• /Archive 2: April 17 2006-May 21, 2006

do not edit

Rjensen, while I've been assuming good faith on your edits to the Republican Party (United States) article, they seem to be more and more non-NPOV. While I appriciate accurate wording, I don't think replacing "called for" with "demanded," "cautiously" with "grudgingly," under the Republican ideals. is a good idea on Wikipedia. And please don't accuse me of bias, I'm a hardcore Libertarian- but remember, we're supposed to keep our biases outside of Wikipedia. // ^The True _Sora 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

we need to avoid weasel words ("some Republicans are concerned about the abortion issue") . In politics people usually "demand" policies they care about; that is certainly not POV. As for "grudgingly" it indicates a degree of reluctance that "cautious" lacks, but which I think characterizes the GOP on affirmative action. Rjensen 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You're right- in politics, people always "demand" policies, etc. However, Wikipedia isn't a political forum. When describing the politics of an organization, using those forceful words harms the NPOV Wikipedia must have- as well as the credibility of Wikipedia itself. // ^The True _Sora 02:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Wiki is not demanding policy XYZ. We say "Republicans demand policy XYZ" I cannot see a problem with that--surely it is better than saying "Republicans tend to prefer policy XYZ" . Rjensen 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Regardless of what you think on the matter, Wikipedia can't say that a party "demands" something. Once again, even if your intent is to clarify the matter, it looks far too non-NPOV for Wikipedia. // ^The True _Sora 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Why is it POV to say what a party demands?? It goes back a very long way: 1860 Republican platform: "we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory Homestead measure" Rjensen 02:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Look, Rjensen, I'm not going to keep arguring against you on this matter- I'd just like you to be forewarned that, if you happen to go to far in the "rewording" of this page, I'll be removing it. // ^The True _Sora 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

will threats improve the article? I doubt it. Rjensen 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, you changed all mention of the "Democratic-Republican Party" in the "Democratic Party" article to "Republican Party" or to "Jeffersonians" or to "Jeffersonian Republicans." Then, to describe your edits, you disingenously wrote, "trim details." You did not "trim details." Your edits were much more elaborate than that and, more imporantly, you tried to go around the back of a matter that has been discussed here many, many times, as you well know. Please stop doing this. Griot 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd like a rationalization as to just what was POV in the war debt controversy. Quite a lot of valuable information was included, information you would receive in more or less any modern course on the revolution. If some language was POV, that is a different matter. Make it apparent to me.

And honestly, for courtesy's sake, take it to the Talk. Don't revert silently. This is a contentious issue, and if your reasoning is sound you should have no fear of an honest debate. Fearwig 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

it is a story for the 1790s, not the American Revolution. The POV is the Jeffersonian version of the sad saga of people "tricked" by speculators long after the Revolution. There is no sourcing which indicates unawareness of the debate among historians on what happened. Rjensen 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Uor mutual friend keeps on removing the section in which he accused you of vandalism on the grounds of slander, [1], he also posted a note on my page [2], beinf that you only put in a responce under the section on a secodary issue, i figure i would ask that if you would like to have the section removed on the basis that the user was attempting to slander you or that you belive the txt is slanderious to you. IF you belive this is the case then i would have no problem with removing the txt, as well as puting a not on why it was removed. The reson why i have continued to revery his removal of the section is that fall under the vandalism poilcy of, Talk page vandalism and Blanking. I would also recomend that if you decide that the user is slandering you that you report it to [[WP:AN/I], so that, what i would hope, appropate action can be taken. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks--I would just as soon keep it there so people can see for themselves what sort of person our anonymous editor happens to be.

