archive of inactive discussions Nov 2005-April 17 2006
I have requested mediation. You have made multiple slanderous personal attacks against me, accusing me of fraud and belonging to radical right wing militia groups, violating WP:NPA and have reverted the History of the United States Republican Party more than three times in one day, which is also against wikpedia rules. You have been notified. Citizenposse 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry about my reversion on the New Deal. I undid your work when I was not even aware of the content of your edits. I am tempted to explain the source of my confusion yesterday; but I really have no exc use for my carelessness and recklessness. 172 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey no hard feelings! thanks for the note. RJ Rjensen 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have worked recently on Labor history of the United States. I have been working on Labor history (discipline) about the development of labour history as an academic subject. If you have anything to contribute, especially about how labor history has developed in the US, I'd be grateful. Mattley 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for my comment yesterday on Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. It was a lot less personally intended than came out, and it was out of place to begin with. Please see my note on the talk page, and the new vote proposal I've added there. -- Woggly 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
We need some help building the Labor unions in the United States page. You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome. Travb 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you took up the invitation.
you wrote: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1932.
The original sentence I took from Amazon said: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century
Thanks for the intro--not to nitpick, and I will leave it standing as is, but from my reading the levels of unions is the lowest since the turn of the 20th century--which would correspond with the original. Minor issue, just something I am curious about. I pulled up this article, first one I found on google, and it says the rates of union membership for private employees was:
Now it is at 8.0%, from last I read... So maybe the correct statment would be American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1901? I have read this statment before in a similar form: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century
Again, I will leave the article as is with your new edits, and I will steer away from making filling in these blank portions of the article to avoid any disagreements. Instead, I want to focus on some of the particular strikes too avoid any arguements.
Maybe you are just the guy to ask:
I was in this silly fight a few months ago with this neocon on frontpagemag (before I found wonderful wikipedia) and he mentioned about the unemployment figures in Europe.
Since then, I have heard that the Europeans count there unemployment different than Americans--that the Reagan administration stopped counting workers who stopped looking for work.
If this is the case, what is the estimated change that this had on US unemployment figures? Would US unemployemnt figures then be roughly comparable to European unemployment figures?
At one point I actually looked up all of this on wikipedia, and found some great definitions, but was never able to find any definitive answer. Thanks in advance.... Travb 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi again Rjensen. Looks like we have the same interests, you popped up twice on two of my pages.
In regards to this minor edit, I disagree with it, but will leave it. [2] I feel the more information that users have the better, your edit deleted the ISBN number, publisher, and date the book was published. All I ask is think twice before taking out this format in the future. I probably was the person who added this information in this format, it takes a long time to look up all this information (for a good example of a section I changed see: Dick Cheney criticism section. Have a merry Christmas. Travb 19:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your contributions to this project. Your edits have been appearing on many of my watchlisted articles, and they're always good. You have expertise in areas in which I have only interest. That knowledge would be beneficial at a pair of articles which I've found problematic. Black codes and Morrill Tariff. If you have the time and interest to edit them that'd be swell. Cheers, - Willmcw 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Noticed your Grant edits. By sheerest of coincidences, I happened to find and subscribe to Questia just today. Do you think it is appropriate to point people to a website that charges a subscription for accessing material? Wikipedia normally has a more "free material" point of view. Do you know of other such links that have withstood review? Hal Jespersen 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What should not be linked to:
"Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." I would classify Questia as a bookstore, since you have to pay to get the books. How is it different from amazon.com? They have excerpts from the books too.
Also note: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."
I believe you have violated this one as well ( this link in the American Civil War article, for example). -- JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding references to articles, particularly on historical topics. I award you a barnstar for your good work. -- DS1953 talk 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I like what you've added to King Cotton article. And I see you've quoted a senator about the importance of cotton. My first question to you, can you give me the page number of the source you got that quote from, so that I may correctly cite it in article. Second, I saw you created a second reference section. May you please condence the two reference sections. Thank you -- ZeWrestler Talk 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your contributions to Henry Jarvis Raymond appear to be copied from http://www.aol.bartleby.com/226/1221.html this seems to be a copyright violation, and will be removed. Martin 12:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I've just gone through and rephrased most of the links to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. In a couple of cases (such as at The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)) I've removed the link from the opening section (since it's not really appropriate for what should be a summary of the most salient points of the article) and moved it to a point in the article which discusses relevant material. Where I could, I've added the {{seemain}} template for conformity of style with other Wikipedia articles. I'm a little uncertain about usages such as "See Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for further details" in article text, although I can't find anything in the Manual of Style against it. I think that it's generally better either to set such references aside (either through the {{seemain}} template or a "See also" section at the foot of the article) or to incorporate them into the text, as I did at Emerald City:
(I hope that I've got the details of that correct — I know little of the monetary debates of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and defer to your expertise on the subject. I was just trying to smooth out the article's style.)
By the way, I hope you're OK with the new title of the article. While I was working on the links tonight, it occurred to me that Scholarly interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might be better (as it would incorporate the historical/economic aspects as well), but I wanted to run it by you first. (Actually, I'd hoped you would chime in on the article's talk page, but you were probably busy elsewhere. No biggie.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Political interpretations" title seems ok. Wiki never puts "scholarly' in the title since many thousands of Wiki articles are based on scholarship. Rjensen 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I've noticed your name while looking through the history of several Labour related articles (like Labor history of the United States), and I wanted to mention the new WikiProject Organized Labour to you. It's only a week old, and still in flux, but it could definitely use more people who are interested in the topic. Cheers. -- Bookandcoffee 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all of the references you are adding? Rkevins82 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't need them please ignore them. If you are a student writing a paper then, yes indeed, you will need them. They average about 2-3 books a decade, which is only enough to get started. Rjensen 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, thank you for your additions to the West Virginia page. I wanted to inform you, though, that there is already a separate History of West Virginia article. I am sure your addition of a history and references in the main article would fit wonderfully in the History of West Virginia article instead as it is in dire need of help. Also, please consider voting for the West Virginia main article as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week--it can use the help of a wiki group effort! Thanks! -- Caponer 17:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
— Mark Adler (markles) 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to follow the guidelines: especially this one: "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors." and "Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work." I think the question is whether a) ONLY sources used recently by the editor go into References or, 2) the product of that active search for authoritative sources should also be there. Wiki is ambiguous and I prefer version 2 because it provides more help for the user. The basic Wiki principles are 1) we should help users; 2) we should use the approach prefrred in the discipline (history). Rjensen 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know if the connection between Stimson's honeymoon in Kyoto and his later vetoing of Kyoto as a target for the A-bomb is justified? It seems to me that it is possible that people have jumped to a conclusion here - he may well have enjoyed his honeymoon and he certainly said no to Kyoto being bombed but some evidence is needed to justify saying that these two facts are directly connected. If this evidence exists it should be in the article, if it doesn't then the article needs to be edited so as to not unjustly imply such trivial reasons for a major decision. -- Spondoolicks 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My recent removal of material about the causes of the Depression from the New Deal article was not due to any objection to the material. We just already have an article about the subject, as you now know. I removed it to make room for a possible merge of RJII's fork article, which apparently will not happen. Gazpacho 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? It was discussed, and deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Deal and economic fascism.
Note that I've become considerably more skeptical of RJII's motives since editing that AfD discussion. Gazpacho 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My problem with your edits is that they too one-sided. Mexico did violate the treaties, but so did Texas by refusing to free Santa Anna. True, the Mexican government refused to negotiate with the Texans, but it was more than willing to negotiate the American government once Texas was accepted into the Union. The breakdown of the negotiations with the US was because of Polk's insistence to send Slidell as plenipotentiary, something the US had explicitly agreed not as a condition for the negotiations to start. Polk knew the Mexican government would refuse to see Slidell, thus aborting the negotiations before they started.
The issue of the border was not too clear since it was agreed in the "secret" part of the Treaty, which was later rejected by the Mexicans anyway. The Texans also had problems securing the land across the Nueces. By the time of the negotiations with the US the strecht of land between the Nueces and the Grande was effectively No Man's Land, and that was the status quo for some time until the Thornton Affair, which started the whole thing.
You also fail to mention why the British diplomats intervened. They certainly did not do it out of unselfish sacrifice. The Americans at the time were eyeing expansion towards the Pacific, which made the British quite nervouse since their claim to the Territory of Oregon was pretty weak too and feared to be involved in another conflict with the Americans.
So far the only thing I agree with your edit is the fact that Mexico refused to recognize Texan independence, and the opposition for its "renegade province" to join the US.
To conclude yes, the Mexican government did many things wrong, but it was not exclusively their fault as your edit tends to imply. There's an excellent article published in Foreign Affairs (sometime last year) that went quite deep into the pre-war diplomaticy, and touches all the points I've mentioned above. I'll try to dig the reference.
I'll revert the page to what it was until you can make your edits less POV. Thanks. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
After your Revert War ( here), I think we need to calm things down and discuss your problems here.
Look at the discussion of Questia and its editing history. Questia is not the be-all end-all of sources. Yes, it has many good points, but direct citing to it will violate Wikipedia policy regarding bookstores and advertising. I notice from other comments above that I'm not the only editor concerned about your linking to Questia. You say it's not a bookstore— fine with me. It's a website that sells access to digitized versions of academic works. It even has some limited free access. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia policy if Questia is for-profit or not. Or if you have a membership or if memberships are free. It is still advertising at least. But don't worry I have a solution that really ought to work great for you!
Here's my solution for you: use ISBN. Let me explain… I like Amazon.com. Linking to it would have the same problems as linking to Questia. So what I've done is used a resource already built into Wikipedia: Book Sources (I used a bogus ISBN number ( 0 ) for this link) as well as Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers. You can change your preferences so that when you click on an ISBN link, it takes you to the book-place of your choice. It's a little tricky but since you're clearly a pretty smart person, you should be able to rig it up. Check out this link for directions: User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.
I don't have any problem with scholarly works or the scholarly process. In fact, I'm a big fan of formal systems and peer reviewing to proof works. I think it's a good idea the way you've added lots and lots of sources for further research. That's good. So is the segregation of primary from secondary/tertiary/etc. sources. Great. It ought to be done; nobody else has done it; and you're doing it.
The problem is POV. Saying that a book is an "essay by a scholar" is sort of redundant. Does that mean that other essays are by students? Or by dumb people? It is enough to say that it's an essay. Maybe you mean that the essay is by a professional historian, not a journalist. If your point is that a scholar wrote it, so it's more reliable or trustworthy, then mentioning "scholarly" is redundant. The platonicly perfect citation would not need to affirm its reliability. In fact, unreliable or untrustworthy works either should be noted as such or omitted altogether.
Think about these things and let me know (here) what you think. BUT I want you to wait a week (at least) so you've had time to think it over and to try linking to BookSources.
—
Mark Adler (markles) 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. First in order to understand where you come from, I felt I had done a fairly good re-presentation of the page which you have totally deleted and then say the page needs cleaning up.
As next, what were your objections to my opening comprehensive definition etc. and what would be your proposals for cleaning up ??. Problem is, the MMs are primarily Irish history right into the 20th century. Yes, I appreciate the American implications but these cannot simply override essential aspects for our Irish history. I was actually intending to put a map of Ireland up top. Why a map of Penn. when the origins are Ireland. I don't follow. Or perhaps we need two pages. MMs Ireland and MMs America ?? Please be helpfully constructive with your suggestions, thank you. Osioni 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please post comments to other users on their Talk Page, not their User Page. Thanks. -- JW1805 (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes and please stop vandalizing articles Rjensen 20:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, you need to be more careful about grammar and punctuation in your edits. To take just one example, this edit contains two ;; and a ] for no apparent reason. -- JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that you put comments about some of the references. For example "older but solid", "best", etc. I don't know if there is a convention for this or not, I realize you are probably trying to be helpful. But, I think some of your comments would be considered POV. I'm all for explaining what is in the reference that makes it relevant to the article, but I think judgements about the quality of the work should be avoided. If it's good, include it. If it isn't, then don't. -- JW1805 (Talk) 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that Wiki says: "It's a good idea to visit an academic or public library to have a look at the standard references. It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles." That is advice I do follow-- and when I see a standard reference I list it as such. [6] Rjensen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Statements like "Its purpose is not to help people decide what books to order!" are wildly out of line. You are imposing your own personal views on users. Let them decide if they want a book or not--surely that is what encyclopedias always have done. Look at the 1911 EB for example, or Encarta or World Book or EB today. Wiki rules TELL US to go to libraries and get the best books. Information we have about a best book, which the users do not have (because they have not seen the book) should be shared, NOT kept secret. I simply can't understand why you want to hide information from users. Rjensen 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I helped create Labor unions in the United States which this argument has apparently spilled over too. I suggest a couple of solutions to avoid a revert war between JW1805 and Rjensen.
Rjensen, cite your sources. If a book is considered a classic or the best book in the field, cite a couple of critics who say this. I have found in partisan debates that simply citing a source, which is unfortunatly neglected by most editors, is magical. As an example I can show you the selection of Further reading on the Philippine-American War, were I have added verbatium critics views on the book (some which have been deleted since then for being partisan).
I also suggest that we don't devolve into name calling, Rjensen shouldnt call JW1805 edits "vandalism" when the edits are explained.
I support Rjensen on this debate. I personally feel that any deletions, even well intentioned ones should always be looked upon with suspision. The advocate of such deletions must present a very convincing argument to overcome this presumption. I think JW1805 intentions are good, but the reasoning behind these intentions does not overcome the high hurdle that any deletions should pass.
From my personal experience with Rjensen, he/she is very stubborn and initially uncoperative in his/her vision of what an article looks like, but this is because he/she is very well read in the subjects he/she contributes too.
Again, Rjensen a big solution to this problem is citing book reviews which support these analysises. It will not only make your argument stronger, but more important, it will make the article much better. Travb 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
User JW1805 invited me over to make a comment. I am mostly in the American Civil War space. I'd like to advocate the following views, some of which appear above:
Hal Jespersen 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I read your last addition to Canadian and American politics compared with interest. I must confess that it was I who introduced the assertion about Canadian and American political dynasties. As your addition and others make clear, the truth of that assertion depends on what you mean by dynasty. The Bushes, Romneys, Gores, etc. strike me as families who have benefited significantly from continued political involvement, but now that you mention it, dynasty may not be the appropriate word for them. I suppose what is needed is a clear definition.
