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.

this is archive 15 ---see also /Archive 14

I've been on the road most of the summer but I'm back now. My current editing interest includes English history of the Tudor Era into the early 18th century--I have not studied this period in many years and it's a pleasure getting back to it and reading up on the new literature. (And I confess, the great films about Henry Viii, Thomas More, Elizabeth I etc are what sparked my interest) Rjensen ( talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For outstanding rescue work on History of immigration to the United States Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen ( talk) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits on Results Etc. Suffrage in United States

First I had it chopped for heavy POV, then for RS. I'm checking the sources, but I really don't see a problem with the content or the sources. Recent good sources for recent events, contemporary sources for historical events--what is the problem? Couldn't you come up with a more constructive edit than just chopping whole paragraphs out? Brechbill123 ( talk) 01:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

there is a large, sophisticated scholarly literature on anti-suffrage. It comprises the RS, not sources like MSNBC or Washington Times (their reporters were not there in 1920). Likewise Ann Coulter is not a RS. A very starter source is Kraditor, Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement. Also Louise Stevenson, "WOMEN ANTI-SUFFRAGISTS IN THE 1915 MASSACHUSETTS CAMPAIGN" New England Quarterly, Mar1979, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p80-93, online at JSTOR. (Politically, by the way, Kraditor started on the left and moved right; Stevenson is a conservative) also see the Green article in JSTOR. Rjensen ( talk) 01:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Was wondering if you have a page number (or range) for the ref Restoring the chain of friendship as I was going to link up the book but i cant find the pages that are relevant. Moxy ( talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

pp 243-44 are probably most useful. The holding forts = p 14; Jay treaty is pp 55-56; evacuation of posts = p 59; weapon sales are on p 104 & 121; support for Indians in Midwest = 59-61; Indians in Michigan = p 76; etc. Rjensen ( talk) 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok wow lots - think i will just link the book with a hidden note in the ref - just in case we need that for a GA review in the future. Moxy ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

good solution! Rjensen ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We may need to defend some of our bibs in the near future - see here. Moxy ( talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I responded. Rjensen ( talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made precisely that case to the user here. BusterD ( talk) 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. the editor involved can't tell the difference between accurate statements based on RS and statements based on personal POV, as shown by his recent edits to the article in question. Rjensen ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate our previous conversations. I believe the Civil War was caused by slavery. I interpreted Baker as saying that political debate was unable to solve slavery, not political debate caused slavery. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker says very little about slavery. He says the overheated rhetoric escalated out of control & caused the war. Rjensen ( talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker did not directly say, as mentioned before, overheated rhetoric caused the Civil War. His article was to point out that Charles Sumner's rhetoric was the primary factor for Preston Brooks beating up Charles Sumner in the Senate Chamber. I thought that Baker's description of the Charles Sumner "beating" was accurate. Sumner was attempting to defend himself against the attack, and Brooks attacked Sumner while he was trapped in the Senate chair, because Sumner was a large man at 6 foot tall and would have been able to defend himself. As a solution, what I propose is that any questionable "peer review" source from American Heritage Magazine, would be put in the discussion page for Wikipedia editors to discuss. This I believe would avoid controversy in the future. Does this sound reasonable? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker adds zero that is new--and something that is old: overheated rhetoric caused the war. Note how he starts his essay with the overheated rhetoric of the Clinton impeachment (1998) -- that's what really bothers him, I think. Rjensen ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Rjensen. A good policy, in my opinion, for American Heritage Magazine would be to put any questionable "peer review" sources in the discussion page for the Charles Sumner article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

there is no peer review for Am Heritage; they have no editorial board and the chief editor is himself an amateur; the Baker piece is a column--more like a blog. Rjensen ( talk) 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, I apoligize for not putting in the Baker article in the discussion page first before putting in the source and edits. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

no need to apologize.. I think we've exhausted the Am heritage issue :) Rjensen ( talk) 03:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to over discuss this, but why is it okay for you to use American Heritage as a source (and after this latest Baker kerfluffle), but not for User:Cmguy777? It seems like you're demanding source approval from another editor, but using personal discretion for yourself. What's the difference between Baker as a popular interpreter of history and screenwriter Chowder? Neither seems a scholarly source. BusterD ( talk) 03:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My thinking is this: When Am Her publishes an essay by an established scholar, we can use it as a RS because of the scholar's previous reputation. When it publishes an essay by someone who is not a scholar or expert on the topic (eg Baker), then we can't use it as a RS. Am Heritage's imprimatur doesn't count, in my book. By contrast the Journal of American History (say) goes through a VERY elaborate review process by scholars to make sure all its articles are very solid. (I was on the editorial board for three years and saw how it worked). An Heritage does no such quality control and the results are sad to see. Chowder is an established documentary maker who worked with many experts over a couple years to make a film on John Brown for PBS. Baker dashed an essay off after browsing through a couple books. Rjensen ( talk) 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I respect your input BusterD. I believe the Baker issue has been resolved and I do not believe Rjensen is in any way or has in the past demanded of myself source approval. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for uploading the wonderful political cartoon depicting President William McKinley as Old Mother Hubbard, File:1897 cartoon with William McKinley and little Toto-like dog.jpg. I was wondering about the description of Old Mother Hubbard's dog as "Toto-like"; If I understand correctly that text was from you. I don't see anything in Baum's character Toto (Oz) having been influenced by the older nursery rhyme in the Toto article, so I'm wondering, what's the connection? Thanks for your work and time. Cheers, Infrogmation ( talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

the dog has a key role with the Wizard = McKinley is the link. In the book it's Toto who pulls back the curtain exposing the Wizard (McKinley). Rjensen ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting metaphor. Is this free association, or do you think there's some actual link, eg do you think Baum had this cartoon in mind when he wrote "Wizard of Oz"? Infrogmation ( talk) 21:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking in part because this image is currently used as an illustration in Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, which doesn't seem to be appropriate to me, even if your theory that the cartoon was some sort of foreshadowing of or influence on Baum's book is true. Infrogmation ( talk) 00:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

it's not so much Baum it's the artist Denslow--he was a full time editorial cartoonist for a major Chicago newspaper and he drew editorial cartoons like that (no one so far has gone back and looked at Denslow's actual newspaper cartoons). Baum on the other hand was a national expert in department store window displays (such as the animated-window Christmas scenes you still see today) Rjensen ( talk) 01:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It is a wonderful editorial cartoon of the period. I'd like to see more of Denslow's work; anything else you'd care to scan and upload to Commons would be more than welcome! While I don't quite follow what you are suggesting (similar themes in the popular culture at the time?), it does sound interesting. I never thought of the story and iconography of Old Mother Hubbard as similar to the Wizard of Oz before, but I'll give it some thought. That said, any connection between this cartoon and Baum's book of 3 years later seems indirect or metaphorical at best, and the cartoon certainly doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, so I'll remove it from that article. Cheers, Infrogmation ( talk) 01:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the words "Toto-like" should be removed from the file as original research. (Flawed, imho.) Yopienso ( talk) 01:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

the cartoon links the dog, a shocking discovery, McKinley, and the Wizard. That complex link is repeated in a key passage in the Wizard of Oz. Rjensen ( talk) 02:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but again the article title was "Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz", not something like "Oz-like anticipations predating The Wizard of Oz", so the illustration doesn't belong on that article. Some sort of essay on images in popular culture which were were later incorporated into the Oz iconography might be interesting (I'd probably enjoy seeing it), but unless it can be independently referenced I fear it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:No original research). Best wishes, Infrogmation ( talk) 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

better double check the rule on OR; this falls inside the limits (any educated person with access to the picture can see the links). Rjensen ( talk) 02:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Since The Wonderful Wizard of Oz wasn't published until 1900, I don't see how this cartoon could possibly refer to him. I don't believe President McKinley is being represented as a witch, either, but, as the cartoon itself says, as Old Mother Hubbard. The "witch's hat" is simply the kind of hat women wore in the 1500s. See here and here and here. Scroll down on the first to see it was printed in 1912; scroll down on the second for the reproduction of a book printed long enough ago it cost three cents. Yopienso ( talk) 04:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's McKinley & the dog plays a key role as = Uncle Sam = American people who the president is supposed to be taking care of. The dog/American people discover the failure. witches in the 1890s were depicted with that hat. the cartoon is dated 1897. Rjensen ( talk) 04:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And I see why you feel strongly. The article is a biting critique of Donald's methods, choices and analysis. I'll confess I've never read through the prize winning Donald opus, but seen through Osofsky's eyes, I'd feel more comfortable and safer making assessments after listening to what Osofsky has to say. This was published in 1973, when you were still new in your career, so I can also see why it would have remained clearly in your memory (somebody ripping a Pulitzer prize winning book to shreds). I'd have remembered such a work myself. I'm wondering why the article doesn't get a mention in the historiography section, given his particular opinions on the various sources (many of which we're using in pagespace). One more thing: the article mentions a book by the same author Toward an American History for the 1970's which it says "...will include a significantly enlarged version of this essay." Did that book get published? Why didn't we use the book source as more recent and more complete? I didn't find any sources reviewing the Osofsky journal article, but surely somebody reviewed his book. It would be wise to use some newer scholarship which also critiques Osofsky's observations. Thanks for sticking to your guns; I've learned something today. BusterD ( talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Osofsky died before completing that book and it was never published. Rjensen ( talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sad. He was clearly a gifted and unflinching historian. Surely there are newer works which incorporate and critique the Osofsky article, right? BusterD ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

not to my knowledge. Rjensen ( talk) 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

After puffing up Steinfels's historian credentials, you can hardly object to including his DSOC association, when Lipset states that that the feud between Harrington and SDUSA is essential to understanding the bizarre history of "neoconservatism".

I had forgotten that Steinfels even put "SDUSA" in quotes and that he named Bayard Rustin a neocon!

 Kiefer. Wolfowitz 05:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Steinfels has his own article where he should be covered. He is not a neocon and it seriously misleads people to suggest he is by going into his biography. He is a well regarded historian of the neocons and that makes for an RS. Rjensen ( talk) 06:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Steinfels is a neocon, although he apparently resigned from DSA's religion and socialism commission when they accepted a witch's membership!  ;)

I am saying (1) Steinfels was acting as an editor of a lay Catholic journal, of socially liberal/social-democratic/democratic socialist orientation, when he wrote his book, not as an academic historian, which makes that the relevant identification (rather than his knowledge about the Hapsbergs). (2) He may have had a "stake in that dog show" (as Dr. Phil says), the faction fight between DSOC and SDUSA, since he was a member and at some point was an officer of DSOC or DSA (at least its Commission): I just documented that he wrote "SDUSA" with scare quotes and that he called Bayard Rustin a neoconservative; the first strikes me as childish and the second as laughable.

I remember liking his book, but I suggest a bit of caution on some parts, that's all.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 07:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Steinfels is a well trained scholarly historian and writes like one. He spends only about three pages on socialist roots--in quite sophisticated fashion--then moves on--spending most of his attention on just three people (Kristol, Bell, Moynihan). He does not call Rustin a neocon. In any case it's his evidence on the neocons that are useful for the neocon article; the rest of his career belongs in his own article. Speculation about whether he had a dog in the fight is off limits. (It's OR and irrelevant and sheds no light on the neocons). Rjensen ( talk) 07:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi RJensen,

I cited page 5 in Steinfels, and the section is visible at Google if you look. He calls Bayard Rustin a neoconservative along with young members of "SDUSA", which he puts in scare quotes. This is not writing like a scholarly historian.

I have never suggested putting my OR into the article. I'm just informing you of the facts. Another fact is that Commonweal used to be down the hall from DSA ....

BTW, those three are exactly the ones named by Harrington. You are wrong on Rustin, as I noted before: See page 5.

Cheers,  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No page 5 mentions Rustin as a contributor to Commentary ["one also finds there"] and warns "By no means should every contributor...be considered a neoconservative." The other mentions of Rustin do not call him a neocon. Rjensen ( talk) 03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me check that then. It may be that I could only see that page at Google, and made an erroneous assumption that he was discussing neocns: that would have been sloppy! I trust that he did use the scare quotes ....  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I was correct. His lead sentence on page 5 says something like "Not everybody publishing in Commentary was a neocon, but ... some set and stayed the course" of neoconservatism, before listing the names of the most prominent neoconservatives----finally ending with Rustin and "SDUSA" youngsters (e.g. Gershman).  Kiefer.[[User I was correct. His lead sentence on page 5 says something like "Not everybody publishing in Commentary was a neocon, but ... some set and stayed the course" of neoconservatism, before listing the names of the most prominent neoconservatives----finally ending with Rustin and "SDUSA" youngsters (e.g. Gershman). Btalk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]] 03:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning, I could only see a few lines from the top and the middle. It is possible that Steinfels listed Rustin and SDUSA as boyscout leaders, but I have discounted that possibility.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Better get the book. He lists a lot of people not usually consideerd neocons but who contributed to Commentary & Rusting is in that list. Rjensen ( talk) 03:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So he starts a second list. I believe you.

BTW you may enjoy Historians politely remind nation to check what has happened in the past.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the harm resulting from my hybridization of the two Steinfels excerpts. Please look at that section again: I do think that it is in better shape than before.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 04:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Tom Kahn needs a Good-Article reviewer, and your knowledge and goodwill (coupled with mild irritation) would make you an ideal reviewer.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read that you have worked in Chicago and published on Illinois history. Given your knowledge of Leo Strauss, you may enjoy writing about George Anastaplo, whose mentioning of the "Right of Revolution" in the McCarthy era got him in Dutch with the American Bar Association, which then asked him about his political affiliations. Anastaplo, a Straussian and decorated Army Air-Force officer, asserted his First-Amendment rights (association) and declined to answer the question. The Supreme Court heard the case, and Anastaplo never was admitted to the Bar. However, he did receive a stirring dissent from Justice Hugo Black, which is worth reading.

(I find it bizarre that neoconservatives are accused of having personality pathologies and political goals that are displayed by nearly all Americans on July 4th!)

