Talk:1979: History - Revision history

172.70.90.172 at 05:15, 18 May 2024

2024-05-18T05:15:45Z

108.162.216.62 at 00:36, 10 December 2020

2020-12-10T00:36:22Z

172.68.150.52: format edit

2018-04-16T21:55:26Z

format edit

172.68.150.52: Google search comparison of Lincoln vs Garfield vs Conkling

2018-04-16T21:54:18Z

Google search comparison of Lincoln vs Garfield vs Conkling

NiceGuy1 at 05:16, 13 April 2018

2018-04-13T05:16:40Z

Dgbrt at 17:25, 12 April 2018

2018-04-12T17:25:09Z

JohnHawkinson: boldface?

2018-04-12T16:41:51Z

boldface?

162.158.88.68 at 16:29, 12 April 2018

2018-04-12T16:29:19Z

172.68.150.52 at 14:19, 12 April 2018

2018-04-12T14:19:47Z

172.68.150.52 at 14:18, 12 April 2018

2018-04-12T14:18:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 18 May 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:

	The link to the actual page of the paper is fantastic - especially the ads along the right side - "Anti-Morbific, the Great Liver and Kidney Remedy" and "Trash's Magnetic Ointment". So, a question - there's no by-line. Is there any way to figure out who wrote this? I assume maybe multiple people, like and editorial board? [[User:DanB\|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB\|talk]]) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)		The link to the actual page of the paper is fantastic - especially the ads along the right side - "Anti-Morbific, the Great Liver and Kidney Remedy" and "Trash's Magnetic Ointment". So, a question - there's no by-line. Is there any way to figure out who wrote this? I assume maybe multiple people, like and editorial board? [[User:DanB\|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB\|talk]]) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
		+	:Most articles then didn't have a byline, you'd have to find who the editor was, it was probably him. Another fantastic advert in there is for Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, which of course was the inspiration for the song Lily the Pink. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172\|172.70.90.172]] 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	Regarding the link to the actual page of the paper, the article immediately after it talks about a discussion over the tariffs on whiskey, beer, and tobacco covering the differences of opinion within the Democrat and Republican parties and protectionism vs free trade and producers vs consumers concluding that the tax is good because it could be used to pay down the national debt and finance national education initiatives. Despite burgeoning taxes the speculated benefits never arrived. We deceive ourselves if we believe that the discussions we have today were never debated before. The debate is eternal and the promised goods are never delivered. [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)		Regarding the link to the actual page of the paper, the article immediately after it talks about a discussion over the tariffs on whiskey, beer, and tobacco covering the differences of opinion within the Democrat and Republican parties and protectionism vs free trade and producers vs consumers concluding that the tax is good because it could be used to pay down the national debt and finance national education initiatives. Despite burgeoning taxes the speculated benefits never arrived. We deceive ourselves if we believe that the discussions we have today were never debated before. The debate is eternal and the promised goods are never delivered. [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:36, 10 December 2020
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:Interesting question. I've entered it into the incomplete reason. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		:Interesting question. I've entered it into the incomplete reason. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
	::I believe it's Randall's way of providing a "TL;DR" version, that anyone not inclined to read that entire (rather large) block of text can just read the bold parts to grasp the gist of what the article, and by extension Randall, is trying to say (I DO feel like if someone only reads the bold text, they'll get the point of the article, at least the part that's striking Randall/Megan). [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)		::I believe it's Randall's way of providing a "TL;DR" version, that anyone not inclined to read that entire (rather large) block of text can just read the bold parts to grasp the gist of what the article, and by extension Randall, is trying to say (I DO feel like if someone only reads the bold text, they'll get the point of the article, at least the part that's striking Randall/Megan). [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	To be honest, I’d definitely rather lose the odd numbered years. Usually, things are fairly balanced, as most events take more than a year. However, if an event, such as an election is held every x years, it usually corresponds to even years. Examples: US Elections, Olympics

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 16 April 2018
Line 50:		Line 50:
	::Aha, yeah. That puts the Garfield/Conkling ratio at 34/2 over about 14 years of Google searches. So Garfield is searched for roughly 17X as often as Conkling.		::Aha, yeah. That puts the Garfield/Conkling ratio at 34/2 over about 14 years of Google searches. So Garfield is searched for roughly 17X as often as Conkling.