What do you consider a political dynasty to be? Do you know of a scholarly definition we could use to clarify the issues? My additions to that article have never been scholarly – I edited the article a lot because when I ran across it it contained a lot of inaccuracy and propaganda.
If we can't come up with a good definition I'd be happy to take that section out. it's only a side issue, and the inflation of that one parsgraph is detracting from the article, which has enough other problems. John FitzGerald 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the definition. I'm also trying to figure out what I meant by the observation in the first place. Perhaps I meant that it was more difficult for the rich to win seats in Canada, since more people could compete with them. I could estimate how many prominent Canadian families have produced 3 or more politicians over 40 years. Or I could actually show some enterprise and see f there's any research on this topic. Anyway, I'm going to do something with your definition. More later. John FitzGerald 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
... Eisenhower. Sfahey 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you added Salazar back into the Politics section of the Mexican American article. Look at the List of United States Senators from New Mexico and you'll see that Joseph Montoya served in the U.S. Senate "in recent times". I'm not even actually sure that Larrazolo was the first, but the date seemed to place him there. There have also been numerous Mexican American representatives in the House. The Mexican American article is in constant need of work, so I appreciate your efforts there. But politics are nothing new to Mexican Americans.-- Rockero 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I noticed this edit of yours at the Andrew Johnson article. I've seen this claim before about Johnson being a runaway "slave" (or indentured servant). It's on several other webpages, and most notably was once on Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" (certainly not a scholarly source!). Can you provide a specific source that refutes this claim? Or have any idea how this story got started? I would like to include it in the article as a common misconception or urban legend. That way, people won't keep adding it back. -- JW1805 (Talk) 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in a clarification about the image removed from the CCC artcile. Is it because the Deschutes project was under the Bureau of Reclamation? The sources I have seem to interchange CCC and Bureau of Reclamation on the Deschutes project. Perhaps the relationship between the two agencies is something you could clarify in one or both of those articles.
On an unrelated note, I've been filling in alphabet agencies as I discover them. One web site claims there are 59. Do you have a tip on where to find others? JonHarder 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said people in Mexico City called themselves "Mexican Americans", so what's your justification for removing a section on the redundancy of the term Mexican American ? -- Deepstratagem 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Copying your old published work hardly makes you a specialist. I've noticed plenty of errors in your reasoning to question any lable of "specialist" I also do not like your deletion of sources outside academia. They are NOT always the best sources. Take Nita Rudra, Joseph Stiglitz, or TJ Pempel...all of them "great scholars" with big reputations in academia, who in my opinion have a penchant for destorting information, confusing variables, and ignoring many others to secure a point.
Rudra slaughtered the stolper samuelson model, Pempel made a sophmoric arguement believing that because the fixed exchange rates worked for 15 years or so that it could not be the problem in the Asian Financial Crisis, and Stiglitz built a massive strawman out of his free market opponents and distorted a great deal of information, or just plain ignored other bits of information and left it out of his famous book "Globalization and its Discontents".
Just being an academic, hardly makes one a specialist. (Gibby 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
No, seriously what data? I'm just asking for alittle data tid bit I dont think saying "whites data contradicts..." is suffecient. Can you just write alittle more. (Gibby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
Well I dont beleive in panics or any of that herd mentality in regards to investors but just because a domestic buisness sector argued for tariffs does not mean it might not hurt them, furthermore, tariffs always hurt the consumer.
Companies will argue for tariffs if the absense of tariffs causes them some kind of harm or extra costs...such as companies with homogenus factors in relation to foriegn companies. For example use of unskilled labor or even agriculture, especially in labor scarce countries. With these variables it is very rational to argue in favor of tariffs to raise consumer costs so that foriegn competor goods are priced with your own.
I can see how rising tariffs can slow the economy as tariffs are a wealth redistrobution from poor to rich which slows the economy and it also acts as a an incentive for not solving effeciency, productivity, and innovation problems that would protect the company in absent of the tariffs (what i mean is that with the tariffs they do not act effecienty, they do not produce properly, and they do not innovate thier product as well as the foriegn competitor...thus in the long run companies are worse off and require more tariffs. This being the case, and also the case that tariffs had been rising for some time, it could be argued that American buisnesses were running into effeciency, production, and innovation problems that were indicitive of some future economic meltdown... not to mention the wasted resources of society because of high costs and factors being directed into a lower valued use both cause declines in potential economic growth if not a decline in growth alltogether.
Tariffs do have a role to play as an important variable in what caused the great depression perhaps Wanniski is wrong...i'd have to read his article, but I dont think tariffs can be dismissed as an explination quite yet. (Gibby 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
IF thats what he said is the single variable or single most important variable then i'd have to disagree. I'd say deflationary preasure and later inflationary preasure is what caused the great depression, over regulation and taxation worsended it, and economic interference and more regulation sustained it...in my opinion.
And yes the effeciency look is a long run outlook...years is correct but by years we've noticed it doesnt take more than 30 to notice major differences. GM was calling for greater tariffs after Japan had been making cars for less than 20 years. GM has continued to call for tariffs and other trade barrier restrictions for the remaining 35...(Gibby 06:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
I think we're pretty well agreed here. Rjensen 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I saw your discussions about this and FWIW I wanted to chime in, perhaps settle it.
A. Whatever you think of Wanniski, it is wrong to say that nobody in scholarly circles agrees with him that the tariff act triggered the crash. A quick google search found this abstract of a recent academic paper that looks like it argues something similar.
B. Rjensen is wrong to say that since the business community "insited on its passing so it's hard to see why they would behave as if it were going to hurt them." E.E. Schattschneider gave us the answer to this paradox in 1934 in THE standard scholarly book about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, and also the most comprehensive book about it ever written. He shows that the businessmen all tried to get benefits INDIVIDUALLY for their own companies, but the problems the tariff caused were CUMULATIVE. Britain, Germany, and all the other countries didn't retaliate against the U.S. because one businessman got protection for his company (which would've advantaged him if no other did). They retaliated because thousands of businessman got their tariffs and it cumulatively put taxes on almost every major competitor import. What was good on a company-by-company basis was terrible when taken all together at the same time.
C. Scholarly consensus is that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was generally a very bad thing. The only credible debate about it is ENTIRELY around the extent of its ramifications. Every credible scholar agrees that it killed trade at the worst possible time. Some stop there. Others go further and say that the death of trade also incited other events like a banking crisis. Trade economist
B. I agree S-H made it worse, for the reasons Schattschneider says. C. I agree. But I also think Friedman-Schwartz have identified an even more important monetary factor. Lots of things were going wrong at the same time. But should Wiki bring in Wanniski with his superficial "research"? He argued something else (that the POSSIBILITY of SH passage CAUSED the depression in 1929--I can't find any scholar that agrees). Rjensen 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The second half of this article has many names of academics who have validated various aspects of Wanniski's argument. Trade economist
TE, but was Wanniski saying that the SHTA caused the great depression? Because the great depression technically (Well the recesion) began well before Black Tuesday and Black Tuesday was several months before SHTA even passed. What can be said, which the article currently does, was that SHTA caused a worsening of depression conditions. (Gibby 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Well if anything the depression actually began as a recession well before octobe 1929. If such a SHTA meeting took place in october just before the black tuesday that is just not a strong enough correlation given recession signs well before then. I still think we should say that the SHTA contributed to worsening economic conditions. (Gibby 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Surely a Lincoln historian such as yourself are aware of the photograph of Lincoln taken by John Batchelder in the White House only hours after his body taken there, the photograph proven since as authentic taken by Batchelder within 24 hours of Lincolns assasination, re: Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130"),
From the book: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."
This alone shows the importance of this photograph and its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and scholars.
Not looking for a fight Rjensen,....only seek the truth.... "...with malace towards none...and charity for all" A.L. peace out. ( Cathytreks 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Hi Rjensen, I am glad we can talk about this way, you have every right to be skeptical and I do not blame you! There have been too many pretenders out there to make skeptic's of us all, but please go to the link i'm providing and order the book for yourself? I too was shocked at first, but am now a believer in the photographs authenticity, meanwhile in the interests of peace and truth seeking I have placed the article with the phto as a link at the bottom of the Lincoln article untill it passes the test of you and the other understandable skeptics. please believe me...I am in earnest about this matter! I will provide more proofs for you and other naysayers in the days ahead...it is all part of my on going research on the great President...done with respect and honour. ( Cathytreks 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)) [ [7]
Please no need for calling this one in the catagory of a hoax!, And that answer to your question as to why I think its real...is an easy one, at least for me, Rjensen. The John B. Bachelder family is still in possesion of it, as is stated in the book and kindly allowed Mr. Lloyd Ostendorf (a highly respected and well known Lincoln Authority!) permission to use it in his book on the complete photography collection of President Lincoln, please allow me to get my scanner at work and i'll reprint the piece in its entire form, meanwhile you might google the subject yourself as there is more on this photograph than you might suspect?, best wishes, Cathy ( Cathytreks 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
I did not previously know where John B. Bachelder's decendants had lived but do so now Sir, and they had this to say in the 1800's for added proof in Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130, on page 274 it states: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription:
"Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."
So "Uncle Bachelder" a noted photographer as well known as Brady in his day, seemingly did in fact take that hidden historic shot, then proccessed them at Bradys studio...so what? As this is not a hoax situation... the truth wil prevail as its unveiled, right guys?, I feel now after reading that article Rjensen provided us in my belief of the photographs authenticity all the more. , the article which went out of its way to not mention the actual Batchelder photograph, plus it also mistated several key facts of the events of the immediate days following the asasination on April 16, 1865 regarding Batchelder, Brady, and others. The death photo "O-130" of Lincoln in its authenticity is proved now more than ever.
( Cathytreks 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
Are you being serious with your edits to this article??? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that you do careful work so I am asking you to look at what has happened with the last 4 edits to John C Calhoun by a single editor. I don't know whether this is valid information or vandalism or what? Thanks Hmains 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it; good. Hmains 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to add some sources, but I don't think any of them really back up your point about the Bob Jones incident contributing substantially to McCain's loss in SC. The Salon article does seem to discuss how it hurt him in the Super Tuesday states, but doesn't discuss South Carolina at all. The Religious Tolerance site says pretty much the same thing, but more about his attack on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There's a pretty simple solution to this. Just write a seperate paragraph about Super Tuesday and how these incidents affected his performance there. Also, I do think the way it is worded as far as "reporters said" and "what reporters call" is very awkward and unneccesary. I had changed it to make it read better while retaining the meaning, but you reverted it back. If you have no objections, I will change it back. - Maximusveritas 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, would you mind taking a look at this article? There is a conflict about the question whether area bombing is to be noted as a possible crime. Get-back-world-respect 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on American System (economics). The otherwise-obscure topic is very important to the Lyndon LaRouche philosophy, and so there is natural tendency for believers in that philosophy to inflate its importance, or to bend it to their own interpretation. I'm sure the article could be better with your help. Cheers, - Will Beback 09:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this edit. What does it relate to specifically? And why was it inserted in the middle of the article rather than at the end? Kaldari 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted so write “Thanks” for your work on this article, and on all the articles I've seen you do work on.
Thanks!
— DLJessup ( talk) 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In actuality, the concept of neoliberalism predates Clinton. If you read the neoliberalism article in full, a paragraph down it will state "In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism." It even states in the GOP article that the party is widely recognized as being more socially conservative and economically neoliberal. If you examine the economic principles of the GOP and the DLC (Clinton's democratic platform), you will in fact find that they are both "right wing" and fairly similar except for a few key differences. Therefor, you see, the GOP and the DLC are both considered neoliberal. -- Howrealisreal 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In terms of economic principles, they are actually very similar. Social issues aside, both are pro-gloalization. Let's remember that NAFTA was originally introduced by George H.W. Bush, and then executed under Bill Clinton. Neoliberalism = free markets, which both Clinton, Bush, GOP, DLC all were interested in expanding (with minor tweaks for each). Regardless, they all were promoting the same neoliberal flavor of economics. -- Howrealisreal 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confused. Neoliberalism is directly in contrast to what you see as "liberal". The New Deal is very different, if not the opposite, of neoliberalism. One is on the economic left wing, and the other is on the right wing. Don't be afraid just because you see that bad L word in there, it's something entirely different. -- Howrealisreal 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. This has been a learning experience. One of my favorite websites has helped me realize that I am not totally correct: globalissues.org has "A Primer on Neoliberalism" that breaks it down clearly:
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.
And so the dilemma is that while currently, George W. Bush represents a very hard right (more so than his most recent Democratic competitors) he also is very stern in subsidizing the War on Terror via the military-industrial-complex. While economically neoliberal, the melange of more authoritarian values makes him fit the neoconservative criterion better. But the article in question is not just about Bush, it's about the GOP in general so I'm not sure if the same situation generally applies to all Republicans. Perhaps, the terms neoliberal and neoconservative should be used to explain the party's philosophies, explaining that more recently there has been a synthesis toward neoconservative perspectives. -- Howrealisreal 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. Could you please assume good faith, instead of calling me a "child at play"? If your opinion differs from mine, in that you do not think Bush's Google Bomb info should be included, you can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks :) EuroSong 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the copyright status of http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ ? I couldn't find any statement on whether they're claiming or disavowing having a copyright to their version. —wwoods 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
On the recent Thomas Jefferson edits. The various things I disagree with:
The narrative can be moved but that splits the discussion and makes article hard to follow. Topical breakdown seems to work OK. The activist judges theme was very important to Jefferson--and to FDR in 1937 as well as conservatives today. One reason Jefferson is important is that people today use his ideas. And yes there is serious discussion in last year over removing Supreme Court jurisdication on some hot-button issues. Rjensen 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
They do not meet fair use criteria. For fair use criteria to apply, we need a few things:
I shall continue to delete the covers that are not fair use.
Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
--Reduction is NOT a fair use criterion in law or practice. However, the original cover resolution was high grain film--tens of millions of pixels. Try blowing up the thumbnail to 8x11 inches and see the difference. They are used carefully. They only are used in major bio articles which refer exactly to that cover. Time in fact is gving these versions away free. So let's not blank any more--and read up on copyright law. (And yes I have been on panels at law schools on fair use & the internet. Rjensen 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence in reverting, you made me realize that the user who keeps deleting our complaint may be incorrect.
This is what I wrote on their user page:
Regarding your deletes
I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response. Travb 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
(later)
BTW, I think the comparison of US labor and the world should stay on the page temporarily until all of the other portions about US labor have been filled out. Right now there is little content on the page. I have always agreed it should move, but only when the article is too long.
I know that the info is not top labor scholars, I had a lot of problems with this woman's book, it tended not to be very scholarly. As soon as there is more content (hopefully from yourself, you seem like an expert on the field)--I will happily move it. Thanks for all your efforts. Travb 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Enforcing fair use, even if it it erroneously (and I am personally not convinced that is so) is not vandalism and never will be. Your continued listing of Ta bu shi da yu on WP:VIP is extremely hostile and disruptive, please desist. I am removing it now, for the final time. Dmcdevit· t 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen - You scoundrel! You reverted my revert, and your reason was "his philanthropy was systematic & led by experts not by personal whims." But that's exactly my point.
I certainly appreciated the irony, and think the Wiki readers would as well. I guess from your profile that you're a careful sort and not enamored of people reverting your well-considered contributions. Please consider how much more annoying it must be when an editor does this because they agree with you! So, I ask you, kind sir, to please return my snippet.-- DocGov 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The same user deleted all of the photos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Ta+bu+shi+da+yu&page=&limit=500&offset=0
He has deleted hundreds of photos. Travb 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. you report it this time. Rjensen 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry to hear that. :( I was hoping you would say something different. That you would rally me to action.
Just to make sure we are on the same page about Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the court ruled that thumbnail photos was fair use, low quality images do not break copyright and are therefore legal. This is very similar to the deleted Time magazine photos.
I am not sure about your statment about non-profits never losing a case in regards to fair use, but I don't doubt it. As I argued before to deaf ears, www.commondreams.org takes entire articles and posts them on their site.
I will have to look on google to see what H-Net is. Best regrards. Travb 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In one of your edits you added "3 See Flick: op. cit., I, p. 285." to an otherwise unnumbered reference section and unlinked to anything in the text. What does it refer to? Rmhermen 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the civil discourse about Able Archer 83 on Talk:Ronald Reagan. cheers Natebjones 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You have no source and you are a racist that edits only out of hate. 69.218.181.192 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no way to prove that, though, can't tell from one poll and it is very unlikely to end up exactly 50-50. And there was no change in 1968 that made 50 percent of Irish Catholics switch parties. 69.218.181.192 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I happened to see your edits on Chemical warfare (I contriubted the Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report portion and am determined to make sure it stays).
I notice that you are using weasel words "most people" and uncited sources in your additions. I just wanted to let you know, what I usually do is to avoid a revert war, I find a book or magazine which supports my contention (99% of the time I have already read what I want to add, but 1% of the time I try and find a source afterward to back up my previous additions) and footnote it. Guaranteed if you cite and footnote your edit people will think twice before reverting your additions. Travb 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I posted this on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hallow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses.
My message:
I did something that administration didn't do:
I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.
Subject: RE: AskArchivist
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500
From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: travb****@yahoo.com
Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.
Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a
link back to the entire article at time.com.
You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.
Best regards,
Bonnie Kroll
Ask the Archivist
I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.
Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Time_Magazine. Lupo 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to disagree. Why would his overseeing the war belong in intro (without even making clear he was president at the time & not a genreal) - while context for the assassination (something sorely omitted in most articles) be omitted? Lincoln's assassination was not like that of Kennedy - Lincoln's was clearly linked to a plot and to events of his presidency. The JFK article gives context to his asassination, even though it is less clear that the act was anything more than senseless. While other assassinations were committed by apparently deranged people, Lincoln's can be "understood" as part of the Civil War. I see no reason to delete this.-- JimWae 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did I even suggest otherwise re being in charge? Biographies (and their intros) are also about the significance of people's lives, not just what they did. Using your argument, the intro would not even mention the assassination. Mentioning the plot also "gives a hook" to the reader -- JimWae 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And why is his managing the war "more intro-worthy"? Leave out the plot & you leave out any hook at all. -- JimWae 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You have trivialized the introduction -- JimWae 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Their answer is not terribly satisfactory: I've seen this already. Firstly, most of those articles don't have any text describing them in the article. Secondly, the image sizes need to be reduced. Thirdly, most of the images are being used to illustrate the image of the subject, not talk about the TIME article itself. And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, we (Wikipedia) frowns on fair use. We only want it when it is absolutely the only image that can illustrate an article: otherwise we want GFDL license compatible images. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for clearing up the question on Redeemers. Thanks also for posting the new article on Bourbon Democrats. Great job!! James084 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You have done a lot of good work, go ahead and move my entry on the labor page to a new page, if you still want to.... Travb 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thought you may want to comment. Travb 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can you take a second and comment on this RfC? Thanks in advance. Travb 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen,
About the historical rankings statement: it's a good thing to add to the article, but it is simply an opinion statement. If placed in the intro (which is, after all, a summary of the article as a whole) it may unnecessarily bring up issues of bias. Also, the rest of the paragraph addresses the issues surrounding his presidency (both good and bad) in a satisfactory manner.
I'd like to hear your side of the story concerning your edit. You are welcome to post a message on my talk page, so we can sort out any differences.
Thank you, Cdcon 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions; that article has been sitting for a long time and I'm happy you moved it along a bit. Kaisershatner 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You've probably broken WP:3RR on Richard J. Daley. Don't do this or you will be blocked; see WP:AN3. William M. Connolley 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Rjensen 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've adapted my language on a couple of pages. You did well. Thanks. Now here's a question for you: what is the origin of the term neoabolitionist or neo-abolitionist? It seems like a misnomer. If not, what were they trying to abolish? Does Foner et al. use that term himself or did some other faction put that name on him/them? When I googled the term, it popped up first on Wikipedia, then on the many sites that copy Wikipedia so that is self-reinforcing, not exactly explanatory. Many thanks. skywriter 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving my ideas about the neo-abolitionist page to its Talk page. See you there! skywriter 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the neoabolitionist page. It's better. I'm wondering about this: attacked for corruption the Radical Republican coalition, including the national leader Thaddeus Stevens When I looked at the Thaddeus Stevens page, there's no hint anyone thought he was personally corrupt. Who made the accusations that Stevens was corrupt? Were they valid? skywriter 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently created United States Housing Authority. Looks like a topic you may be interested in if you haven't already seen the new article. JonHarder 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you comment at Talk:Southern literature. Someone wants to change the article's title from Southern literature to Southern American literature (or the like). What they are hinting at is that the title is biased because it assumes a United States POV. Editors here do this type of PC renaming all the time but in this case I want to fight it because the genre of literature is not known as anything BUT Southern Literature and to change the accepted name of something is not encyclopedic. Thanks.-- Alabamaboy 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Sometimes I don't fight this type of stuff when it doesn't matter but in this case it would mean changing an accepted literary term. Best,-- Alabamaboy 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You initiated this discussion, and you should accept that the consensus is against you. See Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines about this. -- JW1805 (Talk) 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Questia links do NOT require subscriptions or registrations, the points that bothered some people. Nor does it sell books. Rjensen 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear policy on Wikipedia against self promotion. This includes links to your own personal webpages. The policy is (I'll find the exact link) if you think your personal site is a good reference, to mention it on the talk page, to let other users decide if it should be included. -- JW1805 (Talk) 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In Joseph Brant you wrote "He was the son of Aroghyiadecker (Nickus Brant), a prominent leader on the New York frontier during the mid-eighteenth century. His grandfather Sagayeeanquarashtow..."
You might want to look at Isabel Kelsay's life of Brant-- she says Brant was the stepson of Brant Canagaraduncka, who was a sachem; and Sagayeeanquarashtow was his "grandfather" only in the loose sense that he was an important member of his (step) family. She is also the source of my assertions that Brant's lowly birth was a problem for him throughout his life. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
He seems pretty well situated-powerful stepfather, grandfather, and a very powerful older sister. The point is that he was singled out for special prvilege at a young age--one of only three sent to the Yankee school, for example (I relied on O'Daniel's study in Edmunds; the DAB says he was the son of a chief.) Rjensen 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm.. Out of sheer curiousity, how do you know that Wilson's earliest memory was at age three? Wilson was almost four years old when Lincoln won the election. Check the dates. Do you know where the age 3 fact comes from? Are you saying that Alice Osinski's published information is wrong..? I'm sorry if I am breaking Wiki customs or something, I am not a member, and I haven't edited anything before. However, I am writing a research paper on Wilson right now, and thought that it might be useful to fix that age and provide further verification that he actually remembered that bit. Cheers! - Eric. 12.223.117.91 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Will you please review your edits. You have deleted almost all the footnotes for the article and have left the note section looking like a disaster. I will assume good faith, but I can't help but be left with the impression that you are not reviewing the page after editing. Jtmichcock 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
OK--but in turn please do not include lots of trivia (like boy scout awards and useless dates) and please do not reference items of low importance. It leads to terrible clutter and a waste of user time. Most of the info is in the biographies in the first place or in the Ford websites that are already listed. In other words: ref is useful for high quality info that is not readily available. Rjensen 20:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is going to Peer Review in just a few hours and thereafter into FAC. I'm certain that there will be a consensus reached on what constitutes trivia. Jtmichcock 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I am not familiar with this template - just found the second great awakening from the Joseph Smith, Jr. page - and am in general a fan of navigation templates - if there is concensus that this formulation of generations is not widely accepted - shouldn't the template be listed for deletion? personally, I don't agree with the way it pigeonholes some of the generations through which I have lived :) - thx - Trödel 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What you say here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, Sir!
That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sir!
Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sir!
I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3. for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find!!!
(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)
Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare to say that you and your alter ego "Looney Pilgrim", are not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which they have not even bother to investigate themselves in detail, as I have viewed the photograph personaly and WILL NOT BE CALL A LIAR BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE SIR!
The "in depth" research I have done, by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", and that cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature!
In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3
If this continues I shall consider a law suit against you for defamation of character... Sir! You are not a Lincoln Scholar as I am, and am in fact a multi-degree Professor, with a Doctorate in History. Sir!
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
I would be thankful if you would now leave off, Sir!
( Cathytreks 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
I am nearly blind, due to diabete's forgive me my failing eyes? ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry foralling Rjensen a troll, they are not but have hurt my feelings terribly just for my part of standing by my beliefs in the picture. ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Gosh I had to remove it. It is so terrible. Im sorry I just cant stand it. We can work the deist issue out but please dont put it back. It really doesnt belong there. Do you see how its commentary? What gives a biographer authority to decide the religious views of one of the most influential founding fathers? He didnt even know Jefferson and as I said before he only has limited information to work with. It really doesnt belong there.
71.131.180.37 08:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading thru this discussion page. Wiki is like a RELIGION to people! You stir up a LOT of hornets nests!! I don't mean it to be negative, only by way of commentary. Wow!! SimonATL 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen...you disgraced wiki for attacking my character here as well as now illegaly removing my edit on your page for the blight you did against me on the Lincoln Talk page, and stirred up A HORNETS NEST, that would be having everyone against me for what in the end became a debate for even trying... to get the truth out as many scholars have in the past, and whom continue to debate that photograph you smeared as a hoax and a lie, to this day more and more....why?
You illegaly removed my departure note to you on this wiki user page in violation of wiki policy, they have been informed, Sir!
I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?
I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,
Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!
A PERSONAL HERO TO MANY!
ABRAHAM LINCOLN!
I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.
I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.
I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....
Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves
shalom
....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."
So...see ya round the galaxy here. ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Just a corteousy message that I mentioned your name on User talk:Jmabel here [11]. You really had me fooled over at Labor Unions: International comparisons.
I thought you were an expert, who knew what you were talking about. How many of those books have you actually read?
The whole ugly mess at Business Plot as I wrote User talk:Jmabel, makes me realize that underneath your "thin layer of authority, which is very convincing...is a POV warrior, who will manipulate and even invent sources to support his own POV." Travb 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you. The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."
What can we do on Business Plot to avoid an RfC. I had to go through arbitration once and even though I "won" it was a horrible, time consuming experience, which I don't want to repeat. It was a hollow, empty victory.
I find your editing conduct highly objectionable, but you do seem very intellegent and open to comprimise. You seem to know more anout the Business Plot then almost ever single person on wikipedia, including, in some respects, me. I have to thank you because if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know as much about the Business Plot as I do now. Your agressive stance forced me to become an ametuer expert in some aspects of the Business Plot.
Unfortunatly my sharp words and quick temper do not help the situation either.
What would you suggest? I am open to suggestions. Business Plot has been an ongoing argument for months, solely between you and me, what can we do to end this?
Please, I welcome your suggestions. Travb 14:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Cathy wouldn't mind reviewing YOUR death photo, apparently. :)(
____________
Thats not funny, or fair, I bear no grudge against Rjensen, but seek only the truth.
Photograph?.....or Very well done Engraving of Lincoln?
Whether it was came across to some as an unintended hoax (by me! I thought it genuine ..) or a real photograph, or maybe just a exstraordinary and remarkable likeness via a well done engraving, done post mortem is not known, but the likeness to Lincoln is uncanny as well as haunting in it's portrayal of him,
With out question The photographer or engraver Bachelder, knew Lincolns face very well...HE WAS THERE the day after with Brady at Lincolns side, that cannot be debated..it is history.
Bachelder was both an artist and an early photographer and he knew his subject well...the original photo may have been destroyed, and all that is left is Bachelders extraordinary likeness of it.
I have updated the description page of the likeness..thusly.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg ( Cathytreks 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Hello there, - You have done much adding and deleting in WWI recently, and I wonder, why the deleting? Most of the deleted information are quite important and were not compensated or included somehow in your addition! __Most appreciatively, -- Maysara 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Ku Klux Klan article, which I changed yesterday and you changed back, really requires more explanation. As it stands, it is a particularly unclear statement. Are there actually many other "new terms" starting with the letters "K" and "L" that are meant to sound Greek? Are you implying that inventing "new terms" in this way was a practice specific to that era, or that such naming is so common today that it requires no further explanation? I hate to quibble over minutia, as I can see you are very busy here on Wikipedia, but I really think additional information needs to be inserted into that sentence in order for it to make sense. Dunne409 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just read your addition to Reagan coalition, and I would like to thank you for the good job. Thanks. Eivind t @ c 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the above article, it's great to see another person taking an interest. I hope that you don't mind, but I propose to revert your changes.
i) I'm not sure what was wrong with linking and capitalising the 'General' in the phrase 'Boer General during the Boer war'. 'General', as a military rank, seems to be a word that it is reasonable to link to and is almost always capitalised.
ii) Smuts's role after the two World Wars was not confined to the League of Nations and the UN. He played a significant part in the Versailles negotiations and was a trusted advisor to Churchill after WW2. I thought that 'played a leading part in the post war settlements at the end of both world wars' encompassed it quite well.
iii) Again I think that Smuts did a lot of work outside the Commonwealth in respect of imperial-colonial relations. Well before the Satute of Westminster, he sought to redefine relations, these had their culmination in the Commonwealth but were largely done outside it.
I hope that you don't mind too much, I just think that the previous edit better captured the nuances of his role.
Xdamr 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, I must apologise for having reverted your good-faith edit on the Ku Klux Klan article earlier on. Perhaps because I have previously seen numerous cases in which this particular article was vandalised, I made a hastened decision to revert which, in this case, was wrong. I will be more careful in my anti-vandalism reverts for now on. Please do not take offense - I do not consider you a vandal at all; it was my mistake. Once again, please accept my apologies. - Tangotango 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, I am still editing Business Plot, particularly the timeline, would you like me to come back later while you edit now? I don't want the dreaded conflicting edits message. Let me know.... Travb 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on the Ku Klux Klan article and, as I've said, you have a lot of good information. I also appreciate the support you've given me before on Southern literature. I'm not quite sure, though, why you are so opposed to the prescript. According to my research, it appears to be a valid part of the article. Just curious. Best, -- Alabamaboy 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pmanderson Ultramarine 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies Rjensen, I meant to use {{inuse}}. I used the wrong template,my mistake, my apologies. To avoid edit conflicts, please refrain from editing the talk page. Travb 09:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been with Wiki for almost 5 years and an administrator for 3 - i therefore feel entitled to be given some respect. i put the POV check on Ronald Reagan at the request of others - please do not treat me like an anon vandal to be reverted on sight - i could bring a complaint against you for such behaviour and i should - but i won't - all i want is the respect due of a Wiki veteran please. PMA 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the any possibility of redemption for 7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery, or should the deletion continue? Though each instance may be true, it is an odd compilation. You help and judgment would be appreciated. Cheers, - Will Beback 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you disputing that this is a history book? -- JeffW 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at corporate liberalism? I've gotten the who but not the what. Thanks. -- RedJ 17 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Title: CORPORATE LIBERALISM RECONSIDERED: A REVIEW ESSAY. Citation: Journal of Policy History 1991 3(1): 70-84. ISSN: 0898-0306
Abstract: Reviews James Livingston's Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 (1986) and Martin J. Sklar's The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (1988), two books that discuss corporate liberalism, an ideology in which the principles of classical liberalism are "reconstituted to assimilate large-scale concentrations of property and organizational hierarchy associated with the modern corporation." Livingston accepts Berk's criticism of his argument but disagrees with Berk's contention that there was an alternative to the evolution of corporate capitalism. Vogel disagrees with Berk's view that there was an alternative to corporate capitalism during the Progressive Era, claiming that small business existed and continues to exist alongside mass production rather than as an alternative to it. Rjensen 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate getting your side on the issues being discussed at Talk:Business Plot. Thanks. Fagstein 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your up to date on economics; could you take a look at my edits on Laissez-faire and see where I may have made factual mistakes. If you agree with the challenging editor, then that is okay; at least I have an honest opinion from someone who knows. This editor stalks every edit I do and challenges everything I add as you well know from the American System page. I am not perfect so your critic however harsh or in favor is worth the time for me; as you've been a fair editor in the past. Thanks. -- Northmeister 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, Your attitude is completly against wikipedia policy. On three wikipages:
You delete referenced material because it does not fit your POV. Your behavior at business plot was appaling:
I called a third opinion on your immature attitude on Business Plot, and those third parties encouraged you to stop deleting items.
Now you have started deleting several referenced paragraphs on United States presidential election, 1900, with no discussion. Despite my continued encouragement to talk about your deletions, you are starting a new revert war on United States presidential election, 1900, with little explanation, deleting several well referenced items.
I didn't want to have an arbitration and I have tried everything in my power to avoid one. But I don't want to spend months reverting your deletions on United States presidential election, 1900, have you make up sources which don't exist, and have to show that you know little about the topic, prove you wrong, and still have to fight your POV.
That said, I am going to call another third opinion on United States presidential election, 1900. The worst that I will be blamed for is being uncivil. If this behavior continues, then I will be forced to start arbitration. Travb 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1996.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read several of the books on that list and they are not technical. I may be willing to back down on the "Further Reading" list, pending checking of Wikipedia policy, but the "External links" lists and uncited reference in the "References" section have to go. - 69.243.49.152 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the links--what is the problem? Why should users not have them? Rjensen 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you check this new page, if you get the time ( Republic of New Hampshire)? Is it accurate? (Also - you might want to archive some of this talk page; it's so long that it's going to choke some browsers.) = DavidWBrooks 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, those new references you use are awesome. Thanks for indeirectly teaching me them.
I apologize because I assumed bad faith on Philippine-American War today. After all our strong arguments, I guess I started to think the worst. I thought you had deleted all of the footnotes, when only one of the footnotes was actually broken.
After all of the water under the bridge, and our startly different POV, and my short temper, I we can another truce as we did at Labor unions in the United States.
anyway, thanks for the teaching me the new way of referencing. Travb 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just trolling recent changes and came across your comment about Lieberman on Talk:Democratic Party. "No, not that one...the one we're talking about was the 2000 VP nominee..." Hilarious reply. Kaisershatner 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to discuss your edits to that page. Please take a look at it before I wikified it. It was bare bones. This is no edit war, but I do feel a few links, such as for Catholics, are justified in their return. WillC 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You have chosen to revert-out important information regarding Truman's relationships with Gen Douglas MacArthur and President-Elect Eisenhower, both of whom publicly displayed their low esteem of Truman.
Your comment 'del gossip' implies heresay basis. Both relationships were clearly visible in news photos and television coverage of Truman with these two important individuals from American history. I strongly disagree with the 'gossip' label.
I have to confess, very puzzled here?
Closet History Buff-California
Consensus among scholars: Not a realistic criteria when coming to a topic like Truman. Given the hard-liberal bent of 'scholars', I would expect that the 'consensus' would be highly reluctant to be wholly objective when it comes to one of their 'darling' presidents.
Wake Island episode 'probably false': Sorry, can't disagree more. I have read the episode in more than one place. [Alas, cannot cite here and now.] At least one of the sources likely from a daily newspaper, such as Los Angeles Times, which indeed might be one of my sources, as we subscribed to it at the time of the incident.
Lots of people dislike each other: The firing of MacArthur was one of the top [or bottom] defining moments of Truman's presidency. Comments regarding the low esteem in which Truman was held, both by him and Eisenhower are therefore relevant to his total picture. The two individuals are not radicals taking pot shots from the sidelines, they were both highly involved in America's history in the period that Truman occupied the White House. [Or maybe I should say 'Blair House'?] And neither personal interface is typical of relationships between presidents and their military-experienced VIP's. I believe the information should be included in the Truman Policies section.
CHB-CA
point conceded re the circling / jockeying planes; I did find how THAT story gained legs: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/wake/meeting.htm "His plane arrived about six o'clock the night before. Merle Miller's book [Merle Miller. Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. New York, Berkley Publishing Corporation, 1973] is completely wrong on that. There was no jockeying in the air as to which plane [MacArthur's or Truman's] would come down first."
That said, I can not concede the friendliness / hostile issues. MacArthur fumed to people that Truman was calling the Wake Island meeting for political reasons. Wanting to bask in MacArthur's early successes in Korea to bolster the off year elections to be held in 1952. Search on the linked page for 'political'.
See also: "And he [Truman] always just talked in front of us; everybody did. . . . Well he said, "Listen, you know I'm President, and you're the general, you're working for me." This was about the tone of it. All right, "You don't make any political decisions; I make the political decisions. You don't make any kind of a decision at all. Otherwise, I'm going to call you back, and get you out of there. If you make one more move, I'm going to get you out of there." . . . " Secret Service Agent Floyd Boring
And he did NOT salute the Commander in Chief: "General MacArthur strode to the foot of the landing ramp and, with hand outstretched, greeted the President. The President shook hands and remarked, "How are you, General? I'm glad you are here." There were no military honors or ceremony.
Thanks for making me dig this out... it was a quite useful exercise... very useful... I still think the stuff (taken from the TRUMAN LIBRARY WEB SITE), belongs in Truman's Policies pages... repeating myself, given what a debacle it was when he fired THE GENERAL...
Well, there ya go... we are poles apart on what the reality of the time was... the pablum reported by the media was the true situation... Conclusions: Most delusional attitudes, especially when based on irrational thought, are impossible to argue against...
I am ceding that there ARE swaths at Wiki that are black holes for objectivity and reality... and this page appears to be one of them...
It 'might' be time to wake up and smell the coffee... as I pointed out, the firing of the General was a turning point for HS's term... as I recall, MacArthur addressed a meeting in San Francisco [a UN group???] when he returned, and then addressed a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS as he made his exit... I can't remember any military officer of any service making such addresses... it's not something that would have happened if your suppositions / position had a scintilla of reality, irregardless of the very obvious observable facts ...
For those of us who lived thru the actual events back in 1951, we know what the truth is... sail on, and keep those tinted glasses firmly in place...
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
See my comments at the New Deal talk page. I don't understand your reasoning for taking out the template. As the article states itself: "The New Deal, drawing heavily on the experiences of its leaders, reflected the ideas, and was influenced by the programs, that FDR and most of his original associates had absorbed in their political youths early in the progressive era; had absorbed while serving in the Woodrow Wilson administration; and had absorbed holding other offices in the 1920s." The Progressivism template series is a work in progress to represent the Progressive idea as it formed and developed. I know of no historian who would debate that the New Deal was conservative. :) -- Northmeister 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I began reading your article online, from above. Excellent work! I think I see where your coming from about the New Deal and how you interpret it. Quite interesting how you feel Progressive lead to New Deal etc. - Hey I will leave the template to you for now, I am going on sabbatical - however if you will - email me so we can chat via email. Best wishes... -- Northmeister 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, this is just to let you know that you're in danger of violating 3RR at Christian Coalition if you haven't already done so. Any repeated deletion of another editor's work counts toward 3RR, even if you're changing a different section each time, and even if you make other edits at the same time. Please try to work the issue out on talk rather than reverting so much. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen.
You seem to have inserted this text,
Where this text used to be
I think they both merit some space?
Also, I think you could be a bit more precise. I agree that Stimson strongly opposed Morgenthau and his plan. He worked hard to limit his influence in the resulting occupation policy, not entirely successfully though.
But I feel the last part of the sentence is a bit dicey.
In 1945 Stimson may have had indirect control of the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. The French, Soviets, and the British had their zones and were equal partners in the endeavour. And the executive power for the U.S. rested with Eisenhower, who seems to have been a proponent of the Morgenthau plan, at least initially during the occupation.
The common policy had however been set by the Potsdam Conference, and the policy of the U.S zone had been set by JCS 1067, wherever it did not conflict with Potsdam. Even though Eisenhower was encouraged to influence the other powers to adopt the same policies, it was only mandatory for the U.S. slize of Germany. I don’t se much control of the U.S. zone in the hands of Stimson at this stage. In the end General Clay took over as Governor in Germany and did his best to fight the Morgenthau legacy in JCS 1067.
What I’m trying to say is that you could probably nuance the statement somewhat.
The same goes for the Morgenthau Jr. article.
I do not understand your reasoning. You wrote the following in your revert:
Yes, the Joint Chief of Staff may have reported to Stimson, who disapproved of 1067, but the JCS directive 1067 was binding as a law. You obey laws even when you don’t agree with them don’t you? Event the president of the United States has to obey the laws, even if he tries to have them changed in the meanwhile.
As Beschloss writes on page 270: Stimson adviced Clay, "sure, you’ve got to live with 1067." But they mustn’t "let this country starve to death.".
Besides Stimson stepped down in 1945, JCS 1067 was in effect until July 1947. Stor stark7 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the level of industry was finally determined on a level that didn't last long; it wasn't realistic. It took about two years to change. It was after I was back in Washington as Under Secretary before that directive was finally officially revoked.
In the meantime, we didn't pay as much attention to it as perhaps we should from the point of view of military discipline. There were several efforts to pull me back and have me charged with not carrying out the directive.
General Clay always defended me. He knew perfectly well that such a policy couldn't last just as well as I did. We fought it out and finally persuaded Washington. General Marshall himself defended me in testimony before a Congressional Committee. So, it finally worked out. The real turning point came when the currency was devalued or revalued in 1948. At that time we gave the Russians the opportunity to do the same to revalue the mark in their sector, in their zone; they refused. I was back in Washington before this -- when they walked out of the four power council meeting -- the Kommanditura. A few days later they declared the blockade of Berlin.
HESS: Which we will get to in just a minute. Did you ever discuss the Morgenthau plan with its author, with Henry Morgenthau?
And Mr. Morgenthau was of the opinion that Germany should be prevented from having the where withal to ever start another war, and he persuaded President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill to agree to his proposals. He believed that if the Germans were limited to growing food and to light industry and were not permitted any substantial amount of steel production or other basic industrial production, and not permitted to build ships or any of the other things that are required for war, even when on a peacetime basis, that they would be kept perpetually and forever in a condition impossible for them to wage war. That also would be in a condition which would become impossible for the Germans to exist unless somebody helped them and provided the necessities of life. It became evident to us very quickly that this was the case, and that if we carried out literally the terms of the very famous Morgenthau directive, the United States would have to support Germany for the rest of time or as long as that policy stayed in effect. And so, we had to wiggle here and waggle there and do the best we could without openly breaking our directive to permit the German economy to begin to function. We argued with this one and argued with that one here in Washington and in Germany, wherever we had the chance, and bit by bit, we recouped or revised the situation so that it became possible.