Sincerely,  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 08:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Anastaplo and Kahn need attention, but it's not something i'm working on these days. Rjensen ( talk) 09:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as ' no ownership of articles', and particularly ' no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

---

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

I would suggest you have a look at Talk:Crusades section I just added regards Montalban ( talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work, providing the cites and making the text verifiable. -- Javaweb ( talk) 08:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

thanks--ok I admit to being a footnote-freak! Rjensen ( talk) 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello Dr. Jensen. I have recently been making edits on the Charles Sumner article. I have expanded on the Dominican Republic annexation treaty and information on President Grant. Are there any other areas that need work on the CS article? Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your good work! I'll look at it again. Rjensen ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. I am thinking of adding information on the Alaska purchase treaty. Sumner gave a long speech in favor of the Seward's Alaska purchase. I would have to read through the speech to find out if any Eskimo or American Indian tribes had anything to do with the treaty. Maybe Sumner's civil rights agenda only concerned African Americans. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If I am reading Sumner's Alaska purchase speech correctly, the only right Sumner advocated was universal education for citizens of the territory. Nothing in the original annexation treaty guaranteed universal education. The state of the Alaska native recognition was left ambiguous. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on the Alaska territory and annexation treaty in the Charles Sumner article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

good work--i trimmed off some small details and useless ibid-style repetition. Rjensen ( talk)

Thanks Rjensen. Your edits improved the section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding your edit of the Canadian History bibliography, several of those authors are also included in that bibliography elsewhere, having published articles and books on the topic. I thought the resources I added would be a useful addition because they're open access. My understanding is that theses can be admissible if they are of 'significant scholarly value,' although the definition of that hasn't been forthcoming. Given the above facts, would you consider those works to be applicable? Thanks. Cbakker ( talk) 09:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

significance -- one test (which is listed in WP:RS) is whether anyone cites it. I checked one item (RALSTON "john robinson campbell") published in 1984, and google shows zero citations in 27 years. Rjensen ( talk) 10:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to be the only test listed in WP:RS and there seems to be no other assessment of quality. However, works by Hayes, Iarocci, and Campbell, among others, are all included in the bibliography as journal articles and books, many of these being based on their earlier work, their theses. Cbakker ( talk) 11:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

well that's the point: the good theses get published, the others do not. Publication is a major test--lots of editors and experts decide its quality, not one thesis director. In the case of the MA cites, I fear that the person who posted them did not read any of them to gauge their quality. Rjensen ( talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that those journals and books are inaccessible to the majority of people in the world, unless you're fortunate enough to have access to libraries with enough funding. The theses on which they were based are accessible to everybody with an internet connection. I can't speak for every individual who has posted anything on wikipedia, but personally, I always read what I cite, on wikipedia or anywhere else. Of course, that's beside the point. I'm just trying to understand how quality is determined in this community. Cbakker ( talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

in the history world quality is judged by PhD committees, editors, editorial boards, reviewers (in journals), & scholars (who cite items and compile bibliographies). Rjensen ( talk) 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the wikipedia community as a whole, since theses aren't being judged on a discipline by discipline basis. I also find it interesting that in your experience theses are approved by a single thesis director, since this has never been the case in my experience. But, it appears that this conversation is not necessarily leading to a fruitful dialogue, so it would be best if we left things where they stand and simply respect that we have differing opinions. Cbakker ( talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are really doing a bang-up job over there. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks! you got the ball rolling and we all appreciate that Rjensen ( talk) 10:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the factual errors and overwrought tone of this article. For example, the PRR was founded in 1846 (not 1852). Such flowery praise may be justified for Thomson, but the claims should be supported by more specific citations. The ExplorePAHistory site may be helpful: http://explorepahistory.com/search.php?keywords=thomson&page=1 Thanks. BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

any help in fixing wrong dates is appreciated. Historians (esp Chandler) say Thomson was one of the most innovative & important businessman of the era and his role needs to be pointed out. The citations are appropriate. Rjensen ( talk) 09:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what do you think about uploading this pic for the Conservatism timeline? Or this? – Lionel ^{( talk)} 11:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

they are both excellent and the copyrights have expired (it was not renewed). Rjensen ( talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to upload? I would do it but the I didn't see the source for the expired copyright and commons will tag it without substantiation. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know much about the crusades, so I went to that page to learn something about them and wound up learning zilch. The page is a poorly referenced hodgepodge of phrases and sentences without any flow. Lots of information without references and lots of POV from every side. If you want we can try to work together and put this article into some kind of decent shape because right now its neither here or there. I am going to slowly start at the top and try to go down, verifying references as a starting point, since there are so few of them. Lets talk on the article's discuss section if you have any ideas how to fix this up. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you read a book or two before rewriting a major article like this. Rjensen ( talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for adding refs. Devourer09 ( t· c) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

hey i want to talk to u regarding the GI Bill. Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Act of 2011 was Introduced in Congress REcently. a section be added in GI Bill called "Veterans Benefits Proposed in the United States Congress" - then we can put our WIKI under that. similar (but a little different) to List_of_intellectual_property_legislation_proposed_in_the_United_States_Congress Veterans issues are one of the most important social issues facing the United States today - and other countries look at the United States as a model for how to recognize military service. This would be a socially, and legislatively important section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanpatriot1 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

about 50 similar bills are introduced every year. When one passes Wikipedia will cover it. The added section lacks a reliable secondary source and lacks criticism--it does not say how unemployed vets will get the half-million $$$$ or more needed for a cheap franchise Rjensen ( talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it had to be in Immigration article, but I had seen somewhere that the British thought the colonists should help pay off the bonds to fight the French and Indian War since they were primary beneficiaries. The colonists did not see nor understand the connection; therefore (ultimately) the revolution. While you correctly deleted the material, the edit summary seemed to say that this was not the intent of the British at all, but intended to provide positions for the military. Student7 ( talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

the colonists were not the primary beneficiaries--the Brits fought the war to expand THEIR empire and they made sure the Americans had no role whatever in ruling Canada or the western areas. Britain had a lot of politically connected officers who needed jobs. The new tax revenue was to go to 10,000 soldiers stationed inland to guard AGAINST the Americans and stop them from moving west into the new Indian nation the Brits were setting up. (They had this Indian nation demand as late as the Ghent Treaty negotiations in 1814). Rjensen ( talk) 22:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen
I've just replied to your 'B-29'/'B-32' comments on the United States aircraft production in World War II talk page.

I also looked at the Google link; I'm not sure if you mean "The Development of the Heavy Bomber 1918-1944" or "USaaf Very Heavy Bomber Bases...". If it is the latter we have to be rather careful that we don't end up going round in circles, i.e. I note that the source used for this publication is... Wikipedia !