−	Abraham Lincoln compared with Garfield comes out as 37/1. So Garfield is indeed far more obscure than Lincoln, but Conkling is more obscure yet, according to the Google searches. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)	+	::Abraham Lincoln compared with Garfield comes out as 37/1. So Garfield is indeed far more obscure than Lincoln, but Conkling is more obscure yet, according to the Google searches. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 16 April 2018
Line 48:		Line 48:
	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
	:The number of Google searches might also be a useful indicator https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0b22w,%2Fm%2F03x0cd {{unsigned ip\|162.158.88.68}}		:The number of Google searches might also be a useful indicator https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0b22w,%2Fm%2F03x0cd {{unsigned ip\|162.158.88.68}}
		+	::Aha, yeah. That puts the Garfield/Conkling ratio at 34/2 over about 14 years of Google searches. So Garfield is searched for roughly 17X as often as Conkling.
		+
		+	Abraham Lincoln compared with Garfield comes out as 37/1. So Garfield is indeed far more obscure than Lincoln, but Conkling is more obscure yet, according to the Google searches. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 13 April 2018
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Can anyone speculate on what Randall was trying to achieve with the selective use of '''boldfaced''' text in the comic? [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		Can anyone speculate on what Randall was trying to achieve with the selective use of '''boldfaced''' text in the comic? [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
	:Interesting question. I've entered it into the incomplete reason. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		:Interesting question. I've entered it into the incomplete reason. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
		+	::I believe it's Randall's way of providing a "TL;DR" version, that anyone not inclined to read that entire (rather large) block of text can just read the bold parts to grasp the gist of what the article, and by extension Randall, is trying to say (I DO feel like if someone only reads the bold text, they'll get the point of the article, at least the part that's striking Randall/Megan). [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 I don't know how you objectively measure the prominence of one historical character or event over another, but just for example Garfield's wikipedia article is about 4X as long as Conkling's.  And mentions the assassination in the very first sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield
-:The number of Google searches might also be a useful indicator https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0b22w,%2Fm%2F03x0cd
+[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 ; Boldface?
 Can anyone speculate on what Randall was trying to achieve with the selective use of '''boldfaced''' text in the comic? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 12 April 2018
Line 49:		Line 49:

	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	; Boldface?
		+
		+	Can anyone speculate on what Randall was trying to achieve with the selective use of '''boldfaced''' text in the comic? [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 12 April 2018
Line 45:		Line 45:

	I don't know how you objectively measure the prominence of one historical character or event over another, but just for example Garfield's wikipedia article is about 4X as long as Conkling's. And mentions the assassination in the very first sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield		I don't know how you objectively measure the prominence of one historical character or event over another, but just for example Garfield's wikipedia article is about 4X as long as Conkling's. And mentions the assassination in the very first sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield
		+
		+	:The number of Google searches might also be a useful indicator https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0b22w,%2Fm%2F03x0cd

	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52\|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 12 April 2018
Line 35:		Line 35:

	;Conkling vs Garfield		;Conkling vs Garfield
		+
		+	Quoting the current version of the article:

	:For example, it cites the defeat of Roscoe Conkling as a serious event that would fade in importance when compared to Garfield's assassination. Conkling was a senator in Garfield's party who resigned in protest of Garfield's policies, then failed to achieve re-election; contrary to the writer's belief, both these events have faded into roughly the same level of obscurity.		:For example, it cites the defeat of Roscoe Conkling as a serious event that would fade in importance when compared to Garfield's assassination. Conkling was a senator in Garfield's party who resigned in protest of Garfield's policies, then failed to achieve re-election; contrary to the writer's belief, both these events have faded into roughly the same level of obscurity.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :For example, it cites the defeat of Roscoe Conkling as a serious event that would fade in importance when compared to Garfield's assassination. Conkling was a senator in Garfield's party who resigned in protest of Garfield's policies, then failed to achieve re-election; contrary to the writer's belief, both these events have faded into roughly the same level of obscurity.
-I'm going to disagree that Conkling's defeat & Garfield's assassination as events at the same level of obscurity. First off, Garfield is at least mentioned on lists of U.S. presidents and lists of presidents who were assassinated.  I believe I've got a placemat with Garfield's name, face, and dates in my kitchen at this very moment.
+I'm going to disagree that Conkling's defeat & Garfield's assassination are events at the same level of obscurity. First off, Garfield is at least mentioned on lists of U.S. presidents and lists of presidents who were assassinated.  This type of material is available in, for example, pretty much every U.S. elementary school. I believe I've got a placemat with Garfield's name, face, and dates (along with those of all the other U.S. presidents) in my kitchen at this very moment.  Kids love it . . .
-Meanwhile, Conkling's name is not widely known at all even in the U.S. and his re-election defeat is not even mentioned in the top-line summary of his Wikipedia article (it's way down in the detail section of the article, but doesn't make the article summary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Conkling
+Meanwhile, Conkling's name is not widely known at all even in the U.S. and his re-election defeat is not even mentioned in the top-line summary of his Wikipedia article (it's way down in the detail section halfway through the article, but doesn't make the article summary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Conkling
 I don't know how you objectively measure the prominence of one historical character or event over another, but just for example Garfield's wikipedia article is about 4X as long as Conkling's.  And mentions the assassination in the very first sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield