I've had a quick look at the article. It's currently being copyeditted, but its obviously no longer a stub. There are some superficial changes that would improve the look - for example tidying the references (you can point several references to a single line using the full < ref > syntax; the bibliography could be put in a separate section; consider the several redlinks - can they be resolved to a bluelink, or should they not be linked at all? In general we no longer link dates, though that remains a widely unimplemented policy. I will have another look ina few days and reassess if you like. welsh (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To change the status you can place a request for an independent review at the relevent wiki project (eg WP:BIO or WP:MILHIST). It may not be fully in the spirit of independent assessment, but you could actually reassess the article yourself to Start status by editing the Talk page, since its no longer a Stub. It all depends how formal you want to be, Personally I'd be less formal and anyway someone will revert any change they don't like. It usually sorts itself out in the end. welsh (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper-I keep making suggestions in the discussion page, but I am reluctant to make any edits on the IBDP page because I am not familiar/comfortable with the protocol just yet. I noticed an error on the CAS section, where it says it needs to be completed within one year (but it should read two years). http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/cas/index.cfm "Students are expected to be involved in CAS activities for the equivalent of at least three hours each week during the two years of the programme." Can I go ahead and edit something like that or would you be willing to do it? Cheers La mome (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi La mome -- thanks for noting the CAS error. I'll fix it tomorrow. Also, thank you for providing the supporting reference. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper - I was wondering if you would gravitate back to the IB DIploma page. It's getting to the point where ObserverNY is getting way off track with not only editing but basic comprehension of the IB documents and responding to questions. The latest is that ObserverNY has taken offense at me using the phrase Weasel Words and has taking it personally that I am calling her/him a Weasel. I know we should support neophytes but I get the feeling that ObserverNY is either obtuse or being deliberately difficult. Let me know what you think. --Candy (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and intended to link WP:weasel but got caught up working on two other articles. I'll try to get back to the IB article later -- am very backed up at the moment. The biggest problem, in my view, is that the talk page guidelines are being abused. Editors shouldn't have to spend such a great amount of time clarifying policies. If it were one issue per day it'd be manageable, but this is over-the-top. How about adding the soapbox banner to the top of the talkpage? And, also, we need to invite NPOV experienced editors to help.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too for hanging around this pungent issue! The technical stuff is easy, finding consensus amongst the various viewpoints - woah! Ewen (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I'm working on four different articles so the IB issue doesn't bother me much, though it is endless. Have you worked on the MYP article? It's disappeared and I'd like to revert to a previous version rather than starting at the beginning. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IB Middle Years Programme? Well, I took out the bit about US and UK grades but nothing else. The history is fascinating - it must be one of the few articles that's consistently gotten shorter over time! Beats me. Ewen (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I thought. Looks as though somebody wiped it. I'll try to bring it back to life from a previous iteration. Working on cleaning up the citations on the IBDP and then adding missing references. It's slow going. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow going but very much appreciated! Many thanks. Ewen (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, congratulations on the Barnstar. You deserved it! I'm lost in salvaging a terrible article about a favorite author Sharon Kay Penman, who coincidentally writes about Wales. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's a long-service medal. I awarded it to myself! It's basically for not going away - which (as Lemmy pointed out) you can also say about The Clap. Ewen (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are patient (which is the same as not going away) so you have deserved the barnstar. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus working on a good article for somebody who wants FA status, so the IB stuff is peripheral. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper88! I am very happy that you are fixing my poor English. Keep up the excellent work! Just one minor comment: In the "church" section you replaced The Swiss father and composer Martin Schmid with The Swiss composer Martin Schmid. The word "father" here was supposed to refer to (Jesuit) missionary priest. Schmid, like many missionnary priests, had many "professions" (composer, architect, priest,...). To reduce him to a "composer" would go too far in my opinion. I'd rather say that he was a "father/missionary priest" since that was why he came to Chiquitania. Could you add back the proper English term ("father" or "missionary priest" or "Jesuit" or ...) as I am not sure which is best. bamse (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry!! I thought you meant father as in father of children, but of course you meant priest. I'll fix that. I love your article and believe it deserves FA status!! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I hack away too much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question on your recent edit: Consequently the missionaries founded their settlements further and further east towards the Paraguay river, and those south of Asunción moved closer to the Paraguay river by establishing missions farther north and west, thereby avoiding the impassable Chaco region. Which motion to the west do you mean? To me it looks almost straight north up to Corumbá. Maybe the start of this sentence would be more clear as (added text in italics): "Consequently the missionarie from the Chiquitos missions founded their settlements..." bamse (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		For all the good work improving the IB articles' links, etc; while under heavy fire from all sides. Ewen (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ewen!!

Hey! How's Alex Deleware going?--Kojozone (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still searching for references for five books/plot summaries, but getting there. I decided to leave as is for now, but with more references and more time may rework into a more comprehensive, less plot summary driven article. Btw -- I left some references on the Frances Hamerstrom page. We seem to keep crossing paths. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^^ true, I'm working backwards from the oldest backlogs. There are only 5 articles left in april '07 and 26 in May. But it seems for one article you copy-edit there another article is added somewhere else. - I might try and re-write that awful article about that count from Switzerland. The German article on which it's based seems much more meaningful and more to the point. At the moment you don't have a clue what the article is about.--Kojozone (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the Swiss count article. Sounds like what happened with the Delaware article -- some of them require an entire rewrite. I fell into Pixie/Fairie land yesterday. Who knew!! I might give that one a shot if it's still up. Gave up on the Boy Scouting in Connecticut but might get back to it, Social Networking needs an entire rewrite as does the one about the TV station. Oh, well. Happy copy-ediitng! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That bloody KOMO-TV article, I know. I didn't even touch it because it's so long. And don't talk about Scouting there are so many articles about councils and camps and lodges, it's crazy :D--Kojozone (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found and uploaded a nice map which shows the Chiquitanía in more detail including roads/trails. It is from 1789, so shortly after the expulsion of the Jesuits. However there are already three maps at the start of the article, so one should go out I guess. I'd like to keep the first (topographic) map since it is the most precise and modern of the maps. Which of the other two, the 1705 South America map or the 1732 Paraguay/Chiquitos map should be replaced? Or could we have four maps? bamse (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard question. The 1705 map that shows the entire continent (and is colorful) should be kept. I can't decide between the new map and the 1732 map. The new map (1789) shows the specific region in great detail, and marks the missions/villages. The 1732 map specifically indicates the region/province to be under the control of the Society of Jesuits. Both are important. Too bad you can't us all the maps: 1705,1732 and 1789. Sorry this isn't much help, but I really can't decide. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it out for the time being. In any case the new (1789) map can be found through the commons link at the end of the article. bamse (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good decision re: the map.

I've gone through the entire article and seem to to be finished, with the exception of the "Expulsion" section. Here are a few things to consider for consistency:

• the word center/centre appears in both British and American usage. Should be made consistent.
• the abbreviation for priest in English is "Fr." and for brother is "Br." -- in German the abbreviation appears to be P. for Pater. In my view, priests such as Schmid deserve the appropriate honorific. In some cases I've inserted priests into the text, although I'm not certain whether all the Jesuits in the villages were priests, or whether some were brothers, so you may want to check those edits.