Stor stark7 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
archive of inactive discussions Nov 2005-April 17 2006
I have requested mediation. You have made multiple slanderous personal attacks against me, accusing me of fraud and belonging to radical right wing militia groups, violating WP:NPA and have reverted the History of the United States Republican Party more than three times in one day, which is also against wikpedia rules. You have been notified. Citizenposse 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry about my reversion on the New Deal. I undid your work when I was not even aware of the content of your edits. I am tempted to explain the source of my confusion yesterday; but I really have no exc use for my carelessness and recklessness. 172 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey no hard feelings! thanks for the note. RJ Rjensen 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have worked recently on Labor history of the United States. I have been working on Labor history (discipline) about the development of labour history as an academic subject. If you have anything to contribute, especially about how labor history has developed in the US, I'd be grateful. Mattley 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for my comment yesterday on Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. It was a lot less personally intended than came out, and it was out of place to begin with. Please see my note on the talk page, and the new vote proposal I've added there. -- Woggly 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
We need some help building the Labor unions in the United States page. You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome. Travb 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you took up the invitation.
you wrote: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1932.
The original sentence I took from Amazon said: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century
Thanks for the intro--not to nitpick, and I will leave it standing as is, but from my reading the levels of unions is the lowest since the turn of the 20th century--which would correspond with the original. Minor issue, just something I am curious about. I pulled up this article, first one I found on google, and it says the rates of union membership for private employees was:
Now it is at 8.0%, from last I read... So maybe the correct statment would be American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1901? I have read this statment before in a similar form: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century
Again, I will leave the article as is with your new edits, and I will steer away from making filling in these blank portions of the article to avoid any disagreements. Instead, I want to focus on some of the particular strikes too avoid any arguements.
Maybe you are just the guy to ask:
I was in this silly fight a few months ago with this neocon on frontpagemag (before I found wonderful wikipedia) and he mentioned about the unemployment figures in Europe.
Since then, I have heard that the Europeans count there unemployment different than Americans--that the Reagan administration stopped counting workers who stopped looking for work.
If this is the case, what is the estimated change that this had on US unemployment figures? Would US unemployemnt figures then be roughly comparable to European unemployment figures?
At one point I actually looked up all of this on wikipedia, and found some great definitions, but was never able to find any definitive answer. Thanks in advance.... Travb 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi again Rjensen. Looks like we have the same interests, you popped up twice on two of my pages.
In regards to this minor edit, I disagree with it, but will leave it. [2] I feel the more information that users have the better, your edit deleted the ISBN number, publisher, and date the book was published. All I ask is think twice before taking out this format in the future. I probably was the person who added this information in this format, it takes a long time to look up all this information (for a good example of a section I changed see: Dick Cheney criticism section. Have a merry Christmas. Travb 19:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your contributions to this project. Your edits have been appearing on many of my watchlisted articles, and they're always good. You have expertise in areas in which I have only interest. That knowledge would be beneficial at a pair of articles which I've found problematic. Black codes and Morrill Tariff. If you have the time and interest to edit them that'd be swell. Cheers, - Willmcw 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Noticed your Grant edits. By sheerest of coincidences, I happened to find and subscribe to Questia just today. Do you think it is appropriate to point people to a website that charges a subscription for accessing material? Wikipedia normally has a more "free material" point of view. Do you know of other such links that have withstood review? Hal Jespersen 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What should not be linked to:
"Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." I would classify Questia as a bookstore, since you have to pay to get the books. How is it different from amazon.com? They have excerpts from the books too.
Also note: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."
I believe you have violated this one as well ( this link in the American Civil War article, for example). -- JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding references to articles, particularly on historical topics. I award you a barnstar for your good work. -- DS1953 talk 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I like what you've added to King Cotton article. And I see you've quoted a senator about the importance of cotton. My first question to you, can you give me the page number of the source you got that quote from, so that I may correctly cite it in article. Second, I saw you created a second reference section. May you please condence the two reference sections. Thank you -- ZeWrestler Talk 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your contributions to Henry Jarvis Raymond appear to be copied from http://www.aol.bartleby.com/226/1221.html this seems to be a copyright violation, and will be removed. Martin 12:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I've just gone through and rephrased most of the links to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. In a couple of cases (such as at The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)) I've removed the link from the opening section (since it's not really appropriate for what should be a summary of the most salient points of the article) and moved it to a point in the article which discusses relevant material. Where I could, I've added the {{seemain}} template for conformity of style with other Wikipedia articles. I'm a little uncertain about usages such as "See Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for further details" in article text, although I can't find anything in the Manual of Style against it. I think that it's generally better either to set such references aside (either through the {{seemain}} template or a "See also" section at the foot of the article) or to incorporate them into the text, as I did at Emerald City:
(I hope that I've got the details of that correct — I know little of the monetary debates of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and defer to your expertise on the subject. I was just trying to smooth out the article's style.)
By the way, I hope you're OK with the new title of the article. While I was working on the links tonight, it occurred to me that Scholarly interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might be better (as it would incorporate the historical/economic aspects as well), but I wanted to run it by you first. (Actually, I'd hoped you would chime in on the article's talk page, but you were probably busy elsewhere. No biggie.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Political interpretations" title seems ok. Wiki never puts "scholarly' in the title since many thousands of Wiki articles are based on scholarship. Rjensen 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I've noticed your name while looking through the history of several Labour related articles (like Labor history of the United States), and I wanted to mention the new WikiProject Organized Labour to you. It's only a week old, and still in flux, but it could definitely use more people who are interested in the topic. Cheers. -- Bookandcoffee 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all of the references you are adding? Rkevins82 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't need them please ignore them. If you are a student writing a paper then, yes indeed, you will need them. They average about 2-3 books a decade, which is only enough to get started. Rjensen 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, thank you for your additions to the West Virginia page. I wanted to inform you, though, that there is already a separate History of West Virginia article. I am sure your addition of a history and references in the main article would fit wonderfully in the History of West Virginia article instead as it is in dire need of help. Also, please consider voting for the West Virginia main article as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week--it can use the help of a wiki group effort! Thanks! -- Caponer 17:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
— Mark Adler (markles) 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to follow the guidelines: especially this one: "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors." and "Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work." I think the question is whether a) ONLY sources used recently by the editor go into References or, 2) the product of that active search for authoritative sources should also be there. Wiki is ambiguous and I prefer version 2 because it provides more help for the user. The basic Wiki principles are 1) we should help users; 2) we should use the approach prefrred in the discipline (history). Rjensen 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know if the connection between Stimson's honeymoon in Kyoto and his later vetoing of Kyoto as a target for the A-bomb is justified? It seems to me that it is possible that people have jumped to a conclusion here - he may well have enjoyed his honeymoon and he certainly said no to Kyoto being bombed but some evidence is needed to justify saying that these two facts are directly connected. If this evidence exists it should be in the article, if it doesn't then the article needs to be edited so as to not unjustly imply such trivial reasons for a major decision. -- Spondoolicks 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My recent removal of material about the causes of the Depression from the New Deal article was not due to any objection to the material. We just already have an article about the subject, as you now know. I removed it to make room for a possible merge of RJII's fork article, which apparently will not happen. Gazpacho 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? It was discussed, and deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Deal and economic fascism.
Note that I've become considerably more skeptical of RJII's motives since editing that AfD discussion. Gazpacho 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My problem with your edits is that they too one-sided. Mexico did violate the treaties, but so did Texas by refusing to free Santa Anna. True, the Mexican government refused to negotiate with the Texans, but it was more than willing to negotiate the American government once Texas was accepted into the Union. The breakdown of the negotiations with the US was because of Polk's insistence to send Slidell as plenipotentiary, something the US had explicitly agreed not as a condition for the negotiations to start. Polk knew the Mexican government would refuse to see Slidell, thus aborting the negotiations before they started.
The issue of the border was not too clear since it was agreed in the "secret" part of the Treaty, which was later rejected by the Mexicans anyway. The Texans also had problems securing the land across the Nueces. By the time of the negotiations with the US the strecht of land between the Nueces and the Grande was effectively No Man's Land, and that was the status quo for some time until the Thornton Affair, which started the whole thing.
You also fail to mention why the British diplomats intervened. They certainly did not do it out of unselfish sacrifice. The Americans at the time were eyeing expansion towards the Pacific, which made the British quite nervouse since their claim to the Territory of Oregon was pretty weak too and feared to be involved in another conflict with the Americans.
So far the only thing I agree with your edit is the fact that Mexico refused to recognize Texan independence, and the opposition for its "renegade province" to join the US.
To conclude yes, the Mexican government did many things wrong, but it was not exclusively their fault as your edit tends to imply. There's an excellent article published in Foreign Affairs (sometime last year) that went quite deep into the pre-war diplomaticy, and touches all the points I've mentioned above. I'll try to dig the reference.
I'll revert the page to what it was until you can make your edits less POV. Thanks. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
After your Revert War ( here), I think we need to calm things down and discuss your problems here.
Look at the discussion of Questia and its editing history. Questia is not the be-all end-all of sources. Yes, it has many good points, but direct citing to it will violate Wikipedia policy regarding bookstores and advertising. I notice from other comments above that I'm not the only editor concerned about your linking to Questia. You say it's not a bookstore— fine with me. It's a website that sells access to digitized versions of academic works. It even has some limited free access. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia policy if Questia is for-profit or not. Or if you have a membership or if memberships are free. It is still advertising at least. But don't worry I have a solution that really ought to work great for you!
Here's my solution for you: use ISBN. Let me explain… I like Amazon.com. Linking to it would have the same problems as linking to Questia. So what I've done is used a resource already built into Wikipedia: Book Sources (I used a bogus ISBN number ( 0 ) for this link) as well as Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers. You can change your preferences so that when you click on an ISBN link, it takes you to the book-place of your choice. It's a little tricky but since you're clearly a pretty smart person, you should be able to rig it up. Check out this link for directions: User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.
I don't have any problem with scholarly works or the scholarly process. In fact, I'm a big fan of formal systems and peer reviewing to proof works. I think it's a good idea the way you've added lots and lots of sources for further research. That's good. So is the segregation of primary from secondary/tertiary/etc. sources. Great. It ought to be done; nobody else has done it; and you're doing it.
The problem is POV. Saying that a book is an "essay by a scholar" is sort of redundant. Does that mean that other essays are by students? Or by dumb people? It is enough to say that it's an essay. Maybe you mean that the essay is by a professional historian, not a journalist. If your point is that a scholar wrote it, so it's more reliable or trustworthy, then mentioning "scholarly" is redundant. The platonicly perfect citation would not need to affirm its reliability. In fact, unreliable or untrustworthy works either should be noted as such or omitted altogether.
Think about these things and let me know (here) what you think. BUT I want you to wait a week (at least) so you've had time to think it over and to try linking to BookSources.
—
Mark Adler (markles) 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. First in order to understand where you come from, I felt I had done a fairly good re-presentation of the page which you have totally deleted and then say the page needs cleaning up.
As next, what were your objections to my opening comprehensive definition etc. and what would be your proposals for cleaning up ??. Problem is, the MMs are primarily Irish history right into the 20th century. Yes, I appreciate the American implications but these cannot simply override essential aspects for our Irish history. I was actually intending to put a map of Ireland up top. Why a map of Penn. when the origins are Ireland. I don't follow. Or perhaps we need two pages. MMs Ireland and MMs America ?? Please be helpfully constructive with your suggestions, thank you. Osioni 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please post comments to other users on their Talk Page, not their User Page. Thanks. -- JW1805 (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes and please stop vandalizing articles Rjensen 20:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, you need to be more careful about grammar and punctuation in your edits. To take just one example, this edit contains two ;; and a ] for no apparent reason. -- JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that you put comments about some of the references. For example "older but solid", "best", etc. I don't know if there is a convention for this or not, I realize you are probably trying to be helpful. But, I think some of your comments would be considered POV. I'm all for explaining what is in the reference that makes it relevant to the article, but I think judgements about the quality of the work should be avoided. If it's good, include it. If it isn't, then don't. -- JW1805 (Talk) 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that Wiki says: "It's a good idea to visit an academic or public library to have a look at the standard references. It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles." That is advice I do follow-- and when I see a standard reference I list it as such. [6] Rjensen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Statements like "Its purpose is not to help people decide what books to order!" are wildly out of line. You are imposing your own personal views on users. Let them decide if they want a book or not--surely that is what encyclopedias always have done. Look at the 1911 EB for example, or Encarta or World Book or EB today. Wiki rules TELL US to go to libraries and get the best books. Information we have about a best book, which the users do not have (because they have not seen the book) should be shared, NOT kept secret. I simply can't understand why you want to hide information from users. Rjensen 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I helped create Labor unions in the United States which this argument has apparently spilled over too. I suggest a couple of solutions to avoid a revert war between JW1805 and Rjensen.
Rjensen, cite your sources. If a book is considered a classic or the best book in the field, cite a couple of critics who say this. I have found in partisan debates that simply citing a source, which is unfortunatly neglected by most editors, is magical. As an example I can show you the selection of Further reading on the Philippine-American War, were I have added verbatium critics views on the book (some which have been deleted since then for being partisan).
I also suggest that we don't devolve into name calling, Rjensen shouldnt call JW1805 edits "vandalism" when the edits are explained.
I support Rjensen on this debate. I personally feel that any deletions, even well intentioned ones should always be looked upon with suspision. The advocate of such deletions must present a very convincing argument to overcome this presumption. I think JW1805 intentions are good, but the reasoning behind these intentions does not overcome the high hurdle that any deletions should pass.
From my personal experience with Rjensen, he/she is very stubborn and initially uncoperative in his/her vision of what an article looks like, but this is because he/she is very well read in the subjects he/she contributes too.
Again, Rjensen a big solution to this problem is citing book reviews which support these analysises. It will not only make your argument stronger, but more important, it will make the article much better. Travb 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
User JW1805 invited me over to make a comment. I am mostly in the American Civil War space. I'd like to advocate the following views, some of which appear above:
Hal Jespersen 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I read your last addition to Canadian and American politics compared with interest. I must confess that it was I who introduced the assertion about Canadian and American political dynasties. As your addition and others make clear, the truth of that assertion depends on what you mean by dynasty. The Bushes, Romneys, Gores, etc. strike me as families who have benefited significantly from continued political involvement, but now that you mention it, dynasty may not be the appropriate word for them. I suppose what is needed is a clear definition.
