This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

/Archive 12

It seems ShutteGod won't compromise on my addition to the Republican Party History page. I've asked for a compromise via his talk page, but he went ahead of removed my addition for a 2nd time. Is there some sort of mediation to go through? I think the midterm election results were historic for the Republicans, and some of the stats should at least be mentioned. To not include this highlight in political history, is to ignore it. jjrj24 ( talk) 17 November 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Hi there, your picture File:Promises.JPG is being considered for featured picture. However, the summary is not properly filled out. Can you please fill it out? Thanks. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me) ^{what's new?} 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

done-- I scanned it about 10 years ago from a library book. Rjensen ( talk) 04:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

By any chance do you remember what the book was called? Secret Saturdays ( talk to me) ^{what's new?} 19:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember taking it to Kinkos where they had a color photocopier, but I don't remember the book's title. But of course the book did not have copyright on the poster (no one did, it's PD), Rjensen ( talk) 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We should talk about out strategy, so we can pass it, on our way to FA. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed --i'm trying to clean up useless links. Rjensen ( talk) 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked all the books cited and they all look ok, but I'm dubious about some of the articles from popular magazines. Rjensen ( talk) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, magazines are considered reliable. It's possible that someone might not like them at FA, but I wouldn't worry about it until then.

A more likely issue is sentences without references. In this edit [1], although most of that stuff is common knowledge, it is now unsourced.

Finally, one should pretty much do whatever a reviewer wants. Some of your comments on the review page aren't, for lack of a better word, obsequious enough. For instance the number of pages at the end of some refs. They should probably be removed from the 10+/- that have them, or added to the fifty others. So I'd like to remove them, and mark that part as done. But, you've said you want to keep them, so now it's going to require a bunch of discussion, which would be fine, except there's maybe 200 issues to addressed in that review. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you take out the Bose reference? I can't see the right page on Taranto, but I have a feeling it doesn't cover all the text before it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bose was an unnecessary orphan and a poor source, I thought. I think one of our jobs is to educate reviewers on what good standards for Lincoln are. We have to assume they are capable of learning. :) as for the dates of statehood for Nevada/West Va, they don't need citations in an article on AL--that info is already covered in the state article where it belongs, and the cites are to poor quality sources that would not be tolerated in the AL article.. Rjensen ( talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on references. Could you tell me – in footnote #40 – is that the 1995 Foner book or the 2010 ? Thanks Pal. Carmarg4 ( talk) 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Progressive Era. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Uncle Dick ( talk) 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove the template, 1) I moved it to the footnote area where it belongs. 2) the template relates to a false issue. Wiki rules do NOT require page numbers in these cases. Rjensen ( talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not notice that you had moved it, but please keep it at the top of the page for now until the issue is resolved per standard usage of templates. You are required to provide page numbers for citations from books. Please see Wikipedia:Page numbers for more information. Uncle Dick ( talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true: the rule is: Page numbers are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view. which fits every usage in this case. Rjensen ( talk) 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see here for the ongoing discussion on the necessity of page numbers. They are not required in every case, but I have noticed a few cases where the page numbers you have (reluctantly) cited do not adequately support the assertions that you have made, particularly when there is a POV issue. As a result, I feel it necessary to tag articles that do not have sufficient information to properly verify some of the citations you (and others) have referenced. Uncle Dick ( talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

if you see an urgent need for page numbers then please add them--everybody here has to help out in positive fashion and not just complain. Rjensen ( talk) 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I don't have access to the sources that you have cited. Presumably you know which sections you are citing in each book and would be in a much better position to provide adequate page sourcing for the content you have added. That is, assuming you actually know what passages you are citing and aren't just adding citations because the title of the book sounds vaguely related to the point you are trying to make. Uncle Dick ( talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ignorance is not a good ground to stand on. I've actually read the books cited and editors who want to make a positive contribution might try the same technique--it works. The books cover the topics in many different pages and are called "general references" in the Wiki rules, which state that page numbers are not required for them. Rjensen ( talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwalrus states on Tirronan's talk page that my references do not completely support me. However,later, he states that my newest version of the contested edit on the War of 1812 page (go look) is completely correct and supported by a viable author.Here is a quote from him: "1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris". The Treaty of Paris part was repeatedly deleted, scorned ,called "anachronous" and now described as completely correct( or at least viably supported)! By the same people( person)! I would call that anachronous. Deleting my latest post would be deleting properly cited and viable material. Ronald Wenonah ( talk) 22:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Ronald Wenonah Ronald Wenonah ( talk) 22:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

start with #1--it's not supported by RS on US politics. #2 point was already made; #3 not true (US could have joined with Napoleon for example or could have concentrated on Indians, or on privateers) #4 not supported by RS linking 1783 and 1812 Rjensen ( talk) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim by Wenonah that I find his latest edit to be "completely correct and supported by a viable author" is not true. He is playing fast and loose with the truth. The points that he quotes from me are actually what George Stanley made and not my view. This guy has some serious problems. Dwalrus ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been attempted to resummarize again the USG Civil War segment. The longer segment currently in the article can be its own article. Could you look over the new summary in the talk page and do any possible editing? You are a good editor. Your help is needed. The 100th anniversary of the Civil War is approaching or already here. Thanks. 74.38.7.34 ( talk) 02:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I am on the road right now, with limited access to the Internet, but I will look it over as soon as I get a chance. Rjensen ( talk) 05:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I resummarized the U.S. Grant Civil War segment. The plan is to replace the current USG CW segment with the trimmed down summary version in the talk page. The current USG CW segment will be its own article on Wikipedia. If you can look at the summary in the talk page and make any edits or suggestions, that would be helpful. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks --I'm finally back home and will look at it. Rjensen ( talk) 03:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible to get the USG and the Civil War as a separate article by December 31, 2010? I am ready to put the new summary in but wanted to get your input. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the summary and added sources. It is ready to put in the article, just checking if you could take a look at the new summary in the talk page. Any input from you on the new summary or wikipedia article would be helpful. The summary that is currently in the article is to be used for a separate article titled Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War. Thanks. Here is a link to the talk page on USG. USG Civil War summary rewrite Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen for looking at the new summary. I can drop the statement. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind getting involved over at Confederate History Month? It's appalling how long this language apparently stayed on there, and now I'm in an edit war over removing it. I'm going to be too busy to keep an eye on it in the next few days. Thanks. Recognizance ( talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And you may have access and prefer JSTOR, but getting from JSTOR to the actual publication if you don't have access isn't straight-forward. If you link to the abstract at the publisher, then everyone can read the access. Instead, editors have chosen to link to abstracts at paid subscription services instead of the publisher, therefore removing access to the abstract and choice of subscription service to the reader.

Go ahead and access JSTOR all you want, but wikipedia is not the place to promote your access. Giving a link to the publisher allows anyone to select their access, not yours.

So, instead of the citation, with the abstract, the journal name, and the author contacts, what you give the reader is a link to nothing.

Paid subscription services are not necessary to verify information. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 07:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

mistaken--millions of wiki users get the complete text of the article by clicking on the link. A link to the publisher does not do this--it does not do anything. There is no other practical way for editors to verify statements based on scholarly articles. Rjensen ( talk) 08:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:War of 1812#Broken reference tag -- PBS ( talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

done. Rjensen ( talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I just mentioned your name here, so I'm giving you the opportunity to disagree with my summary of your views. If you wish, you may also choose to participate in the mediation. If you'd rather avoid the whole thing, you need only be silent and I will not pester you again. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I'll pass on this one.  :) Rjensen ( talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are far wiser than I. But if you think I'm misrepresenting you, just say the word and I'll remove any mention of you. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about this edit. I've been removing a self-published source that was spammed into several articles, and somehow I must have clicked on an old version of the page (still not quite sure how it happened), and inadvertently reverted to an earlier version. I didn't notice it until I saw your revert, and now I see I've done it on a few other articles too. I'll go over them again and fix anything. I'm sorry for the inconvenience! SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 08:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation--I've made that mistake myself so I know how easy it is. Rjensen ( talk) 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing edits to TR article

I am trying to avoid an "edit war" but while I understand your some of your points, I've done some checking on wikipedia policy on the use of sources and the section I put in on TR's attitude toward his father was from well-authenticated and well-published source, Joseph Bucklin Bishop. Note what wikipedia's policy is: "Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject." But in the case of my two edits, I object to your removal of these sections. They do NOT constitute a violation of wikipedia policy. Please reconsider these removals. Note wikipedia's own policies below: Thanks Keith. SimonATL ( talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is what wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style Observe the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

Also in the section on "No Original Research" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.

Reliable sourcesFurther information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions.

Using sourcesInformation in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

The section you unnecessarily excised was from an established and well-respected secondary source:

I was fortunate enough in having a father whom I have always been able to regard as an ideal man. It sounds a little like cant to say what I am going to say, but he really did combine the strength and courage and will and energy of the strongest man with the tenderness, cleanness and purity of a woman. I was a sickly and timid boy. He not only took great and untiring care of me—some of my earliest remembrances are of nights when he would walk up and down with me for an hour at a time in his arms when I was a wretched mite suffering acutely with asthma— but he also most wisely refused to coddle me, and made me feel that I must force myself to hold my own with other boys and prepare to do the rough work of the world. I cannot say that he ever put it into words, but he certainly gave me the feeling that I was always to be both decent and manly, and that if I were manly nobody would laugh at my being decent. In all my childhood he never laid hand on me but once, but I always knew perfectly well that in case it became necessary he would not have the slightest hesitancy in doing so again, and alike from my love and respect, and in a certain sense, my fear of him, I would have hated and dreaded beyond measure to have him know that I had been guilty of a lie, or of cruelty, or of bullying, or of uncleanness or of cowardice. Gradually I grew to have the feeling on my own account, and not merely on his." ^[1]

SimonATL ( talk) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

yes Roosevelt wrote it but it is a primary source and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources that explain what really happened, and this is not explained and is much too long for the article. TR wrote millions of words, and these are easily available online. But in any case they add nothing new to the article. Rjensen ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you do not seem to appreciate that the block quote your removed is from an established SECONDARY source, Joseph Bucklin Bishop and simply puts out information in TR's own words. I guess this will have to go to arbitration as you don't seem to understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources as outlined above. SimonATL ( talk) 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

well, no. Bishop combines a very mediocre secondary source biography that has long been outdated, plus long excerpts from the letters and writings of Theodore Roosevelt. the text that I deleted was 100% written by Theodore Roosevelt himself, which makes it a primary source. I recommend looking at the recent biography by Brands, and especially the Pulitzer prize-winning biography by Edmund Morris (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (1979) = vol 1 of his 3 volume biography covers TR's childhood and youth). In any case, the book you cite was written by Bishop himself in the months after TR died in 1919 & is too poor quality to be included in Wikipedia. Bishop was an uncritical admirer of his personal friend TR and did not have access to the enormous amount of research that has been done by historians in recent decades. Rjensen ( talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Understand your point on Bishop. Understand your point about primary sources. I've read Morris and Brands and heard him lecture at a Theodore Roosevelt seminar at Dickinson State Univesity. The rule about not using primary sources indicates that we should not use them where secondary sources exist. I understand that too, but wouldn't your intrepretation REMOVE the direct use of ANY 1st hand quote by the subject of the article? Just because Bishop was biased in Roosevelt's favor does not REMOVE anything he wrote about TR just because Morris or Brands or Miller or any modern respected author also covers the same topic. What's so bad about letting a person speak for him/herself via a secondary source? Even if that source is biased; If that source includes a valid quote by TR, himself? If an editor puts in "Morris says, "TR said, 'Blah Blah Blah'" would your dispute that using that quote? Would you remove that one too? There are a number of places in the article where just such a citation has been put in. Just because Morris and Brands and others might have done "more" or better reseach than someone like Bishop does not remove Bishop as a secondary source. For cripes sake, Bishop KNEW TR, personally and TR, himself, provided the letters that Bishop refers too. How does Bishop's obvious bias for TR remove the use of such quotes in a wikipedia article? Wikipedia does NOT say, "Use NO biased biographies. I'm currently reading Morris' Vol 3 on TR. Morris lists Bishop's Book, "TR as seen in his letters." in his list of "Select Bibliography" (pg 575). If someone as respected as Edmund Morris, himself, quotes from Bishop, why can't "I" also quote from Bishop. Morris uses Bishop through ALL three of his books and so does Brandt in his one vol bio. Nathan Miller also does, (pg 594) Let's be reasonable here. Bishop IS a valid secondary source. SimonATL ( talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not bias. It is long unnecessary quotes that slow down the article and prevent us from covering much more important topics. The article is already too long and these quotes--which are easily available online--contain very little information and are a good place to start trimming. As for Bishop, he is useful for reprinting some TR letters but not for Bishop's own analysis, which is pretty hero-worshipping, uncritical, and not based on modern scholarship. For example, Bishop did not have access to the private letters of the people TR was dealing with, but modern scholars do. Rjensen ( talk) 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, we've crossed paths several times on different pieces. You do some good work on here, and it's nice to see a knowledgeable editor at work. Hope to see you again on other pieces. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 09:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks! I appreciate your hard work too. Rjensen ( talk) 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your Ph.D. is from Yale. Were C. Vann Woodward, John Morton Blum, and Edmund Morgan around in your day? The university had a solid history department. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

yes indeed, I took seminars from each; Woodward and Blum were on my dissertation committee, which Woodward chaired. Rjensen ( talk) 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. I also studied under the three of them as well, but as an undergraduate. My friend Patty Nelson Limerick was probably after your time though? MarmadukePercy ( talk) 15:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checked your userpage and see the date of your Ph.D. Had missed that. Yes, you were there before Patty or me. 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just made your acquaintance through your helpful comment on the Further reading manual of style talk page, and I was glad to see your rule of thumb about adding further reading references to articles. I see you are a historian both by higher education and by profession, and I will be delighted to learn from you how better to use history publications to improve Wikipedia article text on various subjects. It has been my misfortune to run into quite a few edit wars on some of the articles I edit. My undergraduate higher education was in Chinese language and sinology, and of course those subjects evoke many cross-strait tensions between the P.R.C. and R.O.C. regimes, while my current occupational interest in gifted education impinges on very controversial issues related to IQ testing and education policy. I'm trying to be as helpful and as nondisruptive as possible, by preferring sharing sources initially [2] to plunging in with lots of bold edits to article text. But some articles are badly in need of bold edits, and I hope it is "uncontroversial" (to use a word from another editor who commented after you commented on further reading links) that adding reliable sources to Wikipedia is, in general, a good idea, an idea that can help fellow editors edit boldly and effectively. I will be glad to hear from you any tips you have about editing well in contentious editing environments so that what the sources say is properly reflected in article text. I hope you enjoy the remainder of your Thanksgiving weekend. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 03:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement and thanks I had a very pleasant family-oriented Thanksgiving. Rjensen ( talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I found an interesting newspaper article on A. J. Creswell. He may not be the reformer as mentioned in the Presidency of USG article.

"Postmaster-General Creswell was investigated three times, twice whitewashed by a Republican Congress and once exposed by a Democratic House. The most flagrant abuse ever fastened upon the Post Office Department, that of "straw bids," began under Creswell. A straw bid is a bid so low that it can never be fulfilled, which usually throws the contracts into Ring hands at a higher rate, or compels "temporary services" at high pay. Where the highest bid was $80,049, the straw bid was in one case $900. In another case the highest was $150,000, tbe lowest was $75. This last Creswell through out, and yet accepted a straw bid of $4,200. One firm of straw bidders, Barlow, Sanderson & Co., paid between $40,000 and $50,000 to influence the investigation of the Republican House, paid one lawyer $25,000 for influence within the Department, and gave large sums to the Second Assistant Postmaster-General's brother. This firm obtained one contract which will serve as a specimen. It was let to a straw bidder, though there was an honest bid of $96,000 a year. This bidder failed, and temporary service was engaged at $700 a day. Another straw bid, another failure, and temporary services again, this time at $120 a day. Finally, the contract was handed over to Barlow & Co., without advertising and violation of law, at $142,000. Hundreds similar instances could be given. Creswell, when he resigned, received a eulogistic letter from President Grant." -- Hagerstown Mail (Friday, October 22, 1876) Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen. I like your improvements to Wikipedia:Further reading. A question—what are you thinking of regarding the usefulness of unreliable sources? I read WP:RS and I can't envision a situation when an unreliable source would be a good edition to a further reading section. Am I missing something you've thought of? Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks....I was thinking of items like election campaign manifestos (like Sarah Palin's new book, or Mitt Romney's recent book)--probably they count as a primary source that people looking at an election should know about. Maybe also items that are temporary until something more RS comes along (like light journalistic accounts of the current recession). Rjensen ( talk) 03:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the article for which a "campaign manifesto" is being used. Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, a book by Sarah Palin would be a reliable source as to a Wikipedia article about her or her campaign. It would be questionable for a Wikipedia article about, for example, a specific policy topic like taxes or energy, and in those situations it probably would not be appropriate for a further reading section, no? Likewise, a light journalistic account could still be a reliable source if it were published in, for example, a newspaper with credible editorial oversight and fact checking. A blog or self-published book wouldn't be, and would probably always be inapporpriate for a further reading section.

I suggested the reliable source standard as a replacement for the previous text that required favorable reviews in scholarly sources, which was way too strict. I'm concerned that weakening the reliable sources standard is too extreme in the other direction. Can I convince you to return to it?

-- Bsherr ( talk) 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

well maybe. However, the RS standard is all about verifiability--nailing down specific statements made in the text--but that is not at all at issue here. I guess I am opposed to extending the RS standard in arbitrary fashion. I would prefer to leave it to the judgment of the editors, with annotations to alert the user to what issues are involved. One specific example that has come up is using guidebooks -- like the Fodor guides-- in the further reading for articles on specific cities. These usually have an essay on the history of the city that would not quite pass muster as RS in history, but which may be the only conveniently available resource for most users. Rjensen ( talk) 05:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a guidebook would satisfy WP:RS, though I understand it many not be the most reliable source. Further reading is essentially a reference section, so I don't think it's much of an extension of WP:RS. I guess we can discuss it on the talk page of the proposed guideline. -- Bsherr ( talk) 05:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you check the peer review of the article you'll see that according to Fifelfoo Taubman and Tucker should be replaced because of c1/c2 issues, that is why i was in the process of replacing them-- Macarenses ( talk) 08:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fifelfoo is poorly informed on publishers--Norton and Holt are famous mainline publishers, and Taubman won the Pulitzer Prize for his great biography. Walker is a well-known specialist on the Cold War Rjensen ( talk) 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As i have little knowledge in matters of publications may i suggest you discuss the issue with Fifelfoo to reach a consensus, so that we can all see this article reach FAC-- Macarenses ( talk) 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the Fifelfoo report. He seems unfamiliar with publishers. Rjensen ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

I was certainly unfamiliar with those two, one from encountering only its textbooks, the other from sheer unfamiliarity, which is why I asked how they were reliable. Additionally, Holt appeared to be a personal name, a common sign of self publication and minor presses. Fully resolved. Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, i don't quite understand why did you omit the paragraph dealing with the change in policy in the way the Soviet Union was portrayed in Western media- here. It's just that i've added that paragraph as it was deemed necessary to the section by Nick-D's review. I'm sure you had your reasons and i'm looking forward to hear them.-- Macarenses ( talk) 07:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear what change you mean--the 1939 pact? (it's well covered elsewhere and had little to do with Cold War) Rjensen ( talk) 07:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean this paragraph(references removed for space): "The new alliance also saw a temporary change in Allied policy towards the Soviets, from the anti-Communist propaganda that was widespread since the time of the First Red Scare to more pro-Soviet propaganda depicting the Soviet Union in a positive light with films such as Capra's " The Battle of Russia" and " Mission to Moscow"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macarenses ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

that needs a RS and a rewrite. -- the term "propaganda" does not fit. nor does "allies". The passage exaggerates two Hollywood movies, with no evidence of US or British government policy. Rjensen ( talk) 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While I agree the passage will require a rewrite and that the term "allies" should be dropped I must say that as for "propaganda"- that's the perfect term. I mean, movies like "the battle of Russia" were in many cases commissioned by military and state authorities(in the case of this particular film, the film was commissioned by general George C. Marshall and produced in association with the US signal corps)with the expressed purpose to aid the war effort. As for The two films, they were given as an example and maybe they were given undue attention.-- Macarenses ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"the battle of Russia" was pretty small stuff--there were many hundreds of war movies in those days. Needed is a serious RS that discusses these issues in the context of the Cold War. Rjensen ( talk) 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but what does RS stands for?-- Macarenses ( talk) 06:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RS = reliable source; in history = usually a peer-reviewed scholarly book or article. Rjensen ( talk) 06:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone of the following be considered a RS?

• http://books.google.com/books?id=bliIcnRb9EUC&dq=american+propaganda+WwII&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• http://books.google.com/books?id=1-JjwDPcOLQC&dq=american+propaganda+WwII&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• http://books.google.com/books?id=eNgOAAAAQAAJ&dq=american+propaganda+WwII&source=gbs_navlinks_s

-- Macarenses ( talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

yes those are all excellent and reliable sources. David Culbert, in particular has written numerous articles and books that are of value here. Rjensen ( talk) 09:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The second source is a Tertiary (Historical dictionary of American propaganda) and only the introduction should be used (the introduction will be a secondary source and a scholarly work). The other two are HQRS secondaries. Remember with the third to cite the chapter author and chapter title and the containing work and containing editor. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get the context of your edit. Toscho ( talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was closely following the book by Feiwel Kupferberg, The Rise and Fall of the German Democratic Republic (2002), pp 54-55, 66, 94-5, 192-3. -- why delete that info? Rjensen ( talk) 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen,

I'm not sure if you remember me, but I recently added some important results for the Republican Party on the History of the Republican Party page, only to have it called trivial by ShutteGod and erased all together without discussion. I'm not sure what his agenda is, but he edited out my update again even after I tried to compromise by shortening my version. He keeps speaking of working this out via talk, but all he does is erase my edit and tell ME to talk about it. We agree it was a significant mid-term election result, but he thinks it's "trivial." Is he serious, or is he just some partisan editor who doesn't like that page?

jjrj24 ( talk) 9:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please have some respect and let me work up some evaluations -- that's why I've add an under construction notice to the page. Second and third and fourth hand is precisely what the later evaluations of the ALL are about. I'm trying to make it clear what the author said, where he was coming from, and someone else's skeptical evaluation. There's more to come but it takes a little time.

I'm not some fly-by anonymous guy who popped in to add a smirk. I'm working on the entry and will be for the next week or two. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 03:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

the Johnson review was sarcastic--he makes it clear that Spivak was off the wall and not a RS. Better use the RS that are in the bibliography. Note that you have to respect the Wikipedia rules regarding RS unless you use a sandbox, because this is an official Wikipedia article. Here's the terms Johnson uses for Spivak: "never fully qualified" "distinct aura of mythology" "Scotch verdict--not proven" "fatuous" "highly unscientific" "needs to be balanced and corrected" Rjensen ( talk) 03:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The full documentary, free legal to watch from it's author. An abundance of evidence for any serious historian. Have a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM
In case you have not already seen it.
Nunamiut ( talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks for the heads-up. it has terrific visuals (and poor history). :) Rjensen ( talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But do you still really think _all_ of it is simply silly "conjecture" and can be just brushed off/aside as such? Nunamiut ( talk) 02:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

yes--in my opinion the video is VERY bad economics and bad history as well. Rjensen ( talk) 03:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to comment on my "Unbalanced entry" assertions on ((Talk:Cyrus Cylinder))? I feel that a clique of editors have taken over that page, and suppress the contrarian view points on the topic. I'd like to see a lot more neutral involvement and oversight on this topic. IMediaObserver ( talk) 08:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that you are passionate and knowlegble about this topic and have given good feedback in the past. In particular to good access to sources. Wanna try your hand at addressing Folantin's suggestion at bottom of section here? Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Cylinder_and_human_rights I'll be around the next few days trying to work on determining the prevalence of scholars supporting/not-supporting the notion that the Cylinder is "Charter of Human Rights." Perhaps you might want to address the issue in the same manner that he addresses it? Best, GoetheFromm ( talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I just now added my opinion. I am not "passionate" on the matter one way or another. Rjensen ( talk) 02:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I HAVE noticed that you are balanced and neutral. Hence, the reason why I took the time to request your feedback :-) Best, GoetheFromm ( talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I cited Current's work, The Lincoln Nobody Knows, pages 230-233. Current claims that Lincoln's racial views and African American colonization have been used to promote white supremacy. Current page 230: "His name [Lincoln] also has been made to symbolize the opposite doctrine of white supremacy and black oppression." Current then gives an example of James K. Vardaman, quoting Lincoln to justify white supremacy in 1909. Current is a valid source. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

an old book citing one obscure speech in 1909 --hardly makes the cut in terms of importance, does it. Rjensen ( talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends. The speech was regarded as reason the NAACP formed, according to Current. (page 231) That is not insignifigant, in my opinion. The speech also took place in Lincoln's home town of Springfield, Illinois. Vardaman, was a prominant white supremacist in Mississippi. I am all for concensus. If you do not believe this is worth mentioning in the article, that is fine. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! since you helped me once with my faux-pas in using sources in Cold War i thought you might be able to help me again. I need to know if the following source is reliable: [3]

Best regards,-- Macarenses ( talk) 17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

negative. it's self published by an amateur with no serious credentials. see author he's proposing a new language that he wants Europe to adopt!!!??? Rjensen ( talk) 21:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some bad news, searching the name of the author on Wikipedia yields a few dozens articles using either this book or others by the same author- should i go on a clearing rampage and delete all those references? you can check some of them out by searching the title of the book.-- Macarenses ( talk) 11:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

yes please clean them out. They are not RS--a self-published book by an amateur who admits he doesn't know much about language who has devised his own new language he wants Europe to adopt. Rjensen ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

All reference to the book and author were removed from 29 articles- the purge is complete.-- Macarenses ( talk) 10:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

good work. I nominated the article for deletion. Rjensen ( talk) 10:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can 'tariffs' be considered 'taxes'? If so we might reconsider it as a cause of Southern resentment and the secession movement. It may be, that taxes cannot be considered a real cause, only fear of --- .

Secretary of War Floyd pointedly did not mount armaments purchased and delivered on site to protect US forts in the South, to save taxes, a Southern state policy in the US Congress. On the other hand, Floyd initiated the additional expense of removing infantry arms out of northern armories to those located in the South. I wonder if the expenses were a wash? "No harm, no foul" for the honorable Mr. Floyd? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

tariffs are not considered taxes (because the shipper in Europe officially pays them, not the American merchant). In 1860 tariffs were the lowest in US history, and the tariff law --and all tax laws--had been written by Southerners as recently as 1857. Floyd risked getting hanged for treason so he deserted his army when Grant approached. Rjensen ( talk) 12:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

got it. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand your edit and reverted it. Where can i find these 10.000 slaving vessels associated with the port of Amsterdam in this source you gave? Quote me from it. Sonty567 ( talk) 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I garbled the cite and am glad you caught the problem. I now fixed it with better details, fully sourced to an important article that is online Rjensen ( talk) 21:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conservapedia copy and pasting. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Per our copyright policy, we need to verify that you are the copyright owner of that content. The easiest way to do it is probably for you to log in to your Conservapedia account and, while logged in, acknowledge at your userpage there that you are also Rjensen on Wikipedia. (For other options, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.) If you do that, there should be no copyright concerns with your placing the same text on both sites. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

yes I did that at the time (17 June 2009) on the talk page of the article. see Jensen statement of authorship Rjensen ( talk) 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That resolves the question today, but it would be a very good idea for you to verify the correspondence in accounts at your userpage there. I work with copyright cleanup routinely--it's mostly what I do here. If something like this were flagged as a copyright problem and you could no longer be reached for comment, it is very likely that the content would be deleted, presuming that the admin who addressed the matter did not know your history. Our copyright mandate is to delete where uncertainty exists. If you would prefer not to display the verification of identity on your userpage there, it would be a good idea to provide a link to the page where you did verify when you duplicate content on Wikipedia that you've previously published at Conservapedia--probably on the talk page, since edit summaries are more easily overlooked. (In similar fashion, when you clear a source through OTRS, the OTRS release is noted at every page that uses that source.) And, of course, as the ANI thread notes, you do need to make sure that you are the sole author of that content there. We can't import content authored by others due to licensing irregularities. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK my sole authorship re parts of History of Newfoundland is verified here and at the relevant talk page in Conservapedia. Rjensen ( talk) 02:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RE this, there's a short passage in the chapter from Scholefield & Howay I just added, towards its end, you could use to cite that; I don't have the patience to read it again this morning (as i did "through" this morning over coffee). Not sure that resentment context belongs in the lede though..... Skookum1 ( talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that citation, which I had not seen. I think the lead is accurate, and I provided additional support with this addition: Historian F.W. Gibson concluded that Canadians vented their anger less upon the United States and "to a greater degree upon Great Britain for having offered such feeble resistance to American aggressiveness. The circumstances surrounding the settlement of the dispute produced serious dissatisfaction with Canada's position in the British Empire." [Gibson (1943) at notes 60-61]. Rjensen ( talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to say well done on expanding the war section of the Scotland article. Are you Scottish by any chance? 86.147.204.162 ( talk) 12:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks--I married a Campbell. :) Rjensen ( talk) 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, that was fast! I was expecting a stub article, at most, but kudos on doing such a great job in expanding that section. I myself was surprised that a proper article for the irreconcilables didn't exist. I'll be sure to add some extra material should I come across it. Cheers, -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks  :) Rjensen ( talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually object to this edit, but I was curious as to your thought process. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the Ordnance says nothing about what happens after it becomes a state and Congress loses control. That is once Illinois became a state it could choose to accept or reject slavery, and there was a big debate in 1822-23. Rjensen ( talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You know, I knew that Congress could not hold a state to any pre-admission conditions for statehood (per Coyle v. Smith), but I never thought about it in terms of slave vs. free states. I mean, with Maine and Alabama, the precedent was set that Congress would attempt to keep the two sided balanced. Could a state, say, Iowa, have chosen to be a slave state after admission? Is that what you are saying was debated in Illinois? I never knew that. For that matter, before the MO Comp, were states admitted explicitly as slave or free states? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read your edit. Fascinating stuff. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

slavery inside a state was an internal matter that could not be regulated by Congress, so a state could indeed switch. And indeed all the northern states switched from slave to free, but none ever went the other way--except maybe Texas in its days as a Republic. (slavery was illegal in mexiso and so in Mexican days Texans had their slaves sign lifime contracts). Rjensen ( talk) 08:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I wondered what you want to do with this article? It seems to be two or three subjects tother: the USA industry, the UK industry at the beginning; some contemporary information.

I think there is a definite case for splitting it into several articles, which would help me add a bit of detail about the decline of cotton in the UK, see:

• Cotton Board (United Kingdom)
• Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947
• Shirley Institute

what do you think? Jim Killock (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree; also other countries need to be added. To start, the History of the textile industry should be spun off. Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you may remember me from the John Adams article. Recently, I was looking at the John Marshall article, and noticed something very peculiar about an edit you made on November 30, 2010. If you have a few minutes, would you please take a look here? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what the issue is. the text for years has said "The first important case of Marshall's career was Marbury v. Madison (1803)..." and I never touched it. Rjensen ( talk) 12:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to explain. Right now in that article, there are two separate subsections titled "Marbury v. Madison", and there are other redundancies as well. So, I studied the edit history to figure out how that happened. The problem seems to have started on November 30, 2010. I'm thinking there might have been some kind of computer malfunction on that date, because the diff I provided makes no sense; ordinarily everything on the left side of a diff will also appear if you click on that revision, but such is not true in this instance. So not only do we have a lot of redundancy, but we also have a diff that suggests a computer malfunction. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

you're right it was a preblem--I tried to straighten it out. Rjensen ( talk) 13:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't bother trying to figure out how it got messed up, or why that diff is so weird, unless you think that would be worthwhile. All's well that ends well. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen! I recently made this change to the article. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 ( talk) 10:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

♠ TomasBat 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has questioned a source you added to Radical Right. Could you please comment here. TFD ( talk) 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did you want to get rid of the Corwin version of the quote (and make related edits), or shall I give that a try? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

i will work on it today. Rjensen ( talk) 07:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I tweaked it just a little bit. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to know what is happening...?

The reason I am trying to add a couple of paragraphes in the Attack on Pearl Harbour article is because I have an assignment due on the 31st of January.

The assignment is to add 2-3 paragraphes on a piece of AMerican History... If you are not going to accept my request to add please let me know as soon as possible so I can find another thing to work on.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmz10 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are a history professor who at least gets close to if not exactly at the period in question, I think your views would be helpful on an issue for which a recent discussion was opened at Talk:Harvard University#Pre-Harvard Jesuit presence. The claims made in the initial edit struck me as so unlikely as to constitute vandalism, but the editor comes across as sincere and I like to start out assuming good faith, so I wonder whether you are aware of any recent discoveries in this area (even if there is a translation problem) or any other reason to give the claims any credence. Thanks in advance. Fat&Happy ( talk) 06:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

uuuuuuuuu sssssssssuuuuuuuuccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.104.240.86 ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly much more acquainted than I am with the question of which sources are reliable re: this particular incident, so I concede the point.

It's interesting to note, though, that even Weiss's defenders concede that he committed an act of violence upon Long's person, thereby triggering the chain of events which led directly to Long's death. Therefore, no matter who shot the bullet which killed Long, it was still Weiss's fault.

Weiss physically attacked Long for political reasons => Long died, two days later, from injuries which would not otherwise have been incurred => Weiss's fault, plain and simple. DS ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think what happened is that after the assassination the Weiss family, especially his son, invented explanations that would minimize Weiss's guilt. No reliable source agrees--the best coverage is the biography by T Harry Williams (a famous scholar who won the Pulitzer prize). Rjensen ( talk) 14:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this edit and this edit: I had thought the correct citation form was to use one of the 'cite web/book/journal/etc.' variants or to use the 'citation' form and am wondering why you altered a 'cite web' & a 'cite book' to another style. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki allows either method but the first cite made a funny looking footnote, I thought. Rjensen ( talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that when an article is being put up for GA status the consistency of the references can be an issue,..but maybe I'm wrong on that. If one of the citation templates is used ("cite web", "cite book", "cite journal", "citation" et al) then that keeps the citations similar no matter which editor is doing the editing. I am not familiar with the style that you converted some of the templates to and had thought that most of the references in the article already were in the citation/cite web/etc. formats. Shearonink ( talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Corinth could use your expertise if you are willing.

There is one small caveat. Three of us have decided to keep Ancient Corinth separate from (modern) Corinth. See discussions at Talk:Corinth#Time_to_split_this_article_between_Ancient_and_.28Nea.2FNew.29_Corinth.

I will notify any other interested editors on the Ancient Corinth discussion page, but no one seems to be editing it but me. Student7 ( talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been so long (nearly 50 years) since I worked on Greece that I really can't help here. Rjensen ( talk) 14:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please look at the phrasing of the article again. It does not seem to preseent TR's New Nationalism, progressivism and social liberalism correctly. TFD ( talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, willdo. Rjensen ( talk) 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take back your re-revert on History of Germany. You have no consensus for the inclusion of your text. I would prefer to discuss this on the talk page rather than going to formal dispute resolution.   Cs32en  Talk to me  01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Update) As you have expanded the section since I left my comment, I retract my demand for taking back your specific edit. However, the language of your current edits still generally presents history as if it were the outcome of plans drawn up by single individuals, and your wording is still tilted towards an overly positive presentation of conservative politics and its protagonists.   Cs32en  Talk to me  03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally I prefer talking about long-term forces, but the RS covering the 1949-1989 period seems heavily focused on personalities, so that's what I used. The historiography also stresses the economic success story, which favors the CDU policies. I tried to add material on the welfare state but it got challenged by Cs32en. Rjensen ( talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen, I have two Issues from that article that I wish to bring to your attention.

• 1. Please be more careful in your edit summaries. Here for example you have chosen to delete large segments of sourced paragraphs, and your edit summary does not reflect this in any way, instead you summarize. "add details and citations". [4]

• 2. In your edits you keep changing the sentence that states that the Marshall plan to Germany was in the shape of loans into reading "gifts" instead. [5] And you add this "gifts" despite the fact that the citation for the sentence says exactly the opposite. Please do not introduce misinformation into Wikipedia, in the end it will render the whole project useless. Below I quote three paragraphs from the source, Susan Stern, I suggest you read it before changing it to allign with myth the next time:

How the Marshall Plan Worked

Set up for a limited period of four years, 1948 - 1952, the ERP operated through a counterpart fund. The money contributed by the U.S. included currency for loans, but went primarily (70 percent) towards the purchase of commodities from U.S. suppliers: $3.5 billion was spent on raw materials; $3.2 billion on food, feed and fertilizer; $1.9 billion on machinery and vehicles; $1.6 billion on fuel.

The OEEC decided which country should get what (based on what each country declared it needed), and the ECA arranged for the transfer of the goods. The American supplier was paid in dollars, which were credited against the appropriated ERP funds. The European recipient, however, was not given the goods as a gift, but had to pay for them (although not necessarily at one go) in local currency, which was then deposited by the government in a counterpart fund. This money, in turn, could be used by the ERP countries for further investment projects. Most of the participating ERP countries were aware from the start that they would never have to return the counterpart fund money to the U.S., and it was eventually absorbed into their national budgets and disappeared. Germany, however, was left in doubt - would it have to repay its debts? This uncertainty was to have a very positive effect.

As Time Went By ... The ERP Special Fund In 1953, it was finally established in an agreement signed in London that Germany would have to repay only a third ($1.1 billion) of its debts to the U.S. At this time, the ERP Special Fund already contained DM 6 billion (then equivalent to about $1.5 billion). The money Germany owed the U.S. was paid back in installments (the last check was handed over in June, 1971) and interestingly enough, did not come from the ERP pot, but from the federal budget. The Special Fund, now supervised by the federal economics ministry, kept growing: in 1971, it was over DM 10 billion. Today it has reached more than DM 23 billion. And thanks to the revolving loan system, by the end of 1995, the Fund had made low-interest loans amounting to around DM 140 billion.

And Finally, Back to Germany and the Marshall Plan Myth There is another reason for the Plan's continued vitality. It has transcended reality and become a myth. To this day, a truly astonishing number of Germans (and almost all advanced high school students) have an idea what the Marshall Plan was, although their idea is very often very inaccurate. They think the Marshall Plan was aid given exclusively to West Germany; that it was given in the form of a vast amount of dollars (cash); that it was an outright gift from the U.S. Many Germans believe that the Marshall Plan was alone responsible for the economic miracle of the Fifties. And when scholars come along and explain that reality was far more complex, they are sceptical and disappointed. They should not be. For the Marshall Plan certainly did play a key role in Germany's recovery, albeit perhaps more of a psychological than a purely economic one..

-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

the Marshall Plan $$ was gifts. there also were US loans--not part of the MP, but don't mix the two. Rjensen ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The source above says the opposite to what you say. Perhaps you are confusing the German situation with that of the other recipient nations?-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

the material you rely on was written by Susan Stern, a staff assistant at the German Embassy who writes press releases. She is not a historian or a scholar and does not cite scholarly sources. She is misinformed on the details of the Marshall plan. There is good coverage in Harry Bayard Price, The Marshall Plan and its Meaning (1955), which explains on page 106that 95% of the counterpart funds were to be used for investments in that country, and none was to be repaid. As a German official explained at the time, "counterpart was spent almost entirely for investment and increase of productivity." (p 107) In addition to the Marshall plan money, the USA loaned money to Germany, which was repaid at about $.35 on the dollar. Rjensen ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken. I'm alarmed by the carelessness shown here. The late "Susan Stern was a British-born, American-educated, long-time resident of Germany where she was a tenured lecturer at the University of Frankfurth since 1971. As a writer, journalist, and author of These Strange German Ways and the Whys of the Ways, her field was contemporary Germany, focusing on the relations between Germany and the United States in such areas as cross-cultural communication, the effects of globalization on German business culture and comparative management practices." [6] [7]. Professor Stern was clearly not a "staff assistant writing press-releases", as you had claimed above. And, in addition, you are mistaken also regarding the sources she cites. They are indeed scholarly:

• Browne, Stephen: The Marshall Plan and Early Bilateral Aid (in) History of the U.S. Economy since World War II Vatter, Harold and Walker, John (editors) M. E. Sharpe, 1996
• hristoph Buchheim: Marshall Plan and Currency Reform, in: American Policy and the Reconstruction of West-Germany 1945-1955, hg. v. Diefendorf, Jeffry M, Washington, London 1993

-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stern is not a scholar and not a RS. And she did not say th Marshall Plan money was a loan. the loans she was talking about were from the 1920s and the 1945-47 period (before the Marshall Plan money began). Rjensen ( talk) 02:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Terminology related to Germany is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology related to Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.    Cs32en  Talk to me  03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I agree it should be deleted. Rjensen ( talk) 04:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article History of citizenship in the United States is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of citizenship in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Coffeepusher ( talk) 12:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information is too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this but your reversions do not fit with WP:NPOV or the facts of Chinese history. By 1943, Mao was in control of Yenan whilst other warlords held sway over large swathes of territory across China - never mind Puyi and his Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Chiang may have been accepted as the titular Chinese leader by the Allies but he was not in control of the whole country. Calling him the "Chinese nationalist leader" is a statement of fact. Best Philg88 ( talk) 07:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Chiang indeed only controlled part of China--Japan had the key parts --but the reason he's mentioned in the FDR article is that he was treated by Allies as the overall leader of China, not merely one faction. Rjensen ( talk) 07:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you that all these sections to which you are adding additional content actually need to be written as summaries of the respective articles, per WP:Summary.   Cs32en  Talk to me  01:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kulturkampf for example is a summary. Rjensen ( talk) 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not have any particular edit in mind. Yet, for example, the "See also: Steel crisis" link is not appropriate for the respective section, which describes much more than the steel crisis. Other sections also would need to be checked for sub-article links that are not pertinent (or missing).   Cs32en  Talk to me  02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 16:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you made a bunch of corrections to the Efficiency Movement article. In particular, your first edit on December 17 severely altered the first paragraph. That's fine, but the first line is now not a sentence (although it is fairly long) and doesn't actually make sense. It seems that something went astray when cutting and pasting. Rather than guess at your intention, I thought I would mention it so you might correct it when you have a moment. Thanks for your work! -- Edgehawk ( talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the alert eye! I'll work on it. Rjensen ( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to challenge you in respect to your knowledge pertaining to the War of 1812. InternetHero ( talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

what's your problem? Rjensen ( talk) 09:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need you "warning" me about 3RR, & if you read my comments on the talk page, you'll see why I think it's needless. As for "sourced", that's not a defense for leaving in needless garbage. You want to make threats, do it somewhere else. I'm not impressed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

you need a warning to stop this edit war--which consists not of contesting the truth of information but of deleting non-controversial information added by three other editors. One has a very narrow view of the Zimmerman telegram if one cannot see that it involved the relations between Germany and Mexico regarding the US--that was the substance of it and it why Germany sent it is an important point indeed. Leaving out why germany did it keeps the readers in the dark. Talk about nonexistent articles is a red herring Rjensen ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Auto-assessment. Best wishes, Voceditenore ( talk) 10:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The German history did not end in 260 and then suddenly started again in 800. This period has to be covered as well, and 8 lines are not too detailed. Gogafax 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

it's not sourced and it's full of poor quality material like this "Large segments of the population of today's East Germany were characterized as Slavic (Germania Slavica) in the Early Middle Age." obviously copied from a pre 1990 source and dealing with the Middle Ages. Rjensen ( talk) 21:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently you stated that my suggestion to move the Boller material from the George Washington article to the George Washington and religion article was POV. I'd like to know why you said that, if you care to explain. And, on a related topic, it seems to me that in the various articles where our editing overlaps, the use of words like "deism" and "providence" is often muddy and ill-defined. I see that as a problem and am inclined to strive for clarity in the use of terms. Part of the problem, in my view, is that reliable sources often use these two terms in conflicting ways, often without clearly defining what they mean; and this leads to confusion in wikipedia articles. Perhaps you'd be willing to comment.-- Other Choices ( talk) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you want to hide information you dislike. The GW and religion article is long and poorly written and disorganized--a good place to hide info. Given the titles you seek out it looks like a deliberate effort to inject a fundamentalist religious interpretation into history. Rjensen ( talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You misjudge me, but I am inclined to agree with your general criticism of the GW and religion article. I intend to try to improve that article in the future; I imagine that you'll want to have a hand in that, also. Regarding my own point of view, you can examine my original contribution to scholarship on the American founding here. -- Other Choices ( talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

natural law is fine -- I used to be a student assisted to the editor of the Natural Law Forum (now the American Journal of Jurisprudence) Are you denying that you have an agenda to deemphasize Deism and emphasized the Christian origins of the American Republic??? Rjensen ( talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am denying that I have an agenda to emphasize the Christian origins of the American Republic. I think that claims about iconic founders' alleged deism are improperly overemphasized here at wikipedia, so I do have an agenda to restore balance. A case in point, which I haven't gotten around to addressing, is the OR at the Benjamin Franklin article at note 80. As I see it, the problem with this issue in the scholarly literature is that scholars who reject the model of a Christian/Deist dichotomy for a threefold Christian/Theist/Deist division do not agree on terminology. Some scholars end up using awkward phrases like "mild Deist" or the oxymoronic "Christian Deist"; and others muddle through without precise definitions. This presents a challenge to wikipedia editors who want to both be informative and stay true to their scholarly sources.-- Other Choices ( talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll take that. The term "warm/mild deist" refers to people like Washington who were very warm in their support for religion, believing it was very good for the nation to have a religious population, whether that theology was true or not. that is a different question than what was Washington's own private theology. People like Jefferson and Tom Paine were much harsher in their attacks on organized religion. Rjensen ( talk) 02:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem. I'll happily agree that UM and MSU are "commonly known" to be "leading research institutions", vagueness and slight peacockery aside; an editor has recently added Wayne State as well (twice), which is a good school but not one that in my own middling, but still common, experience with higher ed institutions, isn't as familiar as a leading research institution. I was going to remove the new entry as specifically unsourced, but realized that neither of the others were sourced either. Given the loose factual nature of the assertion in the first place I figured it made sense just to take out the whole sentence, UM and MSU too, rather than embark on an unsourced hairsplitting disagreement. I've now reinstated the sentence with UM and MSU only, because I agree their status is common knowledge. That's not my sense re Wayne State, however, so I left it out. What do you think? JohnInDC ( talk) 06:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne State's website calls it Michigan's "only urban public research university"---which I guess makes the city of Ann Arbor rural--but it's accurate enough according the the usual university directories. It gives doctorates in 60 different fields--that's a lot--and it's nationally famous in molecular biology and several fields of medicine and engineering. It is classified by the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching as RU/VH (Research University, Very High research activity), and ranks among the nation’s top 50 public universities for total research expenditures ($235 million). so let's keep it Rjensen ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Carnegie link clinches it for me; is there a way to link to that in the article to lay to rest any flavor of boosterism? Lists like that always make me nervous, with folks always wanting to add their own favorites to them - JohnInDC ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

NM. I now see that you moved all this to the Talk page, where it's been resolved. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Asian American Femininity. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})

Hi Rjensen, your input is needed regarding a section you created on the Thomas Jefferson page back in Nov-2010. The present version of the section reads quite differently than the section you originally authored. Here is the discussion (bottom). -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 01:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lewis1946.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit on the Jefferson page [8] disagrees with the sources I posted on the talk page (which are quite a few & represent the best in Jefferson scholarship). However, I propose a compromise: you can keep your references to Lincoln, and the inspiration etc, but the clause " Abraham Lincoln in particular was heavily indebted to Jefferson for his political philosophy of liberty and equality in the battle against slavery" should go. I would even agree just leave that as long as you remove the part: "in the battle against slavery" should go. Ebanony ( talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We're dealing hefre with how Lincoln saw and used Jefferson. How do you see the statement about Lincoln as wrong? I think it accurately reflects the numerous RS I gave in the footnotes. What would in your opinion a correct statement about Lincoln's use of Jefferson be like? check out the Gettysburg address (four score and seven years ago = 1776, and Abe was talking about Jefferson's Declaration) Rjensen ( talk) 06:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning what Lincoln believed or where he claimed inspiration for his speeches etc, nor do have any problem with mentioning it. I have got a problem with saying Jefferson was anti-slavery, for I've seen no convincing evidence for that statement, and plenty against it. Your sentence does reflect those sources you cited, but not the ones I cited, nor the many others I haven't posted like William Cohen, David Brion Davis, Winthrop Jordon, John Chester Miller, Onuf, Finkelman (all recent & experts in the field, who cannot be ignored) who argue the opposite & say Jefferson did little to oppose slavery.

