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

/Archive 27.

the latest archive is Archive27 as of 19 Dec 2016

How is this important? Thanks. DS ( talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

because it limits the press to one specialized category ("conservative, evangelical Christian literature") which is not elsewhere mentioned. Rjensen ( talk) 23:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You can cite their mission statement without needing to quote it, right? DS ( talk) 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

you can quote it in part but the info in this particular case is important and needs to be in the lede. Most mission statements are indeed vague, but not this one. Rjensen ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no citation that it is relevant let alone important. It's pure OR that the vision or mission statement are aligned or that they are following their mission statement at all. It seems excessive for the lead to me. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OR = no citation. that does not apply. YUou have to read the mission statements more carefully. Rjensen ( talk) 04:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

==d== Characterized @your service 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was trying out something!! I am really truly sorry and I hope you forgive me!! :( Characterized @your service 01:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Characterized ( talk • contribs)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added some ideas. Rjensen ( talk) 07:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi I'm( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)( Pinkie99 ( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC))I think you have added the National study of British secularisation section. I don't think Callum would agree with the way you have interpreted The Death of Christian Britain. I think he'd say that secularisation began in Britain at least in the 18th Century, possibly earlier. The point he's arguing in the 'Death' is that the progressive decline in the influence of Christianity on British culture reached a watershed in the 1960s after which the description of Britain as 'a Christian country' is no longer true. This marks a step in the continuing process of secularisation. I don't agree with him as I don't see the 1960s as so important because for me secularisation in Britain has been a remarkable consistent process over the last 300 years.

I think you should remove the reference to the 1960 and to Callum.

My goal is to summarize Callum's argument. I think I follow the lead of of the scholars that have reviewed his book. 1) Journal of Religious History (June 2011 p 268): Callum "argued that, rather than being a gradual process twinned with modernity (identified broadly with the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment), secularisation had struck Britain dramatically in the 1960s...." 2) Jeremy Morris, in Historical Journal ( Dec 2003 p 964) states: "He has simultaneously rejected more strenuously than ever before the long tradition of British historiography that sought to apply the concept of secularization to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and at once reapplied the concept exclusively and dramatically to the last forty years." 3) Gender & History (Aug 2010, p 496) the reviewer states: "A British schoolgirl who described herself as an atheist in the mid-1950s could expect to face playground taunts for being a ‘heathen’. Her counterpart who did the same in the mid-1960s was more likely to be seen as holding a view that was fast becoming the norm." Callum argues that Secularization was not prominent before 1950, and suddenly hit Great Britain at the same time a number of other major social and cultural changes took place in the 1960s. What I think reinforces Callum is the simultaneous experience happening in Québec. Rjensen ( talk) 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of California before 1900, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hopkins. 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) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding your revert of my edit on Radical Republican, I am willing to compromise and retain the sentence regarding the liberal party elements opposing the Radical Republicans. As for the issue of "pro-slavery Democrats" that you mentioned, the words "pro-slavery" were in the article already, before my edit. All I did was add "largely" before that, to acknowledge that there was some division, and add "later anti-Reconstruction" after it, to reflect the era in which slavery had already been abolished. The only other change that I made was when the article referred to William H. Seward. It previously referred to the "New York Governor William Seward, later Secretary of State)." However, the time in which he served as N.Y. Governor was from 1839-1842, well before the rise of Radical Republicanism. Because of this, I changed it to read simply " Secretary of State William Seward." Therefore, I propose that I be allowed to re-add my previous edits, with the one difference being that the sentence referring to opposition from "conservatives" and "liberals" shall stay. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentences and the garbled. Here is a simple solution: They called themselves "Radicals" and were opposed during the War by the Moderate Republicans (led by Abraham Lincoln ), by the Conservative Republicans (led by Secretary of State William Seward, Northern Democrats. After the war, the Radicals were opposed by self-styled "conservatives" (in the South) and "liberals" (in the North). Seward was a radical before the war, but then became a conservative during the war and after. All the Democrats opposed the Radicals during & after the war. Rjensen ( talk) 22:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I dislike this version even more. The version that I made gives the reader a better idea of who the Democrats were, because it mentions them as "largely pro-slavery" and "anti-Reconstruction." In addition, it now reads that after the war the Republicans were opposed by "all Democrats." Radicals always faced hostility from Democrats, even if they may have agreed during the war on fighting the Confederacy. In addition, you have identified "conservatives" in the post-war South as different from the Democrats, even though they were almost always the same thing. I respectfully ask that I be permitted to proceed with the previously proposed edits. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is who the rad reps were. The Dems have their own article. All the Dems opposed Rad-Rep during & after the war. The self-styled conservatives in the south were ex-whigs who were reluctant to call themselves Dems, says Thomas Alexander. they finally joined the Dems Rjensen ( talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

I have edited the article in a manner that I believe is satisfactory, while taking into account the things which you have said. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but the Democrats were not necessarily proslavery. The term would apply to Southern Democrats and doughfaces in the North, but not to the mainstream of the party in the North. The southern Democrats were really angry that they did not get proslavery support in the North. I think the addition of this motivational factor is confusing, and incorrect, and unnecessary. But I'll skip it. Rjensen ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As I'm sure you know, the question of whether or not mainstream Northern Democrats-that is, the Douglas popular sovereignty men-were "pro-slavery" would really depend on who you were asking. The Southerners would argue insufficiently so; the Republicans would say that they were. That was the reason for the use of the word "largely." I'm glad that this was resolved. Also, thank you for your edit in deleting "second" before "Republican Party." As you said, most of the people reading this type of article will know the difference. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the list in this article's infobox, then you'll have to change it on these ones as well;

• United States Armed Forces
• United States Army
• United States Navy
• United States Marine Corps
• United States Air Force
• United States Coast Guard

And that's just for starters, there's more. Or you could revert back. They're just links to well-sourced pages. - ^theWOLFchild 10:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

looks like spam to me---no RS is used here. Rjensen ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just co-ordinating the infoboxes. Whatever wars/battle/etc. the US Army have been in are a part of US military history. (Res ipsa loquitur) Not every. single. edit. needs. a. source. - surely you know this. I'll add it back, then you open up two browsers; US Army in one and Military history of the United States in the other and compare them, then you'll see what I mean. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring the hidden message above the categories. It says "Please do not add Category:Far-right politics in the United States or Category:Anti-communist organizations here as Category:Ku Klux Klan is already a subcategory of these."? LittleJerry ( talk) 14:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

who made up that silly rule? It needs to be debated and agreed to on the talk page. Rjensen ( talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It was around for a long time. So you are the one who has to object on the talkpage. LittleJerry ( talk) 14:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I shall--is there a discussion somewhere? Rjensen ( talk) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain your edit here, please? As I said on the talk page years ago, it's one thing to say the copyright was seized by the US government, but another to say that it's in the public domain. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

items are either in US copyright or they are public domain in US. there is no 3rd category. Nazi publications are public domain in the USA says Peter Hirtle: "the copyright in most of them would have belonged either to the Nazi Party or to the German government. While [US law] 104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S., this would apply only to published items." at Library Law. That is reflected in federal court rulings cited at Wiki Commons US Courts hold: " On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images “to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.” source this photo therefore is public domain in the US. Rjensen ( talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! You seem to have reverted my edit on Theocracy. Why? The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Rjensen ( talk) 10:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it. Unless you have proof that ISIL is a theocracy (which is impossible, because it isn't) ISIL shouldn't be listed. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you continue acting like this you may end up blocked. You need to discuss the edit. Nota bene: I left a message on the talkpage when I removed that claim, but you seem to have ignored that. Please use talkpages. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I use Merriam-Webster. The definition of theocracy is:

• a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
• a country that is ruled by religious leaders

ISIL is not a government and it is not a country or state. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Try a RS on ISIS. Christian Science Monitor 6/15/2014, "Over the past few months, large parts of Syria and Iraq have fallen to the extremist militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Now this terrorist group, which formed only last year, plans to take Baghdad and create a theocracy that cuts across borders in the Middle East." Is that not close enough for you? Rjensen ( talk) 10:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Him

I plan to rule the world. Does that make me ruler of the world, or just an ambitious potato? The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed something weird on the top of your talkpage. The archives go from 1-10. You've added a link to archive 26. The reason that the template doesn't work is because Archive 11 is missing. Archive number 25 is also missing. But User talk:Rjensen/Archive 19/Archive 18 does exist. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it. But you have User talk:Rjensen/Archive 19/Archive 18 which is a duplicate of User talk:Rjensen/Archive 18. I think you can delete User talk:Rjensen/Archive 19/Archive 18 (simply add {{ db-self}} to the top of it). You can also remove the link to, and message about, the current archive (near the top of your talkpage). The trick is that the template {{ archive list}} (which is included in template {{ Talk header}}) by default only accepts the naming convention specified at WP:ARCHIVE: start with a capital A, a space before the number, and no leading zeros. I moved two archives (I left a redirect) to the correct name and I purged the page (see WP:PURGE). The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 12:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks re archives! the theocracy article is about a form of govt and organizations that seriously try to run one or create one. ISIL is serious according to RS. Don't you argree it's serious and important? Rjensen ( talk) 12:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone should invent an easier way to deal with archives. In the future, if you ever have any Wikipedia-related questions about computer/technical stuff, please come visit WP:VPT. That page is basically a bunch of nerds talking about nerdy stuff. WP:VPT is exclusively for questions about Wikipedia; if you want to ask a computer/technical question about something else then the correct page is Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing. Now back to ISIL. It may be true that the intention of some of the members of ISIL is to create a theocracy (although much of what I've read suggests that there are many other reasons why certain people are in ISIL, many of them rather banal). But the Theocracy article isn't about potential future theocracies (or about attempts to start a theocracy), it is about theocracies. If we would expand the scope of the article to include potential future theocracies then we can add any country, because every country has the (theoretical) potential to become a theocracy. Maybe you think that their attempt is more likely to succeed than some other attempts, but that falls under WP:OR. Expanding the scope to include all attempts to start a theocracy would be a bad idea imho, because there have been so many attempts throughout history. A list of organizations that attempt to create a theocracy would be kinda interesting, but that should be a separate list. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is all about theocracy, and partially or fully successful efforts to establish a theocracy fall in those bounds. ISIL in fact acts as the government of much of Syria/Iraq. As far as multiple hypothetical future countries are concerned, you have not erased a single word about them so that's a red herring. You only erased text text based on reliable sources about a current movement that is actively establishing a theocracy in 2016, not in 2116 as you suggest. ISIL is real right now, whether or not the UN officially recognizes that. "ISIS adheres to Islamic law, and therefore deems itself a legitimate and theocratic state." " it is a theocratic proto-state." source. I think the problem is that you are not using any reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia rules say that when there is a conflict of opinion, all sources should be included. So please include your sources rather than delete salad material. Rjensen ( talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are using this source to support your argument. That is Adèle Bélanger-McMurdo. She was 18 in 2014, the article was published in 2015. Please read WP:RS. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Her essay was for your benefit --it was not Cited in the article. for some scholarship try this: "ISIL’s leaders pursue four strategic objectives: (1) Establish a Caliphate in Iraq and the Levant, (2) Control and Govern the Caliphate, (3) Expand Islam and Sharia Law Worldwide, and (4) Recreate the Power and Glory of (Sunni) Islam." by three academics. Here's a useful summary: ISIS is "a state-building enterprise and, increasingly, a state- like entity: one with a radically revolutionary agenda that seeks to destroy the nation-state system in the Middle East, replace it with a theocratic caliphate, and then launch a millenarian, genocidal..." [D Kilcullen - Quarterly Essay, 2015 ] Rjensen ( talk) 14:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The words "seeks to" are important. The article doesn't say that they've created a current theocracy, the author is just describing what he believes to be their goals. I am just a humble potato and even I said: "It may be true that the intention of some of the members of ISIL is to create a theocracy [snip]". But of course they have not achieved the goal of creating a theocracy. And that is why it shouldn't be included in that place in the Theocracy article. Basically, to be a theocracy you have to be either:

• a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
• a country that is ruled by religious leaders

So until they succeed in this goal this claim shouldn't be included on the Theocracy article in that section, but instead be added to the pages about ISIL/ISIS. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 14:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

well no--a serious effort to create a theocracy deserves attention. News reports say the theocracy action is under way right now. Surely readers want to know that. Again you are relying on zip for sources so you are not allowed to erase editors who have sources. Rjensen ( talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Theocracy article contains:

• Current theocracies
• Historic states with theocratic aspects

It does not contain potential future theocracies nor does it contain speculation about which groups are likely to achieve their goal of establishing a theocracy (a goal that is shared by many groups worldwide). This is a good decision. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No speculation is involved to say ISIS is setting up a theocracy -- started in 2014 and continuing now. 2014 is history and so is 2015. Rjensen ( talk) 15:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a group has been trying to do something for a while doesn't necessarily mean that they've achieved it. Do you have reliable sources that say that they have succeeded in their attempts to create a theocracy (extraordinary claims et cetera)? Creating a theocracy is quite difficult, because it requires a country. It is not as easy as saying "We have military control of this area at the moment, and we declare it to be our country. And because we are religious extremists the country is a theocracy." Imagine if that was the case, then you and I could start our own theocracy in my backyard with my waterpistol if we wanted to.