What do you consider a political dynasty to be? Do you know of a scholarly definition we could use to clarify the issues? My additions to that article have never been scholarly – I edited the article a lot because when I ran across it it contained a lot of inaccuracy and propaganda.
If we can't come up with a good definition I'd be happy to take that section out. it's only a side issue, and the inflation of that one parsgraph is detracting from the article, which has enough other problems. John FitzGerald 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the definition. I'm also trying to figure out what I meant by the observation in the first place. Perhaps I meant that it was more difficult for the rich to win seats in Canada, since more people could compete with them. I could estimate how many prominent Canadian families have produced 3 or more politicians over 40 years. Or I could actually show some enterprise and see f there's any research on this topic. Anyway, I'm going to do something with your definition. More later. John FitzGerald 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
... Eisenhower. Sfahey 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you added Salazar back into the Politics section of the Mexican American article. Look at the List of United States Senators from New Mexico and you'll see that Joseph Montoya served in the U.S. Senate "in recent times". I'm not even actually sure that Larrazolo was the first, but the date seemed to place him there. There have also been numerous Mexican American representatives in the House. The Mexican American article is in constant need of work, so I appreciate your efforts there. But politics are nothing new to Mexican Americans.-- Rockero 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I noticed this edit of yours at the Andrew Johnson article. I've seen this claim before about Johnson being a runaway "slave" (or indentured servant). It's on several other webpages, and most notably was once on Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" (certainly not a scholarly source!). Can you provide a specific source that refutes this claim? Or have any idea how this story got started? I would like to include it in the article as a common misconception or urban legend. That way, people won't keep adding it back. -- JW1805 (Talk) 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in a clarification about the image removed from the CCC artcile. Is it because the Deschutes project was under the Bureau of Reclamation? The sources I have seem to interchange CCC and Bureau of Reclamation on the Deschutes project. Perhaps the relationship between the two agencies is something you could clarify in one or both of those articles.
On an unrelated note, I've been filling in alphabet agencies as I discover them. One web site claims there are 59. Do you have a tip on where to find others? JonHarder 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said people in Mexico City called themselves "Mexican Americans", so what's your justification for removing a section on the redundancy of the term Mexican American ? -- Deepstratagem 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Copying your old published work hardly makes you a specialist. I've noticed plenty of errors in your reasoning to question any lable of "specialist" I also do not like your deletion of sources outside academia. They are NOT always the best sources. Take Nita Rudra, Joseph Stiglitz, or TJ Pempel...all of them "great scholars" with big reputations in academia, who in my opinion have a penchant for destorting information, confusing variables, and ignoring many others to secure a point.
Rudra slaughtered the stolper samuelson model, Pempel made a sophmoric arguement believing that because the fixed exchange rates worked for 15 years or so that it could not be the problem in the Asian Financial Crisis, and Stiglitz built a massive strawman out of his free market opponents and distorted a great deal of information, or just plain ignored other bits of information and left it out of his famous book "Globalization and its Discontents".
Just being an academic, hardly makes one a specialist. (Gibby 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
No, seriously what data? I'm just asking for alittle data tid bit I dont think saying "whites data contradicts..." is suffecient. Can you just write alittle more. (Gibby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
Well I dont beleive in panics or any of that herd mentality in regards to investors but just because a domestic buisness sector argued for tariffs does not mean it might not hurt them, furthermore, tariffs always hurt the consumer.
Companies will argue for tariffs if the absense of tariffs causes them some kind of harm or extra costs...such as companies with homogenus factors in relation to foriegn companies. For example use of unskilled labor or even agriculture, especially in labor scarce countries. With these variables it is very rational to argue in favor of tariffs to raise consumer costs so that foriegn competor goods are priced with your own.
I can see how rising tariffs can slow the economy as tariffs are a wealth redistrobution from poor to rich which slows the economy and it also acts as a an incentive for not solving effeciency, productivity, and innovation problems that would protect the company in absent of the tariffs (what i mean is that with the tariffs they do not act effecienty, they do not produce properly, and they do not innovate thier product as well as the foriegn competitor...thus in the long run companies are worse off and require more tariffs. This being the case, and also the case that tariffs had been rising for some time, it could be argued that American buisnesses were running into effeciency, production, and innovation problems that were indicitive of some future economic meltdown... not to mention the wasted resources of society because of high costs and factors being directed into a lower valued use both cause declines in potential economic growth if not a decline in growth alltogether.
Tariffs do have a role to play as an important variable in what caused the great depression perhaps Wanniski is wrong...i'd have to read his article, but I dont think tariffs can be dismissed as an explination quite yet. (Gibby 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
IF thats what he said is the single variable or single most important variable then i'd have to disagree. I'd say deflationary preasure and later inflationary preasure is what caused the great depression, over regulation and taxation worsended it, and economic interference and more regulation sustained it...in my opinion.
And yes the effeciency look is a long run outlook...years is correct but by years we've noticed it doesnt take more than 30 to notice major differences. GM was calling for greater tariffs after Japan had been making cars for less than 20 years. GM has continued to call for tariffs and other trade barrier restrictions for the remaining 35...(Gibby 06:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
I think we're pretty well agreed here. Rjensen 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I saw your discussions about this and FWIW I wanted to chime in, perhaps settle it.
A. Whatever you think of Wanniski, it is wrong to say that nobody in scholarly circles agrees with him that the tariff act triggered the crash. A quick google search found this abstract of a recent academic paper that looks like it argues something similar.
B. Rjensen is wrong to say that since the business community "insited on its passing so it's hard to see why they would behave as if it were going to hurt them." E.E. Schattschneider gave us the answer to this paradox in 1934 in THE standard scholarly book about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, and also the most comprehensive book about it ever written. He shows that the businessmen all tried to get benefits INDIVIDUALLY for their own companies, but the problems the tariff caused were CUMULATIVE. Britain, Germany, and all the other countries didn't retaliate against the U.S. because one businessman got protection for his company (which would've advantaged him if no other did). They retaliated because thousands of businessman got their tariffs and it cumulatively put taxes on almost every major competitor import. What was good on a company-by-company basis was terrible when taken all together at the same time.
C. Scholarly consensus is that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was generally a very bad thing. The only credible debate about it is ENTIRELY around the extent of its ramifications. Every credible scholar agrees that it killed trade at the worst possible time. Some stop there. Others go further and say that the death of trade also incited other events like a banking crisis. Trade economist
B. I agree S-H made it worse, for the reasons Schattschneider says. C. I agree. But I also think Friedman-Schwartz have identified an even more important monetary factor. Lots of things were going wrong at the same time. But should Wiki bring in Wanniski with his superficial "research"? He argued something else (that the POSSIBILITY of SH passage CAUSED the depression in 1929--I can't find any scholar that agrees). Rjensen 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The second half of this article has many names of academics who have validated various aspects of Wanniski's argument. Trade economist
TE, but was Wanniski saying that the SHTA caused the great depression? Because the great depression technically (Well the recesion) began well before Black Tuesday and Black Tuesday was several months before SHTA even passed. What can be said, which the article currently does, was that SHTA caused a worsening of depression conditions. (Gibby 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Well if anything the depression actually began as a recession well before octobe 1929. If such a SHTA meeting took place in october just before the black tuesday that is just not a strong enough correlation given recession signs well before then. I still think we should say that the SHTA contributed to worsening economic conditions. (Gibby 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Surely a Lincoln historian such as yourself are aware of the photograph of Lincoln taken by John Batchelder in the White House only hours after his body taken there, the photograph proven since as authentic taken by Batchelder within 24 hours of Lincolns assasination, re: Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130"),
From the book: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."
This alone shows the importance of this photograph and its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and scholars.
Not looking for a fight Rjensen,....only seek the truth.... "...with malace towards none...and charity for all" A.L. peace out. ( Cathytreks 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Hi Rjensen, I am glad we can talk about this way, you have every right to be skeptical and I do not blame you! There have been too many pretenders out there to make skeptic's of us all, but please go to the link i'm providing and order the book for yourself? I too was shocked at first, but am now a believer in the photographs authenticity, meanwhile in the interests of peace and truth seeking I have placed the article with the phto as a link at the bottom of the Lincoln article untill it passes the test of you and the other understandable skeptics. please believe me...I am in earnest about this matter! I will provide more proofs for you and other naysayers in the days ahead...it is all part of my on going research on the great President...done with respect and honour. ( Cathytreks 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)) [ [7]
Please no need for calling this one in the catagory of a hoax!, And that answer to your question as to why I think its real...is an easy one, at least for me, Rjensen. The John B. Bachelder family is still in possesion of it, as is stated in the book and kindly allowed Mr. Lloyd Ostendorf (a highly respected and well known Lincoln Authority!) permission to use it in his book on the complete photography collection of President Lincoln, please allow me to get my scanner at work and i'll reprint the piece in its entire form, meanwhile you might google the subject yourself as there is more on this photograph than you might suspect?, best wishes, Cathy ( Cathytreks 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
I did not previously know where John B. Bachelder's decendants had lived but do so now Sir, and they had this to say in the 1800's for added proof in Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130, on page 274 it states: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription:
"Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."
So "Uncle Bachelder" a noted photographer as well known as Brady in his day, seemingly did in fact take that hidden historic shot, then proccessed them at Bradys studio...so what? As this is not a hoax situation... the truth wil prevail as its unveiled, right guys?, I feel now after reading that article Rjensen provided us in my belief of the photographs authenticity all the more. , the article which went out of its way to not mention the actual Batchelder photograph, plus it also mistated several key facts of the events of the immediate days following the asasination on April 16, 1865 regarding Batchelder, Brady, and others. The death photo "O-130" of Lincoln in its authenticity is proved now more than ever.
( Cathytreks 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
Are you being serious with your edits to this article??? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that you do careful work so I am asking you to look at what has happened with the last 4 edits to John C Calhoun by a single editor. I don't know whether this is valid information or vandalism or what? Thanks Hmains 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it; good. Hmains 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to add some sources, but I don't think any of them really back up your point about the Bob Jones incident contributing substantially to McCain's loss in SC. The Salon article does seem to discuss how it hurt him in the Super Tuesday states, but doesn't discuss South Carolina at all. The Religious Tolerance site says pretty much the same thing, but more about his attack on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There's a pretty simple solution to this. Just write a seperate paragraph about Super Tuesday and how these incidents affected his performance there. Also, I do think the way it is worded as far as "reporters said" and "what reporters call" is very awkward and unneccesary. I had changed it to make it read better while retaining the meaning, but you reverted it back. If you have no objections, I will change it back. - Maximusveritas 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, would you mind taking a look at this article? There is a conflict about the question whether area bombing is to be noted as a possible crime. Get-back-world-respect 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on American System (economics). The otherwise-obscure topic is very important to the Lyndon LaRouche philosophy, and so there is natural tendency for believers in that philosophy to inflate its importance, or to bend it to their own interpretation. I'm sure the article could be better with your help. Cheers, - Will Beback 09:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this edit. What does it relate to specifically? And why was it inserted in the middle of the article rather than at the end? Kaldari 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted so write “Thanks” for your work on this article, and on all the articles I've seen you do work on.
Thanks!
— DLJessup ( talk) 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In actuality, the concept of neoliberalism predates Clinton. If you read the neoliberalism article in full, a paragraph down it will state "In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism." It even states in the GOP article that the party is widely recognized as being more socially conservative and economically neoliberal. If you examine the economic principles of the GOP and the DLC (Clinton's democratic platform), you will in fact find that they are both "right wing" and fairly similar except for a few key differences. Therefor, you see, the GOP and the DLC are both considered neoliberal. -- Howrealisreal 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In terms of economic principles, they are actually very similar. Social issues aside, both are pro-gloalization. Let's remember that NAFTA was originally introduced by George H.W. Bush, and then executed under Bill Clinton. Neoliberalism = free markets, which both Clinton, Bush, GOP, DLC all were interested in expanding (with minor tweaks for each). Regardless, they all were promoting the same neoliberal flavor of economics. -- Howrealisreal 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confused. Neoliberalism is directly in contrast to what you see as "liberal". The New Deal is very different, if not the opposite, of neoliberalism. One is on the economic left wing, and the other is on the right wing. Don't be afraid just because you see that bad L word in there, it's something entirely different. -- Howrealisreal 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. This has been a learning experience. One of my favorite websites has helped me realize that I am not totally correct: globalissues.org has "A Primer on Neoliberalism" that breaks it down clearly:
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.
And so the dilemma is that while currently, George W. Bush represents a very hard right (more so than his most recent Democratic competitors) he also is very stern in subsidizing the War on Terror via the military-industrial-complex. While economically neoliberal, the melange of more authoritarian values makes him fit the neoconservative criterion better. But the article in question is not just about Bush, it's about the GOP in general so I'm not sure if the same situation generally applies to all Republicans. Perhaps, the terms neoliberal and neoconservative should be used to explain the party's philosophies, explaining that more recently there has been a synthesis toward neoconservative perspectives. -- Howrealisreal 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. Could you please assume good faith, instead of calling me a "child at play"? If your opinion differs from mine, in that you do not think Bush's Google Bomb info should be included, you can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks :) EuroSong 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the copyright status of http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ ? I couldn't find any statement on whether they're claiming or disavowing having a copyright to their version. —wwoods 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
On the recent Thomas Jefferson edits. The various things I disagree with:
The narrative can be moved but that splits the discussion and makes article hard to follow. Topical breakdown seems to work OK. The activist judges theme was very important to Jefferson--and to FDR in 1937 as well as conservatives today. One reason Jefferson is important is that people today use his ideas. And yes there is serious discussion in last year over removing Supreme Court jurisdication on some hot-button issues. Rjensen 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
They do not meet fair use criteria. For fair use criteria to apply, we need a few things:
I shall continue to delete the covers that are not fair use.
Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
--Reduction is NOT a fair use criterion in law or practice. However, the original cover resolution was high grain film--tens of millions of pixels. Try blowing up the thumbnail to 8x11 inches and see the difference. They are used carefully. They only are used in major bio articles which refer exactly to that cover. Time in fact is gving these versions away free. So let's not blank any more--and read up on copyright law. (And yes I have been on panels at law schools on fair use & the internet. Rjensen 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence in reverting, you made me realize that the user who keeps deleting our complaint may be incorrect.