You could argue he was promoting equality in the Declaration (though others disagree), so I won't push you on that in order to reach a compromise. Also, I'm willing to accept 90% of everything else you posted, and am only asking you to shorten this sentence accordingly: " Abraham Lincoln in particular was heavily indebted to Jefferson for his political philosophy of liberty and equality." I would be satisfied if you removed the five words "in the battle against slavery". I think that's a fair alternative, well supported by a great many respected academics. Ebanony ( talk) 07:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, how about "in the Lincoln's battle against slavery". We're talking about Lincoln and his Gettysburg address says the nation was born "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" and now needs a "new birth of freedom." Most historians say Lincoln was talking about emancipation of slaves here. Rjensen ( talk) 07:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with it, but I can deal with that. Ebanony ( talk) 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That gives us: Abraham Lincoln in particular was heavily indebted to Jefferson for his political philosophy of liberty and equality in Lincoln's battle against slavery[143][144][145]. Lincoln used the natural rights precepts of the Declaration of Independence as his guide to a better Union.[146]He considered Jefferson to be "the most distinguished politician in our history." [147] ok? Rjensen ( talk) 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for working with me. I do appreciate that. Ebanony ( talk) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, the conversation worked! I'll make the changes now. Unless you object I'll rephrase it a bit more clearly as 'Abraham Lincoln in particular was heavily indebted to Jefferson for the political philosophy of liberty and equality used in Lincoln's battle against slavery Rjensen ( talk) 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No protest on my part. I agree to the earlier change. I'm glad we could reach a compromise. Again, thanks for talking it out. Ebanony ( talk) 14:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The main source written by TJ that Lincoln referred to being the Declaration of Independence -- AL not referring much to any other writings of TJ. I think the DoI merits inclusion, since it was not all TJ's doing-- JimWae ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The opening parts of the Declaration AL referenced at Gettysburg were by Jefferson. AL had a much broader view of Jefferson --Indeed Foner (2010) says AL moved from a reliance on Clay to a reliance on Jefferson in the 1850s. AL read Jefferson closely (in his debates with Douglas he says "I shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177.") Rjensen ( talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note well this edit on Template:Christian History by User:79.209.49.181. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I began a discussion Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States#French founding fathers here, on whether or not the French revolutionaries are considered founding fathers.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Navy decline and Star Route Postal Contracts Hello Rjensen. Another editor and myself are discussing Star Route postal contracts and naval decline in the President Hayes article talk page. The above is a link to this discussion. If you have time, can you please give input into the discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed your numerous edits, and I'm glad you're participating in WikiProject Women's History. If you have any questions, concerns, or bright ideas about the project, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Since you've been active on Wikipedia for a long time, I'd be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might recruit more editors and get people excited about contributing.

I notice that you've worked a lot on the Progressive Era entry. I've recently added cleanup tags to Julia Lathrop, maternalist reform, Josephine Goldmark, and United States Children's Bureau. Lots of the reformers affiliated with Hull House also need their entries marked with cleanup tags and/or expanded, if you're so inclined. ---Shane Landrum ( cliotropic | talk | contribs) 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the note. I'm especially interested in Addams and her circle. Rjensen ( talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, it looks like you edit articles within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk) 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jensen,

I respectfully request that you review the intro to the article on the Spanish-American War. I made some changes on March 6 2011 which you effectively undid twelve minutes later. I can see that you are far better qualified on the subject matter. Perhaps if I explained the reasons for my changes, you will be able to effect them in a better way than I could.

Before my changes, the final text in the first paragraph read as follows:

Compromise proved impossible, resulting in an ultimatum sent to Madrid, which was not accepted. First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.

My editorial attention was caught by the first of those two sentences: It is both a run-on sentence and in the passive voice (with no hint as to who sent the ultimatum [much less what the ultimatum consisted of]). In rewriting that sentence, I had to do a little research on the U.S. entry into the Spanish-American War. I found it very interesting and resolved to study it more when I get a chance. I also found it to be sufficiently complex that I have no doubt that my hasty rewrite could have introduced some inaccuracies.

Here is the logic I followed: The run-on sentence contained three clauses. I split the first into its own sentence (Compromise proved impossible.). I made the second an active sentence by adding a subject. I also clarified what the ultimatum consisted of:

The U.S. sent an ultimatum to Spain demanding that it withdraw from Cuba or face the use of military force.

That left me with the third clause(...which was not accepted.). In researching this I discovered what I'm sure you already knew, that there was a rapid cascade of events subject to different interpretations. Spain neither accepted nor rejected the ultimatum, but considered it a declaration of war and broke diplomatic relations. It seemed appropriate to combine these events with the second sentence to indicate the rapid succession of events.:

Within days, Spain broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S., the U.S. imposed a naval blockade of Cuba, Spain declared war with the U.S., and the U.S. did so with Spain.

You can no doubt improve on this sentence, but I hope you agree that the original (First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.) conveys a granularity and deliberateness to the events that did not exist. We slid into war. And there is much to be learned from that.

Finally, as to your preference for using cities (Madrid and Washington) as metaphors for countries, I recognize this is an accepted scholarly style, but I do question its appropriateness in an introductory paragraph to an article designed for worldwide readership by the masses (as well as furtive glances from scholars). In such a context, IMHO, clarity is far more important than style.

Sincerely, Frappyjohn ( talk) 03:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughtful commentary. The purpose of the lede is to summarize briefly the text of the article, telling in a nutshell what happened, -- with knowledge that readers who want more details will find them a few paragraphs later. I suggest that the original statement, Compromise proved impossible, resulting in an ultimatum sent to Madrid, which was not accepted. First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war it is perfectly clear, short, and to the point. Stylistically it is designed to mimic the rapid sequence of events. The point is that compromise was impossible and war resulted, with an ultimatum in the middle that Madrid ignored. The details of the ultimatum are not especially important, since it was ignored. Madrid and Washington are used as a shorthand for the political decision-makers of the two countries, and is stylistically superior to saying, "first Spain, and then the United States, formally declared war" because the first version focuses the readers' attention on the national leadership while the second version vaguely covers the two nations as a whole. As for the "worldwide readership by the masses" I am assuming that they would prefer a clear snappy style rather than along dragged out explanation and says the same thing. Rjensen ( talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for your thoughtful and prompt reply. You make a good defense of the "run-on" sentence conveying the rapid sequence of events. My attempts at correcting it defeated that aim. I still maintain the use of country capitals for country names is poor style in this context. Consider the young schoolchild in Uganda who is just learning that Washington is the capital of the U.S., is the name of a U.S. president and an important U.S. army general (possibly the same person), and -- oh yes -- is the name of a state in the U.S. (reminding you that the word "state" outside of the U.S is equivalent to "country"). Why not forsake scholarly style for the sake of clarity (yes, sob, for the sake of this Ugandan schoolchild :)? At any rate I hope you will agree that the entire lede is in need of a good rewrite (by someone like you) which will render this entire conversation moot. All the best. Frappyjohn ( talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

anyone ignorant of Washington and Madrid is over their head with this article, and dumbing it down will be a disservice to those who do stand to learn something from it. Rjensen ( talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen,

I was surprised to see that you completely wiped out my etymological contribution to the "filibuster" article. I note in the Revision History that, by way of explanation for this action, you state that "de Quincy says he means the old sense of the word, [with no connection to legislatures]."

Two questions:

1. Are we referring to the same person? Your spelling "de Quincy" makes me wonder (correct is De Quincey).

2. If indeed you are referring to the same Thomas De Quincey as I am, would you be so kind as to provide me with some citation or reference for his "saying he meant the old sense of the word"? I see no such distinction in my version of Confessions, but perhaps you have another edition of the book, or some other work in which the good De Quincey makes this clarification.