Hi - the link I removed wasn't to the museum itself, but a personal site that had a few photos of the museum. The link was spammed across multiple articles. If you still think the link should stay drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks -- AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

ok -- good judment on your part. thanks Rjensen 00:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Anytime! -- AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See, this is why I was against editorial comments in Bibliographies! -- JW1805 (Talk) 03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

oh that's the usual case of petty POV squabbles. Annotations are essential, I think, to help our users. Rjensen 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks -- Paleorthid 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 _t 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice you uploaded the image Image:1980Anderson.jpg with the {{ Politicalposter}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:1980Anderson.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:1980Anderson.jpg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{ Politicalposter}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. -- Rory096 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way, where did you get that image? It's a photo of the button, so the copyright would probably belong to the person who took it, not the Anderson campaign. -- Rory096 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

the categry for political poster seems to fit campaign buttons pretty closely. --the fact that it is on tin and not paper is not very relevant. Rjensen 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

User Doright unilaterally inserted his preferred guideline into WP:RS as follows, replacing the one discussed on its talk page. I reverted once, and he has now reverted it. I'm backing off to prevent an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would comment on this. The text he has inserted says:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. -- CTSWyneken 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have long been active in H-Net and agree it's a very good source. All messages are approved by scholars. Rjensen 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, and an important resource it is. What do you think of this? In evaluating it, also note that Tiger Woods views and analysis of golf in a golf list archive, although not scholarly, is notable within its own domain. Regards,-- Doright

good edit, but instead of "person being cited is notable." you might prefer "person being cited is a reliable authority." Rjensen 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That works for me. Please make that change and post it to the article. I'm getting tired of being constantly attacked.-- Doright 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- Doright 23:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You've dealt with this article for much longer than me - can you tell me why there is a focus on Connecticut right after that part? I'm not terribly familiar with the Connecticut party organization of the time, and don't know why it would be so much of a focus? Thanks Sam 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks. Cunningham found some highly detailed instructions for Connecticut that explained the duties of every party official. The other states probably used verbal instructions. Rjensen 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I wrapped it in a couple sentences at the beginning and end to make clear what it is doing there. I haven't read Cunningham, so I'd appreciate a quick look to make sure I haven't mangled the poor fellow. Probably should read him - sounds interesting. Sam 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

looks good--if you like political machinery be sure to read Cunningham! Rjensen 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The impetus for the mailing list archives section of WP:RS originally derived from an attempt to exclude h-antisemtism from Wikipedia, and perhaps not surprisingly arose in the [ Martin Niemöller] and Martin Luther related pages. You may be interested in this newly created WP:RS section] and the related discussions. Collegially, Doright 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip. Actually I helped start h-antisemitism in the first place ten years ago. Rjensen 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to rejoin the discussion. Note, however, that Doright has not accurately described what I've been trying to do. I've been trying to put something into the guidelines that allows us to use H-Net lists. Who knows? Someone one day might want to quote something I said on H-Antisemitism or H-German eons ago! The cautions, which Doright has been trying to delete, have come from discussions with editors who are uneasy with lists in general. -- CTSWyneken 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.-- AndriyK 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice rewrite! (See article's Talk). Thanks! -- Cultural Freedom talk 10:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

hey--thanks!! Rjensen 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding reversions [3] made on June 15 2006 ( UTC) to American conservatism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Revealing of what? It would seem as if such a section would be vulnerable to POV. I figure WikiQuote is a more suitable venue for his quotes, just as it is for Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, and so on. -- Sparkhurst 07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

revealing of Adams's state of mind. WikiQuote of course is a grave that no one enters. Did Adams have a POV--he certainly did and that should be exhibited to understand him. Rjensen 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not referring to Adams POV, rather the POV I'm suggesting is the selection of quotes. The last one in particular seems like a distorted version of the quote directly above it. Nevertheless, it has been my impression that Wikipedia ought to not have articles full of lists upon lists of any kind, especially when there is something like WikiQuote to be used for that very purpose. Dinosaur or not, it still exists, it is still utilized, and it is linked to from the Adams article. -- Sparkhurst 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We're in general agreement. I think we both see Wikiquotes as a place to hide things that very few will see. The question is exposing Adams' ideas to the people who read the article, which I think is wise to do, because he is not well known. The article is NOT full of lots of lists, so it escapes censure on that regard. Rjensen 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think we are in general agreement and I would appreciate if you would not spin it that way. I cannot account for your browsing preferences or anyone else's for that manner. I can only account for my own and I browse through Wikiquote every now and then. If Wikiquote is suitable enough for a more prolific writer of that era (Paine), then surely it is suitable for Mr. Adams. -- Sparkhurst 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see what Paine has to do with it. My point is that readers need to know about Adams and this is the place to put a few choice quotes--fewer than a dozen in this case. (The Paine entry is far longer on Wikiquotes--and is rarely used) Rjensen 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding Paine, I'm merely comparing one Founding Fathers article to another. Do you not see how placing "a few choice quotes" could lead to POV? Once again, Paine was the more prolific writer so logic would suggest he would have a longer Wikiquotes entry than Adams. You would think the fact Adams Wikiquotes entry is shorter would be of benefit to my position, but that is just one man's observation. Rarely used or rarely updated? It would seem as though copying and pasting quotes wouldn't require much revision.-- Sparkhurst 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest that Wikiquotes is a compilation of quotations--rather like Bartlett's. That's fine but having a much smaller numer of selected Adams quotes in the Adams article is a valuable service to users. There is a danger to the integrity of Wiki if removal comes from editors whose own POV leads them to dislike the quotes. Rjensen 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit to Southern United States was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It was a serious edit by a serious editor. Sounds like a poorly informed BOT!! Rjensen 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Buggered the bot and got back the edits you made. Kevin_b_er 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks. ps are you human or just a Better Bot? Rjensen 10:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am in the flesh thank you, though the excellent popups script comes in quite handy. Kevin_b_er 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• As far as I know, Tawkerbot will just revert once. So you can re-add your stuff without further automated jibber jabber. -- W.marsh 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed your recent interest in Daniel Webster and I was curious as to whether or not you had in interest in improving the article to featured article status. TonyJoe 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes I've always been interested in Webster. Rjensen 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Great! There are a number of things that need to be done: Webster's role in the Bank, Presidential elections, Whig party, 1850 compromise- just about everything from 1830 to his death needs to be written or rewritten. Plus copyediting. There's a lot to do and I'm only one person. I'm writing other people, how much are you willing to help with? TonyJoe 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It looks like you are heavily involved in the various articles covering the history of the US political system ( First Party System, etc). These don't seem to link into the main stream of articles on the United States right now - Politics of the United States seems to be strictly current, and the History of the United States series is very broad. It looks like it might be useful to have an overview article on US political history to tie these (and perhaps other) political articles together. I've mocked up a quick outline ( here), unless you know of an existing article that would be suitable. Such an overview would provide a single convenient article that could be "see also" or "main article" linked to from "History"/"Politics" or any other place that wants to refer readers to historical US political developments. Does this seem like a good idea?

On a related note, I came across these articles while working on the Democracy (disambiguation) page. This currently links directly to the First/Second/Third articles. It seems to be about two levels of disambiguation too many to have articles on American political history directly linked from a disambig page. The debate (just myself and one other) is at Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)#Weeding the links. - David Oberst 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I like your idea. You are right that these are retrospective analytical structures set up by election specialists in the 1960s, and have proven useful analytic devices that go beyond the presidential synthesis (one president after another). Rjensen 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have any cites on the original usage of the phrases and divisions, and do you know how common the usage is? The division of the eras obviously makes sense, but are the terms used in most political science textbooks, for example, or just certain subsets, and would the terms be found in texts written by Brits, Australians, or whatever?

Phrasing like " John Fenno was a Federalist editor who helped shape the First Party System..." is likely to be confusing. It isn't as if the "First Party System" is something as tangible as "the Monroe Doctrine" or "the Articles of Confederation", and especially with the capitalization, many readers may take it as something more than it actually is. Something like "who influenced the development of party politics/ during the late 18th century", or whatever, might be preferable in many cases? Again "[the] Third Party System, which began in 1854 and changed over to the Fourth Party System in the mid-1890s..." seems (at least to my ear) much too categorical about "Systems" that are, after all, merely helpful retrospective organizational categories, and a "changeover" that is actually a series of elections and other events under the same essential constitutional system (albeit in an ever-evolving party political landscape).