Do you agree with the Merriam Webster definition I quoted?

Why not just insert the claim that they are trying to create a theocracy in the article about them?

Many of our readers look at the Table Of Contents to see a list of current theocracies. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 15:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that since 2014 ISIS controls lots of people & land & rules in theocratic fashion? The Dictionary is fine--it covers ISIS. the quote from scholars that you rejected states: Charles H. Dyer and ?Mark Tobey examining the effort of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) to create a state, argue that "The final expression of Islamic government found in the Middle East would seem to be the purest, yet actually represents the most dangerous form: theocratic Islam." Note the term you asked for is there "the effort ...to create a state". Rjensen ( talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the effort to create something is different from the finished product. And the article isn't about efforts to create theocracies (that's why I mentioned those two headers: Current theocracies and Historic states with theocratic aspects). I think that that is a good choice. Just because a group controls lots of land and (claims to) rule according to their sick and twisted interpretation of their religious beliefs doesn't mean they've successfully created a theocracy. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"finished" product???? Most everything is unfinished these days. How many years do you plan to wait before you stop erasing sourced info? Rjensen ( talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen a source that supports the claim that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be listed as a current theocracy. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 17:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK to move this conversation to talk:Theocracy? The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 19:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish Braeman had written a biography about Beard. He was very well informed. Yet even with this good secondary source it is hard to conclude that Beard's father was a banker. He said that Beard's father "took in his later years a leading role in organizing three local banks" which I think is different from being a banker. And I think Mary Beard knew better Beard's family than Braeman. :) Best Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMCL2015 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

three banks--that's not very casual. I'd call him a banker. he was also a speculator with multiple farms. unlike Mary Beard's reliance on family lore, Braeman cites sources (note 20: For his banking involvements, see Hazzard, Hazzard's History, 11, 1082–83, 1085–86.) Mary burned all the family primary sources and that bothers me a lot. her credibility is under a deep shadow--her willingness to suppress the facts is close in my mind to unwillingness to face them wherever they lead. Good luck with your project. ) Rjensen ( talk) 18:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He administrated three banks because he had, as his son, great numeracy skills and he was a honest and respected person in the community . But I think that naming him a banker convey a misleading idea. The sources Braeman cited regarding his banking activities are a bit unsubstantial. Hazzard's History,Vol. 2 only lists his name as member of the board of directors. The other primary source Braeman cited is the 1880 census and there he appeared as a carpenter! He took great poetic license to call his hero "building contractor." And Mary Beard did not burn all Beard's papers that is a myth. She kept many, organized them and Beard's children donated to DePauw University Archives. But also there are many primary sources scattered across the United States. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMCL2015 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

no you don't run three banks by being good at numbers. that's the cashier. How many letters did get burned? Rjensen ( talk) 19:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's Mary Beard account of it. A bank was having administrative and financial problems and they decided to bring Beard's father to fix them. However, we may be arguing about a quibble. My objection is mainly against the idea Goldman spread that Beard's father "owned" a bank, therefore, he was a banker. Beard's father participation in the re-organization of three banks may make him "a banker" under a very broad concept of it. I would say that he was a farmer, carpenter, speculator, and a great manager of banks. I don't know how many were destroyed but the remaining letters are many, telling and reveal many clues about Beard previously unknown.Victor M. Cazares 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMCL2015 ( talk • contribs)

Being a key player in banks in 3 different cities suggests he was more highly regarded for his ideas on money more than on corn. Also that he was rich. He speculated in farm land --that's a high-risk, high-reward enterprise that reminds me of Charles Beard. Charles was better at speculating on BIG ideas than he was assembling little batches of facts. That was the source of his enormous influence, but also the weak point that Brown & McDonald spotted (re 1780s). Someone once told me that the letters were burned to protect lots of scholars who wrote privately to encourage CB's attacks on FDR's foreign policy. Rjensen ( talk) 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead of the article Casablanca Conference seems to put French leader Charles de Gaulle and Henri Giraud as the major attendance. The image of article Allied leaders of World War II also put French leader Charles de Gaulle and Henri Giraud the top-importance position at the Casablanca Conference. In my memory, the French leaders only involved the leadership problem of Free French forces in this conference and did not join the major discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B45:500:34F6:BB79:B3BD:11EE ( talk) 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You have a sharp eye. They were shut out of the key military discussions. I added some text: De Gaulle had to be forced to attend, and he met a chilly reception from Roosevelt and Churchill. No Frenchmen were allowed to attend the military planning sessions.[ref] Jonathan Fenby, The General: Charles De Gaulle and the France he saved (2010) pp 195-201 [ref] Rjensen ( talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "The war was Dick Cheney..." is a typo of some sort, and not a clever metaphor? ;-) Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 21:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well yes – I have the sometimes dangerous technique of writing something up and doing a copy and paste into the article. It sometimes picks up strange stuff from my clip board. ( a few minutes before I had edited something on Dick Cheney). thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 21:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Jensen! I couldn't help but notice that you reverted some of my added quotes on the C.S. Army article. I don't mind, as you clearly detailed your reasons for doing so. However, I would like to explain the reason why I added those quotes into the article, it was because the speakers were members of the C.S. Army, so I thought that it would be of interest to the article. That said, I'm glad to have another user reviewing my edits and adding input, especially a published historian such as yourself. The topic is a huge subject matter and a lot of work to do for one man alone. Best regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S., I noticed you reverted some edits because they used primary sources. I'm confused as to the matter. I was always told that primary sources were the best, but you seem to prefer secondary sources. What is Wikipedia's official position on the matter? Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule is very strong that we rely chiefly on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used with caution – they are most useful in illustrating the rhetoric and style of the time. Wikipedia rules say they should not be used to further an argument. I deleted material that did not have to do directly with the Confederate Army, but was focused on a rather different issue with its own article, on the causes or motivation for secession. In almost every case, the quotation came before the army was actually in operation. There is a large literature on the motivation of soldiers, and why they joined, with McPherson as a representative scholar. Rjensen ( talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the help! – Illegitimate Barrister, 01:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings: As you know, an inline (book) citation refers to a citation in a page’s text that allows the reader to associate a given piece of information with specific source(s) that support it. In your recent edit of SPRS, under Background, you inserted an Ebert and Hall reference, in the middle of the paragraph, that already had the proper inline citation and it was located in the proper place. This caused the incorrect shifting of citations, and problems that I trust you will remedy. Thank you. Pendright ( talk) 02:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I revised it and added some reliable secondary sources. Rjensen ( talk) 03:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay Sir. But King Was a Canadian of American Descent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.145.101 ( talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense: His mother Isabel Mackenzie, was a daughter of William Lyon Mackenzie. She was born in the United States while he was in exile. She was never an "American". Rjensen ( talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Jeb Bush which you may care to weigh in on.    Spartan7W §   14:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the C.S. Army article. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk), 09:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

By removing that quote without replacing it, you render the section historically incorrect. Please see my entry on the talk page. Until you are ready to do better, please replace the quote, which at least gives a helpful and appropriate historical reference. For a well-known example usage of the time, see Buckley's God and Man at Yale. Cerberus ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirk does not say who in 1950s made up the term "neoconservative" when, where, or in what context. No RS or any google site repeats or accepts his story. looks like faulty memory. As a theory it's "fringe." I think he just mixed up attacks on him in 1980s with mistaken memory of 1950s. Rjensen ( talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it your are not treating one of the major figures in conservatism, who was around at the time, as a RS? What about Buckley, who uses the term in GAMAY? Then you deleted replacement text as making an unsourced false claim. But I provided the source in my comment for the edit: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a30s50sneoconideology And your characterization of the American Left (a term not even used in the quote) as anti-Stalin/pro-Trotsky is laughable history: the CPUSA of the time has been widely described as a Stalin sect. It feels like you are enforcing a POV in your edits. Unless the terminology section somehow acknowledges the origin on the term pre-1950, it is badly misleading. Please take this to the talk page before reverting. Cerberus ( talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary source. Kirk is a) a primary source; b) he was never in favor of neoconservatism; c) he is very vague on what some unknown critic at an unknowen date in an unknown publication said about Kirk being a neocon --too vague to call it "reliable.". As for Buckley, please provide the quote on his usage in 1950s. A few of the neocons were anti-stalin trotskyites around 1940. then they became liberal Democrats in 1940s, 1950s 1960s, then they became neocons. No one says the term neocon dates pre 1950. No reliable secondary source anyone has mentioned says it dates from the 1950s. Your anonymous unpublished blog http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a30s50sneoconideology is not a reliable secondary source -- and anyway you garbled what it said. you need a reliable secondary source Rjensen ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement By Justin Vaïsse, p.7: "This first age of neoconservatism was built around two journals: The Public Interest ... 1965, and Commentary ... in 1970." Cerberus ( talk) 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your highly condescending explanation of why you reverted the edit to what it already was for several years, though I seriously, seriously doubt people will never come back to Wikipedia again or even that article just because that one bit is not explained thoroughly. Case in point; when I first read the article, I didn't know what it meant, so I clicked the link. Just curious, should I add an explanation to every war result that has status quo ante bellum? ( RockDrummerQ ( talk) 16:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC))

FWIW, I agree with RockDrummerQ insofar as readers can click the link. I have therefore reverted your edit, Rjensen. Normally I'd side with the Columbia-educated professor but spelling out the result, especially in the infobox, seems silly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We cannot expect people to know Latin-- and sending them off to another article is going to lose many readers unnecessarily. Rjensen ( talk) 06:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally made a mistake when removing some POV in the article. I checked the RSes on Google Books, and they were right. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused you.

Thanks!-- 96.58.192.158 ( talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, glad to help. Rjensen ( talk) 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You put back the POV though... I don't *disagree* with the sources, it's just that too many of the words used, such as "independence", "subservient" are relative to a societal point of view.-- 96.58.192.158 ( talk) 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

these are the words and concepts used by multiple cited RS in the context of French society. Nobody reading the paragraph will confuse it with China or Egypt. Rjensen ( talk) 23:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

But they're still POV... where's the common sense? The statement "independence" is relative to the society interpreting it. Independence in Communist Russia was very differently interpreted from independence in the United Kingdom, even though they both claimed their people had it, with similar definitions of it. I highly doubt Philippe Pétain actually claimed he was "taking away women's independence", or that everyone in Vichy France interpreted it that way.