Much obliged, Chillowack Chillowack ( talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually checked the DeQuincey book and his use has nothing to do with the article (which is on legislatures). we drop useless references that do not help readers in any way Rjensen ( talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Question_about_Muslim_holidays? Peculiar title. Anyway, about getting a subscription to "everything" academic. You may have this anyway, but it would be nice to see someone get it who does need it. Student7 ( talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})

I have made a few changes in this article. I removed unsourced material. Add sources were I could but have found a notable lack of resources on this subject. I was wondering if I could bother you to take a seconds look at it. It would be much appreciated. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 05:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest re the Harter book, please add page numbers using Amazon.com. .Re the Conniff and Dawsey book fyou can read and search on it using Amazon.com. Rjensen ( talk) 05:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make use of for a brief project I'm doing for university on how immigration to the US was viewed by Americans at the time. That cartoon obviously provides a good primary source for the negative side. You've listed the date, but do you happen to know what the cartoon is called? - • The Giant Puffin • 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

the title is ""The Republican Idea Of Protection", Full text on illustration: "The Republican Idea Of Protection - A High Tariff on the Monopolist's Wares, Free Entrance for Pauper Labor, and a Lock-Out for the American Workingman." there is a copy at George Washington U see Box 11 folder 10 Ask them for a high quality scan Rjensen ( talk) 13:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Partly due to your additions to the history section of Springfield, Illinois a few years ago, such as here, [9] that section is now unbalanced, with a lot of text on the 1860s-1860s and unsource essay on race relations but nothing about the 20th century. When you have the time, could you perhaps revisit that section and see if you could find a way to balance it a bit better?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, can you please provide a source to support the material you've just re-added here? I'm pretty sure that it's either wrong or only one side of the debate - the US was always intended to use the atomic bomb, and preparations for an invasion of Japan continued after the decision to use the bombs was made (though it was, of course, hoped that this would prove unnecessary). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You've beaten me too it! (though I still don't think that the "U.S. high command rethought its strategy" bit is right). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

keep in mind that Stimson made all the decisions about the atomic bomb. He told Marshall (says Skates) to delay the invasion until he bomb was used first, because Stimson hoped the bomb and the Russian attack would cause Japan to surrender. That is "high command rethought its strategy" = the decision to delay invasion and try Stimson's plan first. Rjensen ( talk) 11:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I submitted the article in the caption for B class assessment, noting that you and I had contributed to it, just before I left for a week's vacation. I certainly concur in your reply to the assessment comments that there is no original research or synthesis in this article. In fact, I included every item I could find that appeared in a secondary source and seemed to be at all relevant without any interpretation or argument. Your items also are written as facts so I am not sure how the original research and synthesis conclusions could be reached. I do note that these tags were first added by a bot. As a source, Long's book is in some respects just a lengthy and detailed timeline. Of course, it starts with November 1860 so it does not support the earlier items. I am inclined to add sources that I can add easily, add a little to the introduction and prepare an infobox although it seems rather superfluous in an article that is a list of events. If that is not enough, someone else will need to bring it up to B. Other rather complete articles remain as start class so that does not always mean the article is very deficient.

Although I would prefer to see this article rated as B after the work we and those who started the article have put into it, I do not want to spend a considerable amount of additional time on it. As the 150th anniversary of events preliminary to the Civil War has nearly passed and the 150th anniversary of Civil War events approaches, there are many other articles related to the Civil War that need attention and can be raised to B class. These articles may attract more readers as the anniversary dates come up. I have worked on the minor early engagements of Battle of Sewell's Point and Battle of Aquia Creek and these are now rated B. While there are not a large number of such engagements in 1861, there are some others such as the Big Bethel, the West Virginia campaign actions and Dranesville at the end of the year. The bigger battles are already covered in articles with more detail and will receive some more attention from others but there is much interesting history to be added to some of the articles on smaller engagements and some biographies. Donner60 ( talk) 08:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

we are in full agreement and I'm glad to see you're moving forward in time. Readers will appreciate all the good work you did in just six weeks! Rjensen ( talk) 08:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am somewhat distressed (intellectually, not emotionally) that the reviewer now finds plagiarism. The sentence was substantially rewritten from the original source, the single person cited is identified more completely and the conclusion about sympathy is omitted. I think it is down to a factual statement which can only be rewritten so much. Moreover, the source is clearly cited. A couple other key words perhaps should have been changed or might be changed. Nonetheless, as a writer, long time editor and a professor, do you think the cited sentence constitutes plagiarism, much less "blatant" plagiarism? If so, there may be a few other similar examples but the entries are basically and almost entirely statements of fact.

I also do not see how citation of Census Bureau numbers, which can be found in many articles, can be original research or synthesis. Since slavery was a key factor in causing the Civil War, the growth of slavery would seem to be important. If the reviewer proceeds to try to delete the article in whole or in part, I suppose one or both of us will need to point this out. I will work on the sources and perhaps do a little rewriting, but again, there is only so much that can be done and so much time to devote to it. I am afraid that if the reviewer proceeds, readers will not get to appreciate the work regardless of the assessment because the article might disappear. I will do what I can with it over the next few days and after that, I guess we will either have to argue the points or let the chips fall where they may as others decide what to do. Donner60 ( talk) 03:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

the anonymous critic is poorly informed--plagiarism means failure to give credit to an author and that did not happen. Likewise his allegations about OR are off-base and ill-informed, as you note regarding census data (most if not all historians consider the number of slaves as notable). Rephrasing is a good idea to forestall some future ill-informed critic. Rjensen ( talk) 10:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rephrased many of the items but most of them were rather generic statements to begin with. I think the reviewer simply found a statement where he could find a phrase that suggested it could have been from the source and he found the phrase, despite other changes and additions to the sentence. I think there were few other examples and any remaining (if there are any) will be because the item is in the same simple and direct language. As you note, the item he chose to cite really was not plagiarism anyway.

I added a few quotations as a further introduction despite this being a bit unusual. I think it backs up the premise of the article and also would help forestall arguments that slavery was not the main issue or that the article deals exclusively with slavery. I have added citations to pages from Wagner, McPherson and Eicher and will add some more. There will be two or more citations for some items but that seems necessary to get past the reviewer. I may add a little more to the introduction. I will add an infobox. Even though that seems superfluous in this type of article, I suppose it is necessary to pass the B test. Donner60 ( talk) 19:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant to add that I backed up the 1790, 1850 and 1860 census figures with a citation to E. B. Long. These are the most important figures. I do not want to delete the other five but I suppose that if that is the last remaining stumbling block and I cannot find a further citation, it would not be a big deal. Donner60 ( talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

the addition to the lede is a good idea. Keep all the census numbers. they are plain facts and useful to readers. Rjensen ( talk) 21:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have written a somewhat conciliatory note to Kirk. I objected to his comment that I ignored his comments. I noted that he said the revision process could take awhile. I said that the copyright question had just been raised. I noted that our approach was different in that I was trying to work on the article while you responded, with comments that I agree with as I noted in a comment on the assessment page about the plan going forward with the article and that it was not ready for re-assessment. I should have included that you did not ignore his comments either because you replied to him. In addition, you made some further edits. (I think I will add that.) I do not believe there are copyright violation problems here any more than their are plagiarism, original research, synthesis or other problems and noted that on my further comment on the assessment page a few days ago. I wrote to Kirk that I was chagrined by the fact that your side of the debate was basically in defense of items I had written. I did not want to waste anyone's time on debate and would express my views when necessary regardless of who I agreed with. That, along with the assessment note, should indicate that I agree with your comments although I preferred to make changes rather than stand on them. I think you actually did both but he did not see that. I noted that you know a lot more and are a lot better writer than I am and that I would like to work with you in the future as well as to work in a cooperative manner with Kirk. If I intend to submit articles for assessment, he may be the assessor. I currently do not intend to rewrite this article if it is blanked. I made a mistake by submitting it too soon. I think the last version was good, nearly complete, and had addressed comments Kirk made previously. I will be disappointed if this has been a waste of time. At least I have had the pleasure of working with you and I hope I can call on you in the future. Of course, if the outcome of this article is unsatisfactory and another article or two receive similar treatment, which I consider precipitous and unobjective, I can find other things to do. There are plenty of stub and start articles to be expanded and even new articles to be written on the Civil War. Since I think I could contribute to this, I would prefer not to be driven off as some other new editors apparently have been. I suppose I have a thinner skin than you apparently have. Thanks for your help. If we can cooperate further on this article or another, let us do so. Donner60 ( talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have thanked you specifically for taking the lead in defense of the article now that Kirk has taken an extreme step in the copyright violation charge. I will jump in as needed but you are doing a good job of it and making the good arguments. Even though I have tried to maintain amicability by making changes, many of them were really unnecessary, as you have pointed out. That does not mean I do not want to see the article kept in basically its current form. I have specifically noted on the Kirk page that you did not ignore him and that you also made changes in addition to debating the points. I will continue to comment in this item rather than in the new one below or on the article discussion page unless I need to jump in elsewhere either in reply to something or in support.

Your changes to the article on Buckley were done without (and in contradiction to) any discussion, specifically, the discussion I was attempting to have about this on the Discussion page. Your citations do not support the material you provided. Please do not simply restore material that has been deleted. Your sources must actually support the material. Also, they must be neutral in POV. Finally, Buckley can at best have attempted to read Rand out -- "weeding her out" is a good example of non-neutrality of language -- the conservative movement. Since she is currently cited favorably by Limbaugh, Beck and the Tea Partiers, it was an attempt with dubious results. Given the fact that Reagan praised Rand long after the review, and appointed Rand student Martin Anderson as his top domestic policy adviser, it seems to have failed. So, let's stick to facts: he tried. Let's also not insert personal opinions that do not appear on the cited material. Pelagius2 ( talk) 16:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

we did indeed discuss it. I used "attempt to read her out" and someone else changed it to weed. This is an article on Buckley not on Reagan, and Reagan did not comment on Buckley's treatment of Rand, so it does not fit. Your comments suggest that you tend to favor Ayn Rand--that is not allowed in editing, for the Wiki rule is "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." That is, the editors must be neutral--NOT the sources that editors use. Those sources must be Reliable, but they can be biased. Rjensen ( talk) 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Korean American political affiliations are important and should be discussed in article Korean_American (the information is duplicated there from the same RS, see below for text I am referring to), but it is not relevant for an article that discusses the neighborhood of Koreatown,_Los_Angeles. Why would you discuss political affiliations of Korean Americans in this specific article? You will see other neighborhood articles as an example don't include such things. And since RS states the riots caused the people to split into two groups, would this not be more appropriate in article Los_Angeles_riots.

Text I would like removed:

According to Edward Park, the 1992 violence stimulated a new wave of political activism among Korean Americans, but it also split them into two main camps. The liberals sought to unite with other minorities in Los Angeles to fight against racial oppression and scapegoating. The conservatives emphasized law and order and generally favored the economic and social policies of the Republican Party. The conservatives tended to emphasize the political differences between Koreans and other minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics. ^{[2] [3]}

-- Anonpetit ( talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

the politics in Koreatown seems like an important topic to me. I reject the notion that it is "not relevant" and my proof is that we have a major scholarly article AND a major book that deals with exactly this feature of Koreatown. That is the scholars and the RS consider it important. Now some readers don't care about politics, and they can easily skip over the paragraph. Rjensen ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in; I have this page on my watchlist. I agree with Rjensen that this material is relevant to the Koreatown article. It is specific to Los Angeles and to activities in Koreatown. We should follow the lead of reliable sources, which connect this political activity to the district.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not the politics of Koreatown, it “might” be the politics of Korean Americans which this page is not. I think it is more appropriate on the page Korean American. Also if the Los Angeles Riot is so important as noted by RS, may I suggest you add that to the article Los_Angeles_riots. -- Anonpetit ( talk) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the two cited sources don't discuss this activity in regard to Koreatown? I haven't read them myself, so I can only rely on Rjensen's assertions.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Abelmann & Lie book is viewable on Goolge books. [10] It shows 72 references to Koreatown. Perhaps Rjensen could indicate which pages he was using specifically.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

anyone can skip over stuff they don't want to read about. But the of Wiki editors ca NOT over-ride the RS according to Wikipedia rules. That's imposing a personal POV. I just rechecked on the Park article--it's been widely cited in numerous studies, so scholars think what happens to the Koreans in Koreatown is important. I did read Park's article --it is about the long-term impact AFTER the riots. and it's unique to Koreatown--how the Korean residents there greatly increased their political activism and how they divided into two camps. It's not about what happened in Hawaii or Chicago or Seattle etc. Perhaps Anonpetit should read it before trying to censor it. For example, Park's model has been cited in the literature on Hispanic Politics as a model ("Yes we can: Latino participation in unconventional politics" by L.M. Martinez Social forces 2005 and also Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse by Otto Santa Ana (2002); & has been cited in scholarly books on politics (The racial logic of politics: Asian Americans and party competition by TP Kim (2007)); all that validates its importance. To answer Beback, I was fascinated by the interviews in ch 2 (especially pp 11-15) and the long-term impact discussed on pp 184-5, where they say the most profound result was the politicization of Korean Americans, esp the younger generation. It shifted their attention from S Korea to the US. Rjensen ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the reference, I have not read the sources either but I am sure they do reference Koreatown. I just did not think that any topic (however important) that has RS that references Koreatown, should merit inclusion in Koreatown page - seems off topic to discuss politics of a specific group in this section. If you both disagree, well, lesson learned on myside. -- Anonpetit ( talk) 00:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

- I'm not going to edit the article again but the article needs to be researched for plagerism/copyvios. - The template clearly states only an admin should remove the template; if you want to keep editing the article in the meantime, contact an admin or create a temporary page according to the instructions. Take care Kirk ( talk) 14:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

a template inserted in violation of Wikipedia rules gets deleted. Rjensen ( talk) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, i am interested to know the source for this couple of edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Labor_history_of_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=423540571&oldid=423528383

...specifically, for the sentence,

Meanwhile public sector unions remained strong, and secured high pensions for their members.

It doesn't appear to be from the listed source. Indeed, the source seems decidedly pessimistic, an entirely different tone from the way this edit appears to portray the information.

"Strong" is a relative — and (in my view) very questionable — term for public sector unions; but more particularly, "high" pensions seems an even more subjective term not to be properly sourced. Neither the word strong, nor the word high, nor even the word pension appears in the article.

I don't doubt there are sources adversarial to unions which might portray the info this way. If that is the case, could this please be sourced so we know who this opinion comes from?

thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Common knowledge = heavily covered in the daily press. you have to read the newspapers--as coverage of Wisconsin etc shows. Public unions have grown in membership, have mobilized politically (esp in Wisconsin) & have high pensions is accepted by all sides in the debate. Does any of that strike you as incorrect or just unsourced? Rjensen ( talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• have grown in membership, agreed.

• have mobilized politically, agreed.

• are strong, disagree. Many public unions cannot strike. Some owe their existence to Democratic patronage (as here in Colorado), which is fickle at best, and can easily be taken away. That isn't strong (in the sense that winning something for themselves teaches them HOW to win something for themselves.) In that sense, i would characterize them as relatively weak.

• have high pensions, well, i would have to say, relative to what? I would offer that they generally have improved pensions (compared to a decade ago, or more), not necessarily high pensions. Many CEOs, on the other hand, have high pensions. In comparison, workers' pensions — even the very best workers' pensions — are paltry. best wishes, Richard Myers ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I rewrote the section and added more cites. Are they "strong"? well they have political strength in the Dem party and are MUCH stronger than the private sector unions. Are they as well off as CEO's -- well yes in terms of public sector CEO's like mayors. (check out the salary of the governor and legislators & mayors of Colorado and their pensions compared to the Vp's and professors at the state university). Rjensen ( talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you commented on American exceptionalism in the past. After lengthy talk page discussion, we have a new lead. I wonder if you could look at it and see whether you have any further comments. I am not clear to what extent more recent scholarship by Pocock and others has affected the acceptance of the theory. TFD ( talk) 14:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

much improved. good work. Rjensen ( talk) 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. TFD ( talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjenson,

I wanted to discuss the "Abraham Lincoln and Religion" page with you ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion#cite_note-36). I added a letter written by William Herndon discussing Lincoln's beliefs. The next morning you removed the piece saying "long quotations from primary sources are not recommended here -- please use a a good secondary source." But looking over the page, there seem to be a number of long primary source quotes (Mary Todd to Rev. James Smith, Rev James Armstrong Reed, Abraham Lincoln). I'm a new Wikipedia editor and trying to figure out the ropes. Are primary sources acceptable as long as they are compiled in another book or essay? Any help you can give me will be much appreciated.

Churchillreader ( talk) 08:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on your edit to History of Jews in the United States, you seem to have some knowledge and interest in the topic of Jewish involvement in the development of banking in the United States. I wonder if you would look at the following draft articles and give my some feedback on how to improve them:

• User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking

• User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking (I'm not thrilled about this title and am open to suggestions for a better one)

• User:Pseudo-Richard/Role of Jews in the development of capitalism

The above draft articles are attempts to salvage encyclopedic text from the failed (i.e. AFD'ed) article Jews and money. Here is a link to the version of the article at the time it was nominated for deletion. I would appreciate any suggestions that you might have for distilling the valuable information into encyclopedic article topics.

Thanx.

-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the road with limited internet but I'll look into it next week. thanks for the heads-up Rjensen ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx. I understand. Just FYI, I have come to the conclusion that an article under the title History of Jews in American banking may not be the best approach to presenting this material so I created an article titled History of investment banking in the United States. The Jewish side of that story currently takes up about 20-25% of the article. I imagine that this will shrink to 10-15% as the article is fleshed out. When you get back and have better internet access, could you look at this new article and give me any suggestions for improvement that you might have? Also, please give me your thoughts as to whether the Jewish side of the story deserves its own article or whether it is best presented as part of the overall story of investment banking in the U.S. Thanx. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you have some time available now, could you take a look at the articles I mentioned above? Thanx. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 08:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are off to a good start -- I made a few tweaks and added some citations. Keep at it. Rjensen ( talk) 08:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw your most recent tweak on that article. That was a truly heroic sentence worthy of Bill Faulkner on a good day! Better than I could do. I've been trying to figure approach an edit on that article's prose style for months. ;-) Trilobitealive ( talk) 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen ( talk) 21:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Plymouth, Pennsylvania article is far too long, but there are many opportunities to make some sections into articles. Can you help?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits of user:24.5.250.93 to various US articles are very questionable. The changes are not supported by any justification or citations. Perhaps you can look at all of these as I know from your edits that you have more information in hand than I have Hmains ( talk) 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx man! for the reporting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.236.61 ( talk) 21:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've probably had a few minor disagreements with you over individual edits, but overall you seem to be one of the better editors I've encountered on subjects related to American history. Recently someone added a link to the Indian Removal Act in an article on my watchlist ( Florida), and I popped over to get some background. Now the title leads to certain assumptions, and the article does have some facts scattered about, but overall I see no way anybody could come away with an understanding of the Act; what were it's provisions?; what areas did it include?; what tribes were affected?; how long was it in effect?... as Yul Brynner would say, "et cetera, et cetera, et cetera". If you have any time, would you consider taking a look at the article and seeing if it can be improved just a little? Fat&Happy ( talk) 17:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

i'll look into it. Rjensen ( talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 01:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In this article, I found the following, added by Rjensen on 14 March 2011:

"Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the state of Virginia in 1778 became the first place in the world to end the international slave trade; it freed all slaves brought in after its passage. ^{[4] [5]}"

I have been unable to corroborate this claim anywhere else in WP, or in any reference work I've read. I have not yet, however, read the two books you cited, so I placed a 'verify source' tag and am bringing it to your attention. Please clarify by adding the name of the 1778 Virginia law and/or other relevant info - thanks. WCCasey ( talk) 01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have rechecked and verified the source--see a book by leading scholars. On the details of the act see p 19. Furthermore for details on the bill and references to Jefferson's role see Boyd edition vol 2 Rjensen ( talk) 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the sources and still feel that your wording is not accurate.

• Where you say: "Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson", the text says "The bill, which in all likelihood Jefferson composed, although the evidence is not conclusive...". Several others are given equal mention with Jefferson.
• Where you say: "the state of Virginia in 1778 became the first place in the world", the text says "one of the first"
• Where you say: "end the international slave trade, it freed all slaves brought in after its passage", it should be made clear that only the commercial import of slaves into Virginia was affected. The bill had no effect on slaves brought in from other states by their owners.

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, but I think there are POV issues here. It doesn't do any good to cite a source if you don't cite it accurately. WCCasey ( talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Boyd and the others emphasize that Jefferson was the leader in banning the slave trade--as he had been for many years. "first place" --good point and it's been revised. The text talks about trade--buying and selling--and is accurate. Rjensen ( talk) 07:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.