Some of the articles look like they have been chopped out of a larger piece, or otherwise not completely smoothed out from academic to encyclopedic outlook? For instance, Second Party System has an early phrase "McCormick is most responsible for defining the system" followed by a bunch of bullet points (with "McCormick" not otherwised referenced except as an author in the references). Any objection if I tweak wording like the examples above as I run into it? - David Oberst 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

please tweak away. Lots of standard concepts historians use were invented long afterward: Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation, Frontier, Ante-Bellum Period, Jacksonian Democracy, racism, Republicanism. The idea of party systems goes back to early 20th century (Ostrogorski, Ford, Merriam), but was developed by VO Key, Walter Dean Burnham, Lee Benson, William Chambers in 1950s and 1960s. It originated in political science but historians like McCormick (father and son) and Kleppner quickly picked it up. The McCormick list is his and comes straight from the introduction to his book. I think the "systems" approach is much less confusing than bland statements like "who influenced the development of party politics during the late 18th century"--it certainly tells the user where to go to learn more about the context. As for the dating, there is a fairly large literature on realignments, critical elections and transitions between party systems. I tried to indicate the prevailing or censensus viewpoints among historians. For the historiography see [ [4]] Rjensen 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Use at [[Democracy (disambiguation)

These "Party System" articles are currently under debate at the Talk:Democracy (disambiguation) page - one editor claims these periods are intended to describe distinct "forms" or "types" of democracy, and need to be linked on that page. As you are a major contributor to these articles, your opinion would be useful. - David Oberst 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.-- AndriyK 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't dream of doing that Rjensen 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The Anon IP that altered Great Depression previous to your edits blanked out a portion of the article. I had to rv past you in order to restore the section. Just thought I'd let you know so you could try again...hopefully before anymore IP vandalism hits the article. Cheers and take care! Anger22 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the heads-up! Rjensen 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Please check your facts before removing other people's work. Wilson did indeed campaign on neutrality. [5]

Wilson proclaimed neutrality of course, but he never promised to stay out of the war. His supporters boasted that he kept us out of war with Mexico and Germany, but they did not promise he would stay out no matter what the Germans did. Rjensen 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting then that FDR did promise to keep the U.S. out of the war "no matter what"? If anything, the U.S. neutral stance was much stronger leading up to WWI than WWII. As a result, it's not at all fair to say that Wilson did not promise to stay out of WWI while FDR did promise to stay out of WWII. The edit as it stands now about Wilson and his position on the war is misleading. Rklawton 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The article does not mention FDR (who in 1940 made a clear statement about never sending Americans to fight foreign wars.) Wilson very carefully did not promise not to go to war. That gave him a more powerful bargaining position in his main goal, which was to broker some sort of compromise. Link discusses this in great detail. Rjensen 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You mentioned FDR in your edit summary.

Wilson didn't "promise" only if you want to stretch the definition of promise. A campaign based on neutrality in the European War is a promise to the people as far as the people were concerned, and there was quite a stink when he want back on it. I'm taking this from the perspective of the voters - voters who felt quite cheated by electing Wilson only to find themselves sending their sons overseas to fight. If millions of Americans felt their was a promise, then their was a promise. If you want to review the wording of each speech to see if such a promise was made in exactly those words, then you are only looking at one piece of the whole picture. As far as Americans were concerned, electing Wilson meant not going to war - and that's what the article should reflect. Rklawton 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No that was not the campaign promise. read Link. Rjensen 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. Which link? Also, note my edits to this section of the article. I think they strike a modest compromise between the promise/no promise version. I should go back and cite Keegan, though... Rklawton 04:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Link has a number of books, but look at Link, Arthur Stanley. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917 (1972) Current version = excellent. Rjensen 05:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the spot check here. I was pretty sure they should both be removed, but thought it odd to have them piped like how Kepin had them. Thanks again. -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