This is what I wrote on their user page:
Regarding your deletes
I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response. Travb 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
(later)
BTW, I think the comparison of US labor and the world should stay on the page temporarily until all of the other portions about US labor have been filled out. Right now there is little content on the page. I have always agreed it should move, but only when the article is too long.
I know that the info is not top labor scholars, I had a lot of problems with this woman's book, it tended not to be very scholarly. As soon as there is more content (hopefully from yourself, you seem like an expert on the field)--I will happily move it. Thanks for all your efforts. Travb 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Enforcing fair use, even if it it erroneously (and I am personally not convinced that is so) is not vandalism and never will be. Your continued listing of Ta bu shi da yu on WP:VIP is extremely hostile and disruptive, please desist. I am removing it now, for the final time. Dmcdevit· t 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen - You scoundrel! You reverted my revert, and your reason was "his philanthropy was systematic & led by experts not by personal whims." But that's exactly my point.
I certainly appreciated the irony, and think the Wiki readers would as well. I guess from your profile that you're a careful sort and not enamored of people reverting your well-considered contributions. Please consider how much more annoying it must be when an editor does this because they agree with you! So, I ask you, kind sir, to please return my snippet.-- DocGov 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The same user deleted all of the photos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Ta+bu+shi+da+yu&page=&limit=500&offset=0
He has deleted hundreds of photos. Travb 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. you report it this time. Rjensen 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry to hear that. :( I was hoping you would say something different. That you would rally me to action.
Just to make sure we are on the same page about Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the court ruled that thumbnail photos was fair use, low quality images do not break copyright and are therefore legal. This is very similar to the deleted Time magazine photos.
I am not sure about your statment about non-profits never losing a case in regards to fair use, but I don't doubt it. As I argued before to deaf ears, www.commondreams.org takes entire articles and posts them on their site.
I will have to look on google to see what H-Net is. Best regrards. Travb 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In one of your edits you added "3 See Flick: op. cit., I, p. 285." to an otherwise unnumbered reference section and unlinked to anything in the text. What does it refer to? Rmhermen 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the civil discourse about Able Archer 83 on Talk:Ronald Reagan. cheers Natebjones 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You have no source and you are a racist that edits only out of hate. 69.218.181.192 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no way to prove that, though, can't tell from one poll and it is very unlikely to end up exactly 50-50. And there was no change in 1968 that made 50 percent of Irish Catholics switch parties. 69.218.181.192 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I happened to see your edits on Chemical warfare (I contriubted the Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report portion and am determined to make sure it stays).
I notice that you are using weasel words "most people" and uncited sources in your additions. I just wanted to let you know, what I usually do is to avoid a revert war, I find a book or magazine which supports my contention (99% of the time I have already read what I want to add, but 1% of the time I try and find a source afterward to back up my previous additions) and footnote it. Guaranteed if you cite and footnote your edit people will think twice before reverting your additions. Travb 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I posted this on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hallow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses.
My message:
I did something that administration didn't do:
I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.
Subject: RE: AskArchivist
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500
From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: travb****@yahoo.com
Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.
Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a
link back to the entire article at time.com.
You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.
Best regards,
Bonnie Kroll
Ask the Archivist
I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.
Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Time_Magazine. Lupo 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to disagree. Why would his overseeing the war belong in intro (without even making clear he was president at the time & not a genreal) - while context for the assassination (something sorely omitted in most articles) be omitted? Lincoln's assassination was not like that of Kennedy - Lincoln's was clearly linked to a plot and to events of his presidency. The JFK article gives context to his asassination, even though it is less clear that the act was anything more than senseless. While other assassinations were committed by apparently deranged people, Lincoln's can be "understood" as part of the Civil War. I see no reason to delete this.-- JimWae 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did I even suggest otherwise re being in charge? Biographies (and their intros) are also about the significance of people's lives, not just what they did. Using your argument, the intro would not even mention the assassination. Mentioning the plot also "gives a hook" to the reader -- JimWae 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And why is his managing the war "more intro-worthy"? Leave out the plot & you leave out any hook at all. -- JimWae 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You have trivialized the introduction -- JimWae 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Their answer is not terribly satisfactory: I've seen this already. Firstly, most of those articles don't have any text describing them in the article. Secondly, the image sizes need to be reduced. Thirdly, most of the images are being used to illustrate the image of the subject, not talk about the TIME article itself. And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, we (Wikipedia) frowns on fair use. We only want it when it is absolutely the only image that can illustrate an article: otherwise we want GFDL license compatible images. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for clearing up the question on Redeemers. Thanks also for posting the new article on Bourbon Democrats. Great job!! James084 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You have done a lot of good work, go ahead and move my entry on the labor page to a new page, if you still want to.... Travb 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thought you may want to comment. Travb 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can you take a second and comment on this RfC? Thanks in advance. Travb 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen,
About the historical rankings statement: it's a good thing to add to the article, but it is simply an opinion statement. If placed in the intro (which is, after all, a summary of the article as a whole) it may unnecessarily bring up issues of bias. Also, the rest of the paragraph addresses the issues surrounding his presidency (both good and bad) in a satisfactory manner.
I'd like to hear your side of the story concerning your edit. You are welcome to post a message on my talk page, so we can sort out any differences.
Thank you, Cdcon 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions; that article has been sitting for a long time and I'm happy you moved it along a bit. Kaisershatner 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You've probably broken WP:3RR on Richard J. Daley. Don't do this or you will be blocked; see WP:AN3. William M. Connolley 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Rjensen 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've adapted my language on a couple of pages. You did well. Thanks. Now here's a question for you: what is the origin of the term neoabolitionist or neo-abolitionist? It seems like a misnomer. If not, what were they trying to abolish? Does Foner et al. use that term himself or did some other faction put that name on him/them? When I googled the term, it popped up first on Wikipedia, then on the many sites that copy Wikipedia so that is self-reinforcing, not exactly explanatory. Many thanks. skywriter 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving my ideas about the neo-abolitionist page to its Talk page. See you there! skywriter 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the neoabolitionist page. It's better. I'm wondering about this: attacked for corruption the Radical Republican coalition, including the national leader Thaddeus Stevens When I looked at the Thaddeus Stevens page, there's no hint anyone thought he was personally corrupt. Who made the accusations that Stevens was corrupt? Were they valid? skywriter 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently created United States Housing Authority. Looks like a topic you may be interested in if you haven't already seen the new article. JonHarder 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you comment at Talk:Southern literature. Someone wants to change the article's title from Southern literature to Southern American literature (or the like). What they are hinting at is that the title is biased because it assumes a United States POV. Editors here do this type of PC renaming all the time but in this case I want to fight it because the genre of literature is not known as anything BUT Southern Literature and to change the accepted name of something is not encyclopedic. Thanks.-- Alabamaboy 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Sometimes I don't fight this type of stuff when it doesn't matter but in this case it would mean changing an accepted literary term. Best,-- Alabamaboy 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You initiated this discussion, and you should accept that the consensus is against you. See Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines about this. -- JW1805 (Talk) 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Questia links do NOT require subscriptions or registrations, the points that bothered some people. Nor does it sell books. Rjensen 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear policy on Wikipedia against self promotion. This includes links to your own personal webpages. The policy is (I'll find the exact link) if you think your personal site is a good reference, to mention it on the talk page, to let other users decide if it should be included. -- JW1805 (Talk) 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In Joseph Brant you wrote "He was the son of Aroghyiadecker (Nickus Brant), a prominent leader on the New York frontier during the mid-eighteenth century. His grandfather Sagayeeanquarashtow..."
You might want to look at Isabel Kelsay's life of Brant-- she says Brant was the stepson of Brant Canagaraduncka, who was a sachem; and Sagayeeanquarashtow was his "grandfather" only in the loose sense that he was an important member of his (step) family. She is also the source of my assertions that Brant's lowly birth was a problem for him throughout his life. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
He seems pretty well situated-powerful stepfather, grandfather, and a very powerful older sister. The point is that he was singled out for special prvilege at a young age--one of only three sent to the Yankee school, for example (I relied on O'Daniel's study in Edmunds; the DAB says he was the son of a chief.) Rjensen 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm.. Out of sheer curiousity, how do you know that Wilson's earliest memory was at age three? Wilson was almost four years old when Lincoln won the election. Check the dates. Do you know where the age 3 fact comes from? Are you saying that Alice Osinski's published information is wrong..? I'm sorry if I am breaking Wiki customs or something, I am not a member, and I haven't edited anything before. However, I am writing a research paper on Wilson right now, and thought that it might be useful to fix that age and provide further verification that he actually remembered that bit. Cheers! - Eric. 12.223.117.91 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Will you please review your edits. You have deleted almost all the footnotes for the article and have left the note section looking like a disaster. I will assume good faith, but I can't help but be left with the impression that you are not reviewing the page after editing. Jtmichcock 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
OK--but in turn please do not include lots of trivia (like boy scout awards and useless dates) and please do not reference items of low importance. It leads to terrible clutter and a waste of user time. Most of the info is in the biographies in the first place or in the Ford websites that are already listed. In other words: ref is useful for high quality info that is not readily available. Rjensen 20:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is going to Peer Review in just a few hours and thereafter into FAC. I'm certain that there will be a consensus reached on what constitutes trivia. Jtmichcock 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I am not familiar with this template - just found the second great awakening from the Joseph Smith, Jr. page - and am in general a fan of navigation templates - if there is concensus that this formulation of generations is not widely accepted - shouldn't the template be listed for deletion? personally, I don't agree with the way it pigeonholes some of the generations through which I have lived :) - thx - Trödel 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What you say here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, Sir!
That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sir!
Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sir!
I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3. for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find!!!
(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)
Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare to say that you and your alter ego "Looney Pilgrim", are not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which they have not even bother to investigate themselves in detail, as I have viewed the photograph personaly and WILL NOT BE CALL A LIAR BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE SIR!
The "in depth" research I have done, by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", and that cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature!
In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3
If this continues I shall consider a law suit against you for defamation of character... Sir! You are not a Lincoln Scholar as I am, and am in fact a multi-degree Professor, with a Doctorate in History. Sir!
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
I would be thankful if you would now leave off, Sir!
( Cathytreks 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
I am nearly blind, due to diabete's forgive me my failing eyes? ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry foralling Rjensen a troll, they are not but have hurt my feelings terribly just for my part of standing by my beliefs in the picture. ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Gosh I had to remove it. It is so terrible. Im sorry I just cant stand it. We can work the deist issue out but please dont put it back. It really doesnt belong there. Do you see how its commentary? What gives a biographer authority to decide the religious views of one of the most influential founding fathers? He didnt even know Jefferson and as I said before he only has limited information to work with. It really doesnt belong there.
71.131.180.37 08:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading thru this discussion page. Wiki is like a RELIGION to people! You stir up a LOT of hornets nests!! I don't mean it to be negative, only by way of commentary. Wow!! SimonATL 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen...you disgraced wiki for attacking my character here as well as now illegaly removing my edit on your page for the blight you did against me on the Lincoln Talk page, and stirred up A HORNETS NEST, that would be having everyone against me for what in the end became a debate for even trying... to get the truth out as many scholars have in the past, and whom continue to debate that photograph you smeared as a hoax and a lie, to this day more and more....why?
You illegaly removed my departure note to you on this wiki user page in violation of wiki policy, they have been informed, Sir!
I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?
I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,
Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!
A PERSONAL HERO TO MANY!
ABRAHAM LINCOLN!
I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.
I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.
I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....
Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves
shalom
....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."
So...see ya round the galaxy here. ( Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Just a corteousy message that I mentioned your name on User talk:Jmabel here [11]. You really had me fooled over at Labor Unions: International comparisons.
I thought you were an expert, who knew what you were talking about. How many of those books have you actually read?
The whole ugly mess at Business Plot as I wrote User talk:Jmabel, makes me realize that underneath your "thin layer of authority, which is very convincing...is a POV warrior, who will manipulate and even invent sources to support his own POV." Travb 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you. The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."
What can we do on Business Plot to avoid an RfC. I had to go through arbitration once and even though I "won" it was a horrible, time consuming experience, which I don't want to repeat. It was a hollow, empty victory.
I find your editing conduct highly objectionable, but you do seem very intellegent and open to comprimise. You seem to know more anout the Business Plot then almost ever single person on wikipedia, including, in some respects, me. I have to thank you because if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know as much about the Business Plot as I do now. Your agressive stance forced me to become an ametuer expert in some aspects of the Business Plot.
Unfortunatly my sharp words and quick temper do not help the situation either.
What would you suggest? I am open to suggestions. Business Plot has been an ongoing argument for months, solely between you and me, what can we do to end this?
Please, I welcome your suggestions. Travb 14:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Cathy wouldn't mind reviewing YOUR death photo, apparently. :)(
____________
Thats not funny, or fair, I bear no grudge against Rjensen, but seek only the truth.
Photograph?.....or Very well done Engraving of Lincoln?
Whether it was came across to some as an unintended hoax (by me! I thought it genuine ..) or a real photograph, or maybe just a exstraordinary and remarkable likeness via a well done engraving, done post mortem is not known, but the likeness to Lincoln is uncanny as well as haunting in it's portrayal of him,
With out question The photographer or engraver Bachelder, knew Lincolns face very well...HE WAS THERE the day after with Brady at Lincolns side, that cannot be debated..it is history.
Bachelder was both an artist and an early photographer and he knew his subject well...the original photo may have been destroyed, and all that is left is Bachelders extraordinary likeness of it.
