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

see previous talk at Archive 21

Archives

no archives yet ( create)

Hello! I am wondering what problems you had with my edits on the Agricultural Adjustment Act. I added correct citations and corrected punctuation errors, as well as other errors (such as changing 300 billion to the correct number as cited in the original source, 3 billion). I don't see why you reverted my edits. Thanks. Johnson History202 ( talk) 02:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Much of the text is copied word for word without any indication of this. You have to use at least quote marks for long quotes. Rjensen ( talk) 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see why, for the fact that I did not add a quotation mark to a long quote (while still citing the source in a footnote), gave you merit to revert all of my edits. I will be happy to add the quotation marks. Johnson History202 ( talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

breaking a major rule is pretty serious. I recommend you do edits in smaller chunks rather than expect others to figure out for you which if any any additional sentences you added are legit by the Wiki rules or not. Rjensen ( talk) 03:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting to add the quotation marks. I went back and added them under the Implementation section where I made that long quote. Johnson History202 ( talk) 03:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK Rjensen ( talk) 03:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a question is your proposed addition for the lead or the body of the article? (Side note I reverted your addition). -- Moxy ( talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

yes? my main argument is that the lede of the chief article on Canada has to be accessible to a wide range of users worldwide. Many will only read the opening lede. They should read a brief summary of the main Canadian situation, rather than be shunted off to long articles on other topics. I think it is essential to tell them about the different ethnocultural streams that comprise all of Canadian history from the colonial era to the present. As for the history of the geographical expansion, that is indeed more complicated and perhaps can be left out of the lead. As for the American Revolution, I think all Canadian historians are agreed that it was the exiled Loyalists who became the main base of the British element in Canada, dominating Canadian culture, economy and politics outside Quebec (and indeed the economy of Quebec until 1960s as well). Rjensen ( talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead should be short and enticing - in fact very short as most will not spend more the a few seconds reading an article anywhere - ( You Won’t Finish This Article). An article like History of the United States will not be read...in fact the lead size will deter many of the bat to read any of it. Small lead that makes readers want to learn more is best in my opinion. Need to entice readers with things like "various conflicts" that are linked to overall topics of interests. All that said see what others have to say.-- Moxy ( talk) 18:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Most students want some quick facts and if it is not in the lead, they will not plunge in and go to a long detailed article the great majority of which has little or no interest to them. They are not so easily "enticed." In this case Canada's history is very poorly summarized in the space given and no one will want to read more of this stuff. A reader from Japan, say, will learn very little from it. Rjensen ( talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on this point. I see History of the United States as a huge deterrent...looks like a text book. The reason students are here is because there not reading there text books and library books to begin with. Just a different approach I guess. -- Moxy ( talk) 19:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If a student has 5 min. to spend on the Canada article, he will learn almost nothing to remember except that it large & has a long border and is ruled by a Queen & belongs to a lot of strange and unknown groups. There is no enticement. There are links to long articles that hardly mention Canada. As for the US article, read it and you can actually pass the exam. Textbooks of course are 500 or 1000 pages long. The Canada article itself is mediocre and misleading. The Government section leads with the Queen. Do kids take notes from the top or the middle I wonder? Responsible govt three sentence mentioned it happened but does not say what it was. Wars? -- check out the coverage of 1760, Am Rev and 1812. 1867--don't ask why that happened. NAFTA gets a mostly meaningless sentence.. The culture section has one sentence "Historically, Canada has been influenced by British, French, and aboriginal cultures and traditions." (leaving out the other folks) and pretty well ignoring what's happening now & for the last 200 years. All in all hard sledding for students. The economy operates very well indeed -- but without any corporations or labour unions worth mentioning. Rjensen ( talk) 20:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is much that can be fixed - but the lead summarizes the topic as a whole and prepares the reader for the details in the subsequent sections. Simply no need for details and links that take readers to semi related topics in the lead. Got to remember its an overview article that leads to many main articles. We could go into more detail as you suggest but I think our readers would benefit more if we were to mention things like popular media, Income, poverty, and crime etc...over more details that are all covered in the main articles on each topic. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever philosophy you have, I think the Canada lede is poor and unexciting and the article itself is mediocre. Maybe I'm just impressed with the history & politics articles on Canada--they generally are very good. A reader of this article with think the Queen runs the country! Rjensen ( talk) 21:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jensen—I was watching your Wikimania talk and towards the end, you mentioned being singled out by other historians as "the Wikipedia editor" in the footnotes of articles (I know how historians love their footnote wars). If you have a second, could you point me in the direction of articles that have mentioned you like this? I have database access, so I won't need much more than the titles/authors. I'm curious what they had to say.  czar  ? 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the first cite is Roy Rosenzweig, "Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past." The Journal of American History 93.1 (2006): 117-146 page 140 note#65. My talk is now in print in much expanded form at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF see also http://blog.history.ac.uk/2014/02/wikipedia-the-war-of-1812-and-australian-sports-history/ also http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-done-its-close-says-historian-1C6747138 and http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/surmounting-the-insurmountable-wikipedia-is-nearing-completion-in-a-sense/264111/ Rjensen ( talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting reads—thanks!  czar  ? 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Yes, good reads. Comments like Rosenzweig's "many professional historians remain skeptical about Wikipedia" are an implicit criticism of WP:CRED. I've had no success getting history professors to sign on to the Education Program despite being a history major myself. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But perhaps the deepest irony is the extent to which the professors and their students themselves use Wikipedia with just about any topic since it's the first hit and most comprehensive source when searching. To my eyes, I see a gap between private use and academic posturing, which (hypocritically) precludes any formal sanctification of Wikipedia in the classroom. At the same time, I don't think "Wikipedia-in-the-classroom" is as good an idea writ large as "no-classroom-and-Wikipedia-certainly-outside-it". As a history of education grad student, I'd rather not force undergrads (or professors) uninterested in editing into the world of Wikipedia. I'll provide opportunities to become Wikipedia-literate, and eventually those interested in how source material and power dynamics drive cultural narrative (which seems to be the point of the 1812 piece) will learn to appreciate the intricacies of the most influential text of their time. But this is to underscore that we're a long way off from WP editing's consideration as a form of civic duty (in academic quarters as well as the public sphere), regardless of its current completeness. czar  ? 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

May I add: that makes good sense to me. I'm inclined to encourage younger students to develop a capacity for discriminating use of Wikipedia (following links, testing sources etc), as part of the basics for intelligent graduate studies, while undergrads. should obviously be deterred from misuse of any encyclopedic source, online or in print. But so much depends on the quality of tuition, and, on the whole, good teachers are likely to be too busy as practising teachers, or maybe writing up for academic or popular publication, to make a hobby of contributing. Qexigator ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally have not seen any tenured or tenure-track professor who writes for Wikipedia. (I retired from academe way back in the last century.) Rjensen ( talk) 21:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What bibliography would you recommend on him? I've just started work, and I have the Stahr and Taylor bios, plus Team of Rivals plus whatever I have from the Johnson and Stevens projects. Both books and articles. I can get more,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

those bios are good. I always liked the bio by Van Deusen, which is stronger on the New York years. Rjensen ( talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I figured so, thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An alternative Confederate country flag is now displayed in the Infobox for the Confederate States Army which is repeatedly disruptive of Jefferson Davis page and other Confederate personalities. It is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV.

The Confederate States army served under the "First National Flag", the history article at WP should picture the flag of their time, the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. This flag is used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865.

The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

Do you believe that this is sufficient documentation to replace the Blood-Stained-Banner in the Infobox of 'Confederate States Army'? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

yes i completely agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Rjensen ( talk) 15:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have successfully challenged the use of the BSB at Battle of Fort Pulaski, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis. The last attempt to replace the First National Flag with the BSB at Confederate States of America was reverted by others. Is there some systematic way of protecting the First National Flag in Infoboxes? with a bot or something? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for help. Rjensen ( talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You did it seconds before I was using TW to undue it and add to his talk page! Alatari ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You made a change to the Introduction here. I've reverted it (per BRD) as I feel it misrepresents the situation. I've opened a discussion here. Regards, Xyl 54 ( talk) 00:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

you're right and I tried to fix it. Pound's role is critical--he was the one who made the decision for the Brits. Rjensen ( talk) 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm: Perhaps you should have said this there, as I was pretty annoyed with your response, and came here to tear you off a strip. As it is, I've already re-written the text by way of a compromise, but it'd be better to discuss the matter fully first, rather than messing around with he article. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the usage of primary sources? Should primary sources be given status over reliable secondary sources?
Also, I am having a "discussion" [1] with another editor who has changed a sentence referenced by Mallett and Shaw [2] to reflect, I suspect, their own personal opinion. As well as adding a journalist, Luigi Barzini, Jr., as a source for his changes.
I would like your opinion on these matters, if you don't mind. Thank you. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I will stay out of the Italian wars (I'm not an expert on that period). Barzini is (marginally) a reliable secondary source on 20th century Italy; he is witty and has lots of insights but does not do systematic research. His knowledge of history is mediocre. He is generally NOT reliable on pre 1900 Italian history in general. On the battle of Fornovo, however, he did read several good books and is marginally a reliable source. I would recommend that Wiki editors look at a much better source such as Antonio Santosuosso, "Anatomy of Defeat in Renaissance Italy: The Battle of Fornovo in 1495." The International History Review vol 16#2 (1994) pp: 221-250 or the more popular Fornovo 1495: France's Bloody Fighting Retreat (Osprey Publishing, 1996) by David Nicolle. Rjensen ( talk) 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not English-speaking. You write: You seem to have an unusual interest in the GeaCron historical atlas...is there a conflict of interest?

I created the page Geacron as a translation of the Spanish version. As it was an orphan, I have tried to link to her pages with which I estimate is directly related.

As indicated help instructions on Orphan pages, create links that suitable estimates. I'm not a very experienced user in the English wikipedia and I did not know these restrictions.

Maybe you could see if geacron.com deserves that recognition.

Celemin ( talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)celemin

It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Begin an edit war. Please self-revert and begin a discussion in Talk. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 03:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

re: textbook No that's a misreading: The wp:BRD recommends against erasing serious material without a serious explanation. it says: "revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." Your offhand claim that 18 cites for a major topic covering every discipline in the modern university is "way too many" is silly; I suggest your decision to reduce the reading list to zero items seems a bit like anti-intellectualism. Rjensen ( talk) 04:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that in the Revision as of 03:45, 9 February 2014 of the Library of Congress article, you wrote To restore the collection in 1815, former president Thomas Jefferson sold 6,487 books, his entire personal collection, to pay his debts, but the paragraph ends as such, in a comma, and is still left that way, and I wondered if it's a typo and the sentence is meant to end, or if you forgot to finish the sentence. I tried searching from various official sources, but none of them actually explain where the debt came from, so I felt unsure to finish the sentence myself. ~ Nelg ( talk) 21:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

looks like I was being sloppy. I will check on it & thanks for the heads-up. Or even better you can fix it. Take a look at Francis D. Cogliano (2011). A Companion to Thomas Jefferson. p. 369ff. Rjensen ( talk) 01:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The delegation of the Dalai Lama of Tibet which went to China in 1950 apparently spoke English, as shown here. The Indian press, of course, has spoken English since British occupation. If you don't consider this information "encyclopedic", please review the citation before removing the information. I added it to the article on Zhou because it is a form of international critique of his leadership with respect to other Asian countries, and a commentary on their perception of his behavior-- that commentary happens to be in English, which may be surprising, which is why I provided a citation. It is not difficult to find ample evidence of this nickname in reliable published sources. Please have a look. Thanks! KDS4444 ^Talk 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

it's very low quality information. His bitter enemies made silly comments. I looked at the source, which does not say a word about the language used. It is an unsourced highly opinionated op-ed piece written 50 years after the event Rjensen ( talk) 07:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the lead section of Aaron Swartz because the reports of how much material don't all agree. Also, it's unclear what portion of the total amount downloaded was actually at issue. So instead of a specific amount, feel free to say "a large number," which is what I did in the body of the article. See Talk:Aaron Swartz/Archive 2#Amount downloaded for where this was initially discussed, and Aaron Swartz#endnote quantity downloaded for the resulting endnote which explains. — mjb ( talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For the WikiProject Netherlands of which you are a member, we have started a monthly Article for improvement. I invite you to contribute to this month's article: Drenthe. – Editør ( talk) 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've left a reply to your edits and the points made, here. Regards, Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've replied here again, if you wish to comment further. Xyl 54 ( talk) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen,

Ok. I am fine either way with the quotation. I am starting to think that if I do not source the archive document along with Barrett as the secondary, that Yopie will continue to delete it as non-notable and/or trivia. As far as I can tell from his page, all he does is delete other people's posts. I have never had a situation like this before. What do you recommend? Thank you, WildcatES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildcatES ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend the scholarly cite only. Wiki warns against editors interpreting controversial primary sources by themselves. Rjensen ( talk) 21:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The files you re-added to this article have issues that need fixed. Werieth ( talk) 01:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

what issues--they were never copyright because their were made by a federal agency. Rjensen ( talk) 01:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 6 files that are currently labeled as non-free. Either they are non-free or are miss tagged. Which ever is the case it needs fixed. Werieth ( talk) 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

they were mistagged and I tagged them as PD. In the future when you are in doubt please ask before erasing. Thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, kindly do not delete discussion tags when the discussion is still taking place. I was content to wait until you had formulated yur replies and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
Second, don’t change the text to bolster your own position when the text hasn’t been decided on yet. What part of WP:DISCUSS makes you think that is OK?
I've reverted the article to the status quo ante, where it should be 'til the matter is settled. I've also requested comments on this, as we are obviously nowhere near any agreement on the issue, or on what the article should say. Xyl 54 ( talk) 12:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have redirect that to our pre-existing article, State highways in California. In addition, I reverted the split of content from History of California 1900 to present, but removed the list of Interstate Highways from that article because we have List of state highways in California already. In the future, the article suite on California's highways may be revised to follow the structure used by Michigan (which has Michigan State Trunkline Highway System along with List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan, and Michigan Heritage Route). Imzadi 1979  ? 22:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Several secondary sources towards the end of this section testify to the claim that the article subject is a descendant of the U.S. Whig Party. Personally, I think that claim is quite dubious, but how can readers evaluate it if we don't tell them what the U.S. Whig Party was?

On more procedural topics, please note WP:BRD. You were bold, I've reverted, so let's discuss. Also note per WP:V that simple lack of citations is not sufficient reason to remove material. Rather, citations are required for "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged." Therefore, please clarify exactly what it is that you think may not be true. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

i don't see any reliable secondary source on this, all the cites are quotations from party members (who are 1) not independent and 2) are not reliable on history topics) -- 3)they do NOT claim to be a descendant of the old Whigs. - There is a long article on the old Whig party --it 4) does not mention any descendants. 5) the old Whig principles do not appear to overlap those of the Modern Whig Party and no one says they do overlap Rjensen ( talk) 03:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Will respond on Talk:Modern Whig Party. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 04:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Saw your vote on the Adrianne Wadewitz AfD. I was pleased to see your support there to keep the article and support her notability. We've spatted on articles in the past, but we are in agreement on this issue. Thanks. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

you're most welcome. Rjensen ( talk) 04:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Rjensen: I, however, am dismayed by your comments aimed at the majority male editors: "Not surprisingly, some of those 90% are unhappy with her as we can see on this very page." I find it sad that you conflate deletion votes and male editors (both of which I represent) with some sort of anti-feminist attitudes. You can voice whatever opinion you want in regards to the NYT obit, but I think you're out of line claiming bias drives the deletion discussion. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

well I have published on the male bias of wikipedia and I stand by my analysis. Wadewitz played important leadership role in identifying & helping to remedy a serious weakness of the world's most important reference book: its systematic neglect of women of achievement. As the debate showed a lot of editors simply lacked any attempt to understand what was so important about her work. Some actually said it was her manner of accidental death that gained all that national attention, rather than her crusading about the need to fix Wikipedia and her efforts to do so (I never met her). As for the Wikipedia editors as a whole, 90% are male, and I believe many of them are rooted in computer science (which is a heavily male domain). Their training, jobs & professional networks do not make gender equality an issue, leaving these editors susceptible to misunderstanding the issues of gender bias in the technical world. Rjensen ( talk) 06:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you have other fish to fry, and other battles to fight, but an issue that has long bothered me is the titling of articles about people who are victims of a tragedy as Suicide of Foo, Murder of Foo, Disappearance of Foo, etc. To me, if WP:GNG is met for an article to be created about that one person, then WP:BIO1E or no WP:BIO1E, the article needs to be titled with their own name, not a label, they are not the tragedy that befell them. To me, it dehumanizes them further. And such victims tend to be disproportionately women and children. Certainly some biographies probably are short enough to simply be merged into the article about the tragedy, as in AMBER alert and Amber Hagerman. But others, not so. But my pleas have fallen on deaf ears and consensus has run strongly in the other direction. Thoughts? Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

that's an issue I had not thought about. We just had two strange disasters (Korean ferry sinks, Malaysian plane vanishes) and I don't think any of the individual passengers deserve an article because they were on it. Rjensen ( talk) 00:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good example of WP:BIO1E, as, sadly, was Coumbine. However, I am looking more at articles like Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy or others on individual victims of individual tragedies. Murder of Foo or Suicide of Foo is just demeaning, IMHO. After all we have Lawnchair Larry, not Flight of Lawnchair Larry. (Arguably, if the latter were used consistently, I'd have less grumbling, but I actually raised this issue once, only to have the same people argue that he was notable, but the poor kid driven to suicide was not) Montanabw ^(talk) 19:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, what would you do with Phoenix Sinclair? She's a clear example of BIO1E IMO, but her death is definitely notable (and will likely result in legislative change). Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria:, I think that BIO1E is used more often as a cudgel than a scalpel, it is applied randomly, and most often against crime victims, usually those who are female, children or gay. It would be useful to tweak that guideline to be less disrespectful to the dead. My belief is that if the person is, for whatever reason, notable enough for their own article, then it should be titled in their name, not in the name of the bad thing that befell them. If they are not otherwise notable, then why do they have a separate article at all? (and for that matter, in some cases, why does the perpetrator?) An article about the tragedy might adequately cover everything. For example, I found the move of "Natalee Holloway" to "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" to be really disrespectful and offensive. An example of where the line might be drawn is my example of AMBER alert and Amber Hagerman above... there were once two articles, they were merged into the AMBER alert one, with a brief biographical discussion of Amber Hagerman contained within. No need for something as offensive as "Murder of Amber Hagerman." Phoenix Sinclair may be a similar situation, but until that time, I personally would title an article "Phoenix Sinclair" - not "Murder of Phoenix Sinclair." Maybe to keep from further hijacking Rjensen's talk page, we could move this discussion ? (Unless Rjensen is OK with it here...) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend moving to where a broader audience will see it :) Rjensen ( talk) 06:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not good practice to revert multiple changes made by another editor if you disagree with only one.
—Telpardec  TALK  08:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case I was relying on his own edit summary, which proved to be misleading. Rjensen ( talk) 08:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t mean to get abstruse on you, but I have run into pushback concerning what “contextual significance” means in WP:NFCC #8, so I would like to try out my understanding. It is currently related to an RfC but I’m not supposed to “canvass”? So this inquiry is for background information only. I may need a sort of vocabulary lesson from a friendly resource, an operative definition for use at WP.

I have uploaded File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg at History of Virginia on stamps#Revolution and Constitution. The accompanying narrative begins with a description of the colonial Capitol building where the vote took place, a concrete description of the stamp’s design. But editors objecting seem to desire some sort of literary criticism of the stamps themselves for stamps which are non-free content, such as those issued by the USPS beginning 1978. But that seems to me too restrictive, and too narrowly focused on the stamp design, not the stamp itself.