yes, people seem to want to shift the GOP in one direction or another by changing its Wiki label!! Rjensen 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry User:Rjensen. I respect your decision on "oppose". Your opinion is the most important, I will delete the merge vote in the next few days. I should have just asked you first. All things labor, including Taft-Hartley Act I have allowed you free reign, out of respect for your editing abilities, and out of apprehention of another brutal and emotional edit war. I'd much rather be working with you, then against you, on such projects as Predictions of Soviet collapse.

You don't know how many times I have praised your name to other conseratives, I did just again yesterday. You are my most formniable foe, which means that I have to expend the most time and energy with your edits because they are so well reasoned and intellegent.

Anyway, I should have asked first before I brought up the merge vote. I think it is better to move it, but that is beside the point.

No need to stir the honey pot, when we have had a solid, comfortable truce for months. The vote was stupid on my part. Travb ( talk) 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

hey, no problem :) Rjensen 16:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I've grouped the bullet points as I see fit, please feel free to re-sort if you see a better way. I can see some points for consolidation already, but would you give section a look to see what can be married?

When you get a chance, please look at the Military leadership talk page and discuss with me the future of that article. We could make that page a really good one, and I think we can agree on a great deal. I would beg your indulgence please: please for the present, confine your edits to adding new material to the main page and discussing any major reconstruction on the talk page. Please for now indulge me for the nonce. I have reasons for the current wording, but do see the need to add significant material over time. I've explained my vision on the talk page. Perhaps we could create an outline using that (or other workable) structure, then flesh it out. At that point we'll certainly be at the tweak stage with all text, but we'll know more about what we're summarizing.

I think we can do something good with the ACW main page. I also think we should add a section about Politics during the Civil War or an article of that name. We might create Union and Confederate articles, as a matter of fact I prefer that route.

Anyway, no hard feelings; you're aware I'm of a passionate nature, and I've got strong feelings about concepts, not words. Words are merely the tools that help convey concepts. Precise constructions convey exact assertion. That's my method when working here. BusterD 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice job on ACW. I made some more tweaks, added references, and restored the abolitionists to Causes. It needs much more on homefronts (perhaps separate article?)--women, economy, politics, civil liberties. Rjensen 22:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, agree on all. Also perhaps "Controversies of ACW" as a way of deflecting the chaff from the wheat. I think we can sleep well tonight; we made lots of progress on that page today. BusterD 00:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I see in early May you changed some of the text of the Ohio article...in particularly, you removed some very key text regarding Ohio's regional identity.

The text read "Historically (but not universally) considered part of the Midwest" was a key component to a compromise between the tussels regarding Ohio's regional identity (which you will note if you go back into the history far enough.)

The text as originally written successfully and succinctly drew attention to the fact that Ohio's regional identity is not as set in stone as simply declaring it part of the midwest. (I must admit though, the current text version still leaves it semi-open, and sets up an opportunity to go into the regional issue in greater detail, which could make a great sub-section, but I see hasn't been done yet.) I also must admit that the original text might have implied that the historical concept of Ohio's region was not universally accepted, which was not my goal.

So I'm curious to see what you're thinking and where you going with that.