I have updated the description page of the likeness..thusly.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg ( Cathytreks 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Hello there, - You have done much adding and deleting in WWI recently, and I wonder, why the deleting? Most of the deleted information are quite important and were not compensated or included somehow in your addition! __Most appreciatively, -- Maysara 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Ku Klux Klan article, which I changed yesterday and you changed back, really requires more explanation. As it stands, it is a particularly unclear statement. Are there actually many other "new terms" starting with the letters "K" and "L" that are meant to sound Greek? Are you implying that inventing "new terms" in this way was a practice specific to that era, or that such naming is so common today that it requires no further explanation? I hate to quibble over minutia, as I can see you are very busy here on Wikipedia, but I really think additional information needs to be inserted into that sentence in order for it to make sense. Dunne409 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just read your addition to Reagan coalition, and I would like to thank you for the good job. Thanks. Eivind t @ c 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the above article, it's great to see another person taking an interest. I hope that you don't mind, but I propose to revert your changes.
i) I'm not sure what was wrong with linking and capitalising the 'General' in the phrase 'Boer General during the Boer war'. 'General', as a military rank, seems to be a word that it is reasonable to link to and is almost always capitalised.
ii) Smuts's role after the two World Wars was not confined to the League of Nations and the UN. He played a significant part in the Versailles negotiations and was a trusted advisor to Churchill after WW2. I thought that 'played a leading part in the post war settlements at the end of both world wars' encompassed it quite well.
iii) Again I think that Smuts did a lot of work outside the Commonwealth in respect of imperial-colonial relations. Well before the Satute of Westminster, he sought to redefine relations, these had their culmination in the Commonwealth but were largely done outside it.
I hope that you don't mind too much, I just think that the previous edit better captured the nuances of his role.
Xdamr 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, I must apologise for having reverted your good-faith edit on the Ku Klux Klan article earlier on. Perhaps because I have previously seen numerous cases in which this particular article was vandalised, I made a hastened decision to revert which, in this case, was wrong. I will be more careful in my anti-vandalism reverts for now on. Please do not take offense - I do not consider you a vandal at all; it was my mistake. Once again, please accept my apologies. - Tangotango 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, I am still editing Business Plot, particularly the timeline, would you like me to come back later while you edit now? I don't want the dreaded conflicting edits message. Let me know.... Travb 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on the Ku Klux Klan article and, as I've said, you have a lot of good information. I also appreciate the support you've given me before on Southern literature. I'm not quite sure, though, why you are so opposed to the prescript. According to my research, it appears to be a valid part of the article. Just curious. Best, -- Alabamaboy 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pmanderson Ultramarine 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies Rjensen, I meant to use {{inuse}}. I used the wrong template,my mistake, my apologies. To avoid edit conflicts, please refrain from editing the talk page. Travb 09:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been with Wiki for almost 5 years and an administrator for 3 - i therefore feel entitled to be given some respect. i put the POV check on Ronald Reagan at the request of others - please do not treat me like an anon vandal to be reverted on sight - i could bring a complaint against you for such behaviour and i should - but i won't - all i want is the respect due of a Wiki veteran please. PMA 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the any possibility of redemption for 7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery, or should the deletion continue? Though each instance may be true, it is an odd compilation. You help and judgment would be appreciated. Cheers, - Will Beback 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you disputing that this is a history book? -- JeffW 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at corporate liberalism? I've gotten the who but not the what. Thanks. -- RedJ 17 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Title: CORPORATE LIBERALISM RECONSIDERED: A REVIEW ESSAY. Citation: Journal of Policy History 1991 3(1): 70-84. ISSN: 0898-0306
Abstract: Reviews James Livingston's Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 (1986) and Martin J. Sklar's The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (1988), two books that discuss corporate liberalism, an ideology in which the principles of classical liberalism are "reconstituted to assimilate large-scale concentrations of property and organizational hierarchy associated with the modern corporation." Livingston accepts Berk's criticism of his argument but disagrees with Berk's contention that there was an alternative to the evolution of corporate capitalism. Vogel disagrees with Berk's view that there was an alternative to corporate capitalism during the Progressive Era, claiming that small business existed and continues to exist alongside mass production rather than as an alternative to it. Rjensen 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate getting your side on the issues being discussed at Talk:Business Plot. Thanks. Fagstein 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your up to date on economics; could you take a look at my edits on Laissez-faire and see where I may have made factual mistakes. If you agree with the challenging editor, then that is okay; at least I have an honest opinion from someone who knows. This editor stalks every edit I do and challenges everything I add as you well know from the American System page. I am not perfect so your critic however harsh or in favor is worth the time for me; as you've been a fair editor in the past. Thanks. -- Northmeister 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, Your attitude is completly against wikipedia policy. On three wikipages:
You delete referenced material because it does not fit your POV. Your behavior at business plot was appaling:
I called a third opinion on your immature attitude on Business Plot, and those third parties encouraged you to stop deleting items.
Now you have started deleting several referenced paragraphs on United States presidential election, 1900, with no discussion. Despite my continued encouragement to talk about your deletions, you are starting a new revert war on United States presidential election, 1900, with little explanation, deleting several well referenced items.
I didn't want to have an arbitration and I have tried everything in my power to avoid one. But I don't want to spend months reverting your deletions on United States presidential election, 1900, have you make up sources which don't exist, and have to show that you know little about the topic, prove you wrong, and still have to fight your POV.
That said, I am going to call another third opinion on United States presidential election, 1900. The worst that I will be blamed for is being uncivil. If this behavior continues, then I will be forced to start arbitration. Travb 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1996.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read several of the books on that list and they are not technical. I may be willing to back down on the "Further Reading" list, pending checking of Wikipedia policy, but the "External links" lists and uncited reference in the "References" section have to go. - 69.243.49.152 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the links--what is the problem? Why should users not have them? Rjensen 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you check this new page, if you get the time ( Republic of New Hampshire)? Is it accurate? (Also - you might want to archive some of this talk page; it's so long that it's going to choke some browsers.) = DavidWBrooks 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, those new references you use are awesome. Thanks for indeirectly teaching me them.
I apologize because I assumed bad faith on Philippine-American War today. After all our strong arguments, I guess I started to think the worst. I thought you had deleted all of the footnotes, when only one of the footnotes was actually broken.
After all of the water under the bridge, and our startly different POV, and my short temper, I we can another truce as we did at Labor unions in the United States.
anyway, thanks for the teaching me the new way of referencing. Travb 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just trolling recent changes and came across your comment about Lieberman on Talk:Democratic Party. "No, not that one...the one we're talking about was the 2000 VP nominee..." Hilarious reply. Kaisershatner 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to discuss your edits to that page. Please take a look at it before I wikified it. It was bare bones. This is no edit war, but I do feel a few links, such as for Catholics, are justified in their return. WillC 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You have chosen to revert-out important information regarding Truman's relationships with Gen Douglas MacArthur and President-Elect Eisenhower, both of whom publicly displayed their low esteem of Truman.
Your comment 'del gossip' implies heresay basis. Both relationships were clearly visible in news photos and television coverage of Truman with these two important individuals from American history. I strongly disagree with the 'gossip' label.
I have to confess, very puzzled here?
Closet History Buff-California
Consensus among scholars: Not a realistic criteria when coming to a topic like Truman. Given the hard-liberal bent of 'scholars', I would expect that the 'consensus' would be highly reluctant to be wholly objective when it comes to one of their 'darling' presidents.
Wake Island episode 'probably false': Sorry, can't disagree more. I have read the episode in more than one place. [Alas, cannot cite here and now.] At least one of the sources likely from a daily newspaper, such as Los Angeles Times, which indeed might be one of my sources, as we subscribed to it at the time of the incident.
Lots of people dislike each other: The firing of MacArthur was one of the top [or bottom] defining moments of Truman's presidency. Comments regarding the low esteem in which Truman was held, both by him and Eisenhower are therefore relevant to his total picture. The two individuals are not radicals taking pot shots from the sidelines, they were both highly involved in America's history in the period that Truman occupied the White House. [Or maybe I should say 'Blair House'?] And neither personal interface is typical of relationships between presidents and their military-experienced VIP's. I believe the information should be included in the Truman Policies section.
CHB-CA
point conceded re the circling / jockeying planes; I did find how THAT story gained legs: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/wake/meeting.htm "His plane arrived about six o'clock the night before. Merle Miller's book [Merle Miller. Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. New York, Berkley Publishing Corporation, 1973] is completely wrong on that. There was no jockeying in the air as to which plane [MacArthur's or Truman's] would come down first."
That said, I can not concede the friendliness / hostile issues. MacArthur fumed to people that Truman was calling the Wake Island meeting for political reasons. Wanting to bask in MacArthur's early successes in Korea to bolster the off year elections to be held in 1952. Search on the linked page for 'political'.
See also: "And he [Truman] always just talked in front of us; everybody did. . . . Well he said, "Listen, you know I'm President, and you're the general, you're working for me." This was about the tone of it. All right, "You don't make any political decisions; I make the political decisions. You don't make any kind of a decision at all. Otherwise, I'm going to call you back, and get you out of there. If you make one more move, I'm going to get you out of there." . . . " Secret Service Agent Floyd Boring
And he did NOT salute the Commander in Chief: "General MacArthur strode to the foot of the landing ramp and, with hand outstretched, greeted the President. The President shook hands and remarked, "How are you, General? I'm glad you are here." There were no military honors or ceremony.
Thanks for making me dig this out... it was a quite useful exercise... very useful... I still think the stuff (taken from the TRUMAN LIBRARY WEB SITE), belongs in Truman's Policies pages... repeating myself, given what a debacle it was when he fired THE GENERAL...
Well, there ya go... we are poles apart on what the reality of the time was... the pablum reported by the media was the true situation... Conclusions: Most delusional attitudes, especially when based on irrational thought, are impossible to argue against...
I am ceding that there ARE swaths at Wiki that are black holes for objectivity and reality... and this page appears to be one of them...
It 'might' be time to wake up and smell the coffee... as I pointed out, the firing of the General was a turning point for HS's term... as I recall, MacArthur addressed a meeting in San Francisco [a UN group???] when he returned, and then addressed a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS as he made his exit... I can't remember any military officer of any service making such addresses... it's not something that would have happened if your suppositions / position had a scintilla of reality, irregardless of the very obvious observable facts ...
For those of us who lived thru the actual events back in 1951, we know what the truth is... sail on, and keep those tinted glasses firmly in place...
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
See my comments at the New Deal talk page. I don't understand your reasoning for taking out the template. As the article states itself: "The New Deal, drawing heavily on the experiences of its leaders, reflected the ideas, and was influenced by the programs, that FDR and most of his original associates had absorbed in their political youths early in the progressive era; had absorbed while serving in the Woodrow Wilson administration; and had absorbed holding other offices in the 1920s." The Progressivism template series is a work in progress to represent the Progressive idea as it formed and developed. I know of no historian who would debate that the New Deal was conservative. :) -- Northmeister 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I began reading your article online, from above. Excellent work! I think I see where your coming from about the New Deal and how you interpret it. Quite interesting how you feel Progressive lead to New Deal etc. - Hey I will leave the template to you for now, I am going on sabbatical - however if you will - email me so we can chat via email. Best wishes... -- Northmeister 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, this is just to let you know that you're in danger of violating 3RR at Christian Coalition if you haven't already done so. Any repeated deletion of another editor's work counts toward 3RR, even if you're changing a different section each time, and even if you make other edits at the same time. Please try to work the issue out on talk rather than reverting so much. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen.
You seem to have inserted this text,
Where this text used to be
I think they both merit some space?
Also, I think you could be a bit more precise. I agree that Stimson strongly opposed Morgenthau and his plan. He worked hard to limit his influence in the resulting occupation policy, not entirely successfully though.
But I feel the last part of the sentence is a bit dicey.
In 1945 Stimson may have had indirect control of the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. The French, Soviets, and the British had their zones and were equal partners in the endeavour. And the executive power for the U.S. rested with Eisenhower, who seems to have been a proponent of the Morgenthau plan, at least initially during the occupation.
The common policy had however been set by the Potsdam Conference, and the policy of the U.S zone had been set by JCS 1067, wherever it did not conflict with Potsdam. Even though Eisenhower was encouraged to influence the other powers to adopt the same policies, it was only mandatory for the U.S. slize of Germany. I don’t se much control of the U.S. zone in the hands of Stimson at this stage. In the end General Clay took over as Governor in Germany and did his best to fight the Morgenthau legacy in JCS 1067.
What I’m trying to say is that you could probably nuance the statement somewhat.
The same goes for the Morgenthau Jr. article.
I do not understand your reasoning. You wrote the following in your revert:
Yes, the Joint Chief of Staff may have reported to Stimson, who disapproved of 1067, but the JCS directive 1067 was binding as a law. You obey laws even when you don’t agree with them don’t you? Event the president of the United States has to obey the laws, even if he tries to have them changed in the meanwhile.
As Beschloss writes on page 270: Stimson adviced Clay, "sure, you’ve got to live with 1067." But they mustn’t "let this country starve to death.".
Besides Stimson stepped down in 1945, JCS 1067 was in effect until July 1947. Stor stark7 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the level of industry was finally determined on a level that didn't last long; it wasn't realistic. It took about two years to change. It was after I was back in Washington as Under Secretary before that directive was finally officially revoked.
In the meantime, we didn't pay as much attention to it as perhaps we should from the point of view of military discipline. There were several efforts to pull me back and have me charged with not carrying out the directive.
General Clay always defended me. He knew perfectly well that such a policy couldn't last just as well as I did. We fought it out and finally persuaded Washington. General Marshall himself defended me in testimony before a Congressional Committee. So, it finally worked out. The real turning point came when the currency was devalued or revalued in 1948. At that time we gave the Russians the opportunity to do the same to revalue the mark in their sector, in their zone; they refused. I was back in Washington before this -- when they walked out of the four power council meeting -- the Kommanditura. A few days later they declared the blockade of Berlin.
HESS: Which we will get to in just a minute. Did you ever discuss the Morgenthau plan with its author, with Henry Morgenthau?
And Mr. Morgenthau was of the opinion that Germany should be prevented from having the where withal to ever start another war, and he persuaded President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill to agree to his proposals. He believed that if the Germans were limited to growing food and to light industry and were not permitted any substantial amount of steel production or other basic industrial production, and not permitted to build ships or any of the other things that are required for war, even when on a peacetime basis, that they would be kept perpetually and forever in a condition impossible for them to wage war. That also would be in a condition which would become impossible for the Germans to exist unless somebody helped them and provided the necessities of life. It became evident to us very quickly that this was the case, and that if we carried out literally the terms of the very famous Morgenthau directive, the United States would have to support Germany for the rest of time or as long as that policy stayed in effect. And so, we had to wiggle here and waggle there and do the best we could without openly breaking our directive to permit the German economy to begin to function. We argued with this one and argued with that one here in Washington and in Germany, wherever we had the chance, and bit by bit, we recouped or revised the situation so that it became possible.
Stor stark7 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)