That's all I can think of for now. Will check back again in a few days. Thanks again for allowing me to change the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will change to American "center" and figure out who was priest and who was not. A "brother" would be the same as a Friar? Can I assume that all the Jesuits are brothers? bamse (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Found only one "centre" so that was fast. Will need some time for the titles. bamse (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I assumed (incorrectly) that all Jesuits are priests. But, apparently not all have taken orders, and therefore are brothers/friars (if living outside a monastery). Interesting that the Friar article doesn't mention the Jesuits, but it does mention the origin of the word as Frere, or brother. Anyway, my suggestion is to add Fr. (for Father) to the Jesuits you know are priests, such as Schmid, and then perhaps leave the rest as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generated a list of all the Jesuits that appear in the article (quite some). I assume that Spanish "P." stands for "padre" or priest (correct?). Most are indeed priests as you can see. I am not yet sure about the last four, though I believe that Zipoli was a brother. There were a few misspelled names in the article which I corrected. bamse (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice list. Hans Roth was a priest as this website indicates:

In 1972, he sent to San Rafael a Swiss architect and then-Jesuit priest, one Hans Roth. Fr. Plattner gave Roth six months to begin the restoration, along with round-trip air fare. Roth arrived and never went back.

in the section titled Their Preservation: The Genius of Hans Roth. I can't remember whether you have this site in your bibliography, but I did remember reading about Roth when when I was investigating the Swiss chalets and their similarity to the churches. Anyway, perhaps a lot of work, but I think adding the honorifics will make the article better, which is the aim. Hope you agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that page (it's also in the bibliography), I was just confused by "...and then-...". Does this mean, that he was later not a Jesuit priest anymore or that Roth was already a Jesuit priest when he was sent to San Rafael? I'll add "Fr."-s tomorrow. bamse (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence means "at the time." Having taken orders Roth wouldn't cease being a priest, but his avocation changed to rebuilding the churches. At least that's my interpretation.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. So he was "at the time" a "practising" priest. bamse (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Fr." to the names of all the priests up to "The Jesuits in Chiquitanía had a secondary objective...". Now I am not sure if that is what you actually wanted as it looks a bit strange to me. Should the "Fr." be replaced by the word "priest" where it sounds better; like "...was founded in 1691 by the Jesuit Fr. José de Arce." -> "...was founded in 1691 by the Jesuit priest José de Arce." (but keep the "Fr." in sentences like: "...the missionaries Fr. Caballero and Fr. Hervás reestablished the mission..."?) Also is there something like "Frs." to write "...the missionaries Frs. Caballero and Hervás"? bamse (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think if it sounds better it should be priest (which was what I did yesterday, until I began to wonder whether they were all priests.) Honestly I'm not sure about the plural. Sorry to put you to so much work, but I'm wondering whether it's possible to only use the "Fr." once per name to denote rank, and then for subsequent occurrences only use the surname without the "Fr." I'm a bit busy today, but will have time to look at the article later. I also want to drag out my Chicago Manual of Style to see what the guidelines are for such an article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added either Fr. or "priest" to the first occurence of every priest that I am sure of (I still don't know if Mesner and Cardiet were priests.) Please let me know if I messed up. bamse (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the Chicago Manual of Style: the overuse of any abbreviation (such as Fr.) is discouraged, but usage is up to the editor's discretion. So, you were correct to note that it looked wrong, and I think adding either Fr. or priest to the first occurrence of the name will do the job. I'll reread the article in few hours (or hopefully sooner.)Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thanks. Btw, is a "father" (as in front of "Mesner" and "Cardiet") the same as a "brother" or the same as "priest"? Several sources say that Mesner was a priest. bamse (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more question concerning the German/Swiss priests, should we write Johann, John or José Mesner. Along the same lines, should it be Julian instead of Julián Knogler and the first name of Fr. Streicher was originally not Miguel either I'd guess. (cannot find him as "Michael Steicher" though) bamse (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question about the names. Domenico Zipoli's name appears to be Italian, so for consistency, I'd tend toward Johann Mesner and Julian Knogler. Streicher is problematic without a source and I'd say up to the discretion of the editor.

As for the previous question: father is the same as a priest; a brother is not a priest (I believe).

I've re-read and it's looking quite good. I still see a few sentences with passive verb tenses that should be changed, but I'd like to wait until the "Expulsion" section has been looked at, and then I can have one more complete run through if that's fine with you.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine plan. Thanks a lot already for the great job you are doing. I just changed names to Johann Mesner and Julian Knogler and asked about Miguel Streicher the people at German wikipedia Amberg article who were very quick to reply. As you can see his name was indeed Michael. Will fix this in the article now. bamse (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got very involved working on a different article and lost track of time. I see the response from the Amberg discussion, so that's good, and they've provided good verification. I'll keep an eye on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a few members of the history wikiproject for comments on the reasons for the expulsion, but no reply yet. Also started to generate a small list of reasons with references. Feel free to add to it if I missed something. bamse (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at these and see what I can find. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this book ^[1] that seems to explain the situation fairly well. I took a screenshot, but don't quite know how to upload, or the destination for the upload. Anyway, page 203 explains the reasons for expulsion quite concisely, so I'd think that is a good source. Will keep looking. In the meantime, I'll start a list in my sandbox (which is a very messy sandbox because I'm experimenting with images, but I have a section devoted to the Expulsion.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the reason for expulsion according to Richard Gott was Enlightenment. I think that is the official view of the catholic church as well. bamse (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the Enlightenment (and of course the earlier Protestant Reformation) were the main causality. But there are some specific events leading to the expulsion (some of which you already have in the article.) I've created a working outline (that can be collapsed into a few sentences) at the top of my sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at your sandbox (good job). I agree that Enlightenment ideas are probably the basis for the later conflicts. To answer 6., none of the villages was in the Chiquitos. The missions that were transferred from Spanish to Portuguese control were the Misiones Orientales. I am not sure what you mean by 2. ("War between Spain and Portugal"). How would a war between Spain and Portugal be a reason for the expulsion of the Jesuits? There was a war between Guarani tribes + Jesuits against Portugal + Spain in 1756 (Guarani War). That would be number 5 in your list I guess. I will have a look if I can find sources for 8, though that would be more interesting for the Portuguese missions. Do you think, that "material wealth" and the fact that the Jesuits virtually owned large amounts of land in South America played a role for the expulsion? bamse (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1758 conspiracy is known as Távora affair. ([1]) bamse (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification -- one of sentences in Gott reference confused me. I've renumbered the outline. To answer your question: I do think the Jesuit expansion in the New World (both South and North America) as well as other places, signified a threat to Portugal, Spain, and to a lesser extent France. If verified with a reference, then your "Expulsion" section can begin with a short sentence to the effect that the Jesuits were threatened due to economic reasons (or some such), then an explanation of the Treaty of 1751, and so on. If it can be wikilinked then not too much explanation is needed to maintain focus on specific topic in the article. Tomorrow I'll start work on some possible opening sentences in my sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In number 8 on your sandbox, "Spain"->"Madrid"? Pages 28-30 in [2] describe the situation around the Tavora affair and just before it. The first sentence on page 28 (Given the background...) also hints at economic reasons for the conflicts with the Jesuits. The text of the treaty of Madrid is found here. Unfortunately I don't read Portuguese. Please let me know if you need more references. I don't have access to any non-open scientific journals though. bamse (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your name over at the GOCE. Could you take a look at Fritz the Cat and see if it needs any work done? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it, and then respond on your talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the sloppy writing. I took out "best known", which was intended to mean that Fritz the Cat is well-known. Reading it as "best known" probably implied for some readers that most of the comix somehow disappeared from existence. Sorry for that confusion! I also clipped the sentence about the original incarnation of the character from the lead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry I've not got back sooner - recently I've not been online as much as normal. I did have a quick peek at the talk page, and there seemed to be a fair bit happening! I couldn't work out which part in particular you'd need a fresh opinion on (and there are plenty of parts where I'd be quite happy to avoid butting in!)

If you still think my opinion(s) would be helpful, let me know where in particular and I'll drop by.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "soapbox" banner for the talkpage would be helpful. Can any editor put up one? If so, could you point me toward the markup? If not, can you place the banner on the talk page? Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]