I believe that the great majority of scholars agree that Ohio is part of the Midwest--I would need to see some evidence to the contrary. Rjensen 05:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the original term (with the three words intact) only implied that there is some disagreement on the matter, not that there is a general consensus to the contrary. My only interest is to show that the concept is not 100% cast in stone. What type of scholarship do you believe is needed to add the three words back? Isn't the original quote from the Economist (that follows) sufficient? Jimbobjoe 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there any disagreement on Ohio = Midwest? Not that I know of among scholars. Look at the new Encyclopedia of the Midwest (edited at Ohio State). Brit reporters, well maybe they don't fully appreciate Ohio's complexities & nuances over 200 years after just three days in the Holiday inn. :) Rjensen 08:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. MinorityInAcademia 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I did make the necessary changes and added citations, so the article is fully accurate. We have one anonymous person who seems unaware of recent history and insists on petty changes that are unsourced and unverified or else he will delegitimize the entire article, ruining it for millions of users. Rjensen 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry you believe that, because the maintenance tags are Wikipedia's way of improving articles. If you believe that a maintenance tag is placed in bad faith, get consensus on the talk page before removing it. MinorityInAcademia 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Maintenance tag in this case was pasted on by an uninformed person who does not listen to other editors and hides behind anonymity. That is not a legitimate usage. Rjensen 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The only editors that have commented on the talk page appears to be the anonymous editors and, now, us. It also appears you agreed to changes that no longer appear in the article (granted it wasn't you that initially removed those changes, but that means that the accuracy dispute had not come to a consensus. Also, the rationale of the edit said he reverted to the version used in the Democratic Party article. Why can't we change both pages to what was agreed to on the Republican Party page?) MinorityInAcademia 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

A discussion on this topic has started at: Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies. -- CTSWyneken 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rjensen, the sentence I added:

Keynes was himself unimpressed, saying "I had supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking." (TIME Magazine, March 29, 1999, [6])

is a NPOV fact and therefore material for an encyclopedia. Your revert message of "Keynes was unable to communicate clearly and he blamed his audience" is biased and unacceptable, so I'll be putting it back. If you want to continue this please let's discuss it either here or on the articles talk page.

This quote is POV-- it would not be used except to ridicule FDR. It tells us nothing about the Great Depression. So it should not be there. It was an offhand comment by keynes. (Who was notoroiusly difficult to understand. "Keynesian" theories that economists use were rewritten by his students. Rjensen 15:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your vote. I guess I opened a can or worms with that map but since editors were going back and forth replacing one map with the other in the article I thought it was good to try and gain some consensus. I do find it amusing, though, that the editor from Kentucky said it is the most insulting thing he's ever seen. Being from Alabama, I personally thought anything north of Tennessee was Yankee land :-). Best, -- Alabamaboy 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I recall I joke they told when I lived in Tennessee--Why doesn't Indiana fall into Lake Michigan? Because Kentucky sucks." Rjensen 14:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a source for most of Reagan's anti-communism movements in latin american failing? A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. HawkerTyphoon 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I meant to say the Communist movements after 1989 failed esp in Nicaragua (also El Salvador, Honduras). Rjensen 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you are seriously overreacting. And I strongly suspect you’ve not even read the book before calling Dietrich a crackpot. This dissapoints me, surely a scholar does not judge sight unseen? As for self published, I don’t understand you at all. He was published by Algora Publishing.

1. All his material on the economic and humanitarian consequences of the JCS 1067 are referenced, and It’s highly unlikely that he would have made the references up. But fine, I’ll go to my university library and check out Vladimir Petrov’s book "Money and conquest", to which Dietrich references in the JCS1067 passages you reverted. I’ve got vacations coming up and there will likely be a rainy day sometime.

2. I’ll grant you the communist influence conclusion removal.

3. Unless you can provide a scholarly source that deals as comprehensively with the Post surrender situation as Dietrich I’ll reinsert him in the further reading part. Dietrich collects a lot of material, and is a good source for finding further books. Beschloss quietly fades away in 1945, he mumbles a bit about Hoovers 1946/47 mission where Hoover states that things are the worst in 100 years in Germany, but that’s it. He chooses not to deal with the after-effects of the plan at all beyond that hint. At least Dietrich deals with the subject, and Wikipedia readers should be adult enough to decide for themselves whether he is credible or not, they should need no babying. I’ve found no serious critique of his work in editorials.

4. Baque has met with a flood of critique, so I’ll agree that his books may not apply here. I’ve not read either them nor their rebuttal, but my impression is that the rebuttal only targets the number of prisoners he calculates to have died in U.S. POW-camps, not what he has to say about the Morgenthau plan. Still, no need to inflame the subject further. Note that it was not me who inserted Bacque.

