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.

See User talk:Rjensen/Archive 13

"The WPA hired men with the weakest work habits who could not get regular jobs." -- That is a remarkably strong statement on the work ethic of those who were in the WPA. Do you have a citation for this? Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr Jensen, any comment? The comment about work habits as written is sweeping and I would like to know if you have a basis in fact, research, etc., for making the comment. The "could not get regular jobs" sounds accurate considering the economic conditions during that era, but "weakest work habits" -- based on whose criteria and what criteria? After decades in the workforce, I have seen a bunch of different reasons why some employees are let go and others retained -- and often, the strength of work habits does not play a dominant role in the decision-making. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

it was often mentioned at the time. The WPA was designed for the long-term unemployed that companies would not hire. Those who stayed the WPA the longest were those who did not leave for "real" jobs. some quotes: "that WPA is bad for people since it gives them poor work habits. They believe that even if a man is not an inefficient worker to begin with, he gets that way from being on WPA" [The Unemployed by Eli Ginzberg p 447]; "Employers became prejudiced against hiring men who had been employed by the WPA for any considerable length of time, arguing that they had formed poor work habits." Wood (1953); "To some extent the complaint that WPA workers do poor work is not without foundation. ... Poor work habits and incorrect techniques are not remedied. Occasionally a supervisor or a foreman demands good work" US Senate Report 1938; Rjensen ( talk) 07:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the citations. I'd like to add them to the article; do you see any reason why that would not be a good idea? Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

please do so. Rjensen ( talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson 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. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I hereby present you with the cookie, for your past, and continuing efforts, to improve the History of Asian Americans article. Your efforts fulfill the request for an expert's eye that has been needed for a long time.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps you'd like to participate on Talk:History_of_Germany#Info.26galleries_of_German_individuals. -- Gliese876 ( talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, Is the misspelling in this edit on Stats correct or should that be States?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

oops--that was my poor typing. I fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Are you interested in commenting on the quote from Howe that has been deleted? Yopienso ( talk) 04:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on a set of articles related to the history of banking. Frankly, I was shocked at the weakness of our article on Banking in the United States as well as the lack of an article on the History of investment banking. I have worked on improving Banking in the United States. In addition, I created History of banking in the United States and History of investment banking in the United States. There are several stub sections in History of investment banking in the United States and I would appreciate help in fleshing those out. I would also appreciate comments on how to improve these articles. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 07:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

that's a good project! I'll look them over. Rjensen ( talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Schweikart article. It gives me a lot to chew on and will take me some time to digest it and incorporate it into the relevant articles.

Skimming the beginning of the article brought up a point that I've been mulling over. It seems to me that there are two topics that are very closely inter-related but not quite inextricably so. These are:"money/monetary policy" and "banking". To me, (commercial) banking is primarily a discussion of banking institutions, banking practices and regulation thereof. Money/monetary policy are something very intimately connected to banking but really worthy of a separate set of articles, especially since the creation of the Federal Reserve system has caused central banking to be a parallel and connected yet distinct system from commercial banking.

Thus, in History of banking in the United States, there are references to the worthlessness of paper money during the "wildcat banking" era, the bimetallic debate, the Federal Reserve system, Bretton Woods and the Nixon shock. However, these topics are lightly covered as the main article focus is banking, not monetary policy.

I have contemplated changing the article topic to History of money and banking in the United States on the grounds that many books have titles along the lines of "Money, banking and finance". However, I have not completely convinced myself to do this. Do you think it is better to beef up the coverage of money in these article to try and cover both money and banking in a single article or do you think it is better to have a separate article titled something like History of monetary policy in the United States? I am inclined towards having a separate article along the lines of History of money but focusing on the United States. Thus, the proposed article title would be History of monetary policy in the United States. This would allow discussion of the focus on interest rates vs. money supply, etc.

Thank you for your continued support, guidance and assistance.

-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Aw heck, as you can see from the blue link, I went ahead and created History of monetary policy in the United States. When you have time, take a look at it and tell me if you agree that this warrants a separate topic from History of banking in the United States. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

you're on the right track--good idea to split money & banking Rjensen ( talk) 20:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

thanx --Pseudo-Richard

Ugh. I just found History of central banking in the United States which covers much of the same material as History of monetary policy in the United States but focuses mostly on the period up to the creation of the Federal Reserve with almost nothing after that point. I don't think there's much point in having both articles. IMO, the two should be merged. Any thoughts on which title is preferable? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

the custom at Wikipedia is to go with the older title. But I like the newer title better. ("central banking" is not much used anymore; economists & historians now use "monetary policy". Solution is to propose merge on the two talk pages and get feedback. Rjensen ( talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.

If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've taken a long-term interest in our article on Zhou Enlai, which you made a contribution to recently. I found the passage from Kissinger that you used quoted in an article by Spence, but I can't find a copy of Kissinger's book online. If you have a copy of Kissinger's book available, can you please let me know the page number of that quote, so that I can update the reference used in Zbou's article? Thanks. Ferox Seneca ( talk) 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

it's chapter 9, but the page number is still ??. The link to the actual page meets the Wiki criteria for validation. (the actual page number will soon turn up but is not needed by anyone right now) Rjensen ( talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice edits on the Great German Empire. Do you happen to be of Scandinavian ancenstry? Alphasinus ( talk) 21:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks--yes, Danish grandparents who moved to Wisconsin in late 19th century Rjensen ( talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To further explain the deletion of the remark and citation, there must be more of a reference than one page out of Google Books. Additionally, the assertion in the deleted remarks is contradicted by other material on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullisecundis ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

the Fried book is a leading scholarly source. there is no contradiction (Tocqueville did not use the actual term). Rjensen ( talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice job and references on Crusades. Wizzy… ☎ 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 10:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Our workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop#Scope draft to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Although we dont get along (i do value your opinion) - was wondering if you had an opinion about this Talk:New France#East Texas wasn't French . Moxy ( talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're correct, The royal cartographers in Paris wanted to please/glorify the king but had no clear idea of the situation in Texas. ` Rjensen ( talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put Ronald Wenonah up for disruptive editing on the Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Ronald_Wenonah_reported_by_User:Tirronan_.28Result:_.29 where he is making the claim that it is my personal vendetta against him causing the problem, would you mind going over and saying that you have to say on the subject? Tirronan ( talk) 19:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tirronan is right and I added my opinion that Ronald_Wenonah is not using RS Rjensen ( talk) 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})

Hi, Rjensen. There is an editor who is suggesting the removal of translation of royals' names from the paratheses in the lead. This means that there would be no Anglicized form of the name of Wilhelm II, German Emperor in the lead as there is now. I'm against this editor's proposal. What do you think of it? -- Lecen ( talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit dismayed that you removed the addition I made to History of education in the United States. Though the quote itself isn't heavily sourced/cited...(there is one reference on p 576 of Social education Volume 4)...it's the notion of the somewhat sub-par education of the time which the quote so clearly conveys. This isn't my area of expertise...but it doesn't seem that the quote detracts from the article's meaning. Smallman12q ( talk) 02:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. the sarcastic quote is Original Research from a poor source who was not an expert on education (the American Mercury was long past its glory days in 1940) and in fact was not commenting on actual textbooks but on ed-schools profs. The lead-in ("The growth of public schools led to an increased consumption of textbooks often in a disorganized fashion. These books were often heavily criticized at the time for their incoherence and inefficiency. ") is vague (what decade or century does it refer to) not sourced and I believe it is false (disorganized? heavily criticized?? incoherence???) (look for example at Webster's Speller--by far the best selling early textbook. it's quite good.) I might add that critics in 2011 greatly admire the schools of the 1930s--really smart people became teachers (probably because they could not get other jobs). Rjensen ( talk) 04:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right...but I still like the quote...even if it misconstrues the times. I've added the quote to The American Mercury's wikiquote page which I started. Cheers. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rjensen and Pogrom article. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen,

I was wondering where I could find issues of the New York Daily Tribune. From 1863. Specifically the July issues. I noticed you posted the photo on the New York Tribune page and was hoping you could help. If you can, please email me at alex.demarest@gmail.com.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.20.218 ( talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

an academic library can get you a microfilm copy/ Ebay sells actual copies. Rjensen ( talk) 04:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your revision is an improvement over the original, although I think simply leaving the origin of the holiday out of the lede is superior; it leaves less temptation for edit wars there. I guess you figured out that I hadn't actually removed Blight's research; in fact, it was still the first thing mentioned, and very prominently, in the History section. I just think it is a very contentious and arguable thing to say that the Charleston event was the "start" or the "founding" of Memorial Day - it really depends on what you mean by those terms. Brianyoumans ( talk) 02:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

i agree. but i think origins can be very briefly mentioned (it's important to say the white south joined later after it covered all-wars ) Rjensen ( talk) 02:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Gilbert use the word "gargantuan"? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...and sorry about "conservative". I actually looked at the cite, but somehow missed the word in the article's title. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RS agree that Gilbert was quite an opponent of the New Deal and its architecture--whether he used the word "gargatuan" or a synonym I'm not sure. Rjensen ( talk) 06:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, since "gargantuan" is a POV word, if Gilbert had used it, we could have included it in quotes, but if the source doesn't quote Gilbert as using it, I will replace it with a non-pejorative synonym, such as "very large". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

We are involved in a discussion and posted a request for further input from a logger regarding the notability of a blogging award here. I notice that you are an active member of the project and wondered if you could spend the time to look at the post please, and maybe comment.