From my historical background, "Contextual significance”, — which all agree is required in some sense — in this case, in my view, comes from viewing the larger cultural-historic milieu apart from the explicit significance which comes from the specific event. The explicit significance of a Ratification Convention is the approval (Virginia) or rejection (Rhode Island) of the Constitution as proposed.

The contextual significance of a Ratification Convention is the meaning of the resolution (pro or con) to the debate in other states, or to the geographic continuity of the proposed Union, or to the subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights.

The text adjacent to the image reads, in part, from two third-party reliable sources, "Virginia was substantially the largest of the thirteen states, with territory cutting west through to the Mississippi River. Without approval of Virginia and New York which likewise cut the other state territories in two, the agreement of the others would have had little effect.[27] Virginia was home to leaders supporting the Constitution such as George Washington and James Madison, and those opposing such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Only after a promise for a Bill of Rights did Virginia narrowly ratify.[28]”

Any one of the three, sourced from the Smithsonian’s National Postal Museum Arago, or the University Press of Kansas’ “Cradle of America” by Wallenstein, would qualify for contextual significance, in my opinion. But others not only disagree, they deny there is any "contextual significance" imparted, zero” at all. Any observation, explication or critique on “contextual significance” in this case is welcome. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted a comment supporting fair use of the stamp. let me know what happens. Rjensen ( talk) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I mean to write better descriptions for all ten USPS stamps in the article, including addition text to meet artistic and postal expectations. There is an Encyclopedia of US stamps and stamp collecting, which is not available in my local library system, used extensively in the National Postal Museum write-ups at Arago online, which I am saving up for. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Hi, I noticed this and note how much the Spanish history was taken out..... not that there need a particular page for Spanish exploration of the SE Alaska, but..... seems like a big cut, given similar material on BC and other state pages. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

a) It's all covered in a separate article. b) it had very little role in the history of Alaska. c) It's also mischaracterized as "colonization" and d) it entirely missed the big Nootka crisis of 1789. All in all very useless filler. Rjensen ( talk) 09:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I am not a religious person and I do not attend church, I don't know the difference between a Protestant bible and a Catholic bible. Why is a Protestant bible offensive to the Catholic faith?-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a good question. The issue was not the text or the wording, which is very similar, but the auspices. The Catholic Church totally rejects the Protestant theology of the Bible, and has since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Evangelical Protestants believe that a person can get direct access to God by reading the Bible, while Catholics insist that direct access to God is only through the Catholic Church and its sacraments. In other words, Bible reading is essential to salvation for evangelical Protestants. It is a low priority for Catholics, who insist that the Sacraments administered by a priest are essential for salvation, not the Bible. In practical terms, the 1850s were the decade of the Know Nothings, who were intensely anti-catholic. Catholic children who attended public schools, especially in the eastern cities, were required to read the Protestant Bible -- the Protestants thought this would turn the kids away from the Catholic Church. The Catholics reacted by strongly denouncing the forced reading of the King James (Protestant) Bible, and in even more dramatic fashion by setting up their own network of parochial schools. I guess that maybe 10-20% of the Pony Express riders were Catholics-- but given stories about their extraordinarily low levels of morality and religiosity, I seriously doubt they were theologically troubled by having to carry the King James Bible. I suspect they were much more interested in carrying a good rifle. Rjensen ( talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit more nuance involved, @ Doug Coldwell:; to answer your specific question, the Catholic Bible contains several texts they refer to as Deuterocanonical books, not contained in the Protestant Bible, sometimes collectively called the Apocrypha or Biblical apocrypha by Protestants. While Rjensen summarizes the views of the Know-Nothings rather well, as well as the Catholic backlash against them, FWIW, there is more to the King James Bible than a mere Catholic/Protestant dispute; the Anglican/Episcopal church and its spinoff, the Methodists, are not quite in the same "bloodline" of Protestantism as the Calvinists that are at the root of most modern evangelical churches. The King James Bible was an Anglican work, basically an early (though not the first) translation from the Latin Vulgate text, but one authorized by the Church of England, thus it was a more scholarly and accurate version than earlier works translated by the Calvinists or by English-speaking Catholics prior to the reign of Henry VIII such as John Wycliffe. Nonetheless, because the other translations were not as well done, the King James was adopted by other Protestant denominations and until the 20th century was pretty much the only Protestant translation used in the English-speaking world. And indeed, while there were English translations of the Catholic Bible, Catholics weren't much into Bible-reading as a means to salvation, and the Latin text was the official version anyway. I'm still over-simplyfying this - but you get the idea. You might also find American Bible Society an interesting read. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think comment from one of the article editors is needed here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jefferson Davis

Did you see this? http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2014/improving-wikipedia "Improving Wikipedia: Notes from an Informed Skeptic" czar  ? 07:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks!! I appreciate the tip. Rjensen ( talk) 10:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for letting me know, and for updating a number of these.

I'd tagged them as 'wrong license' or 'NFUR not needed' PRECISELY BECAUSE they were when tagged wrongly labelled.

If the concern was about the use of F4, then please state which images were of concern. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Found one that had been tagged as F5 back in mid April. Yeah... Apologies. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As you seem to be more experienced, perhaps you could cast a cautious over these with a view to 'rescuing' some of them? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK i looked--I do history not recent stuff. the only one I have a suggestion about is the Eisenhower dollar. It's a photo of a US coin and I believe the issue is one of copying US coins not copyright of photo. Rjensen ( talk) 13:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Saw your edit at the CSA page. I hadn't questioned that passage previously, mostly because I have no idea what an exequatur is, or what it has to do with recognition. The passage did include a link to a report by the Confederate secretary of state, in which the request for an exequatur is mentioned, so I figured: Well, it's cited, at least. But with that said -- after noticing your change, and reviewing the original citation, I went poking around for more context. Apparently the text of the request expressly denied any recognition to the Confederate government. Moreover, the Confederacy allowed previously-granted exequaturs to remain in force from nations like Britain and France, who clearly did not recognize the Confederacy.

Long story short: It looks to me like there was an exequatur request, but that it's irrelevant to questions of recognition, and thus shouldn't be in the article.

Short story shorter: Good edit, thanks for improving the article. :) Rob ( talk) 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks! :) On the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha case: Ernst Raven was a German who moved permanently to Texas and was named as the honorary unpaid Consul by the Saxe government. His main role was to advise immigrants and businessmen. He continued in that role when Texas seceded and joined the Confederacy. It was Raven, not the government of Saxe, that requested his exequatur be renewed by the Richmond government, Saxe itself did not know about his actions, and that country was strongly supportive of the Union. One of its princes Prince Albert was married to Queen Victoria, where he championed the Union cause. Rjensen ( talk) 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard about this article, which you edited today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen!

First, thank you for your edits on this article. I'm very sorry I have reverted some of them, and I'd certainly like the opportunity to explain why (as is only polite). Firstly, please do not think this a page-ownership thing - I'm very aware that some of the phrasing is not great - but can you leave the older text out please? In many respects it is inaccurate and the references, where available, are wrong or vague. I personally also found it a bit POV heavy too. And can you use the template:sfn format, per the rest of the article, if you add more? It's a GAN, though, so if you'd like to do the review and ask for certain omissions to be remedied, you'd be more than welcome to take it on as reviewer!

Thanks! Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

These are issues for the talk page, please not for an edit war of reverting sourced material. As for POV you seem to be quite insensitive to the wives involved. Rjensen ( talk) 22:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my POV remark did not refer to the information or you, but to the phrasing used by the original text. I see that was unclear, please don't take any offense from it. Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Jefferson Davis know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 3, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) was President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Born in Kentucky, he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and had a career as a soldier, fighting in the Mexican–American War. As a plantation owner, he employed slave labor as did many of his peers in the South, and supported slavery. He served as Secretary of War and U.S. senator, arguing against secession, but agreeing that each state had the right to secede. At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, Davis was chosen as President of the Confederate States. He took personal charge of the Confederate war plans but was unable to defeat the larger, more powerful and better organized Union. He is often blamed for contributing to the fall of the Confederacy. His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country and he paid little attention to the collapsing economy. At the end of the war in 1865, he was captured and imprisoned; after his release he entered private life. He wrote a memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, eventually became a Civil War hero to many white Southerners and, in later life, encouraged reconciliation with the North. ( Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why you repeatedly erase and disturbe my edits? I can't understand the reason. Its like a harrasment for begginer like me. Please explain clearly. ~~Windersteinburg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

4 reasons: You are not allowed to violate the rules here: 1) you violated WP:3R after multiple warnings; 2) you apparently violated WP:Sock. You also 3) need a reliable secondary source that meets international standards for the English language wikipedia. = WP:source 4) Inflammatory language designed to enrage Japanese soldiers is not encyclopedic. WP:tone Rjensen ( talk) 04:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) ( talk page stalker) @ Windersteinburg: First, please read WP:HARASSMENT before you make claims like that. Secondly, you've already been reported for edit warring so I suggest you stop kicking the hornets' nest. Finally, you keep pushing a theory by a revisionist out of the mainstream. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV does not allow for extremist viewpoints as Wikipedia does not seek balance, but neutrality and majority consensus. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it's only polite to explain why I reverted your edit. You obviously didn't use the preview button, or you would have noticed the red cite error text. The whole Freemasonry/liberalism thing is contentious, and needs counter-citations. The Catholic ban on Freemasonry wasn't universally enforced until the 1820s, and Catholics (like Karl Gotthelf von Hund) played a large part in the development of "higher degrees" after the papal ban. All this could be expanded in the history section, but is probably better placed in the History of Freemasonry article. I don't believe such material should appear in the introduction, which, according to the MOS, shouldn't really contain citations. I would welcome a chance to discuss these issues on the talk page - especially the liberal/Catholic issues which are about due for an airing. Fiddlersmouth ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Given the publishing history outlined on your user page, you may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at http://orcid.org and include it in your user page using {{ Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For many years of excellent expert editing on history articles. You have not only created 176 articles to date, but are a true editor. You have added many good citations to articles, improved wording and deleted superfluous text and vandalism. It has been a pleasure to work with you in the past. Donner60 ( talk) 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You probably have received one or more of these in the past, but even if so, you surely deserve another. Donner60 ( talk) 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So, on seeing the ACW demotion to C class article on the Military Project, I checked in with an editor contributing to the consensus there who has assisted me before, AustralianRupert. I asked for some thoughts and here's what he said combined with my observations from the review.

• The main issue was the referencing, as AustrailiaRupert saw numerous paragraphs throughout the article that appeared to end without citations: the standard at A-class is for all paragraphs to be fully referenced. Every reviewer voted to demote, all mentioned referencing or inconsistent citations.
• The citation style used is also inconsistent, which AR pointed out is a concern at A-class, although not at B or GA.
• Harv errors showed. They are script identified errors which show in red when one has this script installed: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. The error occurs when there are citations that don't directly point to a long reference, or vice versa. --- Note: This may be the routine the Military Project uses which would flag the introduction sections, which elsewhere in the WP:MOS does not require footnotes in the introduction, and cautions against blue-out.
• Regarding the images, they all need to be checked for compliant licenses.
• A note on See also section not conforming to the WP:MOS.
• Also concerns about the articles's prose standards, so it might benefit from a good copy edit also.

I wonder if working up such a checklist of work-to-be-done for the talk page would help recruit an assist in these areas. --- although the article maintains an A-class rating from U.S. history, politics and African diaspora projects. Not to get defensive, but a) I crafted a couple of the introduction sections which of course can be footnoted from the citations in the following section paragraphs at each introduction,

b) of some interest on my part was the note on the See also section, which I spent some time working on to categorize and expand to the thirty-odd references. Since I last reviewed it, I thought to add a note suggesting more information could be found at the WP article series for each state and city under titles "[state/city] in the American Civil War", but that would also not be a straight alpha listing as one reviewer seems to envision. It was recently reviewed by an administrator whose only fault in it was that the link to Mexico in the American Civil War was to a subsection in the Bonito Juarez biography on Mexico in the American Civil War, not to a free standing article, something I hope to get to in the near future. and

c) mea culpa, I am one of the offending culprits supplying non-conforming footnotes, as I have yet to master the more code-laden sfn, ref name, cite book, --- I use the more open referencing, <ref>Martis, Kenneth C., "The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861–1865" Simon & Schuster (1994) ISBN 0-13-389115-1 pp.27.</ref> Another administrator suggested using a routine found in a drop-down feature, and I am exploring how to activate it on my browser. Unfortunately, none of this is intuitive for me, I am on the wrong side of the digital divide. When I figure it out, I'll be happy to return to the scene of the violations and remediate my citations, since they are taken from books in my personal library 'by and large' and any additional data can easily be supplied.

Any thoughts you have as to the editorial process and collaboration across Projects at 'American Civil War' would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the update. In terms of quality the article is a good one. The reviewers are only concerned with format. Rjensen ( talk) 23:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as you are consistent in how you reference, they will not quarrel with you. But you have to be consistent.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

All the major bios refer to him as a free speech activist? freshacconci talk to me 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

yes. For example look at his statement in print in at age 16: "Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech." Walter Isaacson (2003). Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. p. 32. In his early 30s: Pa Gazette Nov 1737. "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins." (quoted in many anthologies). Gaustad (2004) writes, "In its pages he argued for freedom of thought and freedom of speech, as these, he declared, were the right of every man and of every people." Esmond Wright p 89 "He believed in free speech, free goods and free men." Likewise he was very strong on freedom of the press. [See Leo Lemay vol 2 pp 438-39]. Rjensen ( talk) 00:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:History of the United States, I initiated a RfC on Whether the Declaration founded a new nation in 1776 or not, two days ago. No response to date. Have I missed something?

I would have simply reverted the unsourced assertion that there was no political Union at the Declaration -- which it declares prima facie, but your edit intervened, and as I understand it, to restore the earlier text would have removed your edit.

Would it be proper procedure to revert unsourced Rmay307s edits with sourced edit from the Dept. of State Office of the Historian after -- say --- seven days of no response at the RfC? In the historiography, there is of course Richard B. Morris' advocacy of the primacy of the Union and Gary Wills recanting his assertion of the primacy of the states. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln set it well at Gettysburg: in 1776 the fathers "brought forth a new

nation" We still celebrate July 4 as the birthday in this part of the country. What date should be celebrated? Rjensen ( talk) 12:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me please what is wrong with this professional and learned article about Harold Abrahams: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17430431003701530 -- Alexander Tendler ( talk) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

that's not the article -- it's a correction to the article that says a relative with detailed info on Abrahams denies he ever converted. What are the sources? Cashmore mentions the conversion in one sentence citing an essay by Ed Carter, which in turn references a newspaper story in a local California newspaper that appeared some years after Abrahams died. Not looking very good. Martin Gilbert a leading British historian of the Jews says "In his later years he was attracted to Catholicism, which he considered to be the 'fulfilment' of Judaism, but refused to be converted because of ...Catholic anti-Semitism. 'I want to be among those who will be persecuted,' he said" The Jews in the twentieth century p 142 at Amazon.com. That is a strong statement from an expert (Cashmore is a commentator on sports & is not an expert on Abrahams). Rjensen ( talk) 12:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There are different versions of the conversion issue and some authors are more authoritative. According to your own citation, Abrahams became interested in Catholicism at some time, without converting. -- Alexander Tendler ( talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree-- Gilbert has much rich detail and Gilbert is a leading expert (on Jews & on that era in Britain) so he is the more reliable source. I read Cashmore: he devoted one sentence to the topic & relied on an online source Ed Carter. I read Carter & he in turn only had one sentence on the topic & Carter relied on a story in a local California newspaper (I have not seen the newspaper item), so I consider Cashmore to be much less reliable than Gilbert's book. Furthermore Abrahams' nephew weighed in denying any conversion. Rjensen ( talk) 00:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We made our case. -- Alexander Tendler ( talk) 03:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Victor falk's talk page.
Message added 13:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Hi, would you care to provide diffs showing what you consider the article should, and should not look like? If you're still interested in resolving the issue of course. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

that's a formula for frustration in this case. I'll pass. Rjensen ( talk) 06:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that template from the top of the George Washington article. I was distressed by it. I am not hesitant to admit that this is probably in part because I have unbounded admiration for Washington and am well aware of his many accomplishments and qualities. Also, I think the article needs few more footnotes, none in the lede, and that other sources can be found in the "main articles."

You added some footnotes previously but did not delete the template. That left me with the impression that you were reluctant to delete the template without the addition of more footnotes. I have added a few more footnotes in the lede and in the body. You now have relieved me from concern about adding more notes to the lede in order to drop the template. A few points in the body might still be footnoted but I am going to cease adding notes - and perhaps return to the article later only to review whether some points in the body should be footnoted. The whole exercise should have been unnecessary but I could envision the arguments some might use to support additional footnotes in the article. Thanks, again. Donner60 ( talk) 07:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. we are in full agreement. :) Rjensen ( talk) 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rjensen, could you provide me with some guidance about what to do next?

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

Thanks Historian ( talk) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ok see email Rjensen ( talk) 20:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks

Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey... vs. Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains effectively "distilled their excess grain into whiskey"...

Rjensen, my point is that one can't literally make whiskey by distilling grain; you distill alcohol (along with some amount of water plus many other organic compounds that give it flavor) from a solution of fermented sugars derived from grain, to produce whiskey. Distillers grains are also produced, which can be used to feed livestock. It's the chemist in me. Bloggy's man ( talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that "distill" summarizes the process -- it's what happens in a distillery. Historians like to write that way: "Farmers in western Pennsylvania, who distilled their grain crop into whiskey for easier transportation across rough..." [Encyclopedia of the American Presidency 2009]; " who distilled their grain crop into whiskey for easier transportation, found..." [Shogan, 2007]; newspapers too: "US Distilled Grain Exports Will Rebound" [The Journal of Commerce 2011]; the Jim Beam website says "the main bourbon ingredients are distilled grain and water". I suppose it's a matter of taste. :) Rjensen ( talk) 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, irrespective of whether you have a COI or not, the original person to add it had some connection with whoever wrote it. Please discuss this on the talk page before adding it again. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

he followed all the rules--it was your mistake to delete it. Rjensen ( talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So now it's my fault that I saw a Conflict of Interest? Wow. Brilliant. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

yes you falsely accused a newbie of breaking the rules and you acted rashly while he had followed the rules exactly. You should apologize for violating the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers rule. Rjensen ( talk) 19:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The user's username was the same as what was added to the article. Isn't that a COI? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No it is not. I the actual rule WP:SELFCITE explicitly allows people to cite themselves in proper fashion, which is what he did by listing a new scholarly article that was highly relevant. Rjensen ( talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I read that. I think it's better to ask on the talk page. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have lost patience with you. I have been preserving the consensus on the Reagan lede, while you are blatantly ignoring explicit instructions that can be found on the edit page (). Look it up. It's near the very top.

You have made major new inclusions, inserted numerous grammatical / punctuation errors, insist on including events that merit barely any mention in broad discussions of Reagan's legacy, and have made the lede unwieldy and verbose. I have no responsibility to create a talk page section since I haven't added anything new. It's you who needs to create a talk page section.

I can't tell if you have legitimate trouble understanding what I'm saying or if you're being blatantly obtuse, but if you insist on your changes, create a talk discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trayvon1 ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

you should bring up your issues on the article's talk page. Since you are new here let me explain that the lede should summarize the main points in the article. Rjensen ( talk) 02:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two minor corrections: Richard Hofstadter's son's name is Dan, not Daniel. It was Hofstadter's mother, not his father, who died when Hofstadter was a child. 2601:9:7700:5EB:44C2:A462:E5F0:6E9 ( talk) 22:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

good-thanks. I fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 23:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In this edit summary, you said "copyright restoration explicitly excluded Nazi materials". While this is true for works "which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof," [3] I'm not seeing any case for other works. There have been discussion on the Commons to the effect that movie posters and other artwork typically had their rights go to the creator or his heirs, which means the copyright would be restored. If the Commons discussions are wrong, please enlighten me. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

the poster in question was published by the Nazi Party (it says so right on the poster's last line) Commercial movie companies are a different matter. American Law Professor Herlte explicates the US law: "104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S." Hertle quote Furthermore German law says: copyright expires after 70 years (ie no copyright on items published before July 1944) cite from 26 March 2009 Rjensen ( talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If that information had been presented during some of the Commons discussions, some files might not have been deleted. On the other hand, there is the matter of the post-2009 stamps-related German court case and how that affects non-stamp works. From reading the Commons, the only thing I can say for sure about "old" but not "uber-old" German things is "it's complicated, and certainty regarding a given item may be elusive." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

American stamps have special copyright protection not allowed to other government works, so what applies to stamps does not apply to posters. Rjensen ( talk) 02:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss why you felt my edit to Deism and addition of section Founding Fathers in History of Religion in the United States constituted POV. If my material was not factual and well documented from viable sources, I welcome your advice and guidance and will improve it. To omit this section leaves out an important part of American history, so let us discuss it. Seiberth ( talk) 04:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

the material is all taken from highly controversial sources and seems to denigrate Deism. It lacks balance and seems to want to argue for a very recent "Christian nation" position that is designed to affect political debates in the 21st century by attacking secularism. The quotes from Founding Fathers are out of place--Wikipedia much prefers reliable secondary sources by scholars who have examined the material in depth. It fails to mention that the Constitution ignore religion except to prohibit its use in selecting officials. Rjensen ( talk) 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reversed an edit I made on the Allies of World War Two article.

The British Empire is nothing if not shades of grey. The matter of the relevance of declarations of war is not solely related to any territory of the Empire being "independent" or not, nor by the type of rule. Newfoundland was a dominion managed by local responsible government up to 1934. This ended because of economic collapse due to the depression and rule was freely handed back to Britain, which formed an interim "Commission of Government" with 3 British and 3 local appointees. Newfoundland was not "directly ruled" from Britain, nor by a "royal governor". It is generally accepted that Newfoundland declared war Sept 3.

Southern Rhodesia is another case in point. It had extensive, if still limited, self-government and its legislature voted on and declared war Sept 3. I was about to add them in, when you undid the first edit I made.

Let's split the difference and we'll keep Newfoundland out, because there was no elected legislature, but put Southern Rhodesia in because there was.

I'd like to suggest that the name United Kingdom be replaced by "British Empire and Commonwealth". Having United Kingdom in that position excludes the 400 million people on whose behalf war was declared by His Majesty's government :-)

cheers Robert -- Brukner ( talk) 07:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion re Newf & S Rhodesia--good solution. The British war was run by Churchill as Prime Minister of the UK and he made it clear that dominion and colonial leaders had zero voice in policy (the Canadian PM Mackenzie King even had to leave the room at the Quebec Conferences when serious issues were discussed.) The Brits kept a very clear distinction between the UK and the Empire/Commonwealth that Wiki should avoid blurring, in my opinion. And note that his majesty's government did not declare war--the king himself did that. A solution would be to include BOTH Britain and the "British Empire and Commonwealth". :) Rjensen ( talk) 07:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain, why you reverted my edits on Religion in the Netherlands. The source states that Muslims are 5.8% of the population.(See graph). Furthermore 907, 000 translates to approximately 5.8% of the population. Septate ( talk) 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

my mistake--sorry; i just fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Septate ( talk) 09:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• You should provide a few names. Quis separabit? 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added six names of Hayes' chief opponents in note 8. the hotlinks to the Brown book and Shulman article allow the reader to directly verify those names in RS. Rjensen ( talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That is fine, I thought you were biased against Marx. I will try to make it better. Dont you think French revolution is the start of the end of Feudalism (or may be called Minarchy also) all over Europe?

feudalism had mostly died out and the French Rev finished the job in areas it influenced. The Marxian interpretation of the French Rev is very important but it was NOT held by Marx. It was developed by Marxists after Marx's death and did not represent Marx's views. Rjensen ( talk) 17:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, the New Yorker is closely fact-checkeed so you really have no right to take my edit out. Besides, you were not at his deathbed.-- Aichik ( talk) 16:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

that's a mistake that has zero support among scholars. Many biographers have written on GW's death and none have reported any such statement. Lapore herself hedges and does not indicate any source whatever. The term "innovation in politics" was first used long after Washington's death-- in Britain in 1823 according to Google Lepore confuses a linin in Washington's Farewell Address that advised the people to " that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts.". Rjensen ( talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Aichik's talk page.
Message added 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thought you might find my post about the New Yorker "quote" of interest. Shearonink ( talk) 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dear Rjensen, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially all your great work on articles pertaining to history, religion and politics. Keep up the good work! You're making a difference here! With regards, Anupam Talk 02:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

) many thanks...I enjoy the work. :) Rjensen ( talk) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, I see that you have been a contributor to WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I am inclined to mark it as defunct, as there has been no work on it in a couple of years and it seems unlikely that Citizendium will be a useful source of content for Wikipedia articles in the future. Is that o.k. with you? RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

there's no hurry to close it. as new editors come along they will find new material of interest there. Rjensen ( talk) 18:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that will really happen? As far as I can tell, the last time content was ported was back in 2010. And the last time someone joined the project was 2012. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In my own experience I've ported material more recently without using that page. We're in this business for the long term so let's keep it open. Rjensen ( talk) 23:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about a minute -- I was about to revert with a nearly identical edit summary. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 21:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

hey that's great....I usually am one minute too late. :) Rjensen ( talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the need for the long quotes in the introduction if all readers and editors are acting reasonably and want an accurate and focussed article. I have a recollection that we (probably I) added those because we were being criticized for not having a predicate for all of the entries about slavery or some sort of comprehensive introduction. While some of that was from the person who for reasons of pique did not like the way we were going about it, some of it also may have come from the type of person that is mucking up other articles with neo-Confederate, Lost Cause nonsense. I hope you will excuse me for not revisiting that other than by quick recollection. I just raise it in connection with saying that if that sort of unreasonable criticism or editing happens here, I wonder whether we might have to combat it by restoring the reliable historians views - not that the recent editor in other articles seems impressed with reliable sourcing. Donner60 ( talk) 08:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I reread the little debate--somebody was trolling us. His argument was that it's OR to say that the number of slaves was somehow connected to the war! I think he went away :) Anyway the long quotes don't really add to the timeline, in my opinion. I think we need a simpler lede that lays out the chronology. We also have too many multiple footnotes for half the points. Not needed. I'm trying to replace them with substance cites that readers can actually use. I think I'll condense the filibustering events as well so it does not get undue attention, (there's a vg source for all of them at this page Are we basically agreed? Rjensen ( talk) 09:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks.

I am reasonably sure many of the multiple footnotes were added for the same reason as the additions to the introduction. They were meant to show that these were basic facts and they could not be copyright violations or plagiarism because several authors stated the same facts in about the same language. Normally that would be unnecessary but we were not working under normal conditions as we tried to get the article back on the main page.

I think I have been using a slightly different formatting for some of the footnotes and perhaps tripping over your formats. In any event, I am sorry if I introduced some inconsistencies. I think they are minor and perhaps most have already been cleared up. I did not intend to work at cross purposes. I was just trying to rid the article of those red notices about the footnotes. The bot stepped in and changed some of those before I got to them as well so it may have picked up prior formatting.

I left a note for North Shoreman that you and I had worked on this article a few years ago and that he might find some facts and references for the article on the secession winter. Then I thought I should look at the article to see whether there were any items I could add or tweak. I found a few points that seemed worth adding and some links to articles that either were added since our previous work or had slightly different titles, which I was able to find more easily after more experience. Donner60 ( talk) 10:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

agreed. two ideas: 1) perhaps a blanket statement that all the items are included in "Bowman" "Klein" or "McPherson" would replace lots of otherwise useless notes. 2) cites that appear in only one footnote can be dropped from the bibliography. Rjensen ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I must admit to some uneasiness with removing citations due to our prior experience. On the other hand, it has been some time since that occurred. Also, the citations can be restored either for individual entries or as a whole if it becomes an issue. Donner60 ( talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

if our troll reappears we have all the cites...and in fact we can point him to the page on 8/1/2014 and he can see all of them for himself. Meanwhile all those footnotes look ugly and off-putting to students & actually gives almost no real info if someone did look up the books. What I like are cites to real books & articles, especially online, that people can read & use. Rjensen ( talk) 05:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Leon Trotsy (or Trotskij...) was born a jew, however on his wiki page his religion is atheist, this is not true, please edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.136.97 ( talk) 10:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

he was very much an atheist regardless of his family ethnic origins. Rjensen ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support to maintain the Thomas quote at CSA, which I had initially contributed, but then I tried my hand at summarizing on the recommendation of another editor. It seemed to me very much shorter and more cogently made than the other copyedited quote blocks I made in the section, so I wondered why there was objection, but gave it a try anyway. I take your reverting my copyedit as a compliment on my earlier judgment, I trust it was not because I got the meaning wrong. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

we're in agreement here. My point is that there is no way to paraphrase or summarize the Thomas quote without ruining it. He is a very clever writer and gets to the deep meaning of the Confederate ethos. Rjensen ( talk) 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at The Establishment#United States? It looks like you've edited this section in the past. I have some significant concerns with the content (the only source is very dubious). There are some dodgy claims about CFR and the Trilateral Commission (described as "Establishment fronts"). The first paragraph is also quite suspect - at best the editor isn't clearly differentiating between past and present. Thanks, GabrielF ( talk) 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

While I don't think I have the time or energy (or perhaps the knowledge) to do this now, would you be interested in collaborating on a new section of United Kingdom in World War I that would include a regional overview and short subsections on Scotland (shorter than your current reverted contribution), Ireland (already a 175k article of its own), and room to add Wales and significantly-affected English regions, such as the North, the Midlands or the Home Counties/Greater London? As you pointed out on the UK/WW 1 talk page, the counterpart of WP:Other stuff exists applies here: just because no one's yet (to my knowledge) written a paragraph about London or Merseyside in the Great War doesn't mean we can't start with already-collected information on the Celtic fringe. Otherwise stubs would never blossom and none would dare be so bold as to begin. See Talk:History of the United Kingdom during World War I#Why is Scotland Special? Your talk page is already on my Watchlist, so no added need to visit mine. —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

yes that's a very good idea and I can help. there should also be a couple summary paragraphs on Ireland. Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales however were not then or now called "regions" Rjensen ( talk) 02:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

[Not that it matters, but as an Anglo-American I knew that; I was just trying to avoid complicating my awkward verbiage even more when including the Midlands or Greater London, which might deserve separate paragraphs but weren't kingdoms, principalities, provinces, nations, countries, constituents or elements of the United Kingdom of G.B. & I. Of course were I still in England, which I last visited in 1966 ( we not only host but win the World Cup!), I probably would have headed this section something like The Great War and different bits of the UK.] —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. this gets even hairier today when one wants to discuss the quasi-analogous but dissimilar governments or assemblies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London at the same time. Awkward phrases appear, like "sub-national assembly" (but Scotland's a nation! No; London and Ulster aren't!), regional assembly (but Wales is not a region!) or local assembly. —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

in 5 weeks the Scots may solve all out problems by breaking away! :) Rjensen ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The map doesn't show the diversity of ethnic & religious groups. It shows Russian imperialism which is POV. Xx236 ( talk) 05:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"imperialism" means empire and the Russians and all historians called it the Russian Empire. So what's the pov? Rjensen ( talk) 08:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please respond on the article talkpage.

My reading of these references do not suggest agreement and closure. Documents limiting the railway were signed, which underline the issue. Your presumption of settlement or resolution is an inference, and your reference is a simple didactic statement without content. My reference for content states "...However these agreements, at the last eleventh hour, just prior to the outbreak of the Great War, were not turned into practical actions, but remained to be unreal." These issues remained in the background, and could not have been 'resolved' by a signature, as the rivalry and the railway and its implications remained. With respect, I do not think your categorical statement is balanced, Rjenson, and contradictory revision without new reference or discussion is unjustified. The railway remained a manifestation and context of the rivalry, as evidenced by the British creation of Kuwait, the British presence in Mesopotamia during the war, and the post-war treaty which awarded the railway to Britain.

If you want to state that the railway played no part in later negotiations, please offer an explicit reference.

BCameron54 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

the issue was closed in June 1914 says McMurray, Jonathan S. (2001). Distant Ties: Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the Construction of the Baghdad Railway. p. 101. . Margaret Macmillan's The War that ended Peace (2013) pp 540-41 calls it detente. Otte July Crisis (2014) p 149 says the aqreement solved the RR issue. Clark, Sleepwalkers (2012) says the agreement "did much to neutralize tension over the Baghdad Railway." ( p 338). It is true that old books written before the archives opened in the 1920s assumed it was a cause of the war, but scholars now have seen the documents. Rjensen ( talk) 14:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you have been a big contributor to the Social Gospel page. I left a question about capitalization on the Talk page of that article. Just to let you know, in case you are interested. Thanks. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (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.