-- Stor stark7 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding reversions [7] made on July 1 2006 ( UTC) to American Civil War

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Thats probably your last 24h block; 48 and up from now on. Except hopefully there won't be any more.

William M. Connolley 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Re your mail: having looked, you reverted the NPOV-sect tag 4 times William M. Connolley 08:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding this edit, you mention it's not in search engines, but it took me all of two seconds to find sources for LBJ saying it ( Boston Globe, Guardian, Franken in the excerpts section, Al Gore and more (tons of blog types)). I don't know if it's notable in and of itself, but it is certainly used fairly often. I'm not going to revert, but just thought you should know. Perhaps you might need to try a new search engine? ;-) -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

we need a quote from the 1960s--It's a 2006 story that LBJ said it (after all they can read it in Wiki). It's just that no biographer or historian has found it while LBJ was alive. Rjensen 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

the quote does not appear in the back runs of the NY Times or the Washington Post. First citation seems to be 2002, or 38 years after the 1964 supposed statement. Rjensen 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I found a citation in The Washington Informer from 1994. Not the 60s, but getting closer. I'll keep digging. Thanks. -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the Tampa Tribune wrote in 1997 that "The University of Texas released a tape made just before Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the 1964 civil rights bill, and the president said: 'I know this is the right thing to do, but we've lost the South for a generation.'" So we just need to find this tape or information about it. -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's progress! Rjensen 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't find the quote in Caro (which covers civil rights fight) or in LBJ Library at [8] Rjensen 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I found another instance of Johnson saying, "Bill, I think we Democrats just lost the South for the rest of my life." (Tom Wicker, "Tragic Failure: Racial Integration in America" (1996)) So maybe the quote is wrong. And he was a self-described "New York Times political reporter" in 1964. But who knows whether he is correct. Just letting you know I'm still looking. ;-) -- LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps Johnson might have said it years later after his party collapsed in 1968. Then it would not be a prophecy. In fact he split the South 50-50 with Goldwater in 1964. Wicker was a big name reporter in 1964. Rjensen 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

In regards to the Hollis reference. I reviewed the publication from Melvin G. Holli, "The American Mayor: The Best and the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999". It is essentially a review of American Mayors but makes no reference to Presidents. I can agree with keeping the historian, but the extension you keep putting in ---which have been extended to cover the greatest mayors as well---offers nothing to the article.

what is offers is a discussion of the "Ranking" problem, which is half the title after all. In other words this is an article about two different things, 1) presidential greatness and 2) ranking leaders. Holli is very useful because it breaks away from the presidents and strongly held political opinions. Rjensen 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Your response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjensen is welcome. This was also mentioned on Talk:Alexander Hamilton. Septentrionalis 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI, you seem to have violated WP:3RR at Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I was careful about that-- I alsways added material rather than merely revert. Rjensen 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Saw your edit to John C. Calhoun and the first thing I thought was, "What's a JSTOR?" One quick wikisearch gave me the answer. But then I thought "What's the value of this? A note about the contents of an external search engine that not everyone can use?" But then, remembering about assuming good faith, I searched a little more to see what else might have references to JSTOR. So instead, my question becomes, "Should there be a consistent method of notation for articles at JSTOR?" And the follow-up question, "Is there a list of what is containted in JSTOR which could be cross referenced into wikipedia?" -- MrDolomite | Talk 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

good questions. About 10 million college students have free access to JSTOR (plus millions of others through K12 and public libraries), so it seems a useful service. You're right there should be some sort of Wiki policy. The JSTOR people perhaps can help in that regard. Rjensen 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Citations from JSTOR should follow the academic norm of citing the actual journal, volume, number and page, not JSTOR, which is itself just a portal. Cripipper 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You're right on citations in usual form; then wiki can add "online at JSTOR" or words to that effect. Rjensen 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply