#Slaves. However there was material on the Somerset decision there before, but it was eliminated a while ago (see the discussion in Archives 2 at Talk:American Revolution/Archive 2#James Somerset and the slavery issue. To include the info in this article when it was rejected from an article much more directly concerned with the origins of the Revolution constitutes a POV Fork. I believe your addition to this article should be deleted, but will wait until you respond with specific quotes and page numbers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- No response. The claim needs to be removed for reasons cited above. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Merge discussion Perpetual Union appears to be an unnecessary content fork from Articles of Confederation, and should be merged here. Have I missed anything? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) - The article draws out the uniqueness of the Union of American states. The Perpetual Union has tended to get lost in a discussion of the Articles of Confederation, which were effectively supplanted by the US Constitution. By contrast, the notion of a Perpetual Union has clear historical import beyond the life of the Articles. President Lincoln emphasised its great significance in the run up to the Civil War. The noted historian Kenneth M. Stampp and others have written many books about the debate about the union and its origins, with special emphasis on the Perpetual Union of the Articles. As such, it deserves to be a seperate but linked article. Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not exactly responsive. There is no reason why "Perpetual Union" is an article, and much of it is original research. It should be made a redirect here without transferring its text.
-
- Ignoring the absurd attention given to Maryland's act to authorize ratification of the Articles, the page has two principal sections. The first, "Historical meaning" provides the only substantive reference and the other references, which cites a quote from Abraham Lincoln. The substantive reference does not even back up the matter asserted. The Wikipedia article says "it was not felt necessary" to use words like "perpetual union" in the Constitution. That carries a strong implication that the drafters of the Constitution believed the perpetual union persisted regardless of the other changes brought about by the new document, and they thought it went without saying. Whether that is true or not (and it is doubtful that they would have been unanimous in such a belief), that is not what the source says. Rather, it poses the question whether the Civil War could have been avoided had the founders included the words in the Constitution.
-
- The section then goes on to say, "While the permanence of the Union had been established and it was only the form of government that needed to be changed, some legal scholars have argued that the nature of the Union changed at the same time." That is virtually meaningless, and lacks any citation whatsoever. If the union's permanence was established, why was its nature being questioned? What about its nature changed? Who are these scholars anyway? Most importantly, where is the proof that "the permanence of the union was established"?
-
- The section then ends by saying that Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which was the operative provision stating that the Union was perpetual, was the "chief basis" for Lincoln's denial of the right to secede, and attempts to back it up. For support, the article uses a passage from Lincoln's first inaugural address in which he cites a progression dating from the Articles of Association in 1774 to the Constitution for the proposition that the Union is older than the Constitution. Of course nothing in that asserts that the Articles of Confederation were the "chief basis" for the inviolability of the union. Even if that passage put the Articles front and center, which it does not, that would still only tell us what arguments he used to sway the public, not his true rationale.
-
- We then move on to the other section, "Historical assessment", which has the unmistakable tone of an essay's concluding paragraph. While repeating the claims noted above in general terms and again dwelling on the Maryland ratification, it also claims that in addition to being impelling the 1860s US government to defend the union, the perpetual union construct of the Articles of Confederation also won the Revolution by strengthening American resolve and reducing British resolve. Of course, again, all of these declarations are made without any hint of citation. -Rrius (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The claim of OR is unfair. The reproduction of Lincoln's statement in his First Inaugural Address on Monday March 4, 1861 is in fact itself a citation. In the address he stated:
-
"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union" - Of course, as Rrius notes, there were different views on this, including the views of the recently deceased historical scholar Kenneth M. Stampp and many other earlier shcolars, but let us not forget that Lincoln's view became the binding one. Many more citations could be added with regard to Lincoln's decisive view on the role of the Perpetual Union in the Union, including "Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War" by Howard Jones; notably in chapter 2: Lincoln, Slavery, and Perpetual Union [1], or "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
-
-
- The reproduction of the introduction to the law whereby Maryland became the 13th and final state to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is also in itself a citation to the last point made by Rrius. It reads as follows:
-
"Whereas it hath been said that the common enemy is encouraged by this State not acceding to the Confederation, to hope that the union of the sister states may be dissolved; and therefore prosecutes the war in expectation of an event so disgraceful to America; and our friends and illustrious ally are impressed with an idea that the common cause would be promoted by our formally acceding to the Confederation: this general assembly, conscious that this State hath, from the commencement of the war, strenuously exerted herself in the common cause, and fully satisfied that if no formal confederation was to take place, it is the fixed determination of this State to continue her exertions to the utmost, agreeable to the faith pledged in the union; from an earnest desire to conciliate the affection of the sister states; to convince all the world of our unalterable resolution to support the independence of the United States, and the alliance with his Most Christian Majesty, and to destroy forever any apprehension of our friends, or hope in our enemies, of this State being again united to Great Britain;..." -
-
- While the presentation of this article can undoubtedly be improved, it is my contention that it has value as a 'stand-alone' article due to the seperate historical importance of the Perpetual Union from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.Odin 85th gen (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) It is OR because the quote does not say that Article XIII was a chief reason for opposing secession. It is only an argument (and not necessarily the chief one) for why his listeners should oppose it. Thus saying it was the chief reason is OR. Your tangent about Lincoln's view becoming the dominant view is irrelevant. Only people on the political fringes believe states have a right to secede. The question is not whether the US is a permanent union, but whether the Articles are the current legal basis for it. Saying that is a fringe theory that is not supported by the limited citations provided here. As such, it should be deleted. Your point about the Maryland ratification, to the extent it addresses my point that there is no support for the notion that the perpetual union increased resolve here and reduced in in Great Britain, is just wrong. The text you quote (and you could have quoted much less) says in ordering its delegates to ratify the Articles it is telling its the other states and Great Britain that it is resolved to win. That does not mean that ratifying increased the resolve in the US, decreased in GB, or even increased it in Maryland. All it is saying is that the act is proof positive of their determination to see it through.
-
-
-
- 2) Your contention that this is so important it needs its own article is flawed. A topic can be important but still subsidiary. The idea that states cannot secede is important, and is dealt with extensively at Secession in the United States and at U.S. state#Secession, Secession, and American Civil War. The specific theories espoused here do not need a separate article. What's more, the text here is flawed and would be deleted where it should be.
-
-
-
- 3) The proper target for this page as a redirect is not "Articles of Confederation"; it should point to "Secession in the United States" which is the most clearly related topic. As a result, I am going to add the appropriate merger template to that article as well. -Rrius (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You are missing the whole point. The Perpetual Union is not some OR idea but a major conceptual part of US history, the founding of the nation no less and its evolution. As such, it transcended the Articles, which were replaced by the US Constitution, as the governing document of the nation. It is fine and proper to reference the Perpetual Union debate in the Secession article. However, the Perpetual Union is more than that. It is an integral part in a historical legal debate about the evolution of Union, during the 1770s, during the formulation of the US Constitution, in the 1830s and leading up to the Civil War and from there to the present day. Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Secession in the United States indeed looks like a better target - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Perpetual Union is a valid article about the historical legal concept of the Union (of American States). Rather than merge, it could be referred to by other articles. Odin 85th gen (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) That there is a perpetual union is, again, not the question. I will say that again because you seem not to understand what the debate is about. There is no debate here about whether there is a perpetual union. There is significant OR in the article, including the material you reinserted. The concept of the perpetual union can be discussed in a few sentences and is at other articles, most especially Secession in the United States. The entirety of the article is OR, an excessive explanation of Maryland's legislative act to instruct its delegates to ratify the Articles of Confederation, or a repetition of information available elsewhere. As such, it is an unnecessary content fork, and not a very good one. As such, per WP:merge, it should be merged into Secession in the United States. -Rrius (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - I disagree emphatically with your assessment. The "Union" is a major feature of US history and the Perpetual Union and aspects of its formation, which you don´t seem to understand and thus brush off, are important. The Perpetual Union aspect of the Articles has long tended to be neglected, which can most readily be seen by the frequent shortening of the name of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to the Articles of Confederation. The Perpetual Union article brings out the importance of the Union. The attention of scholars to the Perpetual Union is enough indication of its importance and its worth as a separate subject matter. I think you could usefully devote your energy to improve this or some other article than to waste my time and yours by seeking to abolish the worthy article. Odin 85th gen (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The importance of the inviolability of the union is adequately handled where it is discussed in various places on Wikipedia. The article as it stands is atrocious. It reads like an essay, and most of the points it makes are original research. As I have said now repeatedly (and I really hope you pay attention this time), this is not about the importance of the union. It is about whether there is sufficient information to justify a separate article. The valid information in the article can be expressed in a few sentences, and is in other places. There is essentially no chance that the article will ever rise above stub class. Per WP:Merge and other policies, it is clear the article should not exist. Finally, how dare you tell me how to spend my time? It is my prerogative to pay attention to whichever articles I choose. If we are going to tell each other how to spend our time, then you should spend less of your time defending a terrible article out of a sense of ownership, and rather more time reading Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:MOS. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The Union itself has importance, while its inviolability was demonstrated in the Civil War. A side note, I'd just like to say that parading accusations of OR, RS and MOS, doesn´t strengthen ones case, imho. How you spend your time is your matter, but when it affects others, that is a different matter. Ownership takes many forms, I believe you are exhibiting a strong case of ownership over an idea. Further just deleting stuff is not in itself proof of good editorship. Why don´t you show your abilities in improving the article rather than trying to destroy it? Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to improve project by eliminating a terrible article. The fact that you have said I accused you of "MOS" shows you don't even know what MOS is: the Manual of Style. The same goes for RS, which is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. I recommended you read them because it was clear you weren't familiar with them, something you proved in your last contribution. Now, instead of telling me how horrible I am and what I should be doing, why don't you address the actual points that have been brought up. Explain how Secession in the United States fails to adequately cover the topic and why additions to that article wouldn't correct any such failure. Explain how the text that is unsupported by references isn't original resources. Explain how the "Historical meaning" section isn't just a concluding paragraph, which is not something we use here on Wikipedia. Explain, more broadly, how User:2/0 and I are wrong about this meeting the criteria of WP:Merge. Explain how quoting the entire act regarding Maryland's ratification is necessary to make the point that Maryland was the last state to ratify the Articles. Explain why material that is not referenced shouldn't be deleted despite WP:Cite, WP:verify, and WP:RS. -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Rather than allowing this to become a negative contentious discussion based on misrepresentations and ad hominum arguments, I propose we explore the possibility of salvaging this article by bringing it up to acceptable standard based on the central idea that the Perpetual Union warrants seperate coverage. I have made an effort to edit it with an aim to improve and hopefully please. I'll add some additional citations when I find time to dig them up. Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
|