Many thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 09:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Jensen. I've started a conversation at Talk:Spanish Texas that I hope you will participate in about whether the section on the Comancheria needs to be included. Karanacs ( talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for engaging here. It's very nice - and rare - to see historians engage directly with Wikipedia, and the project can only benefit from your involvement :) Thank you also for taking us amateurs seriously and discussing with us. I am by no means an expert, but I've read voraciously on pre-1836 Texas history and am enjoying the opportunity to discuss with someone who knows history. Karanacs ( talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks--having retired from the classroom I enjoy these discussions. Rjensen ( talk) 00:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jensen, with the utmost respect regarding your edit here I feel that I must remind you of Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. While I can appreciate your unique position as a scholar, the policy regarding original research is pretty clear. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

citations to published scholarly literature does not comprise OR--it is the main way history articles get written on Wikipedia. rule is ""original research" (OR) = "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists Cites to a leading scholarly journal = a reliable published source. Rjensen ( talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Jensen. I recently found more information on Orville E. Babcock. I have reworked his photo. He graduated 3rd at West Point and made fortifications to defend Washington D.C. He also was instrumental in making preparations for monuments in Washington D.C. Apparently he was the one who chose the location for Grant and Lee to meet at Appomattox. This is in addition to all the scandals he was associated with. I thought since you have edited on the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article you could look at and/or improve the Orville E. Babcock article. Just a suggestion only if you have the time and/or interest to look at the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

willdo tanks Rjensen ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Having done more research on Babcock, I am not sure McFeely's assessment that Babcock was unimpressive was accurate. Babcock graduated 3 at West Point, was an engineer who built the defenses around Washington D.C., and was brevetted multiple times during the American Civil War. That in my opinion is quite impressive. How does the article need to approach the Grant scandals and Babcock? Is calling Babcock a criminal mastermind appropriate? I believe the most recent research is that he was involved with criminal graft and funneled the money by buying land in Florida. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked it some, and dropped a few details. Babcock's reputation remains tainted with corruption. He did a poor job in keeping the taint of corruption away from his boss. Rjensen ( talk) 18:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added segments and information to the Orville E. Babcock article. Any suggestions on what else can be done to improve the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen, for your edits in the Orville E. Babcock article. "Efficiency" is a good word choice. Bringing in the modern day chief-of-staff is a good idea. Would it be correct to say that Grant in someways was more like a modern 20th or 21st President, being kept away from the public, and heavily dependent on staff? Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In the family, early life section we have a note about the family and the opium trade...nothing in Burns about this...a c/e at the very least needed on this,.. your thoughts? Hoppyh ( talk) 11:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

the article cites the Black bio p 5 which DOES talk about the importance of the opium trade for family $$. I recommend getting Black and adding his fresh new material throughout the article. Rjensen ( talk) 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll leave the current reference as is. Hoppyh ( talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide to feedback on Template:American Revolutionary War? The tool is largely constructed from links gathered from the American Revolution and American Revolutionary War pages (where your edits are well-recognized), with an assist from Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War. A long while ago we had a few disagreements, but I have always had total respect for your knowledge of sources and content. Any suggestions or edits you wanted to make would be appreciated. BusterD ( talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ( talk) 20:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are making changes to a submission about the influence of Utah's Senator Thomas Kearns on President's Theodore Roosevelt and President Howard Taft. Kearns, a mining magnate, newspaper owner and railroad builder was a close friend of McKinley, and later very close with Roosevelt. Roosevelts 'Progressive Party' was influenced by Kearns 'American Party' a party that split off from the Republican Party years before. This is relevant because the choice of creating the 'Progessive Party' split the Republican vote and Wilson won the election. Thomas Kearns later supported Wilson's policy's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.201.141 ( talk) 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. the RS don't give Kearns much attention--and he does not relate to Taft. Rjensen ( talk) 08:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

...

I've opened a discussion about the undue material you've restored in the article. See here. aprock ( talk) 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I was wondering if a section on President Grant and the Mormon's in Utah would be appropriate for the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. President Lincoln had signed the Merrill law that abolished polygamy. Grant used this law in 1871 to arrest hundreds of Mormon's in Utah who practiced polygamy. Then when Grant visited Utah in 1875 he had a change of heart and stated he had been misled concerning the Mormons, who apparently treated him well upon his arrival. Do you, Rjensen, believe a section or mention of these incidents would be good for the article? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

yes it's a good topic. Rjensen ( talk) 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen. I added more on the Utah territory polygamy and President Grant. Feel free to take a look and check for accuracy or make corrections in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Polygamy affected both of Grant's two terms in office. Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Professor Jensen. I have recently being doing some work on Benjamin Bristow, President Grant's Secretary of Treasury. I am finding more on what he believed in and his position as reformer in the Grant Administration. If you want you could look at the article. I am trying to decide what the focus needs to be on the article, the Whiskey Ring or his Civil Rights legacy. As far as I know, no personal biography was written. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Communist front, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota ( talk) 05:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nouvelle histoire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouvelle histoire 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. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Here is a good article and information on the Korean Expedition during the Grant Administration from American Heritage Magazine: "our Little War With The Heathen' ^[1]

Rjensen, I know you're a historian and are "militantly" in favor of describing Fundamentalism as militant - over, and over, and over again - but this is Wikipedia: it's built on consensus, and many in the community (in fact, everybody but you) has spoken out against using that word in the lede:

NYyankees51: "One individual viewpoint should not compose the entire lead paragraph. It can go in Marsden's article, but not this." Justin W Smith: "Militantism is certainly one aspect of fundamentalism, but IMO the way it's being used here looks like POV-pushing." Ltwin: "we can at least lighten up on the language in the opening paragraph" History2007: "The definition needs to change to reflect that this is a special Marsden definition, not the general usage of the term in US English. That is just incorrect, and having looked through the article, it lumps so many beliefs together that the accuracy of the whole page is in question." The Resident Anthropologist: "Militantism has implied POV in this context." Cynwolfe: "So the problem is that the intro doesn't reflect "relative emphasis" in the article per WP:LEDE; neither Marsden nor militancy dominates the article in the way that the first paragraph leads one to expect."

With the double accusations of POV and "lack of conformity to WP:LEDE" (says Cynwolfe), the community is finding the lede as is unacceptable. This is not about you or me, it's about the community and the rules. I've had an article I made deleted (which I didn't think should be), so I know how hard it is to accept what the community says sometimes when one disagrees on their interpretation of the rules. But for the sake of the community and the rules, please accept this change, or at least take to the talk page instead of reverting what you don't like. Peace, -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

it's the consensus of the reliable sources that Wikipedia is looking for. What RS are you using? The term is used in a quotation (from Marsden) and omitting it is blatant POV and distorts Marsden's argument. As for "community" yes indeed, let's ask the 131 watchers and the dozens of editors who have made 2 or more edits, rather than minimally active editors Rjensen ( talk) 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, as eminent as Marsden is (I've read his book and it's definitely the seminal work on the subject), for Wikipedia his viewpoint is just one perspective and not necessarily definitive. But I agree Marsden needs to be given weight in the article according to his stature. So, I suggest sidestepping the debate by keeping the "militant" language but moving that paragraph out of the lede (where it's causing the controversy) and into a Historiography of Fundamentalism section of its own (which is needed anyway). What do you think? Talk:Christian_Fundamentalism#Proposed_reshuffle_of_lede — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibojopayne ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I love the new section you put in there; I moved the Marsden material from the lede to the top of your section, all of which deals with the militancy question. Thoughts? Peace, -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 07:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll rework the lede. Rjensen ( talk) 07:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good working with you. I'm going to sleep! :P Wikibojopayne ( talk) 07:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On 27 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whiggism, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Whiggism took different forms in England and Scotland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whiggism.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. The Legacy and historiography section of the REOTUS article has been really improved by your editing. The term failure now has relevant meaning. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks! :) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved: Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. Check the Recent changes for vandalism and violations of the neutral point of view policy. Add the project banner {{ WikiProject Conservatism}} to conservatism-related articles, and assess them as well. Join fellow members in editing our project-wide article collaboration (the current one is Leo Strauss). Cleanup some of the articles listed for cleanup. Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! - – Lionel ( talk) 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi - An editor has moved the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article by the above name, which I think will be hard to find and does not express the meat of the controversy - Jefferson. Also, as that person did not include any of the extensive Talk page history, the article is being recommended for speedy deletion, based on an assumption that it is not much different than the Jefferson DNA data article. I think the historiography needs a fuller account and is distinctly different, and thought you might be interested in adding your comments on the deletion issue at the new article. Parkwells ( talk) 17:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

hey! i started a conversation about the dreiser material on the talk page of the article. maybe we could all discuss it for a while? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Love to--meanwhile please don't erase relevant material. Daniel L. Dreisbach, by the way D.Phil. (Oxford University) and J.D. (University of Virginia), is a Professor of Justice, Law, and Society at American University; He is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002). hat qualifies him as a RS, as is Hamburger. Rjensen ( talk) 17:46, 28 August 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.