Regards RASAM ( talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

yes that would be a mistake! :) Rjensen ( talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. One issue that I believe that can be addressed is Lincoln's views on African Americans in terms of white supremacy. With your background, I believe you may have the resources for this complex issue. If you have time, I believe your guidance in the matter could improve the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Your edit at Evangelicalism provided an excellent reference to a recent, well-received recent publication, and it strengthened the article. This barnstar is given to you in recognition of your particularly fine contribution to Wikipedia. Senator2029 |  talk 04:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rjensen! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen. What do you think of this article? -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 10:33, 29 October 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 and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Hey, I noticed you added articles pertaining to major American cities in the Civil War in the "states and territories" section. I was wondering if it might be better if we split them into a separate subsection? (I'm saying this here because you and I are the only ppl who have edited it recently) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

the cities generally dominated the state and so there's a logic for keeping them--especially if we reach the point there are dozens of these article.--and vice versa, for state histories have a lot on these particular cities. Chicago is sadly missing. Rjensen ( talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on the Workshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Thanks for the works on my edits to Neoconservatism, I think they're mostly improvements. I noticed though that you removed Shultz. Any particular reason why? I know he's not usually included in the neo-con who's who list but he's taken a lot of stances that are pretty closely aligned with the movement, he mentored some of it's more famous members and he was instrumental in assembling the George W. Bush neo-con foreign policy team in the late 90's. TomPointTwo ( talk) 19:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS that calls Schultz a neocon. ?? re "mentored some of it's more famous members" (who?) Colas says, "neoconservatives were appalled when the moderate George Schultz and Paul Nitze (among others) negotiated the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty with Gorbachev in 1987. Perle and Adelman resigned over the matter" Rjensen ( talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referencing Santiago Colas? I'm not sure I'd call Shultz a down the line neo-con, he was of an older generation and certainly had a more moderate streak in him. Still, he defiantly supported many neo-con positions later in his government career, nurtured and networked rising neo-cons at the Hoover Institute and lobbied on behalf of many of them in their own government careers. Shultz was an early ally and benefactor of Donald Rumsfeld. Paul Wolfowitz was an aide and protege of Shultz's; all three fell into the anti-Kissinger Camp in the Republican foreign policy establishment. It was Shultz who saved Wolfowitz from getting canned by Haig and he nurtured and then championed his first real policy positions in Asia after promoting him. He was one of Rumsfeld's backers within the White House when Rumsfeld began laying the groundwork to run for President in 1987. Shultz backed the neo-con positions of demanding democratic reform in Chile and the Philipines under Pinochet and Marcos. Shultz was a friend and benefactor of Condi Rice's and got her into a job at Stanford and then several corporate boards. It was his recommendation that helped land her the Provost job. After the first Bush administration and was the one who brought the early seeds of George W. Bush's neo-con team together, literally in his living room. Of course he was also part of the early Bush campaign team along with Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He worked on a "Team B" for missile defense for Bush and asserted an almost uniformly neo-con position on that subject. Finally James Mann asserts that it was Shultz's lobbying that got Rumsfeld his job at Defense. So maybe not a dyed in the wool neoconservative but certainly in important figure in neoconservatism. TomPointTwo ( talk) 21:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also quickly offer this link for you to take a look at: Daniel Henninger at Hoover on Shultz, the Bush Doctrine and what it means to be a neoconservative. TomPointTwo ( talk) 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Shultz has indeed left his imprint all over GOP policy. He was the key player when Reagan sought detente with Gorbachev, and they were both strongly opposed by the neoconservatives of the mid 1980s. Shultz sponsored Rice & Rumsfeld, but she is not a neocon and R. worked with them without quite being one. Schultz was a professor at Chicago, but was never associated with Leo Strauss and that circle. Rjensen ( talk) 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but my assertion and the assertion of people like Mann is not that he was a easily categorized neocon; instead it's that he was an important benefactor and supporter of many neoconservatives and their ideas. For that I'd say he comfortably places in the list of notable figures. TomPointTwo ( talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

but he was also the sponsor of just as many non-neocons and realists. He just liked to sponsor bright people. Rjensen ( talk) 04:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd assert that his patronage of the neo-con movement was notable enough to include in the list despite its partisan nature but it's not a sticking point with me. I've noticed your interest in the article of late. I was planning on a bit of a resusitation of the entire thing and would love to collaborate with you if you have the time and inclination. TomPointTwo ( talk) 07:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK -- it needs work! Rjensen ( talk) 07:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wondering what the "foreign affairs" refers to [7]. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Gulf war followup for example--people lost interest quickly but Bush did not. Rjensen ( talk) 06:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If I could impose upon your time, and ask for you help in dealing with the tag issues identified at Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation, as I believe you wrote much of that part. The tags by Brad ask for more detailed attribution, clarfication and time issues. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up--I'll look into it tonite Rjensen ( talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing that none of you American editors seem to be able to comprehend is that my view(that the United States wanted to annex view is shared by 90% of Canadians and a sizable chunk of Americans too. In addition, I used a reliable source and properly cited it. I see no reason to delete it. Please refrain from this type of POV pushing in the future. Ronald Wenonah ( talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

the 90% figure is imaginary--people in Quebec for example could care less about Ontario mythology. Stanley's book about land operations in the war is not a RS on American foreign policy. Rjensen ( talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The 90% figure is not imaginary: ever heard of the Battle of Crysler's Farm or the Battle of the Chateaugay? Both pitted large American forces (2500 and 4000) against much smaller Canadian forces(800 and 1530). In the Battle of the Chateuagay, Charles de Salaberry, a French- Canadian general, repulsed an American force that outnumbered his forces by 4:1. Note: this battle occurred in Quebec. The Qubecois definitely do care about the War of 1812. In fact they probably care more than Ontarians, given the American government's extremely anti-Catholic stance at the time.Also, I am extremely annoyed that you deleted my edit. I asked specifically on the talk page to give reasons for deletion of my edits before doing it again. I consider this vandalism. Ronald Wenonah ( talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Most Quebeckers know & care little about 1812. 10% say Canada won that war (compared to 50% in Ontario). That's what they indicated in 2009 says [www.acs-aec.ca/pdf/polls/12604640589505.doc The Association of Canadian Studies]. The deleted edit was poorly done and did NOT reflect the source cited. Rjensen ( talk) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see [8]. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

I was just invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies was thinking you may be interested to. PS I made this Template:Canadian Bibliographies. Moxy ( talk) 16:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

yes indeed, thanks for the heads-up! Rjensen ( talk) 18:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! It will be nice to get more help with this project. RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that it is very useful to put in external links to journals' homepages as "references" in a list like this. These ELs belong in the articles on the journals itself. (These additions are perhaps not against the letter of WP:ELNO, but they certainly go against the spirit). What would be nice, however, is to have references for the list as a whole, but those may be difficult to find. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 11:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

many journals do not have their own Wiki articles and need the footnotes. The links speed up the process for many users (especially those interested in the article content of a journal rather than it's description) and thus are in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia. As for ELNO, it specifically allows "a link to an official page of the article's subject" and that is the spirit in which these are added. Rjensen ( talk) 11:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• If they have no articles, they should not be in the list anyway, otherwise the list just becomes a collection of external links to pages of journals (and some of those may be obscure or otherwise non-notable). Please also see WP:NOTADIRECTORY. As for ELNO: it says "the article's subject", which in this case is "list of history journals". -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

finding important scholarly history journals are of value to Wiki users, whether they have a full article or a stub, or are in need of one. It is premature to assume that Wikipedia's catch-as-catch-can process has covered the major journals. Instead we need a systematic resource compiled by RS, and scholars and librarians have evaluated the thousands of possibilities and identified the more important ones via JSTOR, Project MUSE, Historical Abstracts, America: History and Life and similar resources. This Article's subject is history journals, of course. Why else would anyone look at it? Rjensen ( talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Recently there was a WP Foundation survey asking if editors could use greater access to online scholarly journals. I answered yes, a lot, please and thank you, or whatever the survey format allowed in the affirmative. It maybe that on the "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia" contents navigation bar we could use a "editor's corner" link or some-such.

The idea would be to take the links which I find so useful at List of history journals out of the realm of contention over list-article-policy altogether. Since retirement, I do not have access to JSTOR, for instance. Although I suppose I could register for a Community College course in Virginia. But until I turn 65, its not free, and the Virginia Assembly in its wisdom only allows tuition-free courses for the degree-pursuing elderly.

So, as an oldie-newbie editor at WP, I sure could use access to online scholarly journals, by hook or by crook, as grandpa used to say. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree -- and Merry Christmas! (your undergraduate college may give you access to JSTOR if you ask the librarian). Rjensen ( talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw the edit on the Horace Greeley article, removing the reference to the Choate Sanitarium. I thought that the Choate reference was interesting (although I didn't place it there)-- was wondering why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.240.254 ( talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in -- that was my note, above. -- Nobaddude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobaddude ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

it says nothing about Greeley. Rjensen ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw the edit on the Horace Greeley article, removing the reference to the Choate Sanitarium. I thought that the Choate reference was interesting (although I didn't place it there)-- was wondering why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobaddude ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening on the Booknotes question, I think that there may be some misunderstanding going on here, and I want to avoid any sort of bad feelings about this. I think that Wikipedia and Booknotes (and CSPAN in general) go together like peanut butter and jelly and I am hoping to introduce more pertinent links from Booknotes and other CSPAN programs going forward. Let me know if there is anything you would like to discuss about this now or in the future. Thanks again. KConWiki ( talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also - Let me introduce you to another Wiki editor who is also a C-SPAN afficionado - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WWB_Too KConWiki ( talk) 17:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we're in agreement--back when the program appeared regularly I watched it and learned a lot. The problem here is an editor not familiar with how history articles in Wikipedia get written and how they are used by students. Rjensen ( talk) 17:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, if you are so inclined, I think you should go back and replace the links DVdm has removed; he (yes, I'm assuming) has made Wikipedia worse by the removal, and his logic just doesn't hold up. I like to assume good faith as a rule, but it's increasingly difficult not to draw the conclusion that you're / we're being trolled. And if DVdm disagrees, I think KConWiki and I will both be happy to support your point in a wider discussion. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 19:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start replacing these, I'm not sure what further discussion will bring. Also, RJ - If you are interested, I know that WWB2 has some C-SPAN related wiki projects that he has been getting organized. KConWiki ( talk) 22:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Discussion continues: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not sure about Booknotes in external links KConWiki ( talk) 15:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your support and kind words - I think I have got all the links squared away on appropriate pages. I think, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that the vast majority of these will be absorbed into Wikipedia without controversy. Here is one encouraging exchange! KConWiki ( talk) 01:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to pitch in. we have some editors who are rule-conscious rather than result-conscious (a typical discussion point in the philosophy of ethics), Rjensen ( talk) 01:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been reading over Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct edited by C. Vann Woodward. Interesting, I found Woodward give Grant's presidency a break in citing that two historians viewed Grant's presidential corruption was exaggerated, with the exception of Babcock. Sec. Williams is not listed in the corruption. The book covers the Washington and Freedman's Bureau Ring. Does this merit any change in the current Grant scandals sections and or any articles? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the Grant scandals are more than adequately covered now, although the Woodward book does add new details. Rjensen ( talk) 23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That is good. Yes. Woodward gives more information on the Sanborn contracts. After Sec. Richardson debacle Grant abolished the moiety system and brought in the reformer Sec. Bristow. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that Woodward was the editor--I recall McFeely (a Woodward PhD student) wrote the Grant chapter. Rjensen ( talk) 23:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That is really interesting. McFeely hardly gives Grant a break in his Grant: A Biography (1981), yet in the Woodward book (1974), two historians are cited stating that Grant established Civil Service reform and ended the moiety system. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Woodward book (1974) I added information on the moiety contract system in the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals article. I believe that puts the Sanborn contracts in better context. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have amended the edit again but this time chose "leader". That should suffice. The word "dictator" is not acceptable on this site and neither are the words régime or evil among others. They are ubiquitous but a user is free to sweep the editorial broom and change/remove these terms. "Dictator" is 100% POV - unless you can find an example of a leader who has titled himself dictator, been referred to as such by his loyalists, and has declared his state a dictatorship. With that, the only sources to use the term are those unfavourable to the pronominal person and therefore unreliable (not well-placed to comment). Furthermore, the word is not mentioned on Mussolini's article: there is only a mild adjective reference, "Mussolini obtained from the legislature dictatorial powers for one year...", and it is unequivocal that should an editor grace the pages of known totalitarian figures with the word "dictator" then it would be removed immediately. The other problem with words like "dictator" is that they constitute original research. It is good enough to have a link on a person's name without the need to produce details of what the individual was on irrelevant pages, but where there is need you can refer to an authortiatian system. By claiming one man is a dictator when he did not use this term for himself also implies that he had every reign of power within the system. This is impossible as there are invariably several people who exercise real power within any administration, even "dictators" need some people to hold the ladder for them: those people (army chiefs? corporate tycoons? clergy? his deputies?) clearly have some influence or their services would not be required. So in real terms, there is a number of dictators. It's a complex business and we cannot scour the site to amend titles or offices for "dictator" simply because you or I dislike them. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you think if I changed the slot to "Mussolini's authoritarian leadership"? As you believe something to that effect needs mentioning, this does clarify that he was firmly rooted to power against the nation's will. I personally thought however that the term per se "Fascist Italy" surmises that this was a non-democratic entity. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The way wikipedia works is that we follow the Reliable sources, and they tell us Mussolini a dictator. Personal POV is not allowed here Rjensen ( talk) 20:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. You won't believe this but I was in the process of editing the section myself after reading your reply - but you beat me to it. Mine actually said "autocratic leadership" but as I clicked Save, the edit conflict page informed me of an update since my attempted modification. I am happy enough with how it stands now. And I wasn't denying that he was a dictator, it's just sometimes there is more to a presentation than simply citing Wikipedia's approved publications. Some of these are newspapers refer to Saddam Hussein as Butcher of Baghdad but I'm not about to add that to the Iraq page on the 1968-2003 part!!! Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks. we're not talking about using newspapers we're using the best scholarship--such as Payne and Bosworth. See Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 by R. J. B. Bosworth (2007) for probably the best coverage by a top scholar. Rjensen ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There was never any doubt though. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I reread Richard B. Morris AHA [ |Presidential Address] from 1976 to try to put the article references at History of the United States Constitution into scholarly perspective, so I threw Merrill Jensen into the company of Gordon Wood and and Forrest McDonald for my "Declaration" write-up. Just so you know, I did not make that up, I used Morris' AHA speech for the scholarly association. I reorganized the TOC a bit and reworked Articles section towards encyclopedic style. I restored Mount Vernon Conference after writing a connection to the U.S. Constitution, which you properly pointed out that it lacked. Are you, by any chance, in the family business? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to Merrill Jensen. :) Happy New Year Rjensen ( talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on Talk:Conservatism in the United States regarding User:Beagel. Please see WP:Tea.

99.181.157.27 ( talk) 15:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the nice cup of tea . Rjensen ( talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you survey the expanded American civil religion article with an eye to narrative and sources balance?

I overly-expanded several sections in U.S. Constitution to the point of crippling the ability of servers to load it, topping the charts at #60 longest Wikipedia article. Yuk. So several sections were spun off with the help of others. Editorial collaboration – what a concept. The idea being for an online encyclopedia is to be read online, you see.

The once overly-illustrated “Civic religion” section was spun off into its own article. It immediately came under attack for being “contrived” by an editor unacquainted with Rousseau’s “Social Contract”. I ran for cover in “American civil religion” since I knew Herberg’s “Protestant, Catholic, Jew”. No one was there, but a kind collaborator took pity and helped in the actual doing of the deed, so there it is.

I might prefer “Original parchments” for an encyclopedia section over “Sacred relics”, which I find to be inappropriately wry, “Living Constitution” tradition and all that. I don’t know how to put it exactly where I stand. Of the Founders, think, read Adams for-reference-only, study Hamilton, Livingston, Madison, Wilson, read Jefferson for-reference-only. Edmund Burke gets slammed so bad through no fault of his own, think, change-without-chaos, Locke, Mill, Rawls. I fear I am not one of your Conservatives.

“American civil religion” now has only one illustration. It seems that the image to text ratio in WP history narratives should be 1 : 350. “American civil religion” at 2600 words allows for seven. I have been criticized for a predilection towards writing as an ADHD author of a fifth-grade textbook. So, to the extent there may be something to the critique, I’d like to discuss some possible images with you, if you would sort of help me through a tutorial on the subject, if you are of a mind. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up --- i'll take a look before the bowl games tie me down. Rjensen ( talk) 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I added a lot of new material and removed some text that did not seem directly related to civil religion. Rjensen ( talk) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 'Rjensen', we are presently trying to decide where to place various sections on the Thomas Jefferson page. If interested please join us on the talk page to help resolve the issue. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:STNDOIL.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rjensen,

Just seen your subsequent trimming to my edits relating to the Suez Crisis on the Harold Macmillan article. Nicely done. Keeps sufficient background info without getting overly detailed.

Whilst I assert that my original edits should have been viewed as non-contentious, as Egyptian support under Nasser for movements opposing the British, and French imperial presence in the Arab World, and Africa is well known, documented, and cited in official British, French, and U.S. declassified documents as reasons for growing Western antagonism towards Egypt from 1952 onwards, I do accept that I did not include references with the edits. Should I be able to find them with ease, I shall provide them.

Thanks. CrimeCentral ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

--I don't think the main issue was every Nasser's role in other countries: it was the canal issue that bothered the Brits (and French). but in any case they should go in the Suez Crisis or Nasser articles; Macmillan is not the right place. :) Rjensen ( talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Slave Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josiah Quincy ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you've got an interest in Pennsylvania history, could you take a look at Timeline of Harrisburg history? I've tried to clean it up a bit, but it's really not my area - I was mainly doing links and formatting. Thanks in any event! Allens ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

it's well done! -- I added some books. Rjensen ( talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Allens ( talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I got a little snarky at the MT history article. I'll stick to the issue itself. A certain very immature editor (not you) now has my blood pressure up a bit, but that's not an excuse for taking the same tone. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

we're on the same wavelength! thanks for the note. Do you mind if I restore the post 1970 section that xxx deleted ? Rjensen ( talk) 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't add or delete either way. I personally still don't like the medicinal pot section because it has undue weight, and I did comment that if the whole thing went away I wouldn't be unhappy, but on the other hand, if the whole thing came back, I think it was an edit made prior to talk page consensus, and I'd be OK with it staying there until things are sorted out. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll put it back -- and call it something like "Recent history". I also have a number of new additions (not about Marijuana!!) re 1960s Rjensen ( talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		You've really taken Historiography of the United States to a new level! Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

thnaks--it's been a favorite topic of mine since the days of printed paper. Rjensen ( talk) 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Professor: I'm a fellow academic at Bowling Green State University and am working with some students on a project about wikipedia. At this stage we're just exploring how wikipedia works and is constructed, but I wondered what motivates you to contribute? I think it's very interesting that there are so many who share their knowledge, etc.... very many thanks, Tori Smith Ekstrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekstra ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see my edits here as teaching history to a wider audience. Secondly I enjoy learning a lot more about topics that were only touched on in lectures or textbooks. I have always loved encyclopedias and now that I am retired from academe have plenty of time. Rjensen ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:T-Eckert.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that the Amos T. Akerman article needs improvement. I do not have access to the book, Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward that has an article by William S. McFeely on Ackerman, spelled with a "c". Would you Rjensen be interested in improving the ATA article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--I did some work a year ago but I'm not working that area right now. Suggest getting the book interlibrary loan. Rjensen ( talk) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll have to look into that. Interestingly, Akerman is really hard to find any information on. I typed in his name at Archives.org and nothing came up. I could not even find any newspaper obituaries on his life. I believe Akerman supported Grant in his failed 3rd Presidential nomination attempt in 1880 at the Republican convention. Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I made improvements to the Akerman article. I have been using McFeely's Grant: A Biography as a source reference. If you have time to look at the article that would be good. Maybe there are areas of improvement or direction the article can go in. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work! I think the Region, Race, and Reconstruction would also help you. Rjensen ( talk) 07:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Yes. I have to go to my local library to find out concerning inter library loans. I need to add that Akerman owned 11 slaves. I have found some journal article sources that can help the article. There is not a whole lot on his younger days. Do you believe there was any "conspiracy" on the part of Southern historians to ignore Akerman, since he was a primary factor for destroying the Klan in the South? Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

no, i don't. Rjensen ( talk) 00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Come on! We're not trying to confuse a casual reader. Allow a wiktionary link to sesquisdepelian. Not linking may be cute, but it isn't Wikipedic. Student7 ( talk) 14:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok let's link, but Wiki needs to take advantage of the interactivity -- everybody reading this particular advanced article knows how to do a google search & we should play to people's strengths Rjensen ( talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wondered if you saw this? Well referenced expansions, such as yours, are always welcome but we would need to trim the article to meet the GA criteria. AshLin ( talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

yes I did and I agree the article is too long. I have been trying to trim the article, and instead emphasize modern scholarship. Rjensen ( talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'm trying to do ref improvement, cleanup & replacement where possible with verifiable sources. AshLin ( talk) 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

we're on the same wavelength (although that metaphor is too techy when dealing with Gandhi). Rjensen ( talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

New Deal ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Libertarian, CIO and AFL

Historiography of the United States ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carl Becker

History of India ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Muslim League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

I love kittens. Here is one from me to you for your hard work in Gandhi. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I hope that this kitten gives you similar happiness too.

AshLin ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

hey thanks -- our cat used to look exactly like that. Rjensen ( talk) 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask you to help in fixing the red link in the history of India article:

As you can see the word - Hindu iconography is spelled incorrectly. Can you please fix it.

 Fixed here

Also in the Mughal Empire the forth paragraph:

• "Following 1725, the empire began to disintegrate, weakened by wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, the growth of religious intolerance, the rise of the Maratha, Durrani, invasion by Safavids from Persia, rise of independent kinngdoms of Oudh, Hyderabad, Mysore, Bengal and Sikh empires and finally British colonialism. The last Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, whose rule was restricted to the city of Delhi, was imprisoned and exiled by the British after the Indian Rebellion of 1857."
• There are spelling errors such as: kingdoms is spelled 'kinndgoms'.
• Historical inaccuracy: Savafids did not invade, it was Nader Shah.
• Sikh Empire belongs after the Maratha Empire, due to the others being independent Vassels of the Mughals not really kingdoms.

Correct statement for this paragraph should be:

• "Following 1725, the empire began to disintegrate, weakened by wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, the growth of religious intolerance, the rise of the Maratha, Durrani, and Sikh empires as well as invasion by Nader Shah from Persia, rise of independent vassels of Oudh, Hyderabad, Mysore, Bengal and finally British colonialism. The last Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, whose rule was restricted to the city of Delhi, was imprisoned and exiled by the British after the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

 Fixed here

Thank you, I look forward in hearing back from you. ( 149.151.144.74 ( talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

thanks for the heads up! I'll try to work on i tomorrow. Rjensen ( talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumped in here - save Rjensen some time searching all to see what has happened - I noticed at User talk:AshLin the same post - were the user has fixed all the above with the note : All done. Please consider getting a login id for your edits. Its free. .... Moxy ( talk) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks--much appreciated :) Rjensen ( talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen I have been attempting to get an Indian Policy on the Rutherford B. Hayes. Do you have any views on putting in an Indian Policy in the Rutherford B. Hayes article? Here is a link to the talk page: Indian Policy.

I think a brief section is a good idea. it's covered in The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes by Kenneth E. Davison (1972) and by Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900 (1976) Rjensen ( talk) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I agree. I can look for the books in my local library or into any library loan programs. Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bibliography of Montana history ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Walsh

British Raj ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Bentinck

History of Montana ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Walsh

History of education in the Indian subcontinent ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Bentinck

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend - ws wondering if you had any references for what was just added - as you can see I have been working on the page making sure all is linked and references properly. Moxy ( talk) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind - I see the book. Moxy ( talk) 08:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that. I wrote the paragraph and forgot for a minute to put in the cite. I'll be adding some more cites. Rjensen ( talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice additions - good job. Moxy ( talk) 09:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Question? In the article we are currently saying "This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations rather than Trudeau's vision of a Just Society"
From what I can remember (yes like you I am old) - Trudeau was criticized for "trying to buy the vote" from the beginning was he not? - The ref does back up the statement but in my opinion (I have refs to) Its Trudeau that received much more criticisms on this type of point. What do you think? Moxy ( talk) 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

well I vividly remember the war of 1812.... seriously I checked & the source (Kymlicka & Banting eds) does not mention Trudeau so I rephrased as "The new ethnics turned out to vote and were able to protect their gains at the polls, neutralizing any nativist backlash." Rjensen ( talk) 02:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi - A few articles on C-SPAN programs that I've been working on that you might be interested in: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments), American Presidents: Life Portraits, American Writers: A Journey Through History. I think Tocqueville might be next (or, maybe not next, but certainly on the drawing board). Hope you enjoy them. KConWiki ( talk) 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up, and please continue the good work! Rjensen ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Multiculturalism in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Canadian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rjensen,

I am confused as to why you are removing my edits of Fort Mims. Jackson and Weatherford were friends and political conspirators. Jackson picked fights with every successful politician in the South in his way to the Presidency. Samuel Mims, a non violent economically powerful settler, stood in his way. Because Mims lived in an ivory castle, Jackson could not hope to pick a duel with him. Jackson sent correspondance to Weatherford suggesting he take Fort Mims. Instead of hanging him as threatened, he fed and clothed Weatherford. Later, Jackson would ensure Weatherford could build a fortune on land given to him. The Mims family and later Mimms have been assassinated 3 times since then in the south, rebuilding their fortune a total of 4 times. What primary sources do you possess of their relationship that would suggest otherwise? What primary sources do you need me to produce to accept my truthful edits?

The southern elite does not want this to get out. The latest attempt at discrediting our family came in the financial crises. Our patriarch liquidated real estate holdings prior to the financial crises in an act of incredible foresight. The founder of Wells Fargo, a member or Augusta National, took political actions to make Golden State Mortgages, a firm filled with subprime mortgages look appealing to Wachovia bank. Wachovia bought the firm. The ticking time bomb exploded so Wells Fargo could pick up the pieces. Wells then tried to call in Mimms Wachovia loans during a time of strong Mimms financial position. Wells placed Mimms funds in a contrived 1% fund for a loss of 5 million. We are holding strong, but the onslaught of the Southern Elite continues. All because of Jackson and our attempt to get history out from under the victors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,

Jared Mimms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

wiki rules do not allow editors to promote their personal family interest. it violates the WP:COI rules. Furthermore the edits are illegal original research, are not based on any of the voluminous studies of Jackson, and are animated by a hatred of Jackson. Be warned that repeated efforts to stick the material in may lead to longer and longer bans by administrators. Rjensen ( talk) 08:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This post is not motivated by hatred of Jackson, but by truth plain and simple. You should not believe only the facts presented to you by historical volumes. Fort Mims is mostly uncited and supported by anecdotal evidence, anecdotes by uneducated slaves and ignorant survivors. Throughout history all the important, controversial details were told orally or burned. The truth is easily altered by documents written de facto. The surviving families of the oppressed, those who could not write history deserve hearing. By pretending to protect history, you are actually obscuring the truth. Jackson is hated for a reason - he was a sociopath who murdered his own brethren to further his own political ambitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

let's see you're saying your great-great-great grandfather told you all this personally? you need your own blog or Facebook page, not Wikipedia Rjensen ( talk) 11:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't know. Samuel Mims was naive and friendly towards everyone. Not a sour bone in his body. That is why Jackson had to do away with him. Jackson would kill his own wife to end political smears against him. By the way, I don't use facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Sir, its time you learn the truth. After that arranged duel, Jackson became so unpopular, he had to find a way to build back his political capital. His inhibitions lowered by the recent cold blooded murder, and his sociopathic tendencies in tact, he smothered his own wife. His wife's death would inspire sympathy and eliminate a source of political trouble for him due to the controversial double marriage. This is the truth. Not the bullshit you religiously live by. Not the bullshit of the winners. This is the spoils system he so much advocated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Why would he feed and clothe, Weatherford, later helping him build wealth? Weatherford lost that war. He is a loser in the spoils system. Answer: Jackson and Weatherford were political allies - because Jackson won, Weatherford also won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) And another thing...you know why Jackson hated Fort Mims? He detested the English. Jackson slaughtered Fort Mims and established his own Fort. This is final. This is history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Also, as some genealogies will claim, Samuel Mims was a half-breed. This is utterly false. It is a smear tactic used by the winners to suggest he was not of full European descent. I'll tell you one more thing, when it comes to human motivation, Occam's Razor don't work.

Hey RJensen, I realized I may not have been all that constructive at the outset of talk, assuming bad faith on flimsy evidence, among other things. I'd like to offer my apology for the lack of courteousness. I've also removed a couple of sentences which in retrospect weren't all that useful from the talk page. Br, RandySpears ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK--thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I floated this article but it needs oversight by experienced eyes like yours who know history better than moi. Wondering if you might have a look at make changes as you see fit.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

looks interesting--did you write all of it? Rjensen ( talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, i was curious about the subject of citizenship and didn't realize that I didn't know much, so working on it I had a chance to study it further, but I still feel the whole subject eludes me somehow -- like I still don't really get it solidly, but only parts of it. Plus I am not satisfied with my writing of it, like it isn't concrete enough, like its a first draft of something but I don't know how to improve it. Wondering if you knew if there were any good sources about history of citizenship, any perspectives I missed, any ideas how to fix it further.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Hi Richard!

Can you confirm whether all these are your edits? Would be good to know for the record... That is - if 24.240.79.75 and 128.104.202.99 are you?

Can you confirm whether this is you, as well?

Frankly, from my POV, I feel there's an issue with POV-pushing - assuming the unsigned edits were you. I'd like to discuss it, how you see it and how you see your edits in the context of Wikipedia standards with regards to NPOV, transparency w edit summaries, etc. Looking forward to hear from you! Br, RandySpears ( talk) 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

no those certainly were not my edits. (I never edit anonymously, and pretty often I will cite a book or scholarly article) -- for who I "really" am, see my userpage. Rjensen ( talk) 04:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so why are you even defending this language? All the parts I want changed were edited in anonymously, about six months ago; replaced language that stated pretty much the opposite; they were made without edit summaries; and by appearances the editor is not around to defend them anymore - why should you? I am going to replace this language using Ritchie, and I expect you'll have no objections - considering these are not your edits anyway, they were anonymous, the editor didn't explain himself, isn't around to discuss the issue, and everything but the Garner quote was unsourced. RandySpears ( talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not defending that language. I have no objections to good solid edits you may make, based on RS. Let's keep the Garner quote--he was a major player and the quote illustrates an important component (ie the position of conservative Democrats) of the 1932 campaign. I think it also suggests why Garner broke with FDR in 1937. Rjensen ( talk) 11:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited British Raj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macaulay ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your many edits to the text. While you are dealing with that important aspect, I am slowly going around the references cleaning up them for GA & later FA. A few issues regarding references:

• Vide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books, urls are given only when a preview is available. Google books which are in snippet or no preview are not provided as urls. So I'll be reverting a few changes you made.
• In most cases Google automatically retargets its domains based on ip so the change of ip domain from .co.in to .com is, as far I know, not important.
• Vide Cite_book#Description_of_parameters the field "accessdate" needs to be given accurately with day & month also. Accessdates are dates when the url was accessed and are not "expired dates".

If you have any points, I'd be happy to discuss & happier to take action on them. Without meaning any disrespect to your good faith edits, its easier for me to address your points than correct issues. AshLin ( talk) 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your premises but I think they don't all apply here. The dates I erased were not accessdates but old day-of-first publication and not useful. The Google links I put in are to previews and not to snippets. I first double checked on that. Rjensen ( talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just use this - Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{ cite book}} format Moxy ( talk) 02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! that certainly helps. Rjensen ( talk) 04:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ignore the snippets/preview issue and simply link if the book is available at GBooks. This is because Google does not display the same content throughout the world. For example, people in the US can often see full views or previews that are only visible as snippets in the UK ... and as nothing in China. Therefore, that particular rule is almost impossible to apply consistently. - Sitush ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for your reply.

• I use the reftags application for my Google Books references too. However, since you are new to reftags, I would like to mention that this application automatically loads today's date in the accessdate field (this gives a clear idea of when the link was active and how dated the reference is).
• I will check out your particular date changes again for their being expiry dates. But I have never come across this term or detail before.
• Thanks to Sitush for new information, I was not aware that Google changes preview conditions for each country. In that case, you may like to please check again and re-add the links to the reference. Or if you indicate that all the previews you added (which I reverted) are live in the USA, I can re-add those. The ones you added are dead in India, i.e. no preview is provided here, hence I reverted them.
• Sitush, Wikipedia MOS specifically states that links not providing preview or full view should not be added. I have no opinion but would be constrained to consider MOS for GA. I shall ask for a clarification on the talk page of WP:FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline, not a policy. - Sitush ( talk) 14:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. However, the Indian Community has agreed that Gandhi has to be improved to GA and hopefully to FA. I'm being cautious in sticking to MOS to the best of my ability for this reason. AshLin ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ask at the GA or FA talk pages but I have never bothered with that particular guideline and do have a few stars at the top of my user page. Obviously, you do not use snippet views to make or support a statement, but if someone else can see the full view etc then they can do the necessary. BTW, I rather think that the tool you mention above is going to land you in trouble if you are aiming for FA - see the citation style note at WP:Featured article criteria. Sorry for taking over your talk page, Rj!- Sitush ( talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Robert,for taking up space on your talk page. I have moved the conversation to Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I am continuing this discussion there as it is proving fruitful. AshLin ( talk) 15:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you reverted my removal of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. from the list in the Progressive Era article. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page and, until we reach consensus, I've added a "dubious" tag to the main article next to Rockefeller's name. I hope you'll take part in the discussion. Many thanks. -- Lincolnite ( talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we've both worked on The Bronx and History of the Bronx, but you're far better-read on the borough. I just noticed that what for long had been a red link (via Lloyd Ultan (composer)) to Lloyd Ultan (historian) has just been started this week, at stub level by User:Djflem. Perhaps you might be interested in filling out the content or adding a bibliography or "Further Reading". Have a good weekend. —— Shakescene ( talk) 10:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up--I'll check it out (but I don't have much to add right now), Rjensen ( talk) 10:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, with regards to your addition to the Edward III, did you have a page number for N. A. M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea (1997)? You've cited it, but it's not clear where in the volume the info's coming from... Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

yes it's p 99 and I just added it. Rodger: "What it did not do, in spite of Edward's revival of the claim to 'sovereignty of the seas', was to confer command of the sea on the English. No such command was possible against an enemy who still had access to the sea and the means to exploit it. Moreover Philip VI's means were much greater than Edward IIl's...." Rjensen ( talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (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.