Come on now—I'm not going to believe you don't see how silly a statement like that is. Curly Turkey ??  ¡gobble! 11:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the RS even as you disagree with them. Rjensen ( talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* ... I "disagree with" the RS, now, do I? I've been through this density with you before—you really just don't care what people are saying to you, so I'll save my breath. Curly Turkey ??  ¡gobble! 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You claimed [1] "this article is about conservative thoughts--subgroups like social conservatives& business-oriented disagree. It is NOT about debates on the Left". My first source was a conservative media outlet and it quoted "conservative" black leaders. Just because they're black doesn't place them "on the left". The NPR source establishes that such comparisons between skin color and sexual orientation have taken place, since you had somehow disputed that earlier. I intend to revert, but wanted to discuss the matter with you first and maybe reach an understanding.

As for the social-business disagreement, you're simply wrong to label the latter the "libertarian faction", especially in this context. Libertarians support individual liberty for business owners, not liberal PC government mandates. "Libertarian" does not mean "pro gay rights". The NR source you use doesn't call the governor a "libertarian". It says liberal pressure groups, and particularly some big companies led by social liberals and broadly supportive of left wing concerns (like Disney), blackmailed him into rolling over and vetoing the religious freedom bill. That has nothing to do with libertarianism. Quite the opposite. VictorD7 ( talk) 00:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

gay rights is highly controversial in the entire black community: from right to left -- most opposed it historically. It's religious and probably most blacks share the same Baptist religious outlook as the social conservative Republicans. As for libertarians, yes you're right. I changed the ref to business-oriented conservatives (like the Chamber of Commerce which has very little Left in it). Until a couple years ago, social Conservatives were very active passing laws & state constitutional amendments to Criminalize same-sex marriages-- that was a state government interference in personal affairs that libertarians never supported. The political situation changed of course with the Supreme Court decision, which invalidated all of the state constitutional amendments and state laws. Rjensen ( talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman don't "criminalize" anything, but control which type of relationships receive official state recognition. That's not an interference in personal affairs. Gay marriage advocates were coming to the government wanting recognition and endorsement from it, not sitting in their homes minding their own business. Like abortion, libertarians have been split on the marriage issue, but I've seen polling showing most libertarians oppose gay marriage, and even some who support it hated Kennedy's moronic decision for procedural reasons (it basically tore up much of what's left of the US Constitution). Regardless, the segment you added has nothing to do with marriage per se, but was about a religious liberty bill designed to do things like protect wedding cake makers who have conscientious objections to making gay themed wedding cakes (not objections to serving gay people, btw, an important distinction often lost in partisan propaganda). The dominant social liberal position is that the government force them to under penalty of having their business shut down or paying a crippling fine. Most libertarians and lots of other groups side with the social conservatives on this one, even many who support gay marriage. The Chamber of Commerce, which isn't always libertarian but often is (for that matter social conservatives are generally libertarian too), only rolled over because they were afraid of the pressure groups and some large, socially liberal corporations like Disney that they're allied with, not because the CoC is inherently supportive of liberal government mandates on gay issues.

That's a poor example to use to establish sub group disagreement given the pressure/blackmail involved. It doesn't clearly highlight faultlines within the conservative movement.

On the marriage per se issue, it's unclear what you're trying to say. White social conservatives hold the same opinion that black social conservatives do. They reject the premise, often pushed by the left, that sexual orientation is basically the same as skin color and should be a similarly protected class under civil rights laws. The source I cited just happened to feature black conservatives, but the most pertinent word there is "conservatives", not "black". Social conservatives certainly don't "oppose equal rights for homosexuals", which is the liberal POV way you phrased it. As you said later, we should be describing conservatives' views, not partisan distortions of them from their opponents. Conservatives reject the premise that people who identify as "gay" didn't already have equal rights to everyone else (unlike blacks in the Jim Crow era, btw). The salient subject of contention in recent years has been over the definition of marriage, not whether some individuals should be prohibited from getting married at all. Now that a narrow and controversial SCOTUS decision has suspended that debate, the more salient issue is the liberty of business owners and others when it comes to being forced to endorse gay themed activities. If you insist we can include the liberal characterization of the marriage issue as one of "equal rights" (not that I've noticed many conservative arguments or phrases posted on the Modern Liberalism article), but only if we also include the conservative position rejecting that characterization and describing the debate differently. To omit it is unacceptable. VictorD7 ( talk) 00:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"skin color" is not at issue. That is not what Americans mean by "race." On the left there is indeed a debate whether the fight for gay rights is morally and politically comparable to the fight for civil rights back in the 1960s. That is not a controversy that conservatives engage in so it does not fit very well in the article on conservatism. Social conservatives certainly don't oppose equal rights for homosexuals --oh really? Well I think that trying to pass state laws and state constitutional amendments criminalizing gay sex and prohibiting gay marriage looks a lot like opposing "equal rights for homosexuals". I think the level of bitterness and hatred toward the gay community has been very high among social conservatives. Since the Supreme Court Obergefell decision the social conservatives have lost control of public opinion. No constitutional amendment to reverse it is politically possible. So they have tried a First Amendment approach (ie Protect a 1st amendment right to refuse service to gays.) That move has caused the bitter divisions inside the conservative camp. What the article talks about is a split between the social conservatives & the business conservatives-- it exploded recently in several states and is covered in the National Review article. It explains the Chamber of Commerce is fighting the church groups and the Chamber is winning. The very conservative governors of Arizona & Georgia vetoed new state laws for business reasons, and Protestant ministers are denouncing them. In my opinion, a major dispute on policy among conservatives is the sort of thing this article should talk about. Here's an Official policy statement by the Southern Baptists in 1996: “even a desire to engage in a homosexual relationship is always sinful, impure, degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent and perverted.” [for context see http://books.google.com/books?id=QZYoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA236] Rjensen ( talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean conservatives don't engage in that dispute? I just cited an article quoting many conservatives attacking the position that black civil rights struggles and the "gay rights" movement are equatable, and could link to many more. And the point about skin color not equaling behavior (like homosexuality) is a key argument conservatives make. Nothing you said supported your claim that social conservatives want to deny "equal rights" to gays, except arguably your line about the right to refuse service to gays, which, again, is a dishonest liberal characterization of the issue. Refusing, for example, to make a gay theme wedding cake isn't the same as refusing service to gays, if the business owner is willing to sell the gay customer the items he is willing to make (or has already made). Forcing someone to make something they don't want to make gets uncomfortably close to slavery, from a libertarian perspective. Even deeper than that, regarding this issue, conservatives don't view behavior as something that logically fits into the "equal rights" framework anyway. For example, we don't speak of people who don't wear shirts or shoes as being denied "equal rights" if they aren't permitted to enter an establishment, or say that individuals who start maniacally shouting in a disruptive manner inside a store are being denied their "equal rights" if they're physically ejected from the premises. Neither do we say that the second place finisher in an athletic competition is being denied her "equal rights" because her medal is silver instead of gold, or that the spectators who receive no medals are being discriminated against even more. This is what I mean when I say that conservatives reject arguments equating homosexuality with skin color in the context of a "discrimination" debate. Technically all that is discrimination (as is every word someone utters or thought someone has), but it's based on behavior, achievement, various reasonable bases, etc., and isn't comparable to racial discrimination of the past. Every rule or law inherently discriminates against behavior. The presence of discrimination doesn't necessarily mean someone doesn't have "equal rights". That said, again, social conservatives don't advocate discriminating against gays, typically going out of their way to say they're happy to serve them (like by selling them the same products they sell everyone else), just not necessarily doing all the things a gay customer might want them to do. Realistically this has mostly just come up with the aforementioned wedding cake makers or other small businesses (typically known Christian establishments) that have been targeted by gay activists who have demanded they host, cater, or make products explicitly endorsing gay themed events, in violation of their conscience, and then sued or harassed them when the company predictably declined.

You again failed to support your claim that conservatives advocate "criminalizing" anything on this issue, despite me calling BS on you already. No one is criminalizing gay sex and the marriage debate wasn't about criminalizing anything either. The 1996 Southern Baptist quote is a religious statement about sin, not a legal one, and even it condemns sin (behavior), not people. If you actually talked to some Baptists or other conservative Christians they'd tell you that all people are sinful. They don't hate gay people anymore than they hate straight adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, the prideful, the idolaters, etc.. They condemn certain behaviors because that's what orthodox Christianity does; for that matter every ethical/religious system in the world does. I see vastly, vastly more true hatred directed at social conservatives by gay activists and their allies than I do in the other direction, which is how you end up with people like Floyd Lee Corkins attempting to shoot up the socially conservative group Focus on the Family's headquarters and slaughter everyone inside after being influenced by the Southern Poverty Law Center flippantly labeling them a "hate group". Of course the article segment doesn't mention "hate" or "bitterness", and "hate" isn't the same thing as a political stance, so you've raised an entirely off topic issue.

Regardless of your personal disdain for social conservatives, our responsibility as editors here is to describe their views in a neutral, accurate manner, and to avoid slanting through omission. The conservative position on the now suspended marriage debate, from an "equal rights" standpoint, was that gays already had the right to get married. Since marriage meant a union between the sexes, marriage just wasn't something they tended to be interested in, and so they went about changing the definition and institution into something they're supposedly more interested in. Even with some (mostly overhyped) government benefits tossed in, retaining the universal, traditional, millennia-old definition of marriage as being a union between the sexes was no more an "equal protection" violation than the government loaning or granting money to college students but not non-college students is. Rightly or wrongly, marriage was seen as a desirable act in society's interest to endorse and encourage through the incentive infrastructure, as many other behaviors still are. The gay marriage position was almost entirely made through simplistic emotive appeals, not reasoned discourse or sound legal arguments. The dominant current debate is over public bathrooms, and whether property owners have the right to "discriminate" by requiring biological males to use men's rooms and vice versa, or for that matter to segregate males and females in the first place. Of course the conservative position is that this is a case of reasonable discrimination by sex (and note, not an equal rights violation). Liberal characterizations have tended to avoid details and have preferred to vaguely describe the current disputes in terms of "anti-discrimination" bills, "equal rights" mandates, or "discriminatory" bills when they're conservative pushed, avoiding mentions of the bathroom/child locker room controversies where possible (an increasingly common conservative response is for legislators to explicitly name their bills some variation of "bathroom" bills so news outlets are forced to report them as such).

Your characterization of the article you used as showing there's a broad divide between social conservatives and "business conservatives" is simply false for reasons I've already explained. First, it represents a single example. Second, in that example a governor succumbs to pressure from left wing activist elements and some major national corporations that have aligned with them. He actually campaigned on doing the opposite. These large businesses aren't "business conservatives". They have a history of supporting liberal causes. The more conservative CoC wasn't the source of the pressure, but was afraid of the economic consequences of the threatened boycott by the large, liberal companies. Some people getting rolled by pressure tactics may mean that "business conservatives" care less about the issue than social conservatives and will cave under attack, but it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce is inherently a bastion of such liberal policies and positions. It's not. Whatever faultlines you're trying to capture can be described with more nuance and accuracy (you've already conceded that your initial "libertarian" characterization was false; you clearly rushed into that segment haphazardly). Also, any article text that injects loaded phrases like "equal rights" without accurately reflecting the conservative position is unacceptable. I've been busy with other things lately and haven't been back to the article yet, and this debate wasn't high on my list of priority future edits to the article, but since this discussion doesn't appear to be productive, and since your posting seems to be becoming more emotional than rational, I'll let you know as a courtesy that if the segment is still misleading and in violation of NPOV when I do get back there, I will revert it with substantial changes and likely new (better) sources. VictorD7 ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen After spending more time on The Gilded Age article, I wondered why it is only rated C class. Seems better to me. What it would take? Format improvements in references? Changes of more substance? It is read by so many people, monitored and improved by so many knowledgeable (historians) editors, like you. I am no historian, but I have learned so much from this article. Just curious. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 09:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The class ratings deal in general with format and technical issues such as footnote style, as well as whether or not there is edit warring. The ratings are typically made by editors who are generally unfamiliar with the topic. Rjensen ( talk) 13:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Was the Emancipation Proclamation an executive order or proclamation? And can it be both?

The following from the American Presidency Project provided by University of California, Santa Barbara states it is ONLY a proclamation. When I checked the listing of executive orders for 1862 or 1863 issued by Lincoln there was no Emancipation Proclamation.

I am aware of other sources that "claim" it is one or the other, but this source appears more definitive. Your thoughts? Mitchumch ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

it was both according to most (but not all) RS. The Constitution mentions neither one. Brian R. Dirck The Executive Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics (2007) ?says "The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, itself a rather unusual thing in those days. Executive orders are simply presidential directives issued to agents of the executive department by its boss. There is no specific constitutional basis for such orders, but presidents have argued that they are implied by the provision of article I section 3 that presidents should take care that "the laws be faithfully executed." Rjensen ( talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This reminds me of the often stated claim that Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew the military from the southern United States. But, the actual scholarship states he ordered military troops stationed in New Orleans and Charleston back to their barracks. Yet, the myth lives on and propagated by numerous members of the scholarly community.

In cases when a large number of academics state a claim, but provide no supporting documentation for their claim should this not raise flags? Mitchumch ( talk) 23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not the job of wiki editors to raise flags. The legal basis of executive orders is actually tradition, rather than constitutional explicitness. Rjensen ( talk) 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the job of wiki editors to note contradictions in claims among the academic community and present those contradictions in the article. Especially, when the contradiction arises due to not performing scholarship, but repeating that which is often stated. That is the flag I'm talking about, not original research. Mitchumch ( talk) 23:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe our job is to wait for the RS to see the problem. they are the experts. We already have the policy of including all major differences among the RS. Rjensen ( talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put up a talk page discussion and then an appeal of the close at Manifest destiny (it feels even odd typing that in lower case), and will ping you when I open that discussion. The closer, who joined Wikipedia less than a month ago, looked at the page, the discussion, and the data presented in that discussion for less than a minute. A minute! Manifest Destiny is, of course, a proper name and should become re-capitalized. This seems to be one of those things that make it important for historians like you to be involved in decisions such as this. There is also a discussion at Montgomery bus boycott which was similarly closed and moved to lower-case in less than five minutes based, apparently, on the number of editors commenting and a n-gram sleight-of-hand. I dislike Wikipedia politics, and although it's not World war ii, in cases like these two it seems worth the time to kick the dust a little. Randy Kryn 10:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

[2] These are blatant problems. Given your history here, I'd think it safe to assume you'd know this. If a spammer came along and added or reverted such info, they'd be well on their way to a block. How about helping clean up the article instead of what appears to be trolling someone that is pointing out some of the most obvious problems?

To be clear, the external link is inappropriate. If you honestly feel different, follow WP:ELBURDEN. But as I said, it's blatantly inappropriate.

As for "explaining the availability of major books", that is by definition advertising. Indicating the publisher, ISBN, etc are appropriate. The rest is not. Given the nature of the specific books, the typical reader would have no interest whatsoever. The only people that would be interested would be librarians looking to add it to their collections, and such people don't need such instruction. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AT issue here is what is the Wiki rule on advertising? Perhaps you have not read it carefully? It states: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. that rule is followed exactly--objective info about a product, unbiased & no puffery.. Your statement "Indicating the publisher, ISBN, etc are appropriate. The rest is not." is not in the Wiki rulebook--you just now made it up. People who want access to Dewey's works discover they are available in numerous complex formats. School librarians need to know that if a student is asking for help. We help librarians too, in my opinion. (I was employed by the Newberry Library for 11 years. You also deleted the info that the cdrom is no longer available. That is quite important. Rjensen ( talk) 21:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess you want me to take this seriously.

You've ignored ELBURDEN. You appear to be ignoring EL as a whole as well. The link is not verifying any information but is rather a link to the publisher's website. Correct? That's WP:LINKSPAM.

As for WP:SOAP, the article is about Dewey, not the volumes, not the publisher.

"you just now made it up" Do FOC and AGF please. I'm talking from my experience. Of course, we could do the standard things to determine what is the general consensus for such information: find relevant policies/guidelines, noticeboard discussions, examples of relevant GA articles...

I started this discussion on your talk page, hoping you were ribbing me. I'm still having a difficult time believing that you're not. You really want to include blatant linkspam in an article and ignore ELBURDEN after it was brought up? You really think that Wikipedia articles (especially a B-class, high importance one) should have instructions on how to obtain volumes of works, and note that a CD-ROM is no longer available?! Please tell me this is all a joke. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being outrageous and ridiculous. There's no advertising about. The product description is exactly inside the Wikipedia guidelines, and is useful to the readers. You have ignored the actual Wikipedia guidelines about Advertising and invented totally imaginary rules of your own. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be a strict enforcer of the rules should take the trouble to understand the rules, and be willing to seriously listen and discuss the topic. The issue here is the publication of John Dewey's huge number of works, which is a very serious problem for Wikipedia advanced users, who find many different versions and editions. The authorized standard version is available in multiple versions In paper, online, and CD-ROM formats and that needs a couple of sentences of clarification. Librarians who are not specialists in philosophy may well be puzzled themselves. Rjensen ( talk) 01:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, are we settled with external link now? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

yes. Rjensen ( talk) 03:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, early you received a post about being warned from being blocked. That was an imposter who created a similar username, but with only 1 “p” at User:Winterystepe. He's now blocked. im just letting you know that Im the real person and I won't do that. Shoutout to Tassedethe for taking quick action in 6 minutes. Happy Editing Winterysteppe ( talk) 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You indicated (on Goldwater–Nichols Act) that Questia was free for Wikipedians. I tried to register to access the indicated document, per your factoid, but saw no offered membership for Wikipedians. (The closest option was for Professional Researchers or Librarians, which -by definition- we're neither.) How did you access this free membership for Wikipedians? I would really like to access this reference document.-- LeyteWolfer ( talk) 02:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a terrific free service that is handled by Wiki editors at Wikipedia:Questia ... I use it daily. Rjensen ( talk) 02:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.-- LeyteWolfer ( talk) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to ask what was "unreliable" and "the sort interns prepare" about the reference I added (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Taft%E2%80%93Katsura_agreement&diff=prev&oldid=717550869)

The reference was taken from the US government webpage, which states:

"“Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations” provides a general overview of the history of U.S. engagement with the world through short essays on important moments, or milestones, in the diplomatic history of the United States. The basic objective of these essays is to provide a clear, accurate, narrative account of the events being discussed, with a brief discussion of each event’s significance for U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic history. The publication is divided into 19 chapters covering time periods from 1750 until 2000, with brief introductions providing context for each period.

The essays were drafted for the Office of the Historian website by many historians over many years, and we continue to revise and expand the existing periods. Most recently, the essays covering the Kennedy and Johnson (1961–68), Nixon and Ford (1969–76), Carter (1977–80), Reagan (1981–88), Bush (1989–92), and Clinton (1993–2000) administrations were revised and expanded. These same essays were also enhanced with “tags,” or lists of the key people, places, and topics in the essay. The tags appear as links in the right sidebar of the essay and facilitate discovery of other other essays and resources, including volumes from the Foreign Relations of the United States series, on these subjects. The “tags” feature is still in progress, and over time the Office will extend the tags to all of the essays.""

Does this not qualify as a reliable publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.92.216 ( talk) 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

relaible ? no it's unsigned with no footnotes? Who actually wrote it??? It's also self published. It does not cite the many signed, published scholarly studies. We're dealing here with two sentences that summarize the entire episode: The two concluded the secret Taft-Katsura Agreement, in which the United States acknowledged Japanese rule over Korea and condoned the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902. At the same time, Japan recognized U.S. control of the Philippines. Those 2 sentences do NOT assert that any NEW agreement or new position was reached. My objection is to your statement: The U.S. state government, however, recognizes that this agreement was more than just an exchange of opinions. -- the site does NOT state that and it's false. What do you think comprised the "MORE THAN" part??? Rjensen ( talk) 09:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For adding content in a mad dash to stop a merger. Rather than reporting you on Wikipedia Noticeboards, you deserve a barnstar instead. GRuban ( talk) 14:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you weigh in here? Thanks. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated George Tucker (politician) for FA - would be so grateful if you could take a look at it and add your comments/support - always enjoy our collaborations. Hoppyh ( talk) 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an upgrade effort on John Calhoun on the Talk page there taking place by User:Display which you might be interested in. Possibly you could take a glance at it. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. We added a Historical assessment in the Slavery section of the Thomas Jefferson article. Right now it is a summary paragraph on the division historians have whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery. If you can please take a look at the section. Any contributions or suggestions you can make to the section would be welcome on my part. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Rjensen, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
2. Please send an e-mail to info-en wikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{ unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Waggers TALK 10:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rjensen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

1. rjensen is me, the same as Richard J. Jensen. Proof see my Richard Jensen facebook page https://www.facebook.com/richard.jensen.16940 that states at the top: Richard Jensen (rjensen Wikipedia username) 2. I did email info-en wikimedia.org yestereday & got no response. Rjensen ( talk) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Identity confirmed per above and by email Waggers TALK 12:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Waggers: Weren't you a little quick to block here? I've met Richard in person, I know him to be rjensen, and this is an account that has been editing for literally years. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Waggers: I agree with Ed. A quick look at this user's contributions (or even the length of this segment of his talk history) should give an admin pause for an arbitrary uname block. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I requested the block at UAA because, while he was in a conflict on the BLP article, I asked him. twice to please link to any prior verification that he was the BLP. He ignored those requesta so I took it to UAA. As I said there an account, representing itself as the subject of a BLP, who is misbehaving can reflect badly on the BLP subject. It seems it took a bloock to get his attention. Jbh ^Talk 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

jbhunley rejects wikipedia policies like assuming good faith and makes himself quite intolerable with his brutal demands that in fact are out of bounds and based on his ignorance and his failure to do basic research. (My 2012 article on Wikipedia explains how I have edited Wikipedia and a quick check of War of 1812 would suffice to validate rjensen--but he failed to do so. In fact I did send an email to the prescribed address and it still has not been answered.) He rejects wp:BLP "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." Rjensen ( talk) 17:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked you politly and you ignored the request and continue with "unique" policy interpretations which are far than what can be reasonably expected from someone who has edited extensivly in other areas of the encyclopedia. You continue to somehow think article maintinance tags are a BLP issue. You have redacted talk page comments by an editor a a BLP violation which while possiby a violation of NPA because he opined you were SOCKING, were nothing even remotly what would be considered a BLP violation. At that point, since you are an experienced editor, my AGF was that your account was not compromised by a troll unfamiliar with Wikipedia trying to cause damage to a BLP by stirring up a ridiculous fuss on their talk Wikipedia article. I assume a certian familiarity with our policies when dealing with long term editors, doubly so when they have their own article and should have a firm understanding of BLP policy, which, in my opinion, you have not been exhibiting since I encounered you.

You are welcome to bring up my behavior in any venue you wish. Jbh ^Talk 18:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

JBH. Please. As I wrote on User talk:Waggers: he's got proof of his identity right on his user page, a video of a Wikimania talk he gave in 2012, where he is clearly the person in our article Richard J. Jensen. If that weren't enough, that article has two sources prominently saying that he is a Wikipedian, one by him, and one in The Atlantic, saying he is a Wikipedia editor. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And when I asked "I see you are a long term editor but I can not find any documentation which proves you are Richard J. Jensen either herr, on your user page or in OTRS. Can you please provide a link to where your identity was verified?" [3] there would have been no issue. He did not rather he said "you have not read the rules carefully." [4]. Not the response I would expect from a good faith editor. Jbh ^Talk 18:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Note the material I saw on the user page is an assertion not a verification. Jbh ^Talk 18:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Er - the Video of Wikimania 2012 on the user page doesn't just look like Richard J. Jensen; it is the source of the image used in the article Richard J. Jensen. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if I had seen and interpreted that corectly I probably would have not asked for further verification. As I did not, and likely other editors unfamiliar with him would not have either, I asked him. It spun way further out of control than I expected. It is over now, he is verified, it is linked on the talk page {{ connected contributor}}, and hopefully we are done. Jbh ^Talk 19:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks this is to me just drama. It was not a bad thing long term that the identity was verified. It's all done and the account is unblocked now. Please just let this go as there is too much drama already. Jytdog ( talk) 18:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religious studies may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Carl. ''The Allure of Decadent Thinking: Religious Studies and the Challenge of Postmodernism'' (Oxford University Press, 20130
• [http://people.ucalgary.ca/~lipton/journals.html "Religious studies web guide: Online jounrnals]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen. I generally edit about health and medicine but work a lot on conflict of issues in WP. And fwiw, I got my undergrad in history from U of I (CU campus, not Chicago).

Two things. First, as a historian I think you understand the long view. Hopefully you also are well aware of the no deadline essay. The stuff that is going at the biography article about you is a flareup and something that the community will work through pretty quickly. Please don't get caught up in the moment - please don't try to preserve the article about you on a minute-by-minute basis - please just let others deal with this flare-up. Your involvement is actually escalating the difficulties; you are becoming part of the acute problem. Please know that using bad judgement now can lead to blocks and harm to reputation here in WP. Please use good judgement and step back now.

In a couple of days when this flareup has died down (and I would be surprised if it goes on even that long) I would like to discuss the conflict of interest guideline with you. You have edited the article about you directly under this account ( diffs) and have argued on the Talk page that doing this is OK. Like I said, after this flareup has calmed down I would like to circle back and discuss this with you. The way the community thinks about COI has developed over the years and I want to be sure you are aware of where consensus stands as of 2016.

Please do let me know about stepping away from the biography article - including its talk page - for a bit and letting others handle it. Best regards Jytdog ( talk) 18:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ok -- wise words. Rjensen ( talk) 18:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Be careful with it! It can produce sentences like this:

Calvin devoted himself to the long camp pain to thwart Northern aggressions.

J. D. Crutchfield |  Talk 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's fun to read what Dragon software thinks I said-- and I usually catch Spoonerisms but not always. Rjensen ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[This message was directed by a reply mechanism linked to my messages. If misdirected return to sender and discard] Dr. Jensen: Although it is clear that you are historically well credentialed, your recent changes regarding the populism Wiki-page caused contemporary interfaced metrics to divert worldwide Google searches. Google's algorithmic cues, based upon search results and quality volumes, directed users to the previous "populism" page as Google's "first hit." The version that I edited was popular and generally accepted proportionally, which tethered to the standard. I monitored the progress by that essential independent variable alone. Multiple devices and IP locations were used to verify my findings. When the edits changed, the Google results also changed. Users are now taken to Merriam-Webster's entry first. Although mild variations of essential editing arose throughout, a standard that accentuated Wikipedia held for ~7 months. That standard was set by comprehensive worldwide volume traffic, and enough to prompt the Wikipedia page entry and link to appear first in worldwide data searching. Subsequently, the externally generated population standard that was produced by merely typing "populism" in Google's search box and tethered it to Wikipedia is now an afterthought. Thanks. --J.Canfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcanfield ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The text I deleted was not well sourced--with only a useless ref to Princeton University. It did not make much sense to me. Try again with a serious reliable secondary source. We do not want readers sent here by google to be misled or confused. Rjensen ( talk) 03:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The source I did not initiate. I left it alone from the last editor's small contribution due to the Princeton connection. I'm done. But, populism is very important to the entire world at present. I was proud to have noticed the correlations to what I wrote without anyone knowing. The essences were spot on and bridged ancient to modern populist concepts from my travels and graduate exposures. I am also not a spring chicken. --J.Canfield

You recently reverted one of my edits. My edit removed a sentence that noted that the article's subjected is mentioned in a book and the material was supported by a reference to the book's Amazon page. I removed the material using an edit summary of "rm advertisement" and you reverted my edit using an edit summary of "citing a RS is not an ad--it's central to Wikipedia."

I strongly recommend you revert your edit. The material was added by an editor who (a) has a username similar to the author of the book and (b) has only edited articles to add mentions of the author's books and links to their Amazon pages. In short, it's apparent that the edits are advertisements for the books. Further, there isn't any argument about the books being especially noteworthy or important so it's not clear why the information should be in any articles anyway. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The statement "Delahanty is part of the Phillies all-time 25-man roster in the John J. Rust book ..." is valuable and useful to readers. The fact that an editor (Rusty) is an authority on the Phillies in my opinion enhances the value of the edit. Our job here is to maximize the value of info we give the reader and erasing such an important bit on info is not a good idea. If a reader buys the book, then that's not a crisis. Chances are the reader is keen on the Phillies. I think the sentence falls inside the Wiki guidelines on "advertising" at WP:PLUG: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.. Rjensen ( talk) 20:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So you're totally okay with a self-published author using Wikipedia to promote his book? Interesting. Let's see what others think. ElKevbo ( talk) 20:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes if they follow the rule: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. from WP:SELFCITE Rusty is an expert on baseball ("as sports director and play-by-play announcer" ) Rjensen ( talk) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're saying Rust is an expert based on his claim of who he is. He's a self published author, and his opinion is no more notable than this self published author who once blogged for Newsweek [5] for a short time. Ed Delahanty was rated the 13th best left fielder in baseball history by best selling author Bill James. Now he is an authority on baseball and that might be worth noting. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Rust is a professional baseball radio announcer--that's what professional expertise is like in baseball. [proof = http://www.kyca.info/staff.html ] Rjensen ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The link you provide says he is sports director at a radio station in Arizona. No proof he is a Philadelphia Phillies expert. Plus all the edits I've checked out of the editor who put this in, are promotions of this author's books. He is an author trying to use wikipedia to promote his books. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You mention SELFCITE. If the book was to be used, the inline citation would be something like found on Bob Baird. The title of the book, publisher, page number. Instead we're given a link to this author's amazon just like with every other link this editor has done. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Kindle Unlimited, I took a look at the book. It is a fan book. The closing pages of which are full of simulated games between the best Phillies team and recent all-star teams or 1950 New York Yankees. That makes it a fan book, not a serious book on baseball history. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your substantive expansion of African-American newspapers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

About this comment - that was very unhelpful as it just causes confusion and isn't accurate.

In my COI work, I come across countless current students, alum, and present employees of universities who want to work on articles about that institution and fill it with all kinds of praise. We even have an essay about this. See WP:BOOSTER. Really - please read it. That essay exists for a reason. I can show you many, many examples of this. And there are people even more experienced than me in COI matters and articles about universities and (ahem) academics who will tell you that this is a very common problem.

Please don't interfere with active discussions at COIN this way. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 04:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

do you own that COIN article??? that's a no-no. Let's see your examples of Wiki ruling that alumni have a COI. As for wp:BOOSTER "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" so don'texaggerate. and there is no undue boosterism involved. Rjensen ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No I don't own COIN. Of course I don't. But you are talking about things you don't understand, and interfering with an ongoing discussion that is delicate. To answer your question, if you read WP:COI, you will find that it says "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, or legal – can trigger a COI.". Jytdog ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're too delicate, and are too reckless and slapping nasty tags on articles Like asking for a speedy delete of IDEA. Rjensen ( talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how the first half and the second half of what you just wrote fit together. About the idea article, I started to trying to make it neutral and figured out I would have to completely rewrite it, as almost all of its sources are SPS and it is completely promotional, even in structure, from the very first sentence of the body, which isn't supported by its source. One of the criteria for WP:G11 is that it would have to be completely rewritten to be neutral. Jytdog ( talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You simply missed the Washington Post and US News coverage of IDEA as a "top 50" American school. Rjensen ( talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not paying attention to the actual deletion rationale. And please do acknowledge that you were incorrect there being no basis for discussing COI with academics. Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 06:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

when you try to delete a long sophisticated article on a major subject you need to have very good reasons explained at length. No "speedy" please. And please give the real reasons not fake cover stories. As for academic conflicts, you need to read some scholarly journals to see how scholars handle conflicts of interest (start with the book reviews). Rjensen ( talk) 06:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I managed COI issues for 15 years in academia, on the ground. I know about it from the real world, not from sitting on my ass reading some book. The article is not sophisticated. I gave a reason that you are still not responding to. Jytdog ( talk) 06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry no-- you're anonymous here at Wikipedia with zero outside credentials. The reasons you gave were poor and not thought out -- you missed the many RS sources. Rjensen ( talk) 06:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

thats true. You are the guy who brought up what I know. In any case, you have burnt this bridge to the ground. I don't regret having helped negotiate the situation at the article about you last month, but I have no desire to interact with you from here out. Jytdog ( talk) 06:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to sincerely thank you for sticking up for me on the IDEA Public Schools Conflict of Interest issue. As a recent editor, I am still getting accustomed to Wikipedia and its rules. I do think it was wrong for this article to be placed under speedy deletion and have a user who keeps on insisting that. Thank you again, I really appreciate all the help! De88 ( talk) 07:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. Rjensen ( talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks to the review (!)... Can you check again and help to simplify the "illustrating" text? Now it is at talk page -- Krauss ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See this [6] report at AN3, which I've removed as malformed and confusingly-attributed, and my response [7]. Mattswest ( talk · contribs) appears to be an account registered by 70.161.173.99 ( talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Wikipedia:Administrators%User:Rjensen reported by User:70.161.173.99 (Result: ). Thank you. 70.161.173.99 ( talk) 03:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP guidelines are not meant to prohibit all mention of living persons. If a statement is well sourced and if that source relies on solid empirical evidence that has not been refuted (and you certainly have not offered refutation in this case), it cannot be deemed "contentious" and be deleted simply because of our own political or partisan allegiances. In this case, you argue that because the cited source does not VERBATIM say "Clinton is a neoliberal," that it constitutes "reading between the lines" and is therefore a contentious statement. But while the cited source does not say so verbatim, it very clearly identifies Clinton as being a neoliberal (the term "neoliberal" or its permutations are used several times, and the policies described in the article clearly locate Clinton within the neoliberal tradition, at least for readers with an elementary grasp of neoliberalism). The cited source does not explicitly label Clinton an imperialist, either (i.e., "Clinton is an imperialist"), but a reader would need to be blind to think that the authors did not consider Clinton an imperialist. You also allege that "no other major RS makes any such allegation." In fact, many sources---at least outside of the corporate media and the ranks of fawning liberal scholars and pundits---do indeed characterize Clinton as a neoliberal (see, among many others, Liza Featherstone's 2016 edited volume "False Choices: The Faux-Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton", published by Verso). In a previous comment, you labeled the neoliberal characterization of Clinton as a "fringe theory"; it is neither theory nor fringe, but an observation about her policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiblioJordan ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

the source used is not academic and it's low quality. see Wiki's article Solidarity (U.S.) which states: Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization in the United States, associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization.... It's a fringe group with fringe views. 3) the source does NOT state that Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal. Indeed the term is scarcely used in this attack piece on Clinton. It accused all American feminism of longstanding embrace of corporate capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia. [p1] that's fringe. it later specifies Clinton in a section entitles Something That Might Have Been Called Neocon. Neocon? The article never states that Hillary is a neoliberal--it even suggests she is a neoconservative. that's poor sourcing for listing her as a neoliberal. Rjensen ( talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm mildly surprised to see you restore the sources I removed. Wikipedia is not responsible for providing a "Further reading" list, and frankly they just add noise to the page. However, I am not aware offhand of a guideline that would let me delete them unilaterally. I would suggest that you remove them, but the fact that you restored them makes me think you see some value in them... Changing the topic, and perhaps more importantly for you, if you are a major contributor to this page, I am surprised that you are not participating in the current FAC.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

in my opinion Further reading is a very useful service for university undergraduates. It is way at the end and will not disturb any casual reader. some titles are quite important--eg vol 2 and 3 of the standard biography by Wiltse and several very useful short bios often found in college libraries (Capers, Current) as well as the recent major academic survey by Wilentz. People who want to read further on Calhoun will find these quite useful--I certainly did. I generally avoid these longwinded discussions on featured articles and feel i can be more useful by adding fresh info. Rjensen ( talk) 05:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK then. I understand your feeling about skipping the blah blah blah, but the talk usually doesn't bother me. I think many productive changes result from FAC. However, I am... wondering... whether the current nominator might benefit from assistance. But your call. If you have any interest in colonial India, I am working very slowly on a very long-term project & would enjoy input. Later  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but that requires access to a big library that has bound volumes I'm stuck here in Montana remote from the University libraries. :( Rjensen ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in India 1850-1950, so let me know if i can help. Rjensen ( talk) 06:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Some sections are too sketchy/preliminary to help, but relevant pages are my sandbox and misc page. The former is the main project. the latter contains bits 'n pieces that might be sprinkled over the main article or else sprinkled into other relevant pages such as Economic history of India or Agriculture in India or Permanent Settlement or whatever. My main project is a POV magnet, so I'm eager to avoid excessive attention from the "Churchill spelled backwards is Satan" crowd. Blame will be mentioned, but not danced over.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked into 1943 a few years back and tumbled into the nasty debate you mentioned. I won't return but i'd be glad to help you if you so daredevil. :) Rjensen ( talk) 06:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

( ←) You have mail. Tks.   Lingzhi ♦  (talk)

• Actually, there's something you can do now, though it's more for Calhoun than for me. :-) Some sources are multiple-volume(e.g. edited by Wilson, edited by Calhoun's relative) and I am having too much tracking down which volume is actually being cited, etc. I'm getting a lot done, but if you could sort out the multi-volume sources, that would be a huge help.. If you want a quick way to make cite book templates, you can use: User:Yunshui/Userbox citeconverter. (There's an alternate for journals using doi that's useful too) Could you doo that? Tks  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I can probably get it done via the Internet, but it's more of a pain in the neck when there are multiple volumes. Thanks anyhow! BTW, I've always imagined that Montana is beautiful in a dusty sort of a way. The only other editor in/from Montana I know is User:Montanabw.Cheers   Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Neoliberalism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 June 2016.

I'm not sure what your intention with this edit was, but it doesn't match the edit summary and it uses the future tense for something that happened in the past. Just wanted to let you know in case you meant to do something different :) Kaldari ( talk) 06:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

oops--my mistake and i just now fixed it. I meant to drop an unsourced statement about a supposed recent event. Rjensen ( talk) 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Neoliberalism, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Where did you hear that Georgia doesn't try to become NATO member anymore? By your edits readers will think that it has stopped its effort in 2008 which is not true. -- g. balaxaZe ? 11:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's rephrased indicate that it is no longer a high priority for NATO. Rjensen ( talk) 12:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BiblioJordan ( talk) 02:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please start a discussion on the talk page regarding the content you're seeking to add to the World War II article? The article currently doesn't have summaries of the contributions of the various countries involved, and I personally don't think that this would be useful - others might have a different view though, of course. I note that you have added identical links to the books concerned to multiple articles. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The CBI theater includes India and it had major theater status. I was moved by a major book review by Tooze in today's Wall Street Journal of the two books and he makes the importance clear. Rjensen ( talk) 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet the material you're edit warring in only has a single sentence on that topic, with most of it being about different things... I'm familiar with those books and have also seen lots of positive reviews of them, but you seem to be intent on shoehorning material concerning them into the article regardless of content, complete with little advertisements for the books. I know from previous contacts with you that you make a habit of stuff like this, and it's really annoying - it sure isn't collaborative editing. I'll start a talk page discussion. Nick-D ( talk) 00:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit you introduced a refname "Oxford" without defining it. Do you remember what it was supposed to be? DuncanHill ( talk) 16:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. My notes are buried somewhere, so I replaced it with a better citation just now: By the 1820s the different Nonconformists, including Wesleyan Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Unitarians, had formed the Committee of Dissenting Deputies and agitated for repeal of the highly restrictive Test and Corporation Acts. ^[1] Rjensen ( talk) 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 21:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Is there any chance that you could provide a link for the source for the Wilson quotation? I understand you changed it from what I originally had, but still think that a link would be helpful. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Election Day (1815) painting by Kimmel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this claim. [8] Reinstating uncommented journalistic opinions about popular nationalism from the 1860s is really problematic. I'm pretty sure you're aware that perceptions of popular nationalism in general have changed quite a bit the past 150 years, to say nothing of how modern historians view the issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies a lot on newspapers as reliable sources, and this analysis looks pretty reasonable. It reflected elite American opinion at the time, which is what readers need to know.--the people in the 1860s were unaware of the views of scholars of 2016. Also it is neutral between the two warring parties. As for recent scholarlship, please add some! Rjensen ( talk) 03:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are never authoritative historical sources in a tertiary source like Wikipedia. That's simply because they're written by journalists, and not historians. That's why works by historians like yourself should be used rather than newspaper articles.

In this case, the article is basically a primary source on current opinions about nationalism. That kind of political analysis isn't relevant after 150 years. I don't see what you're trying to argue here. Either you quote a modern historian regarding this, or you try to contextualize it properly. This edit [9] is just a unreferenced figleaf of an explanation. You seem to be more concerned about keeping the quote than applying even a minimum of critical analysis.

Your view here is also also quite US-centric. The article isn't supposed to provide some sort of balance between the Austrian and Prussian view but a historical analysis. The NYT is not relevant enough to place it as a pure flavor quote to kick off the section on causes of the war. It's just as irrelevant as beginning the section on causes of the American Civil War with a long quote from a French or German newspaper.

I've addressed this issue here and on the talkpage. Please respond to the concerns raised or I'll revert you per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As for the rules we should be following WP:NEWSORG. Your statement "Newspaper articles are never authoritative historical sources " does not follow those guidelines -- you invented that "rule". What we have here is a how contemporaries who were neutral in the war looked at the key issues. That is a relevant primary source regarding elite attitudes at the time, and is introduced that way. I might add that historians of the US Civil War often quote Karl Marx's newspaper stories about it. Rjensen ( talk) 16:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We're in full agreement that newspapers are very relevant sources for understanding historical events. But they are always biased to some degree since they are written by individuals or institutions from their specific perspectives. And they're not historical research but primary resources, which makes a huge difference. We shouldn't use 150-year-old newspaper editorials to source history articles for the same reason we don't use them to reference articles on sociology or physics. Not without a minimum of support in secondary work relating to the topic itself.

And I don't see how this is just something I "made up". It seems like a very logical application of WP:PRIMARY, and caveats like this:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

I don't see how you're actually applying any "care" here, and you're not backing anything up any of your claims with relevant secondary sources about the topic in question.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

you appear to have made the edit “he invented the process by which maps the was separated from crude oil, making oil refining possible” in the Henry Huttleston Rogers article. I am unsuccessfully trying to learn what “maps” refers to. I hope that you can help. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 23:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

well I garbled that one! "maps the" = "naptha" ---what he did was separate naphtha fractions from kerosene and dividing naphtha into its component parts. Rjensen ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I had faith that you'd figure it out. thanks, Carptrash ( talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today, I added "Weasel Word" and "Citation needed" alerts to the text of the page "Economy of India Under The British Raj". You reverted these edits, suggesting they were "vague". I have restored them and added a section to the "Talk" page of the article to show why they are necessary.

If you wish to revert them once more, please could you look at the "Talk" page first and make your comments first before re-editing? May I respectfully remind you that any further re-edit at this stage may breach Wikipedia's three-revert rule (3RR)? Sincerely Hubertgrove ( talk) 10:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss at the article talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing? I'm trying to stem the tide of copyright violations, which are literally pouring in every few seconds. Granted, improper copying within Wikipedia is not quite as serious as the wholesale copying form external sources, but you've been around long enough to know we don;t simply copy material form other Wikipedia articles.

I expect you to help me explain this to newbie Enginerfactories, not subvert me by undoing my removal and incorrectly claiming that the edit summaries were sufficient. It is necessary to identify the source and the fact that you are copying in the edit summary. There was nothing of the sort.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought your statement no copyvio to copy another Wiki article when it is noted in edit summary was claiming that Enginerfactories wasn't committing a copyvio. I missed that you were "curing" it. I still think it deserves the template, especially because the added material is unreferenced (which we ought to discuss - perhaps that should be prohibited).

I see that you commonly copy material form other article with an edit summary in the form of copy ex "source"

Please note per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia that one should include at a minimum

an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution.

Because you are using a non-standard notice, I initially missed what you were doing (in Austria-Hungary) . My apologies for missing it, but if you had met our minimum standards, I would not have missed it.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK  :) The presence of unsourced text is an entirely different issue and can be tagged as ^{citation needed}. Rjensen ( talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Joseph Ruggles Wilson page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you still have the archival source for this? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

yes it's Library of Congress = http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/amss/cw1/cw104040/001q.gif Rjensen ( talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast turn-around Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I put in a temporary 'Scan' as source for some other older uploads of yours, you might want to review Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Donk1837.JPG being one of them. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the links for others you want..Donk1837.JPG is at https://www.loc.gov/collections/american-cartoon-prints/?q=balaam&st=list Rjensen ( talk) 08:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Replying to this... says a simple map or a knowledge of history and geography. There hasn't been a sovereign state of Great Britain since 1801. Since then there's been an island and a sovereign state including that island and all or part of the island of Ireland. So if the reliable sources say that the U.S. only declared war on the island of GB, I'd have to question what they know about the actual declaration, as that says differently. Valenciano ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

the rule is that Wikipedia follows the Reliable Sources, and they strongly prefer "Great Britain." You have not cited ANY RS for your personal interpretation--Look at the bibliography at War of 1812. There never was a country named "United Kingdom" now or then--it's an abbreviated form that historians and RS avoid for 1810 era. Rjensen ( talk) 22:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, I see that you are a really, really prolific editor. Thank you much for your work.

I have a small request for edit summaries changes like Modern Whig Party. Would you please consider adding wikilinks for things like [[WP:Rs|RS]] in the edit summary? Newbies & IP editors will generally have no idea what RS is or how to look it up.

Peaceray ( talk) 15:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea--i will follow up. Rjensen ( talk) 02:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Charles A. Beard page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles A. Beard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Becker. 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) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you edited the etymology of U.S.A. by removing the details about the original letter by Stephen Moylan to J. Reed which has value. I noticed in the talk page you highlighted the aspect of the citation in the original article that talks about G. Washington perhaps being the one who coined the term -- it is clear in the original article that this is mere speculation and that we have primary source evidence that the author of the U.S.A. letter is Stephen Moylan, Esq. This letter is held at the N.Y. Historical Society. Do you think an additional reference from the NY Historical Society concerning this fact would clarify the issue? Thx, Byron — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeLear2012 ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

the cited RS clearly says it was washington's voice. [Whether Washington, Moylan, or even Reed should be credited is somewhat beside the point. In many matters, all three spoke with one voice – the voice of the commander-in-chief of what would become the United States of America.] Moylan was a staff secretary and took dictation from George Washington, then wrote out GW's letters and orders. Rjensen ( talk) 08:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1000 percent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000 percent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  13:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Francis Osborne, 5th Duke of Leeds

added a link pointing to Jeremy Black

History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom

added a link pointing to Treaty of Paris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not an issue of how they self identified, but more of an issue of how they were identified by the US government. I don't know how 3/5ths of a person can be a citizen. To call them African Americans at the time of slavery would be misnomer of fact.

Hi there. This edit got me thinking. Workers on pre-Civil War plantations were Africans, not Americans. Many fled America when they had the chance, to Canada or even back to Africa (eg. Liberia). Later generations were Americans, though I doubt any first generation slaves would call themselves Americans. I may open this up on the Mississippi talk page. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

very few indeed fled Mississippi (look at a map--that escape would be a miracle). the AM Colonization Society tried to resettle free blacks in Liberia, but the great majority refused to go--they had a tie to America, not to Africa. As for "first generation" I think most of those in Mississippi came from states to the east not from Africa. Rjensen ( talk) 03:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this may not be something you had in interest in, but very slowly Wikisource was transcribing Cassell's Illustrated History, which goes up to around the early 1870's.

I was considering asking if there was anyone on Wikipedia that felt confident in writing a "tenth" volume to continue the History up to 1918 (roughly 100 years ago). Your name was on my list, (and thank you for your efforts on the Coall mining articles which I didn't thank you for previously.)

Also What would you consider the major themes in the history of this period? ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the invite but I'll pass on that one. The major themes that interest me for that period are politics (biographies) and diplomacy, but there exists a lot of good coverage of social & economic history. Rjensen ( talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen, you reverted my deletion of the section Origin of the term with the comment "keep fully sourced history of the term (later sections deal with the concept but not the term)". It is rather unclear what the distinction between the term and the concept is but two things are clear, one is that the contents of each are largely repeated and the other is that they actually conflict. The origin of the term is integral to its history anyway, the term can only be understood in the history of its development. It would be better if we did away with one or other of the sections and integrated them under History, or a better heading if you prefer. The whole article has grown in a rather incoherent way, it would be helpful if we could cull out a great deal of it and tried to get some discipline into the structure. I suggest that we retain the History, starting with the origin of the term in de Tocqueville, any content considered to be of value that is unique to Origin of therm can be retained within History, but actually there is almost none in there. The other thing I tried to do was to make History a history, and that was already developing as a timeline with dates but I note that Post War development - 1945-1999 has been replaced with Uniqueness, which seems to be introducing a random conceptual idea into what is otherwise a chronology. You can probably do a better job of it than than I did but I would ask you to reconsider the wholesale reinstatement of Origin of the term on the basis that it is redundant. E x nihil ^{( talk)} 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

it's a bad idea to erase fully sourced uncontroversial material. Wikipedia articles do grow like topsy--there is no masterplan. Narrative history and biography can work on straight chronological terms but this sort of conceptual article can be problematic. The section on " 1945-1999" was misnamed and badly done--Ross was including ideas from the 19th century (post- Millenialism is 19th century and does NOT say it applies only to the USA; Germanic origins idea = late 19th eg Herbert B Adams--it's the opposite of exceptionalism since he held that all Germanic nations were covered). The section really talked about a related issue (uniqueness) so I revised it accordingly. the term was a mainstay of Marxism for many years (1920s-1940s). Rjensen ( talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Hatnote?. Hi Rjensen. Should we include a hatnote above the lede at Margaret Thatcher for The Iron Lady redirect? -- Neve – selbert 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback on my recent edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to help clean up the Lend-lease article, portions of which seem to be the result of typical internet feuding re:WWII. The recent scholarly works of Glantz and others in opening the Soviet archives have provided new source material I'd like to use in updating some of the article. I'm not sure how best to go about this and would appreciate any guidance you could provide. Thanks again. Level3Sentry ( talk) 00:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks. I would encourage you to add new material. do it a few sentences at a time and watch how other editors react.  :) Rjensen ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Earlier this summer I proposed article updates for advertising holding company MDC Partners that I researched and wrote. The new material I suggested to the Talk page has been partially implemented—but the editor I was working with has not been back to further discuss the rest of the changes. I'm reaching out to see if you'd be interested in reviewing because you are listed as a member of Wikiproject Marketing & Advertising. As a full disclosure, I have a financial conflict of interest and created the draft on behalf of MDC Partners (though I aimed to remain neutral and used independent sourcing). I won't make changes myself and am very open to feedback! Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the invite but I don't work on paid projects. Rjensen ( talk) 20:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you! Heatherer ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You should have received an email about Edinburgh access - if you're still interested, could you please complete the linked form? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok I just now completed it. thanks for your great work! Rjensen ( talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion about whether Japan surrender unconditionally in the talk page of World War II. I guess you can give some professional comments as a historian in modern history area. LelouchEdward ( talk) 00:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'll pass on this one. Rjensen ( talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Turns out LelouchEdward was a sock. I don't know what their longterm plan was but be advised. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Richard, your input on the editorial quality of the First Transcontinental Railroad article is needed here. Thanks. — btphelps ^{( talk to me) ( what I've done)} 21:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully support your objectives on Charles XII and think we should work together to get a sensible outcome on this. I can see that all the familiar homophobes are already being attracted to the discussion so we should get smart about how to handle this. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the article should state that numerous scholars have identified Charles as such. Rjensen ( talk) 09:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've put together some text now and inserted it into the article. Take a look and see what you think - and where necessary let's add references in. regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 13:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

very well done! Rjensen ( talk) 13:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_United_States_public_debt&type=revision&diff=743069279&oldid=741384339

FYI, your edit was replaced by an anonymous poster on 10/7/16 with numbers that seem inconsistent with the rest of the table (Bush's end value of 84% does not match Obama's start value of 88%) and the delta is incorrect (112 - 88 = 24, not 21). Finally, the 112% gdp figure needs a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.27.16 ( talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up! i reverted the unsourced change made by someone with no prior interest in the topic. Rjensen ( talk) 05:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, I guess you've read the earlier section. For me (until now) the WAPO was the trustworthiest newspaper, but now I'm stunned. They're going all out (including fifth column allegations) against their target. No sophistication anymore. What will be the end of it? -- Fb8cont ( talk) 12:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

too much coverage of politics? 2016 is not a good year for sophisticates. Rjensen ( talk) 13:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

For CNN or Foxnews it would be normal mode, but I thought the Washington Post would be different. Not anymore and that's sad. -- Fb8cont ( talk) 18:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And it's even worse. It's anti-Greenwald and anti-Snowden (see washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer) and it's blatantly anti-Sanders (see washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours) and now the current stuff including McCarthyism (see the deleted "Letter to the editor" section on today's WAPO talk page). -- Fb8cont ( talk) 19:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The picture of WAPO's June 8 print edition in The Washington Post article is spot-on what WAPO's editorial line seems to be now. -- Fb8cont ( talk) 12:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm reverting again. Please discuss at the Wikiproject level, as there is clearly no consensus in any of the articles for your additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're outnumbered -- the authors & me versus your deletionism and strange idea that having tens of thousands of names would be useful. Rjensen ( talk) 19:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

He was older then his British predecessors (Anne & George I), too. GoodDay ( talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give History of French newspapers a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 21:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

many thanks for the tip and help. Rjensen ( talk) 01:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Some extraneous verbiage ("Pierce she"?) appears to have crept into the quotation you added to the George Mosse article: "as a teacher and scholar, George Mosse has posed challenging questions about what it means to be an intellectual engaged in the world. The central problem Mosse has examined throughout his career is: how do intellectuals relate their ideas to reality or to alternative views of that reality?... Mosse has chosen to focus on intellectuals and the movements with which they were often connected to their most intemperate.... For Mosse the role of the historian is one of political engagement; Pierce she must delineate the connections (and disconnections) between myth and reality." Could you please check this? -- Jdsteakley ( talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

you have a very sharp eye! there were several small typos that I fixed....[he or she must delineate...] Rjensen ( talk) 15:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You undid my Wiktionary link but left the word surreptitiously in place. If they were built openly then surreptitiously should be removed as well. Slight Smile 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks--i'll fix it. Rjensen ( talk) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please use the talk page.

Your recent editing history at Conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been using the talk page. Jytdog is just erasing entirely new material without explaining his actions on the talk page. Rjensen ( talk) 21:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You copied this onto my talk page in this dif. Weird. Please discuss on the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove well-referenced material which has been through a peer review just because you do not like it. Please instead discuss in talk towards a consensus. Thank you. -- John ( talk) 22:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been discussing it on the talk page. The comment on Australia is falsely presented as if she made it regarding Britain while she was Prime Minister. Rjensen ( talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but we can leave that one for now. How about your source: "Mark Mitchell and Dave Russell, "Race, the new right and state policy in Britain." Immigrants & Minorities 8#1-2 (1989): 175-190." Is it verifiable? -- John ( talk) 23:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

yes. this is a major scholarly journal see table of contents. see for 1989 special issue table of contents.. see for the author; the actual article is online and any library can get it for you free Rjensen ( talk) 01:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Rjenson - Do not re-add the sentence advertising Brad Delong's opinion without expanding your reading list. According to your talk page, you supposedly have a PhD in theology (I am not saying you do or you don't -- just saying anyone could type anything in their autobiography). Being a PhD in theology, you are not an expert in all religions; perhaps you might know a lot about some religions. But people who specialize their entire life on one single religion do not claim to know everything about that one religion. The Judaeo-Christian religions (and probably others) teach the importance of humility and recognizing that God knows everything, but we humans do not.

The paragraph under the Harry Dexter White article is about economics and fiscal policy, it is not about theology. Just because YOU personally haven't read any other economic schools of thought does not mean those other schools do not exist. It means you are poorly read on the subject of economics. Other49states ( talk) 14:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

PS -- if you really are a professor at Yale University, would you mind getting your employer to pay its fair share of taxes in Connecticut? Or maybe just start paying some property taxes in New Haven? Yale is the largest land holder in New Haven, the largest employer, and yet it pays ZERO taxes toward the endless expenses it causes the city and state. Massachusetts universities have been making voluntary contributions to help cover their costs to the state for more than a decade.

for my bio see Richard J. Jensen -- I was never a Yale professor (though I was a Harvard professor). I did PhD work in economics at Yale. If there are other schools of thought about Bretton Woods, please ADD them. I think you are mixing up with Keynesianism (a different topic) --the Wiki POV rules require that major schools of thought be represented and not deleted. Rjensen ( talk) 01:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I saw you reverted my changes to a number of economist associations. I didn't see any explanations except for one saying "citation to article in scholarly journal is not advertising." I agree generally, except in this case the wikipedia user has been systematically inserting references to articles in Econ Journal Watch into articles, where they are tangentially relevant at best. The lines the user inserts do little to add content other than to send readers to the article inserted, and so I'd consider that relevant to WP:PROMOTIONAL. I have undone your reversions but happy to talk more. WeakTrain ( talk) 19:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

To be even more precise, if there was contextualization of the survey in the article, rather than just an inserted reference, it would be one thing, but that's not what this is. The survey referenced is low quality, in any case. WeakTrain ( talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you find another source that states that the scandal was the first American political sex scandal? Otherwise you'll have to show that the Master's thesis you used as a source has had "significant scholarly influence" before it can be considered a reliable source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Meters ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

any high school student can find it using google in one minute. You should learn how to help out by finding sources instead of erasing good material. Richard Brookhiser (2011). Alexander Hamilton, American. p. 3. Rjensen ( talk) 04:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a reliable source, but you might like to read WP:NPA. It's not up to me to source your content for you, and it's not appropriate to comment on editors rather than on edits. I justifiably removed it, and politely explained why rather than giving you a warning. I removed the thesis again, though. You have provided a reliable source, but there is nothing to show that the thesis has had "significant scholarly influence" and so it cannot be considered a reliable source, as I already pointed out. Meters ( talk) 04:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

instead of making a big deal about a tiny problem you could learn how to fix it in 30 seconds. The thesis does not have to be a standard reliable source to be cited. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." In this case your proper action was NOT to erase good material but to add a RS or to ask for a better citation. Here's how: type "sex scandal" hamilton in google and get over 1000 cites in a few seconds, then select the most useful RS. Rjensen ( talk) 04:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Next time I'll just template you. Meters ( talk) 05:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: ^{citation needed} works--and shifts the work to someone else. Rjensen ( talk) 05:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alexander Hamilton, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. It dosn't need a citation needed. It is not a reliable source, as has already been pointed out to you twice. You have added this citation three times now. Take it to the talk page or leave it alone. Meters ( talk) 05:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a RS for the content. I added also a non-RS source that is allowed by Wiki rules: "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources.... You also help users find additional information on the subject." that is there is no wiki rule that non-RS cannot be included in addition to RS. Rjensen ( talk) 05:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I challenged the use of this thesis as a reliable source. It's not there to help readers find additional information, particularly since it would be very difficult for most readers to obtain a copy. Was this Master's thesis even published outside of the university in question?

If you can show that it meets the requirements of a reliable source I have no objection to you adding it. PhD theses are generally not used if there is a better source, and Master's theses are only used in exceptional cases. I accepted the published source you added, so I don't see any reason for you to go to the effort of justifying the use of this thesis , but it's up to you. More on the article's talk page. Meters ( talk) 06:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling all editors to form a consensus on the lead image at John Quincy Adams. First posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. YoPienso ( talk) 23:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

You just made some edits to the terminology section of nationalism page without explaining why. Your first change was to remove some of the information about the word 'nation' and to replace a reference to the modern period with 'before 1800'. I can see why you made this change, as the sentence was a bit vague, but the Hobsbawm source for this sentence doesn't actually say 'before 1800'. In fact it refers to 1884. I agree this sentence needs to be improved (I used a reference to 'modernity' to try and avoid a specific date), but I don't think mentioning 1800 specifically, when that's not mentioned in the source, is the way to do it.

For the second part of the sentence, you removed a well sourced statement about the development of the word nationalism, referring to autonomy and self determination, and Herder and Baurrel, and replaced it with a less informative sentence referring to Norman Rich, and then a sentence about Glenda Sluga that is irrelevant to 'terminology'. I don't think this is an improvement at all. Could you explain what you thought was wrong with the previous sentence and how this one is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabandalone ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to separate terminology and history. As for terms "nation" is another article and can be kept short here. As for Herder I added better info on him--he coined the term but he did not actually approve of nationalism say the RS, so the old text was wrong. Rich is explicit on when the term is most important. As for 1884 --we should drop that ref to Hobsbawm because his 1884 is the date of the first Spanish dictionary to include the Spanish version of nationalism--a very small point indeed. Actually Hobsbawm starts in 1780--most scholars focus on and around 1800 plus or minus 10 - 20 years as the examples of US, France Britain and Germany show. France emphasizes 1790s. Augustin Barruel was the first Frenchman to use the term in passing but he was not a major contributor to the concept, or at least his biographers don't make much of it. Sluga stresses the reaction against nationalism in 1920s so that's new info for the article.

I agree the Hobsbawm reference was a bit awkward so I'm ok with that being removed. However I want to alter some of your other removals to the terminology section unless you can say why not.

* You removed the Oksanen reference and left only the Gat reference for the relevant sentence, I don't see why this is.

* The bit about Herder and Barrel is about the origins of the terminology, why does it matter what they thought about nationalism or how important they were?

* As far as I'm aware, the 'See Norman Rich...' isn't proper wikipedia referencing technique?

* The Sluga reference may be relevant to the article, but it's not relevant to the terminology section, so it should be moved somewhere else.

Mabandalone ( talk) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I took your advice & have now fixed the Norman Rich item. I also clarified the Sluga ref-- she is talking about terminology so I think it fits. Herder is especially important and is covered in all the RS, which all emphasize that he did not like the phenomenon he is naming. The RS all think that's an important point and I agree. The original text said Herder was "the prophet of a form of this new creed [etc]" --that is highly misleading or false because readers will think he favored nationalism & he did not. Augustin Barruel was indeed the first Frenchman to use the term but it was in an offhand way and he did not have any real influence on its usage--he just takes up space. Students will waste their time memorizing his mini-role. Oksanen, (2012). Flanders and the Anglo-Norman World, 1066–1216. is hundreds of years too early --he has a sentence on nationalism??--so I can't see it's needed when Gat's major book handles the issue well. We could also cite Anthony Smith here. Rjensen ( talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr Jensen,

You recently edited the sex in advertising page. We've been asked to edit that page for a university project, and we added several changes to that page. Thank you for removing the part you did and giving a reason, it obviously will help the page and thats what matters! We were wondering if you had any other ideas about what can be done to improve that page further?

Kind regards Tmase1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmase1 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. I'll keep watch  :) Rjensen ( talk) 17:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the part of the article about Martin Frobisher, as I thought that was a severely warped interpretation of history based on little more than insecure anti-Americanism (though I was willing to allow that plurality of opinion for the judgment of the reader).

Dates & specific locations, of the Plymouth Thanksgiving, the French-Indian War, the specific town birthplaces of Philemon Wright & Laura Secord in Massachusetts, were based on the Wikipedia articles on these subjects. I could not find any United Empire Loyalists of any particular significance from Massachusetts, so I left that part out, even though they are the, "original without a modifier", of what an English-Canadian is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Prickett ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My impression reading Dictionary of Canadian biography is that a lot of prominent loyalists came from Boston area, but ordinary people did as well. Surely there is a statistical study of the origins of UEL people. A glance at Ontarian Families: Genealogies of United-empire-loyalists shows only a few from Massachusetts. A longer list of those who left Boston in 1776 is in The Loyalists of Massachusetts by James Henry Stark p 133-36 give n= 926. and he has 350pp of biographies. see https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jkgSAAAAYAAJ Rjensen ( talk) 23:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to see that there really isn't a classification about white privilege being real or not. I wonder if white supremacy makes people not think its real Shantalaleman ( talk) 01:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude, that's a load of bull! Lincoln was pro-big government. He lived at a time when the "classical liberal" party was the Democrats and the big-government parties were the Whigs and Republicans. p b p 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

are you arguing with the experts??--you seem to lack reliable sources like Guelzo. Try this line of thought: Lincoln was a "classical liberal democrat—an enemy of artificial hierarchy, a friend to trade and business as ennobling and enabling, and an American counterpart to Mill, Cobden, and Bright (whose portrait Lincoln hung in his White House office)."Joseph R. Fornieri; Sara Vaughn Gabbard (2008). Lincoln's America: 1809 - 1865. SIU Press. p. 19. Rjensen ( talk) 01:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of those things you mention in the quote either a) aren't in line with what classical liberalism is, and/or b) aren't in line with what the Whig and Republican parties of Lincoln represent. (Lincoln as a solid Whig and Republican is easily sourceable from Foner's Free Soil, Free Man) p b p 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

what reliable secondary sources are you using here? Mill Cobden & Bright seem pretty good examples of classical liberalism. Rjensen ( talk) 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Foner. p b p 04:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read some Eric Foner but don't recall him talking about that. Can you give us a quote from Foner? Rjensen ( talk) 04:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jensen, in many ways citing that Lincoln isn't a classical liberal is like citing that the sky is blue. You are defending the premise that he is on the basis of a few scholars that don't represent the consensus on Lincoln's political philosophy. You're also failing to acknowledge that anyone who calls Lincoln a classical liberal is implying a significant break by Lincoln from the interventionist views of the Whig and Republican parties of his time. p b p 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have zero support from the RS. I can't find any statement by Foner about Lincoln not being a classical liberal. Rjensen ( talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a challenge for you: find me something that says the Whig Party in general supported classical liberalism. Because they didn't; they were clearly a party of economic interventionism in the form of high tariffs and massive government investment in infrastructure. And Foner in Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men makes it clear that Lincoln was Whiggish in economic policy, even after the Whigs folded into the Republican party. You may have sources, but I still maintain that they don't represent the breadth of scholarship on the issue. p b p 17:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

ok here: 1) Louis Hartz said 19th century US politics was based on liberalism in his famous book The Liberal Tradition in America,: "Here there are no aristocracies to fight, and ...the keystone was democratic capitalism. This idea was rooted in the later history of the American Whig Party." 2) "A more common understanding of the Republican party (though less often of the Whig party) is to be found within the broad rubric of liberalism." [John Gerring Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996 (2001) p 117. 3) Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues: "at the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers" Kathleen G. Donohue (2005). Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 2. Rjensen ( talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful on the ANI talk page. You accidentally removed Jennica's and my comments on another discussion, so I've reverted your edit. Just thought you should know. Erick ( talk) 01:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

oops--apologies! Rjensen ( talk) 02:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you tried to remove a citation, asserting that the source is unreliable. But I think the article still contains one or more citations to that source. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks for the heads up. i'll look into it now. I deleted the bibliog entry but left a footnote that is pretty straight-forward. Rjensen ( talk) 05:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Liberal Toryism. Since you had some involvement with the Liberal Toryism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Nevé – selbert 01:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I restored the phrase "thus joining the present federal Union of states" which you had deleted from List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. It is true that "the US of A was formed in 1776", as you said in your edit summary. However, prior to 1787, the USA was a confederation, not a federal union. Thanks for your ongoing contributions to making this a great encyclopedia! YBG ( talk) 02:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"federal union of states" ??? that's an informal & unofficial term not used in law or constitution. Rjensen ( talk) 02:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

But isn't the distinction between a "federal union" and a "confederation" relatively clear? YBG ( talk) 02:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

nope. What we have in 2016 is quite different I think than 1816. Rjensen ( talk) 04:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, could you give a hand on this article's lede? Taking it on strides. I already made a request for help in the talk page. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador  ^? 22:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

you might take a look at https://muse.jhu.edu/article/613293/summary and also https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC9_DQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA57&dq=slavery+spanish+colonies&ots=ZBo0eqOldT&sig=dVVp9KtLPXxTaSNDCfMY-9b7jis#v=onepage&q=slavery%20spanish%20colonies&f=false Rjensen ( talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for calling attention to Fischer's review and Tomich's book. I will find a way to include it in the article (as well as in other works), if you don't do it first. I would appreciate your views about the way the lede encapsulates, not what the article currently is, but what it should be. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador  ^? 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Would you please consider commenting on these move discussions? The former is about whether Gladstone should redirect to William Ewart Gladstone, and the latter is whether D'Israeli should redirect to Benjamin Disraeli as {{ R from alternative spelling}}. Thank-you.-- Nevé – selbert 07:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia hates experts and believes any yahoo off the street is better than you. If there are 2 yahoos off the street, they can claim consensus against your informed opinion. Still, I value your opinion.

Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Presidents and see if you have any advice for the RFC since you are a historian, frequent Wikipedia writer, and smart person.

Basically, the RFC writer wants to know if all Presidents should not be called "politician" in the introductory paragraph. Some Trump people in Wikipedia think all presidents are politicians are should be, even George Washington.

My opinion is uncertain. I don't know. Lakeshake ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2016 (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.