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 28.

the latest archive is Archive 28 as of 14 Feb 2017

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 Roaring Twenties 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) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of the "Military Production During WWII" Was not vandalism, and I am hardly new, just not logged into my account because it's a new device. I removed all 10,000 words because the article had numerous issues, with absolutely no citations or sources. The values are ridiculous, Germany did not have 1.5 Million Naval personal, the table only lists them as having just over 2,000 ships, how do you fit 1.5 million people on 2000 ships? . Also, Germany has 21 Million combat personal and only 0.3 million labourers? Whilst the UK has 14 Million combat personal and 14 million labourers?

Look, 90% of the values were empty, none of them had sources, and half of the values that were included are beyond nonsensical. Deleting the article was not vandalism, it was an attempt to reset an article so as to encourage users to rebuild it from the start with actual values, from actual sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.109.221 ( talk) 11:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

when you sign in anonymously you lose all credibility. The only specific complaint is re size of Germany Navy. Deer & Foot, Oxford Companion (p 468 citing Overy) gives 810,000 on duty in 1944--add in losses (185,000 p 469). that's a million right there, not counting turnover. You give no estimate and no RS, which is a serious defect in your argument. Erase an entire major article again and you risk getting blocked for vandalism Rjensen ( talk) 12:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your recent edit. We do need to acknowledge the Labor government's ideological antecedents somewhere. However, that earlier statement, which you've revised, was sourced to a British writer, not to Indian nationalist historians, and it didn't say that Attlee was driven to decolonize by the mutinies, only that he was spurred into taking action (or words to that effect). You might want to leave out the "Indian nationalist" bit because it sounds like an opinion (though one I more or less agree with). Attlee, I believe, made his first implicit support of dominion status in the House of Commons in 1931. See a post on Wikipedia which I am copying below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Attlee was one of the early backers of India's independence, long before WW2. He had gone to India for the first time in 1928. He revisited for many months with his wife in 1929. On 25 November 1931, Attlee spoke in the House of Commons: ‘we in this party stand for India’s control of her own affairs ... our position is that India, as has been said, must be allowed to make her own mistakes." (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 416, 25 November 1931.)

(From: Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (2012). Attlee, A Political Biography, IB Tauris B.) "If Attlee’s interest in India had been peripheral prior to the Simon Commission, it had now become central to his political aims. On 2 December 1931, Attlee spoke in a debate on the government’s policy on India after the second ‘Round Table Conference’, which Gandhi attended after agreeing to call off his campaign of civil disobedience in a deal with the viceroy, Lord Irwin. The prime minister opened the debate, with Attlee making the second speech on the problems of India: ‘On their successful solution depends not only the future ... of ... people in India, not only the future of our own country, but ... the future of the world. I believe the solution of the questions between Europe and Asia will depend very largely on what is done.’ (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 1118, 2 December 1931.)"

That speech was prophetic, for the independence of India was followed by widespread British decolonization (Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Guyana, the West Indies, ...) in the following decades. Attlee was a socialist, responsible for creating Britain's National Health Service, post-WW2 nationalizations, and other welfare policies. Moreover, like Gandhi, he was much influenced by Ruskin's Unto This Last. He had been committed to decolonization in India for a full 16 years before 1947. Very little chance he would have attributed Britain's decision to decolonize to these last minute additions to the mix. He may have listed those as the reasons to hurry decolonization and to set a firm date for the transfer of power, but that is hardly the reason why the British left India. It is at best one of the reasons (along with Britain's depleted post-war economy, Direct Action Day and the prospects of more Hindu-Muslim violence, ...) why the British left India in a hurry. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement here. The mutiny was strongly opposed by the Raj and by Congress but was strongly supported by CP India, which I think still wants to claim credit. I will revise a bit. Rjensen ( talk) 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) & MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Everyone in the coalition had a party bias, that was part of the problem! But more seriously, why do you wish to conceal from readers the fact that he was a Conservative politician? DuncanHill ( talk) 01:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

no concealment --everyone can read his own page. He was a very good dedicated historian with no political activities of the usual sort. he was elected for Oxford and that happened in 1917 after the 1915 event. His analysis is straight history and not in any way partisan or controversial. (I read it carefully). Rjensen ( talk) 03:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To say "no political activities of the usual sort." is bizarre. He was first a Tory candidate in 1885. As Lawrence Goldman in the ODNB says:

"Marriott had been adopted as a Conservative parliamentary candidate for East St Pancras in 1885, though he subsequently withdrew his candidacy. In the following year he was defeated in the general election as Conservative candidate for Rochdale. In 1914 he was defeated in a contest for the Conservative candidacy for the vacant Oxford University seat in parliament. But in March 1917 he was elected unopposed as Conservative MP for Oxford City, a beneficiary of the party-political truce under the wartime coalition. He was re-elected in the ‘coupon’ election of 1918, but defeated by the Liberal candidate in the general election of 1922. He returned to the Commons after the general election of 1923 as MP for York. There he was defeated in 1929 by a Labour candidate, and retired from active politics."

So a history of Conservative candidature, preceding the wartime truce. The ODNB also notes that his political views impacted his performance as secretary of the Oxford Extension Delegacy, from 1895:

"In 1895 Marriott succeeded Sadler as secretary of the Oxford extension delegacy, a position he only relinquished in 1920. Despite a slightly pompous exterior, he had a capacity for friendship, and was held in high regard by the lecturers he recruited. Marriott was more comfortable lecturing in county towns than in working-class communities. As a Conservative he was in a minority among the many extension lecturers who held progressive sympathies. This was inconsequential until the coincidence of two developments in the Edwardian period: the growth of a movement specifically for workers' education, and Marriott's growing commitment to politics. The foundation in 1903 of the Workers' Educational Association, and its development, in association with Oxford, of the first university tutorial classes, taught in 1908 by R. H. Tawney, not only undermined Marriott's position in the extension delegacy, but was opposed by him because intrinsically partisan. This led to his isolation, and Oxford's tutorial classes committee was established in independence of the existing extension administration. Marriott contributed to this isolation by presenting his political views in Conservative journals. Although sympathetic to the education of working people, he deprecated trade union activism, the growth of socialism, and measures after 1908 for public welfare. He was regarded by some students as ‘an obscurantist and reactionary’ (J. Marriott, 139) and his influence diminished. From 1910 he turned towards national affairs, especially maintenance of the union with Ireland."

So, a history of active partisan engagement, and his political positions affecting his work at Oxford. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

the issue is the paragraph that is quoted, and none of your sources mentions any problem. You have not identified any problem with it. it reflects the unanimous consensus of scholars. it in no way supports Conservative partisanship -- all historians in fact give Lloyd George the chief credit. As for the Labour Party it's not at issue here but you should read pp 376-77 also p 159 Rjensen ( talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

What? Is that a reply to someone else? The paragraphs I have quoted show 1) long history of active Conservativism, and 2) political problems at Oxford related to, amongst other things, "[his] growing commitment to politics" and "presenting his political views in Conservative journals". I didn't mention the Labour Party, except in quoting his defeat in 1929. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, as you seem to be struggling to understand. I have not objected to the paragraph about the Munitions Act, what I have objected to is your removal of the information that he was a Conservative politician. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

no the issue is your unfounded assumption that if a scholar runs for office as a Conservative then he is an enemy of the Liberal party and cannot be trusted. No RS makes that suggestion so Wiki should not make it. Do you see a political bias in the Wiki statement that derives from Marriott's Conservative party support? I simply do not see it. If there is a mis-characterization in the article please specify what it is. I do not see any problem nor any pro-Conservative-party partisanship. Marriott gives Liberal Lloyd George the major credit as do all RS I have looked at such as Gilbert, Gibbs, Taylor, & Medlicott. Rjensen ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I made no such assumption and said nothing that could be construed by a rational person to suggest that I did. As I said above, I do not object to the paragraph. If I had, I would have removed it from some, at least, of the articles you have added it to. Marriott was both a historian and a politician, and was active politically in the time he was writing about here. I did not suggest he could not be trusted, and I did not suggest any bias in that paragraph. Where I do see bias in is your selective use of facts about the writers you promote on Wikipedia, and your blatant ignorance about Marriott's political activities "no political activities of the usual sort"? Active in Conservative undergraduate society, selected as candidate, stood in elections, if these are not "political activities of the usual sort" then what is? Did you say that knowing it to be untrue or did you simply not know what you were talking about? DuncanHill ( talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

so you see no political bias in Marriott's statement. good. Now what have you discovered about the other scholars used in the article? And by the way, what are YOUR political beliefs? Rjensen ( talk) 17:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you make a blatantly untrue statement about Marriott's political activities? DuncanHill ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marriott "retired from active politics" in 1929, and then wrote six books [The crisis of English liberty; a history of the Stuart monarchy and the Puritan revolution (1930); Makers of Modern Italy: Napoleon-Mussolini, 1931; The English in India: A Problem of Politics, 1932; The life of John Colet (1933); Oxford: its place in national history (1933); Queen Victoria and her ministers 1933] and finally the book in question in 1934. He revised it in the 1940s. all this during retirement from active politics. Rjensen ( talk) 18:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And magically all possibility of him expressing, consciously or unconsciously, any bias or preference for the party of which he had been an active member for all his adult life, or for the attitudes and assumptions which underlay that activism, fell away. Oh dear. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In retirement he hid his previous biases so brilliantly that even a highly aggressive enemy a century later could not detect any. That's very impressive. Rjensen ( talk) 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't hide your biases quite as well. Who is this "highly aggressive enemy" of whom you talk? DuncanHill ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

let the readers calculate--no need for me to do all the work for them. Rjensen ( talk) 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've not made any aggressive comments about or against Marriott, either as a historian or as a politician. I've not suggested any bias on his part, despite your repeated dishonest claims above. I've not lied about his political involvement as you have, and I've not tried to misrepresent his life and works in the way that you have. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

actually all you've done is make a few minor little edits. The problem is that you have not studied the Munitions Act closely. Rjensen ( talk) 18:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you ignore the issue. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there are some WP:Discretionary sanctions (DS) foreseen for American politics pages such as the Democrat Party (epithet) talk page. So please stop insulting me on that page. I'm trying to help. WP:AGF. If you continue to insult me I'll ask an admin to step in and apply DS. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

i think your complaints were out of bounds. And acting on them before discussion was also out of bounds. Note that YOU suggested I post the quotation in question and I did so immediately. It is in a very wiki-like tone. Rjensen ( talk) 07:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag you placed on the Thomas J. Kirkpatrick article I added, not because I've subsequently received a barnstar and it's military history month (and Kirkpatrick did organize and become captain of Confederate volunteers), but because I believe any elected Virginia state senator by definition meets wikipedia's notability guideline, as I noted on that article's talk page. If you disagree, perhaps you should contribute to the discussion on my talk page concerning our Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868 project--Fitzpatrick's term as state senator was as a result of it. Jweaver28 ( talk) 00:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, but the text remains (without any wikilinks). I was just wikilinking and adding section header. Someone else must have added the content. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 08:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to argue that coverage of Trump then a article on conservatism is highly problematic: needs strong, reliable sources. Rjensen ( talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Kindly visit and skim User talk:Rævhuld. He was once served ANI notice for this strange issue. Thanks a lot. — usernamekiran ( talk) 09:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at his JFK edit and think it's inside the bounds here, but I disagree with including it. The quote has been repeated in lots of conspiracy books about kennedy but the Kennedy biographers do not use it. No one knows when, where, why or to whom JFK supposedly spoke it. Rjensen ( talk) 09:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• yes, I totally agree with you regarding JFK issue. But did you see his talk page? This guy is really strange. Anyways.

I saw your profile sir. And I feel myself lucky n honoured to have met you. My background is of computer science, but I've passion for history, and I consider myself sort of "computer historian". :-D Your work on wiki, and off wiki is amazing! — usernamekiran ( talk) 10:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I mean, he created that profile thoughtfully. The user name. And he is not exactly vandalising, but creating disturbances. — usernamekiran ( talk) 11:22, 10 March 2017 (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.

Great Depression

added a link pointing to National government

Interwar Britain

added a link pointing to National government

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Rjensen, I see what your trying to do re: coalition and alliances. Unfortunately the body of the map states alliance. There is no alliance between Russia and Serbia. Without understanding this you cannot understand how the first world war started. Personally I dont think coalition helps as it suggests a formal alliance. "Alignment" would work, but would need to be changed in the body of the map as well as the descriptor. Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"coalition" does not suggest a formal alliance. Rjensen ( talk) 09:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would make two points, Serbia is not in a coalition with Russia in July 1914. Secondly, even allowing for disagreement on the first point, your solution to replace alliances with coalition does not effect the body of the map, which therefore remains inaccurate. Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

on point 2, we need a map and it's very hard to make a perfect one--or use one in copyright. On point 1, what is a better term? the RS use the term: 1) See Nick Shepley (2015) "Russians were building a coalition in the Balkans and were looking to dismember the Austro-Hungarian Empire" 2) David MacKenzie, ?Michael W. Curran - 2002: "The Central Powers (Germany and Austria- Hungary) now faced a coalition of Serbia, Russia, France, and England." 3) Tucker, World War I: The Definitive Encyclopedia says "the Serbian ally Russia"; 4) Norman Rich - 1992 -"The Russians had long sought to form a coalition of Balkan states" Rjensen ( talk) 09:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say that this map is better and is available Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Also,Ponting, Clive (2002). Thirteen Days: The Road to the First World War. Chatto & Windus. ISBN  978-0-7011-7293-0."Russia had no treaty of alliance with Serbia and was under no obligation to support it diplomatically, let alone go to its defence". Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

a) Indeed Russia had no alliance with Serbia but as A-H complained, they were working in coalition with each other. b) The diagram is useful but it has near-zero geography, a key ingredient of maps. For example, one of the biggest problems for the Allies was the geographical disconnect with Russia very far away from UK and France--but the diagram shows them all very close. 1) Wm Mulligan 2010: "Austro-Hungarian leaders recognised that war against Serbia would almost certainly see Russia enter the lists on the side of Belgrade." 2) Alastair Kocho-Williams "Russia could not desert its Serbian ally" [in july 1914] Rjensen ( talk) 11:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok so we agree Russia has no alliance with Serbia. We agree therefore that the existing map is inaccurate. We must also therefore agree that Kocho-Williams is wrong to go as far as to use the word "Serbian ally". The question is how important is the error, and is it important enough to switch from one graphic to another? Is it more important to keep the error and use a map or go for a more accurate graphic without geography? I would say it is. As you know (I can see you are a key contributor to this period from other wiki pages) a key controversy in the origins of WW1 is whether Austria and by extension Germany are deliberately provoking war with Russia or whether they genuinely believe war can be limited to Serbia. We don't have to agree which approach is right (and I can list historians who will take the opposite view of the ones you quote,: Clarke, Ferguson, MacMIllan, Strachan), but I think you must accept by allowing this error to stand (incorrectly stating that Serbia is a Russian "ally"), that this limits readers to only one conceivable line of thinking. If Russia is an ally to Serbia then A-H and Germany must know that war against Serbia means war with Russia. Therefore they are deliberately planning a war against Russia. This is why it is a fundamental mistake to keep this error, not a minor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

1) maybe 95% of the maps on Wikipedia have flaws--this one in a caption. Maps are Wiki's weak point and we really need a map here. 2) "Ally" does NOT equal alliance. (try: "in 2017 USA and Israel are allies". https://books.google.com/books?id=prVeyvFpa68C&pg=PA1) 3) Serbia asked Russia for help in the July 1914 crisis and go it. that's what allies do. Russia for years had been working to protect Serbia. That's what allies do. [as for the 'guilt' controversy, i'm neutral.] 4) If Russia is an ally to Serbia then A-H and Germany must know that war against Serbia means war with Russia. well A-H certainly thought that was likely --therefore Vienna asked and got protection & approval from Berlin during the crisis. Why? because of Russian role with Serbia. Rjensen ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Might I suggest the best solution is to include a map of Europe in 1914 AFTER the war has started. By then Serbia and Russia are definitely allies! 2) Agreed ally is a euphemism for a multitude of different depths of relationships. However, this is a discussion about the start of a war, where the precise nature of the diplomatic relationships are crucial to our understanding. We can and do talk about France and Russia as allies, meaning the Franco-Russian alliance of 1892. We talk about the German-Austrian alliance meaning the Dual Alliance of 1879. These alliances are treaties with clear obligations and clear meanings. We must therefore be careful to be precise in our language. To allow readers to get the impression that Britain and France are allied in the same way as France and Russia is an error of fact we can correct by not using the word ally or alliance. The same applies to Russia and Serbia. Given the importance of the meaning to pollicyakers in 1914 of what you rightly describe as the "Russian role with Serbia" it is crucial to avoid use of the word ally, as this creates confusion between its euphemistic and precise meanings. Its important we know the Entente, in contrast to the Triple Alliance or the Franco-Russian Alliance, was not an alliance of mutual defence and Britain therefore felt free to make her own foreign policy decisions in 1914. As British Foreign Office Official Eyre Crowe minuted: "The fundamental fact of course is that the Entente is not an alliance. For purposes of ultimate emergencies it may be found to have no substance at all. For the Entente is nothing more than a frame of mind, a view of general policy which is shared by the governments of two countries, but which may be, or become, so vague as to lose all content." Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I recommend "coalition" which does not have the sense of a formal treaty-based alliance. Meanwhile we can change the visible caption of the map to clarify it. Rjensen ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A coalition is a temporary alliance for combined action. This is not the relationship between Serbia and Russia immediately prior to the war. Neither is it the relationship between Britain on the one hand and Russia and France on the other. Therefore I cannot agree with coalition. Moreover the problems with the map goes beyond the visible caption as the text in the map says "Military Alliances in 1914" and "Slavic Allies" (whatever they might be). In the absence of an alliterative suggestion I would remove the map and, ideally replace it with a map of Europe in 1914 and the graphic previously suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The caption now explains away the term "alliance". The map does NOT say there was an alliance between Russia and Serbia. (RS use "ally" when there is no treaty--as in Israel is an important American ally.) How about "Serbia was a client state of Russia which protected it against Austria." Clark says Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov warned Austria in 1914 that Russia "Would respond militarily to any action against the client state." Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2012) p 481. As for the map, there is no available alternative. I think you may be too picky especially you tolerate geographical errors in your own proposed "map"--it is wildly wrong in its geography. Maybe you think that readers will start blaming Austria as guilty--I can't see how the map would cause that problem. Rjensen ( talk) 10:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand the graphic I propose is a graphic not a map, hence geography is not an issue - but your right that is also contains at least one error (although not one that is as historically significant for the cause of the war). On reflection I see most maps of Europe in 1914 are just as bad or worse in re-inforcing the errors I am complaining about so I agree with you its hard to find a decent alternative. Your right Im particular on the point of there being no alliance between Russia and Serbia because its an error I see often repeated. Of course historians don't tend to dwell on alliances that don't exist, but I admit for years I laboured under the misapprehension that Russia was allied to Serbia, no doubt partly because of inaccurate maps and imprecise use of language in general narratives. I was stunned when reading Ponting on this. It seems to me that both the relationship between Serbia and Russia, and what the Central Powers thought about that relationship prior to the ultimatum, is absolutely key to the mistake AH makes which then leads to a general war. Keith Johnston ( talk) 22:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. note there were a lot of secret treaties in those days -- Vienna did not know whether there was a secret treaty between Russia & Serbia. It did know that Russia's foreign minister repeatedly said he would defend Serbia. Rjensen ( talk) 02:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Im not clear why you would give it such prominence to that information in a caption to a map. You could equally say "Russia denied Austria's right to take action against Serbia, which she considered her client state" in the caption. That would be the meaning taken from the sentence preceding the one you quote in Clarke viz "Sazanov had denied from the start Austria's right to take action of any kind against Belgrade." You are taking a caption to a map and adding tiny piece of a puzzle (Sazanov's warning) without any caveat (when did he say it, to whom?) and giving it undue prominence. This matters best death with in the text where we can refer to controversies and caveats about warnings and explain where they fit into the chronology. You have replaced one error (Serbia is allied to Russia) with another (There is some-sort of standing warning to Austria not to touch Serbia in any circumstances. But we are not going to explain when this was given and the context). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok i think you're right. I'll get to it tonite.  :) Rjensen ( talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Since you are the creator of our article Cambridge School of historiography, I wonder if you will be able to start a new Wikiquote article on The New Cambridge History of India. Surely you have already read some of those books and as such it should be a nice intellectual goal to set for 2017. If you are unsure how to proceed you can look for my creation q:Millennium Prize Problems as guidance which is basically a series of mathematical problems as I am sure you are already aware, given your maths background. Some redlinks (there) which might interest you include: Vijaynagar, Mughal, Rajput, Deccan, Punjab, Maratha and other q:Category:States of India.

Please take this message as a formal invitation to join Wikiquote as a contributor. Solomon 7968 15:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. I will look into it. Rjensen ( talk) 01:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	In recognition of engaging in argument on the basis of sources and with great patience Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2017 (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.

History of Italy

added a link pointing to Tyrol

Treaty of London (1915)

added a link pointing to Tyrol

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is that a lot of biased sources are being inserted, often by people associated with those sources (including one paid editing spam ring), based on Wikipedians deciding which biased sources should be in versus out. Basically we have competing think tanks duking it out on Wikipedia rather than reflecting independent third party assessments. It often strays very close to WP:SYN and very very often goes into WP:REFSPAM. Guy ( Help!) 10:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Take that top the talk page. How do we know what group you belong to?? Rjensen ( talk) 10:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am removing both, so it doesn't matter. My pet peeve: $PARTSIANS think X, source, $PARTISANS saying X on $PARTISANWEBSITES. Further reading: $PARTISANWEBSITES. Guy ( Help!) 10:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You're violating the NPOV rules here. I added the Zulouf sources after doing my own independent research. Rjensen ( talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm removing partisan websites. Did you see, for example, talk page comments saying that one editor works for the Heritage Foundation? Economic think tanks are groups of unaccountable ideologues, their ideas are rarely amenable to objective proof either way, and we should treat them with immense caution and never use them as authorities for what should be facts. Guy ( Help!) 10:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Partisan websites are explicitly allowed by Wiki rules: WP:BIASED and required by WP:NPOV. Rjensen ( talk) 11:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a misreading of WP:NPOV. ·maunus · snun??· 11:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Requires inclusion of all significant viewpoints with RS. It often happens in politics that these viewpoints are supported by think tanks. Rjensen ( talk) 11:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not require the inclusion of any biased source. the policy states this explicitly and suggests that often it is better to exclude. If a political think tank has a significant viewpoint on some case then they can of course be included with explicit attribution. When someone challenges or removes material based on a biased source, the burden of argument is on the person who wishes to include it, and it is s/he who must show that the viewpoint is significant enough to merit inclusion. ·maunus · snun??· 12:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

that's your private view. It conflicts with WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Rjensen ( talk) 12:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not opposed to what I am saying, and you are the one here who is advancing an idiosyncratic view of policy when you say that NPOV requires the use of biased sources - it plainly does not:" Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." ·maunus · snun??· 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Biased" is problematic here. It means a viewpoint the editor disagrees with. It needs to be evaluated on the talk page with other editors. Rjensen ( talk) 12:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. It means a viewpoint that can be considered a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. What is a fact is in turn determined by the views significance in non-biased reliable sources.You may also note that the policy states that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." (So this requires identifying whether a specific statement is or is not a statement of opinion from a biased source, if someone challenges your inclusion of a statement from a biased source, you must justify that the specific statement is not biased before including it again without attribution. ·maunus · snun??· 12:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

But, yes inclusion requires discussion of what is and isn't a biased opinion with other editors on the talkpage, and the formation of a consensus about what is reliable and what is a biased source, and what is fact and what is opinion - before being reincluded. ·maunus · snun??· 12:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy seems to think that ALL or most think tanks are "biased" and should be immediate removed. He erases them at the rate of one a minute, which does not allow much time for investigation into "bias." He does not use the talk page to explain his findings of bias. Who keeps your list of "unbiased" think tanks??? Rjensen ( talk) 12:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To me it looks as if mostly he only removes think tanks when they are used as sites for information that can easily be sourced to a higher quality source. There are some occasions where I think he ought to have left the claim in place with a citatoin needed tag, removing only the think tank. I reviewed a couple of his removals, and didn't find anything I would consider to be really problematic (i.e. removal of warranted sources, or objective important information). ·maunus · snun??· 13:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

He spendfs less than a minute and moves to the next unrelated case. he has better sources somewhere??? he keeps them well hidden. He is removing sources chosen by dozens of other editors without consulting them. Rjensen ( talk) 13:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you start a discussion on the talkpage and produce an argument why the source and statements it supports are good and relevant, then presumably he will participate. Otherwise it may be reasonable to insert it again, if he does not support his own position with arguments and sources. ·maunus · snun??· 13:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and there is a discussion now at ANI. Rjensen ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not consulting the group. I thought it would be appropriate to show how large the US conservative movement has become since the end of WWII.

Take care.

Less is more. A list of 25 people that readers can actually make use of is much more valuable than a list of 250 where they have no idea where to start. Rjensen ( talk) 11:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You're mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG.27s_questionable_spam_blacklist_additions.2C_removals_of_citations_to_reliable_sources.2C_failures_to_usefully_engage.2C_etc.. N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 15:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your revision to the lede at the article we are both concurrently editing are not minor. I came in as a neutral party. In particular, restoring a quote to the lede -- quotes are generally never needed in ledes -- is to begin to return the lede to a partisan summary. Right now the lede summarises the article. Please discuss this in the Talk section of the article, before further lede editing. (I am going to revert them. Let's Talk in the Talk section there._ Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You will see that I agree with you on some points, and not on others. I am not taking sides at this article. I an following the SOURCES (what they say), and am objectively assessing source quality, as an academic. Please, engage in Talk, either here or at the article. The lede must continue to summarise the whole of the article, and the whole must not violate NPOV. Sources and article must remain balanced. These were the issues when I arrived, and the NPOV has largely been resolve. Please do not ignore Talk page content. Please engage in discussion before reversing the clock, and returning contentious issues and perspective of the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

More secondary sources are needed says one critic so I added a useful one that summarizes the article. It is needed because one critic denied the term "epithet" was appropriate. As for partisan blogs, I think Daily Kos is a major one on the left. Rjensen ( talk) 17:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We agree on both these, and I agree with you that epithet is fine. However, you are reversing hours of careful work, by an academic, and I ask you to engage in discussion in Talk, so we can agree to a course, so that we are not at cross purposes. Please continue at the article Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hours of careless work get reversed such as this misleading statement in the lead: While historical usage includes neutral appearances (including from within that party), examples that continue sporadically through to the present day No RS says the historical non-epithet usages are important. Rjensen ( talk) 17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. In addressing these matters, I intend no disrespect for you, your abilities, or expertise. I am simply trying to resolve the earlier tensions that arose here, in accord with WP policies. Were I reading one of your history articles, and it presented a series of primary sources in support of a point or conclusion, I would have no problem. That is the role of the primary and secondary research literatures. However, here, most contributors are not History or other Profs. They are untrained amateurs, and the patterns established at articles are followed by all who follow on. Hence, if an editor goes to the primary literature to build an argument, we say "No," per WP:OR. (If you want me to get more specific vis-a-vis policy, I can.) The arguments appearing must be made from secondary sources, and supported (illustrated) by primary sources. Arguments are not to be those of editors (even an illustrious historian who edits), they are to be those of published authors, appearing elsewhere first. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement was not careless. Careless is not taking seriously the contentions of a fellow scholar. Look at the article again. What was summarised, is there. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from its clearly partisan appearances, the term continues to appear periodically in non-partisan media. Media Matters for America has documented the occasional use of "Democrat Party" by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Tribune, and it is used occasionally abroad by the BBC. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Some sources indicate that the term "Democrat Party" was in common use with no negative connotations in the early-to-mid-20th century. For example, in a 1912 book on the Democratic and Republican national conventions by William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic nominee for president, Bryan wrote "Why, for instance, should a Democrat leave the Democrat Party, which has labored in behalf of the popular election of Senators for 20 years..." ^{[4] non-primary source needed} A second example is the 1919 New Teachers' and Pupils' Cyclopaedia entry for Woodrow Wilson, which states that "In 1912, Wilson was the Democrat Party nominee for President..." ^{[5] non-primary source needed} In July 14, 1922, a newspaper advertisement for Missouri's primary elections contains candidate lists for the various political parties, the Democratic Party list appears under the heading "Democratic Ticket", and each candidate from U.S. Senator to recorder of deeds is identified as "Representing: Democrat Party". ^{[6] non-primary source needed} In 1958, author John Lyman stated, "in Maryland the usage has been common for years among some members of the Democrat party itself, with no derogation intended". ^[7]

I did not research or write any of this, I simply made sure it was summarised in the lede. Agan, I have no horse in the race. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"common use" in early 20th century. says who? No i think one cite per decade is "uncommon use." RS report it was used locally in a few places like rural Maryland (says Lyman) The Bryan quote is the only Bryan cite...and he used "Democratic Party" 56 times in that same book. Google over all Bryan's books has Bryan using "Democrat Party" once and "Democratic Party" in over 1000 different books & essays, often several times wachtimes. 1/ 1000 is "uncommon". For Bryan it looks like 1/5000 or so--="rare." Back to "plagiarism" will you please erase that word. thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I am not accusing you of plagiarism, I am stating simply, and clearly, if primary material is being presented without a secondary source, it is either from a secondary source (unstated, and so plagiarised), or it is original work. You have not replied to this argument, at the article page, or here. Do you believe that there is a third alternative? I am not intending a false dichotomy. Help me see it another way.

Second, in the last "common use" analysis, you are functioning as an historian here, and not as a Wikipedia editor; moreover, you are arguing from facts not in evidence. I am not making the case that the arguments that appear in the History section are solid, or accurate to the literature. Nor am I arguing that the lede is accurate to the research literature or other available scholarship. I am simply arguing that the lede reasonably summarises the content to the article that is currently there, which includes

(i) modern rampant, pejorative uses in modern times, since the 40s,

(ii) early innocuous uses, including by members of the democratic party, and

(iii) current, stray innocuous uses of the shortened form.

The article says this, and the lede summarises it likewise. I think that while not being perfect, the lede is adequately neutral—note I removed the NPOV tag, and in this way, appear to have been acting in a direction you sought—and while containing all three points, its emphasis remains on pejorative (which is also the emphasis of the current article).

Here is a suggestion: Let's add to Further reading, a short list of secondary sources that discuss this subject—reviews, book chapters, etc. Authoritative, scholarly sources. Included in these should be the secondary sources from which the current History section scholarship was drawn. After arraying these, let's edit the article, as necessary, to make it comply with these authorities. Then, if the authoritative sources say—as you argue above, that Lyman, Bryan, etc. are misrepresented—we can correct the article, and the lede. But the lede should not be based on your scholarly expertise, and novel insights as a subject matter expert. No where is this allowed here. The lede should summarise the article, and the article should present the preponderance of published scholarship. For instance, I know from my research… that there are problems with some specific WP articles. But until my research is published, and the research views in my primary publications are broadly accepted (via citation in review), my personal academic and intellectual convictions about my area of expertise do not belong in WP.

Otherwise, again, absent a secondary source to underpin the history examples, it is OR, which should come out. You may know, as an historian, that the selected examples are representative, and not biased, but that is not the point. Someone has to have published the examples, so that we can cite the secondary source. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 18:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

please erase the word plagiarism and we can talk, otherwise go away. Rjensen ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

See bold above. In re: what I mean by the word, look for appearances of the word "ideas," on p. 43 here, and the opening lines, here. Do I perceive correctly that the construction of the History sections is your original work—that it does not appear anywhere else—and that the issue that we should be discussing, is whether your original scholarship should remain here? Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 18:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No you are misinformed about OR. please read the rule. please erase the word plagiarism and we can talk, otherwise go away. Rjensen ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect—and I have offered respect at every step of the way, in every manner possible, here—it was clear from the start that we disagree about applying WP:OR, and your declaring I am misinformed does nothing more than re-state the assumption on your part that has been in play since the start of the discussion. And this ought to be (but is not yet) a discussion. I have made an argument; your answers are declaratives/imperatives. You saying OR is not what I perceive, your saying that I misunderstand—these do not make it so. Your declaring I am careless does not make it so. I have repeatedly, and in detail, explained myself, and clarified my arguments and positions. You are not speaking to a student here.

If I misunderstand something, it is beholden upon you to explain, as I have asked—just as I have, out of respect, responded to you. You said "careless", and I replied to make clear the portions of the article I was summarising in my draft lede. You took umbrage to my use of the word plagiarism, and I replied fully, explaining that it was not a personal statement, not directed at you, and made clear the logic that offers it as one interpretive possibility (not a certainty). One of us here is relating collegially, and like a respectful peer. If you are not used to doing so at WP, I understand. There is a degree of leeway, for expertise and experience, that at least I bring to bear in dealing with senior colleagues. But I—and the myriads who lack our advanced degrees—are no less contributors here than you are. Again, you are not speaking to a student here. (My boldness and confidence, like yours, comes from my age and experience, and my scholarship, which though perhaps not so popularly read, is as sophisticated and apt as yours. For that matter, my current work relates to informatics and the veracity of content on the web—and the disservices in digital designs that allow students to arrive ad wrong conclusions through unsophisticated search and other digital mis-steps. Sound familiar?)

Otherwise, one does not erase anything at Wikipedia. One moves past, and you have given me no basis to do so. I am quite sure, from long editing in my fields of expertise, that I am not wrong that the gathering and interpretation of primary sources without citation of a secondary source violates OR, word and spirit (and I am unmoved by the fact that this core principle, from WP:OR, is widely violated). However, I invite again—if I am wrong with my either "A or B" logic, offer me "C". Or explain, clearly, why "A" or "B" are not valid alternative explanations. That is, engage the sources I presented, engage the argument I made, or at least state the portions of the policy that you believe contradict me. That is, do something other that give one sentence replies that ignore earlier direct replies to you, and skirt the substance of the matters at hand. What statement in WP:OR says it is fine to collect and interpret primary sources? If the current state is not WP:OR, or cribbed without attribution—what other interpretive options do you perceive? We have each written thousands of pages, elsewhere. Your unwillingness to take 30 minutes to engage that active, talented mind of yours, and your unwillingness to write a half page in response to anything here—these, alongside your one sentence "you are wrong" declarations and "you must do this" ultimata... it is hard not to interpret these as a clear sign that the issue here lies in entrenched perceptions of how things ought to be, rather than they are, and then in a lack of respect (and not right application of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY).

So respond or not, but please make your response at the article (and not here). I am erasing nothing, because your "You take it back" is not how digital works, and "You do as you're told" is not how WP works. Whatever else we talk about should be said at the article, so all can see and hear. I have been checking both places, will hereafter be checking just the article. Finally, je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. Cheers, Le Prof 165.20.114.246 ( talk) 23:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your statement the gathering and interpretation of primary sources without citation of a secondary source violates OR, is not true. try quoting the rules exactly. Rjensen ( talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

…that a consequence of my long work today, is that all citations that appeared earlier have been checked, completed as far as possible, and are uniformly formatted (in appearance, if not in underlying markup). This and the restructuring of the article are what I expected to be the real matter for discussion, and if these are also of issue, please also take them up at the main article page. You will see I have created a new section there to start us (and all other editors interested) off toward resolution. Cheers. Le Prof 165.20.114.246 ( talk) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Many of the assertions made in the main definition of conservatism are absolutely irrelevant to and biased against conservatism. Obviously, this is extremely problematic as the point of an encyclopedia is to provide an objective understanding of a topic. If you cannot understand why the main definition is unsatisfactory, please research alternative sources to ascertain the meaning of conservatism. If the page for "candy" included an alternative definition of candy that reads "a brown machine which allows for the movement of humans by combustion engine," it would be moved to the page for automobiles. The fact that a source cited for a definition which is irrelevant to its subject is the reason for the denial of its removal is as ridiuculous as asserting that propaganda has place in definitive knowledge.

Anon here seems to be unable to tell us what is wrong and instead spends much more time on candy and automobiles. No RS of any sort is mentioned--perhaps nore are used. Rjensen ( talk) 02:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. I appreciate your zeal for scholarly rigor in articles. However, please note that making accusations and misrepresenting others' positions (such as here) is considered uncivil and disruptive to the achievement of consensus. I would prefer to keep talk page discussions focused on the content of the article itself. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 10:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I get annoyed when you fail to cite RS for your statements about scholarly journals --you are pretending to have some expertise on journals in order to undermine published RS. Rjensen ( talk) 11:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

* Please refrain from continuing to make disparaging remarks about other contributors, as was done here. If you are not satisfied with how a discussion is proceeding, the appropriate thing to do is to seek dispute resolution. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not explained why you deleted a RS dealing with usage of "Democrat Party" by local Democrats. Rjensen ( talk) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For your talk at Wikimania 2012, this barnstar is extremely belated, but well deserved. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The book you cited, "Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928" covers Jackson's association with the Indiana KKK (as well as the attempted $10,000 bribe to McCray) in its Chapter 6, entitled "Political Power," referring to him as "Klansman Ed Jackson, then secretary of state" on the very first page of that chapter. That the Klan failed in its legislative efforts doesn't say much one way or the other when one considers what a bungling, failed, and ineffectual governor Jackson turned out to be.

no, it refers to a Klan announcement. Jackson never claimed membership & stated publicly he was independent & owed allegiance to no bloc. [p 154] did he a join a chapter at some point in some location? Rjensen ( talk) 06:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Barone. 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) 09:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

New additions ...well written ...but very detailed on side events like Quebec Act .....easy to see new additions no wikitext. American Revolution.-- Moxy ( talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What happened here? -- John ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take it as a mistake. Please be more careful. -- John ( talk) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello - Haven't spoken with you in a while, nice to see you. FYI, I have been updating the URLs on some of the Booknotes links, and while doing that, I have been (when appropriate) moving the links from the External Links sections of certain pages up in to the body of the articles, using the "External Video" template. I did this, for instance, in the Petticoat affair article in the Controversy section, so that the Booknotes interview with Marszalek can be clicked on and accessed right next to a pertinent Marszalek quote. I am not doing this for all articles, but I am doing it for some where it seems appropriate. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. KConWiki ( talk) 14:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks--that's a better location for the link & I didn't spot it. Rjensen ( talk) 17:38, 29 April 2017 (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.

Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower

added a link pointing to Lucius Clay

Woodrow Wilson

added a link pointing to Paris Peace Conference

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to let you know I have posted at ANI to get further input on the Balfour Declaration citation question. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Balfour Declaration. — Diannaa ?? ( talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your addition to The Holocaust has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You need evidence of copyvio and have not provided it. Rjensen ( talk) 22:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Ealdgyth's talk-page post and at the copyvio-revdel request. There's never any possible justification or excuse for adding copyvio to an article, but you were perhaps not aware that the course of action to be taken had already been discussed here. In cases where an editor has demonstrably added a copyright violation from one source, it's our normal practice to presumptively revert the whole edit, whether or not every word of it can be shown to be an infringement. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Apart from one case he did not actually demonstrate it. The common phrases like "murderous intent of the Nazis" and " "The total victory of the Allies in North Africa" are too old and too often used by many people to be copyright. Rjensen ( talk) 22:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been doing some work on the John C. Frémont article. You are welcome to read through the article and make any changes if you have time. The goal would be to get Frémont to GA and/or FA status. The lede, Civil War, and his later life sections needs more work. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up--I'll look t it. Rjensen ( talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Civil War and Mexican American War sections are probably the most complicated. Why was Kearney so against Frémont to arrest and court-martial him, especially when Frémont was instrumental in starting the Bear Flag Republic and breaking California from Mexican rule ? The sections could possibly be tightening up too. Any editing would be helpful. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Fremont was not allowed to create a new country....I don't think the Bear Flag folks were serious but Kearney did. Rjensen ( talk) 05:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war.....I start a conversation on the mass changes not vented to the sources used.-- Moxy ( talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Get you took look at the additions that were added. Editor is paraphrasing other Wiki pages.....can you read the additions see if they actually match the sources he/she cant see.-- Moxy ( talk) 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I have not spotted a bad problem yet. I thinks it's overenthusiasm  :) Rjensen ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been an editor since 2005 so you should really know better then to remove a citation tag especially while it is being discussed on talk, and then leave a summary "fix cite" - this is vandalism, I have reverted it as vandalism. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 02:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No we had reached a 2-1 consensus on the talk page and I tried to solve your only complaint by linking to the quotation you wanted. 03:00, 27 May 2017 (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. Cjhard ( talk) 23:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sex war section on the suffrage article, please see the talk page. Several editors have raised concerns about that section and it really should be subject to discussion. Do you have a copy of Kent's book? We could work together to make the section better. Basalisk  ^{inspect damage}/ _berate 20:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not correct that "Several editors" have complaoned. One editor commented and supported Kent's position--no one attacked it and no one suggested it be removed. My copy of Kent was inter-library loan & was returned . Rjensen ( talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In an article that contains consistent sources using short citations based on {{ snf}} linked to long citations in a references section using {{ citation}}. Why did you add new citations.

1. Why did you move a source from the references section to the external links section?
2. Why did you add two source to the references section that does not support a short citations and are therefore not references?
3. Why did you add a sources to the references section that does not use the {{ citation}} template?
4. Why did you add a source as an inline citation that is not a short citation using {{ sfn}} and also not a full long citation (what is the isbn, publisher and location for the edition)?

WP:CITEVAR -- PBS ( talk) 09:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also please see MOS:LQ logical punctuation ought to be used, so full stops go after double quotes not before them. -- PBS ( talk) 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix a major defect in the article: a very poor lead that tells almost zip. it still has problems: who says it was "direct military government" ???? the system did not use the military chain of command & the military had only indirect rule (they supervised civilian government officials who remained in office.) . The Plant cite is problematical at url= http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/rule-major-generals.htm it does not seem to lead anywhere and it's perhaps not a reliable source. The sfn changeover did not seek editors' approval on talk page--it seems to be merely a personal decision. Rjensen ( talk) 10:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You have included two different years for Woolrych [1] 2004 and 2002 which is correct and do you have the ISBN number?

• "who says it was "direct military government" ????" The common name! Also see almost any source this one will do as it includes a primary source that is very explicit as to the powers they had.
• "The Plant cite is problematical" yes it is, but moving the long citation into external links section is not the solution, when it supports a short citation. Either replace it with a better source, or use the {{ better source}} template to ask for a better source. The link has changed to http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-protectorate/rule-of-the-major-generals.php
• "The sfn changeover did not seek editors' approval on talk page" -- Sigh! that seem to me like wiki-lawyering and is not an excuse for making the citation style inconsistent "When an article is already consistent" -- if you really want to play that game then (1) silence is consent (so the change had consent) (2) "If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article". I was that first contributor to add citations. -- PBS ( talk) 13:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is complaining about tiny little points that could easily be fixed a policy better than wiki lawyering?? "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" You said it policy originally, but you are not following it any longer. I looked again at the Plant citation--It is a self published webpage by an untrained amateur operating under no supervision. It fails the reliable sources criteria and should be removed. The source you cited re "direct military government" Does not work – you need to find a better one. It is an anonymous reprint of a primary document, and does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. It does not say there was direct military command. Because the army below the level of the major generals was not being used. The generals used the civilian governments in place, and were encouraged to raise a new militia, that was not part of the regular army. So my conclusion is that the article is very badly sourced in terms of reliable sources, and I tried to fix it. Rjensen ( talk) 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Rule of the Major Generals was one of about 40 articles that I deleted and recreated back in 2009 because of copyright problems with text copied directly from Plant's articles (see User:PBS/BCWs copyright issues). As such I wanted to rewrite the articles as quickly as possible and as a general rule I used what are considered to be reliable sources, but in a number of cases simply rewrote them as stubs either based on DNB Epitome or occasionally Plant. In a few cases I rewrote them as full articles eg Cromwell's Other House. You are pushing against an open door as far as using Plant as a source, and I recommend his replacement, when an editor has time and inclination (see for example Talk:English Civil War/Archive 3#White Plant). -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ok -- this is useful info that is not available on the article talk page. Plant copied info from unknown sources. His unreliability & self-taught status is clear in that he was unaware of the hundreds of relevant articles in scholarly journals. He also states he's self-taught and did not work with experts; he does not use footnotes. Rjensen ( talk) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know her did not "cop[y] info from unknown sources", and for many of his pages he uses what some here refer to as "general references" which some consider adequate. I did not delete the previous articles because I was aware that he had copied anything from else where. I deleted them because Wikipedia contained text copied from his pages an the licences are incompatible (as detailed in User:PBS/BCWs copyright issues). Also you might be interested in the debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (2017). -- PBS ( talk) 09:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

his technique would flunk out an undergraduate history student and do not meet Wiki standards for sourcing. His bibliography lists hundreds of books running many tens of thousands of pages. Rjensen ( talk) 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph explains in detail the research of a single individual. It does not belong in a general article on the dictionary. WP is not meant to be a depository of individual's research. I'm not sure who he is but it surely seems like you are promoting his opinion and giving undue weight to his work. ‡ ?l Cid, ?l Ca??peador ^?T?LK? 16:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a reliable source on the topic. Every statement in Wikipedia is promotional in your way of thinking and subject to removal, but you have misread what "promotional" means here. Wikipedia:Promotional applies to ads and spam and unrelated material. Rjensen ( talk) 16:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kindly cease re-inserting incorrect, falsely-cited factoids into the ODESSA article. The paragraph you have repeatedly re-inserted states "J. J. Abrams said that the First Order is inspired by the legend of ODESSA" whereas the article cited makes no mention of the organisation as you are well aware. Claiming that Abrams intended to refer to ODESSA is a violation of WP:OR ("Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."), of which you are also well aware as I have quoted that policy each time I have removed the offending paragraph. 79.72.143.44 ( talk) 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. you falsely assume there was such an organization. Instead there was a model of how Germans might escape and the fictional account used exactly that model. no OR. Rjensen ( talk) 05:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an editor, Danteday, on the " White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" page, who is putting surnames into a list without any external reference or citation. All he had to say in his defense was that Vanderbilt and Astor were the "ultimate WASP names." It's become an edit-warring situation. He keeps reverting the page. He also included internal citations for the surnames, but the internal citations don't prove that the surnames are WASP surnames. Jonah161 ( talk) 02:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to add that Jonah161 first claimed that all those surnames were "sourced" and after he disagreed with an edit, he was suddenly determined to revert all my edits without discussing it with me and wanted everything deleted because it was suddenly "unsourced" in his opinion. Regardless of this, the list has now been removed by another editor. It is a shame that Jonah161 has behaved so unprofessionally and has gone behind my back without discussing it like an adult with me (instead of starting an "edit war"). Also it is ironic that he is claiming that "the internal citations don't prove that the surnames are WASP surnames" since he has made an entire page about one of the family names on the list - adding a significant amount of puffery and claiming that they are a "WASP family", even though he had no sources to support that claim... -- Danteday ( talk) 03:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll pass on this one. you might get an old copy of the Social Register and see who's in it! google has the national compendium for 1916 online free at https://ia601406.us.archive.org/25/items/socialregisterl00usgoog/socialregisterl00usgoog.pdf Rjensen ( talk) 03:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen - I will look into it! I appreciate your professionalism and advice.-- Danteday ( talk) 03:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Rjensen: Please desist giving editors bad advice. They believe you empowered them to use that book as a primary source for their list. That's horribly irresponsible and violates NOR. Please remember you're talking to dilettantes, not history students. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

you misunderstand the rules. the OR rule is only about uncited material -- this is a cited reliable primary source. the appropriate rule is WP:PRIMARY = A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot.... Rjensen ( talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As for the Social Register its historic role is non-controversial: "the acronym WASP ...is exemplified by the Social Register, a list of prominent upper-class families first compiled in 1887. ... There is great continuity across generations among the names included in these volumes." Stephen J. McNamee; Robert K. Miller (2004). The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 63. Rjensen ( talk) 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Normally I would defer to your superior education in the field of history, but I have a problem with editors compiling a list on the logic of "name appears in Social Register + Social Register lists WASPs = these names are WASPy" (whatever the hell that means). The primary source doesn't make any sort of judgement about the names listed. Further, this isn't a compilation of most-often listed names across a real span. It's from newspapers of two dozen US cities for the period of November 1916. That's a pretty small sample. If I had a student writing a secondary source article on WASPy names I'd expect them to do more research than that. Further, editors here aren't allowed to make that sort of analysis. We're supposed to be writing what the source says, not cobbling together our thoughts making assumptions from primary sources. I stand by my original charge: please don't encourage the new users. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine making a statement based on sourcing that names found in the Social Register might have correlation with the concept. I disagree with listing individual names and making a pronouncement about them. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Troutman, this is OR. ·maunus · snun??· 21:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

For what reason did you revert my changes on American Jews? The 1910 statement had a reliable source (two of them, in fact). And why does the second statement need another source? Per what policy? 2601:84:4502:61EA:4430:7F2B:C9EA:3231 ( talk) 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

first of all the statement is false. Congress said Jews living in the Middle East are NOT to be classified as Asians. . The many scholarly histories of Jews never mention any such thing. Secondly it lacks a reliable secondary source--it is a personal misreading of a primary source. Rjensen ( talk) 08:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

the source = anonymous newsletter of the Asiatic Exclusion League 1910 is a white supremacy hate group that in 1910 worked to exclude all Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc. Trusting it for laws of Congress does not meet Wiki's reliable sources criteria. No reliable secondary sources supports its strange claims. Rjensen ( talk) 02:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, an aggressive user, Xenophrenic, is blanking the France section on the state atheism article. Can you have a look? desmay ( talk) 00:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I added a quote from a leading scholar. Rjensen ( talk) 02:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, a user prone to personal attacks, has tried to insert self-published sources and out-of-scope content into the state atheism article. Don't worry about having a look, I took care of it. I did, however, copy your quote & citation (to theologian Gavin Flood) to the discussion at Cult of Reason which I thought might be of interest. Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. Rjensen ( talk) 07:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Rjensen, same Xenophrenic was just blocked for POV pushing on this topic. Can you look at restoring the section about France and adding some sources to it since you're a respected historian? desmay ( talk) 04:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In reference to your edit HERE, it is appreciated you provided a cite. However, the publication is almost 300 pages long and locating the material in question without a specific page is obviously difficult. I requested a page number HERE, but it hasn't been provided yet. Perhaps it went unnoticed or maybe you just haven't had a chance to getting around to it yet. Can you provide the needed page number so Verification can occur? Thanks. Mercy11 ( talk) 02:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

ok. I relied on Jan Plamper, The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power chapter 1, especially pp 4, 12-14. Rjensen ( talk) 02:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In the Bay of Pigs page, you have reverted my clarification of the nationality of one group of participants. American nations that could have been involved with all the confusion and deception include Guatemalans, Cubans, Panamanians and perhaps more. Every one of those are American. The US is just ONE American nationality.

In an article so concerned with confusions and distinctions about WHICH American nations did WHAT, I would think it is especially important to clarify as much as possible. It is unfortunate that US citizens are left with no convenient national identifier and so must hijack a continental identifier. In most circumstances we can deal with that necessary shorthand and sort it out by contextual indications. This article, however, would benefit from a precise statement of the US participants' nationality.

I do hope you might consider reverting your reversion.

"Pij" ( talk) 04:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"American" = USA for over 200 years. People living in Panama etc do not call themselves "Panamian Americans" Rjensen ( talk) 04:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". 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 12 September 2017.

I got one of these bot request some time ago......and like here no link to the case. I never found the one I was asked to join.....if you find the page let me know.-- Moxy ( talk) 19:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm puzzled too. Rjensen ( talk) 20:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did find this link Rjensen ( talk) 04:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Fascism, 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.

Hi User:Rjensen, noticed you've edited Italian American article in the past, just letting you know the images in the Politics section are confusing because it says first that Al Smith was Governor of New York, then the next image says Mario Cuomo, who came much later was the first Italian-American Governor of New York? Thanks, -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up --Smith had one Italian grandparent but did not consider himself one part of the Italian community. I fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this edit caused a Ref problem. Please take a second look at it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks--i fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 09:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! As a member of the Notre Dame project, I'd invite you over to take a look at a current disagreement taking place over the ND seal. Traditionally, and all over campus, the seal is colored, but another user has brought up that he would like to see it in black and white. Please take a look at the discussion here and chime in if you would like. /info/en/?search=Talk:University_of_Notre_Dame#The_Seal

Best, Eccekevin ( talk) 23:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up-- I have a black and white seal on my diploma, I think, but I have not looked at it in decades. Rjensen ( talk) 23:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead sections are meant to be a short summary. The article has seperate subsections that cover both history and the languages extensively and if you compare to articles on other geopolitical regions these are not topics covered that extensively in the introduction. So it's WP:UNDUE, a very short mention of these topics in lead would perhaps be reasonable, but not overblown retelling of historical events and relationships between languages emphesizing how unrelated Latvia and especially Lithuania are to the very Scandinavian Estonia, that's essentially a POV fork on top of the article. It's been discussed ten times over - this article is about a geopolitical region of Europe, not for analysing why some Estonian politicians and their supporters think it should not continue to exist, it was allready agreed that Nordic identity in Estonia article would be suited for that. ~~ Xil ( talk) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

you seem to have a POV issue -- that's a matter for the talk page. The wp:pov rules requires you to have alternative reliable sources that are ignored -- so you need to provide them. Rjensen ( talk) 11:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Revolutionary War. Since you had some involvement with the Revolutionary War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Appah Rao ( talk) 06:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You made this edit to Restoration (England) the "References" section consists of long citations supporting short inline ones that appear in the "Notes" section. What text does the long citation support? Also as the rest of the long citations are in {{ cite book}} why did you not format this entry to the References section in a similar way?

If the sources is not a long citation to support the text (in which case there ought to be a short inline citation linking to it), then if you think readers will benefit by seeing the source is available, it ought to be added to a "Further reading" section, instead of the "References" section.

-- PBS ( talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

agreed--i changed it. Rjensen ( talk) 19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 8 | September 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue

Featured Topic	"Wikipedia – Here and Now": 40 students in the Summer School "I Can – Here and Now" in Bulgaria heard more about Wikipedia
From the Community	Klexikon: the German 'childrens' Wikipedia' in Montréal Wikipedia is now a part of Textbook in Informatics

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that you are one of the contributors to WP:HSC. How rigorously is this advice used/enforced/policed or publicised across the editor community? I have tried to implement its advice and got shouted down by 2 editors who wanted to retain a reference (in Highland Clearances) that was written by 2 human rights lawyers touting for more business through a new international convention (as opposed to recognised historians). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the HSC criteria re very widely followed. As for the claim that historians are "just as prone to error" as the rest of us--that does not apply to published scholarship in which wave after wave of scholars have to sign off, or you get shot down in the scholarly community. Take a look at the acknowledgement page of history books --they typically list many people who helped check for errors, and that is a process "the rest of us" do not engage in. Rjensen ( talk) 23:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So, any recommendations on how to handle editors who provide no evidence that they have actually read any work by serious historians? They just get offended if I put in opinions or research findings that do not match what they think. I have even tried listing the funding sources for the research whose results they wish to ignore (the only consolation for me is that at least one of them has contributed to that government funded research through taxation). And I still can't get anywhere with trying to delete a reference that is a book written by non-historians in furtherance of their legal careers. My limited experience of this sort of thing suggests that the emotions and beliefs of some editors cause them to totally ignore WP:HSC. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki is built for fights. see http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Here's a suggestion: on most articles there are overlapping articles that you can upgrade--for example the history section of geography articles. Rjensen ( talk) 19:56, 7 October 2017 (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: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi! Over a year ago, you added to the Cosmo Gordon Lang article this quote:

His lasting significance is questionable. He was immensely industrious, and exceptional administrator, and was well-connected to leading politicians and aristocrats. But his accomplishments as Archbishop of Canterbury were modest.

Reference: George Moyser, "Land, Cosmo Gordon" in Fred M. Leventhal, ed., Twentieth-century Britain: an encyclopedia (Garland, 1995) p 438.

There seems to be a typo in the quote, but I don't have access to the book so can't correct it. Would you be able to check? I'm guessing it should either be "industrious, an exceptional" or "industrious, and an exceptional"; the first reads better but I'm not 100% sure it couldn't be the second or something else. TSP ( talk) 00:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

you have a keen eye. It should be "an exceptional administrator" so I'll fix it now. Rjensen ( talk) 04:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the edits on Interwar period.

My concern is that this introduces a lot of detail about Russia specifically without comparable detail about other empires/nations. And if we were to introduce comparable detail for the others, the lead would become far too long. I was trying to just mention a few miscellaneous examples of independence movements and nations that gained independence without trying to focus on any one region of the world or any one empire.

--MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Russia had been overlooked, and needed to be included. The coverage is not excessive given the importance of the numerous countries involved, none of which receive more than a fraction of one sentence. just so with Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, and so forth. People on information from the lead, because for most Wikipedia users, the lead is all they read in the 5 min. or so they have allocated to this topic. I reworked the lead's coverage of the world map. Rjensen ( talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of the Democratic Party. Since you had some involvement with the History of the Democratic Party redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 22:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Rejensen Please do not delete my content. I was still working on an article, when you took it upon yourself to delete all of my content. I was to add another citation when you decided to delete my entire addition.

Sincerely, Garfield7380

I deleted unsourced claims. you have to provide a reliable secondary source for every claim in this highly controversial topic. Rjensen ( talk) 06:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased commentary by leftwing liars is not "analysis by leading scholars," especially when Democrats were the party of segregation and the KKK well into the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:B0 ( talk) 04:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

False: it is not true that KKK was tied to Democrats after 1880. The KKK was mostly Republican in the 1920s. Recent KKK leaders like David Duke have been Republicans. Rjensen ( talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

From the snippet Google books allows me to see, it appears to be Crispin Gill, rather than The Economist, who is calling remedial measures for agriculture "the economics of Bedlam". It's also not clear what era he is writing abut - as he only left school in 1934 I suspect it is more likely to be the 1950's when he was on the Morning Post. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

OK I tracked down Branson and Heinemann, Britain in the 1930's (1971) which explicitly attributes "economics of Bedlam" regarding the milk subsidy to The Economist on p 217. HOWEVER they got it from the 1955 Mowat book "Britain between the Wars" p 439. Mowat writes: The Economist made merry at the 'economics of Bedlam', by which the low price of milk sold for the manufacture of umbrella handles, 5d. per gallon, was held to justify keeping the price of milk for mothers at 2s. or more per gallon. The phrase was originally coined by George Bernard Shaw in 1920 -- see https://books.google.com/books?id=1iVKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1143 I changed the footnote to credit Mowat. Rjensen ( talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention Mowat in your new citation at all. Google book links are often useless, as what is visible varies hugely by country - that one for Shaw just gives me a title page of a magazine. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the Mowat. for quote & discussion of Shaw look again at https://books.google.com/books?id=1iVKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1143 (p 1143 bottom of column 1 top of column 2). Rjensen ( talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

As I told you, that Google books link does not show me any content. I do not know why you find it so hard to understand that not everyone sees the same content when following a Google books link. Thanks for fixing the citation eventually, I shall assume that this time around you've got it right. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

you do not realize that by keeping your location a secret then no one can figure out what you are able to read. To justify an increase in the price of milk for babies by the low price for umbrella handles is the economics of Bedlam. is from Economist, 7 August 1937. Rjensen ( talk) 19:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not keep my location a secret, I have no idea why you have made that up. It is no secret at all that I live in Britain, I have said so many times on Wikipedia, and had you bothered to ask I would happily have told you. And when once I had told you that the google books link only gave me a title page, to tell me to look at the link again suggests a certain obtuseness on your part. Glad to see you've finally found a source. Will just have to make sure all your other citations get properly checked now. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want people to know you live in Britain you would say so on your user page. Rjensen ( talk) 19:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At various times it has said so. There is no requirement for editors to declare their country of residence anywhere on Wikipedia, and to try to force them so to do would be seen as extremely poor practice, as is treating editors less favourably if they choose not to disclose, or if they are from a particular country. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we are getting a bit too close to Bedlam right here. If you can't read the Shaw material just ask and I can send it, instead of complaining that you were misunderstood.. Rjensen ( talk) 19:44, 12 November 2017 (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.