This is a subpage of Rjensen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
the latest archive is Archive 29 as of 18 November 2017
Hi there, you have reverted a change that I made to the Great Depression in India. I had put my reasons for making the change. Could you please provide the reason for reverting my changes without providing a reasonable explanation. The statements that had been deleted by me do not have any citations or references.
ksinkar ( talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen,
The "very narrow perspective" is the idea that specific historians can be labelled as "nationalistic". One cannot ignore the fact that historians belong to a specific race, religion, nationality etc. and they observe and report history from the perspective of their life experience. If you think that there is any such thing as an unbiased historian then you are naive. For many historians from the Occident (who consider themselves as being non-nationalist and non-racist), facts are Govt. or newspaper records. The fact that the Govt. and the newspapers of the day misreported and misrepresented facts, knowingly, is often overlooked. You can always base your conclusions on the reports and observations of others but then you cannot assign derogative and dismissive adjectives to conclusions drawn from sources that you have ignored, dismissed and for some reason do not wish to account for.
I do not believe that there are classes of historians: "nationalistic", "liberal" etc. There are just historians. They may have their biases, but that is because of their origins. If you think that a historian's conclusion is incorrect, please point out the logical inconsistency, rather than indulging in name-calling and denigrating the person in an effort to dilute the weight of the argument.
Why is it that your narrative is the normative one, while the other one is "nationalistic"? It is as if you are implying that the historian who maybe an Indian National is making an emotional judgement rather than a logical one? If that is case, then point out the logical flaw instead of indulging in name-calling. Who are these outside scholars who argue that there was no impact on India, why is there no citation for that statement? What makes the statement by the outside scholars the normative one, and the one by the inside scholars "nationalistic"? Who are these Outside Scholars, what are their motivations, intentions, sources?
Let me replace the term "Outside Scholars" in that document with "White Supremacist" and see how you feel. And then when you try to reject that label, I can reply by saying «Perhaps you think white supremacists do not exists in American Universities, who knows what you mean..» ksinkar ( talk) 14:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 14:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)The book quoted by you earlier is also Eurocentric [2], in the sense, their point of reference is Europe. Their narrative of nationalism of the 1800s and 1900s as invented in Europe has shortcomings. The English word Nation has been mentioned in the translation of the New Testament and the Old Testament called King Jame's Bible. There, the 12 tribes of Israel are referred to as the 12 Nations of Israel. The word tribe and nation has been used interchangeably in that book. From a Eurocentric perspective, the West is composed of nations while the rest is composed of tribes. The only difference between European tribes and Indian (NOT Original/Native American) tribes is that geography was generally shared by the same tribes, while in Europe, that was not the case. This did not generally happen in Europe, and when it did, it led to forced displacement of populations like before and after World War 2.
The label of a Nationalist that you have applied to the historians in question is a misnomer and an effort to weaken their arguments by denigrating their narrative as Nationalist. ksinkar ( talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, quick question. I ran across an odd sentence in Great Depression in the United States, dug back in the edits, and found you were its author. Would you mind taking a look at the paragraph beginning with "The New Deal was, and still is, sharply debated"? The "dangerous man" phrasing is throwing me... is it meant to be "men" or "a man?" If the latter, is the man Roosevelt? If you could clarify, that would be great. Thank you! Jessicapierce ( talk) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Your definition of fasicm being on the far-right is incorrect. Fasicm is actually a left ideal. Look up Giovanni Gentile; the originator of this ideal. His history and ideals are toward socialism. His contemporaries also dealt with Marxism and socialism.
Respectfully submitted, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC ( talk) 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
One more: the originator of fascicm, Giovanni Gentile, had ties - namely, he had written a book - with Benito Mussolini: The Doctrine of Fascism. Ironically, Wikipedia itself states that Mussoluni moved to the right; however, reading further into this man reflects his heavy socialist leanings.
Again, respectfully submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 16:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
Are you familiar with WP:Categorization (especially about set categories) and WP:INCOMPATIBLE?
The Watergate scandal was a scandal, but Richard Nixon was a person.
The Dreyfuss affair was a scandal, but Alfred Dreyfuss was a person.
If there is a notable scandal, then there should be an article about the scandal itself, such as the Jack Abramoff scandals. People involved the scandal could be categorized as "People associated with ...", such as in Category:People associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals.
If there is not enough material to create an article on the scandal, then create a properly named redirect – e.g. Hugh Dalton budget-leaking scandal – and place it in the appropriate categories, such as indicated in WP:INCOMPATIBLE.
But people cannot be categorized as scandals.
Regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please don't assume that the reason why I was removing data from partial source was due to personal reasons.
I would just as vigorously object and remove any citation of, for example, Bin Laden as an authority on US foreign policy as I will remove the two slanted anti-Arab historians (one of whom is openly so) from the Runciman page.
It's really very simple, I'm sure you would also object to the inclusion of Bin Laden's views on US/western foreign policy as a legitimate source, for example, and yet you are fighting to keep information from a historian who casts Arabs in a poor light due to sympathies with Israeli foreign policy.
It's a little bizzare in my mind that this is being done, and my question is more directly, are you saying a poor source that can be cited must be included regardless of it's factual accuracy or the very high likelihood of implicit bias. That's a real 'floodgate' moment if the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
At Diplomatic history of World War I - however, using "infected" for an idea (an not merely an emotion) does let the reader make a link between the idea of communism and that of disease (since infected is usually more closely associated with it's usage relative to diseases than to this more imaginative usage - Merriam-Webster lists the meaning you were referring to (3b) together with "contaminate, corrupt" (meaning 3a) (according to the online version at least) 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 02:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The usage of "infected" could also fall under WP:IDIOM or, stretching it a bit to include usage of synonyms for other words, WP:SAY. 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 03:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IMPERIALISM (2016)]; 2) "In the simplest situation there are two populations, I(t) denotes the number of already infected (either with biological objects capable of transmit infection or with revolutionary ideas to be transferred to others) individuals, and S(t) is the number of susceptible individuals." [Peter Erdi - 2007]; 3) Collier Dictionary definition #2: revolutionize " to inspire or infect with revolutionary ideas: they revolutionized the common soldiers." Rjensen ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
François Robere ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding challenging sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks Andrew Spana ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Mr. Jensen,
I am interested in European History and saw your name under the "View history" page quite often. I had a couple of questions that I would like to ask specifically about the Elizabethan Era, and was hoping we would be able to have somewhat of a conversation. I was also wondering if you knew anyone who specialized in this field, as I am hoping to write a research paper on it. My main question is: How did Queen Elizabeth create a sense of national identity in England? I have been researching this topic and was hoping you would be able to provide some insight.
Thanks for your time, -Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Spana ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Collinson, Patrick. "Elizabeth I and the verdicts of history," Historical Research, Nov 2003, Vol. 76 Issue 194, pp 469–91 and B) Doran, Susan, and Thomas S. Freeman, eds. The Myth of Elizabeth.(2003) a 280 page book and C) pp. Greaves, Richard L., ed. Elizabeth I, Queen of England (1974), excerpts from historians. Your librarian can get these for you. GOOD LUCK! Rjensen ( talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be of interest to you: "In his speech, he [Karl Rove] described a visit to the White House by the revisionist historian Forrest McDonald, who spoke about presidential greatness. Rove expressed delight at discovering a fellow McKinley enthusiast , and said that McDonald had explained in his talk, “Nobody knows McKinley is great, because history demanded little of him. He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years”—this last part clearly excited Rove—“and he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics. He was inclusive, and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy. The Protestant Anglo-Saxon Republicans were scandalized by his 1896 campaign, in which he paraded Portuguese fishermen and Slovak coal miners and Serbian iron workers to Canton, Ohio, to meet him. He just absolutely scandalized the country." The Rove Presidency. -- Taterian ( talk) 02:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I replied to you at the article talk page, there is just no way a single Christmas article can support including any of this, regardless of it being White. So, I'm not sure you understood why we are opposed. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 03:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, can I ask you what limitations would you put on this very lengthy article that is covered by multiple scholarship, per WP:SUMMARY? We cannot just add and add things, supported by singular (often relatively poor) sources not trying to summarize the whole body of scholarship, giving things undue weight. Right? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this where you removed a copyvio. Do you know when it was inserted into the article? If so, Template:revdel should be used to remove it from the article history. If you are unsure how to use that template, then I can apply it if you give me the original offending diff. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Please do not start an edit war. You removed sourced information (Smith 2007 417–418, Burns 1956, p. 256 and Dallek 1995, p. 180) so you are in the wrong here. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In your 02-15-18 edit of Asphalt, I'm confused by some of the wording. I can't quite tell what you intended, so won't try to edit. My questions inserted here: "By 1900 American cities boasted 30 million square yards of asphalt paving, followed by brick construction. (followed by?) It proved (word missing?) for bicycles and especially for automobiles...". WCCasey ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent contributions on the postwar economic links within the Commonwealth was interesting, but included some seemingly random text. I haven't been able to guess what the original intent was, so I thought I'd ask you. Search for "was a post" to see what I mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Commonwealth_of_Nations&oldid=822655845 [your revision]
ferg2k ( talk) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You've been a major contributor to the listing and I think it is worthwhile. To stem the push for deletion, does my suggestion about limiting the scope to notable works and authors make sense? If so, who should take the laboring oar? (Caveat - I may be unlinked in a week or so because of personal commitments.) – S. Rich ( talk) 07:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You do understand that an author uses quotes to specifically indicate that he or she is not lending credence to the text inside the quotes, for example "friendly relations" in the cite you provide?
Best,
JS ( talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
why did you revert my edit? that was not a test edit, the "Partially recognized state" is not usually used is and is unnecessary 194.68.94.68 ( talk) 10:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Your edits to this article are not in line with the source cited. Please cease making edits and discuss your concerns on the talk page, where I willhappy to answer them using specific cites from the source. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been reading about William Temple here. However there is another book in his work. Would you mind to add Christian Faith and life (1931). Thank you Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.174.205 ( talk) 11:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave it at your revision for now, but I'm not sure why you told me to "take it to talk" when there's already a thread there on this subject to which I have contributed but you have not. If you're serious about discussing the issues, then... please discuss them.— Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I noticed that you reverted the deletion of the alumni summary on the Princeton University page. I personally agree with you - that alumni summaries are standard and should be included on all university pages. However, two users, SeraphimBlade and ScrapIronIV, seem to believe they don't have a place on any college pages and have repeatedly removed them from the Williams College page. Can we rectify this somehow? They do not listen to any of my logic behind the inclusion of these alumni summaries, despite me repeatedly telling them that it's standard. GreylockFoW ( talk) 23:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The text is very strange, it doesn't mention Philippe Pétain. I don't know French history to write the page, but I see a great black hole. Xx236 ( talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI - /info/en/?search=Talk:Richard_Hofstadter#Religion-category. Thank you! Suomalainen konformisuus ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Thanks for your work on the Kenneth Boulding article. The article is way too loaded up with relatively insignificant detail and dated piecemeal assessments of his work. The result is, paradoxically, that his lasting and most significant contributions are lost in the soup. I think this has been the impression of many seasoned editors and users who have gone to his article, so I hope you will consider trimming some of the redundant statements and less enduring facts and details concerning this great thinker. I'm not likely to do much work on this myself, so this is just food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to follow up on your feedback. Was the problem that I cited Passmore? I've found other sources that make similar arguments; my rationale was that Passmore already appeared on the page and offered a nuanced, complex view of fascism on the political spectrum. My aim is to promote neutrality and accuracy, and the current versions of the phrasing make it appear as though there is a consensus among historians that fascism = far right phenomenon when there's far more agreement that it's not that simplistic.
Would it help if I cited Robert Paxton instead on the same point? Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (reprint edition). Vintage. p.8. [3] I thought I would run it by you before bringing it up on the talk page.
Also, I'm new to wikipedia. If it's more appropriate to bring this up on the topic talk page, let me know. Contributor451 ( talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
[copied from here to
Talk:Weimar Republic
I think that matter should probably be raised in some WikiProject to resolve that question. I can live with the compromise of just putting "Germany" there for now, even though I still strongly believe that giving the official name of the state is the way to go. I also disagree with the first sentence in the Weimar Republic article. It says it "is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state", which is not the case, the term describes a period, not a state. By international law, Germany during the Weimar Republic is the same state as it was since 1871 and as it was until 1945.
Zwerg Nase (
talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You have undone some of my edits, without bothering to explain why. Your actions suggest either that you are unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:IG and WP:REVEXP, or that you are being deliberately disruptive. As you've been editing since 2005, the former seems unlikely. Kindly improve your conduct in the future. 149.14.147.61 ( talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In France–United States relations you added However as the Americans grew mightily and economic power,... I think that must be a typo or some words left out but without access to the ref, I won't try to guess a correction. Cavrdg ( talk) 08:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: Kudos for your patience in working with my student User:Haydenstephens on the Jazz Age article. Your comment does far more than I can to cue them into what Wiki editing is all about.
Seems to be missing Netherlands New Guinea 1945-1962, attempt to remove 3000 Axis Japanese officers from Java 1945-1949, attempt to implement requirements of UN Charter chapter XI during 1945-1948 in East Indies and 1950-1962 in Netherlands New Guinea. Daeron ( talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
On the page Talk:Marshall Plan, you mentioned that a page is needed on aid plans in Europe. I'm up for writing it, but what should the title be? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello you prepare to page about William Pete Van Ness that is incredibly in accurate if you wish to correct this please contact me at DK . History is to be done correctly and that capriciously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:8380:1C4B:2C56:362B:4EBA:2FD8 ( talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! this claim that you removed was sourced in McDonald's work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed your 2012 talk -- and it gave me some insight to use in improving the articles I edit: specifically, to improve the summary paragraphs of an article (a boring job I often ignore) and, two, to put more emphasis on the changing memories of an event and its historiography. Although my edit history would identify me as focused on the Vietnam War, I think of myself more as a student of the intersection of archaeology and history in the relationship of American Indians and Europeans. That's an area in which memories and historiography have seen a lot of change in recent decades. Smallchief ( talk) 11:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I took the source directly from the article about Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. If it's not a reliable source, should it be deleted from that article as well? -- Aabicus ( talk) 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Be sure to leave WP:Edit summaries. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited France–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Painlevé ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please look at the edit you are restoring. I do not object in principle to a valid summary in the lead summary of the article contents regarding negative views of the subject; but that's not what was there. The inappropriate swap of "outcome" for "opportunity" is particularly clear. By all means feel free to replace it with something decent and non-hackish! -- JBL ( talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The 2018 award was announced today. Here are some links to news articles about it: Washington Post article [3], PR Newswire [4], and Chicago Sun Times [5]. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 15:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Volume 4 | Issue 6 | June 2018
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!
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a " boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Would please be so kind as to clarify part of this edit to " Confederate States of America":
Presbyterians were even more active with 112 missionaries and early 1865.
(Emphasis added.) I'm not certain what you meant by the emphasized phrase. I tried to find an online copy of the cited article "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in the Confederacy" to figure it out on my own, but came up empty. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Editors have been working on George Washington to get to Featured Article status. Improvements have been made. More needs to be done. One issue is the placement of the Personal life and Slavery sections. I think Slavery should be included in the Personal life section and that the Personal life section should be removed from the chronochological sections of the article, and possibly be placed after the Historical reputation and legacy section. Any advice or editing on this or other matters in the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
On this question only, I don’t know what your objection is. Is it that I used a primary source, and thus it’s OR, or that I didn’t? The original, of which 6 sentences are quoted, is in the James Monroe papers, Reel 6, LOC. Embarrassing to get the president wrong. Sorry. deisenbe ( talk) 13:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with everything said. However, I have to say that under a section describing the social life at St. Paul's, how can any subjective information especially from almost 30 years ago, be held as reliable. Everything else on this page is based off of facts and statistics that are still true. You have to understand that this falsely portrays the school in a negative light. If young kids interested in attending the school believe this is the current social scene, why would they want to attend. I would almost go as far to say this is a form of defamation on wikipedia's part, and would suggest that it ether be deleted or the title of the section be changed as to not suggest that what Khan describes is the current social scene.
Hey Rjensen, can I suggest you remove the last two sentences in your comment on that talk page? It isn't very civil. tedder ( talk) 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would differ with the advice given in your edit summary here. The devil is in the details, of course, but this how I read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In your recent edit [6] at Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez you deleted comments from me and another editor. Did you mean to do that, and if so why? Work permit ( talk) 05:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reinsurance Treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Alliance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen, As requested on the talk page: Do you have a cite to specific policy text? Humanengr ( talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
“The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States,” Alexei Pushkov, a senator who sits on the upper house of parliament’s defense and security committee, said.
“The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” [1]
References
The lines that follow in that article:
Victoria Zhuravleva, an expert on U.S.-Russia relations who writes analytical papers for the government, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to.
“If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” said Zhuravleva, who said Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones.
Does that suffice? Humanengr ( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So, we have then:
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said “If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones. [1]
References
Reuters didn’t provide a date separate from the byline's 1/11/2017 for either Pushkov or Zhuravleva.
Is that ok? Shall I post to the article and talk page? Is it ok with you if I reference this discussion there? Thx again, Humanengr ( talk) 19:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for showing me where I was mistaken on the article. I have retracted my concerns about the first sentence.
I am not a regular user here, but the user Beyond My Ken who responded to me about the matter was obnoxiously rude from the first response to me and provided no reasons why I was mistaken, they just kept insulting me again and again. I don't know what kind of conduct Wikipedia tolerates but that user was being very obnoxiously rude even though I sought to address the issue as politely as I could. Disappointing, just wondering if you could say something to that user that while I was mistaken in my view of the situation that they did not need to be rude and should not be insulting someone over a disagreement expressed politely by me on content of text on a page.
I don't really care too much since I have no interest in becoming a full-time user here, but someone having that attitude towards someone they have never interacted with before and who has politely addressed an issue is not a good sign for how they treat other people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 ( talk) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit you removed the alt-text for an image without making any explanation. Alt-text is helpful to many readers, especially those with visual impairments. Please don't remove it without very good reason, and please restore it in this case. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Am you asking if I think he was wrong to define ‘conspiracy theory’ without saying they are definitionally false? Humanengr ( talk) 02:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen! You have been a top editor at Gallup (company), so you might be interested in my request to develop a new section focusing on what it is Gallup actually does. The current article focuses on the Gallup Poll, which is just a fraction of the company's work, so it could do a better job providing more information about the various areas of Gallup's business. I have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm offering these updates on behalf of the company as part of my work with Beutler Ink, so I'm looking for other editors to review. Would you mind giving it a look? Danilo Two ( talk) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Lloyd George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This section is already in his wiki article:
"Despite his quarrels with the Nonconformists, Arnold never voted for the Tories and would describe himself as a Liberal throughout his life. [1]"
Peter Viereck's book is poor scholarship and his word is not as trustworthy as literary critics focused on Arnold's life. I rarely see it cited outside of conservative circles. A critique of "Philistinism" and love for the Classics was common among many 19th century Liberals and there were likewise many quarrels within the Liberal Party.
AbsoluteEgoist ( talk) 14:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I see no evidence that Robert Frost or Flannery O'Connor should be listed as traditionalist conservatives, so unless you can find impartial scholarly sources stating otherwise (I'd avoid using the self-serving books of conservatives like Russell Kirk), I think removing them is justified.
AbsoluteEgoist ( talk) 14:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
An addendum to my previous comment on Matthew Arnold, which I wrote it haste.
In the opening to Culture and Anarchy (1869) Arnold states: "I am a Liberal, yet I am a Liberal tempered by experience, reflexion, and renouncement, and I am, above all, a believer in culture." You can find this quote in numerous sources besides the named text, among them. [2]
In 1880, Arnold describes himself as "a Liberal of the future rather than a Liberal of the present." [3]
The influence of thinkers like Burke, Coleridge, and Carlyle was diffuse throughout Victorian England. John Stuart Mill was also influenced by all three, and yet to call him a "traditionalist conservative" would be a huge stretch. So any influence they may have had on Arnold is not sufficient to classify him as such. Likewise there's a case to be made that Mill and Arnold were not so far apart from each other. In the Preface of Edward Alexander's book Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill he writes: "I have tried to show to what a considerable extent each other shared the convictions of each other; how much of a liberal Arnold was and how much of a humanist Mill was." [4] Russell Jacoby has also reiterated these points and pushed back against the disingenuous conservative appropriation of Arnold in his books The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in the Age of Apathy and Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age. I don't have the former on hand, but in the latter he describes Arnold as "a liberal thinker." [5] George Scialabba and many others have shared his interpretation of Arnold, e.g.: http://www.bu.edu/agni/reviews/online/2009/oppenheimer.html
Furthermore, if Arnold's criticism of Gladstone's Liberal party somehow disqualifies him from being called a Liberal, then by the same logic, Peter Viereck's (whose book you cite) own criticism of the American conservative movement, his subsequent alienation from that movement, and his support for New Deal Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson would disqualify Viereck from being considered a conservative. I think it's reasonable to ask that if the so-called "conservative" traits described by Viereck led him to support New Deal Democrats, then are they really distinctively "conservative" traits or in fact traits that are found across the political spectrum? This might explain some of Viereck's own confusion about Arnold's political stance.
As I implied before, I think you were way too quick to accept Viereck's dubious scholarship on both Arnold and "conservatism" in general.
To get a grasp of the wide range of Liberal thought during the 19th century, particularly the Liberal criticism of commercial culture and mediocrity which Arnold shared, I recommend Alan Kahan's Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville. IIRC, Kahan suggests Matthew Arnold belongs within this tradition as well, and it certainly sounds more accurate than calling him a traditionalist conservative. I can recommend other books on the matter if you like.
References
Overy, Richard. The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe, 1940–1945. New York: Viking, 2014; 562 pages; covers the civil defence and the impact on the home fronts of Allied strategic bombing of Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Scandinavia
Hi,
What did you mean to write here? "During the Second World Cup war, it was active in civil defense, providing step the officers to the Home Guard. Its membership grew rapidly as the veterans of the Second World War were demobilized."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Royal_British_Legion&diff=765229613&oldid=761637335
Should it be support to rather than step? AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 08:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss the Richard Nixon article edit in the talk page. It is not very useful to just revert after two reverts without discussion in the talk page. Thinker78 ( talk) 07:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: if you have an interest, the following pages need work:
There's an interesting historical theme of the Supreme Court increasing the powers of the police and the net results. I'm trying to work on them all little by little. Thanks for your consideration! Seahawk01 ( talk) 04:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding references to that article. Can you also cover the "Coalition victory" section? That would be enough for us to feature that on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 14. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Since this is old hat for me, cleaning up External links sections, and the burden for including external links is on those seeking inclusion, I hope you will consider just working on the one article until we have consensus.
If you'd rather me not touch the articles you've identified, I'm certainly willing to wait as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In a recent contribution on Salazar’s article you’ve included a statement, on Tom Gallagher voice, saying that “Portugal remained poor as Europe flourished in the 1960s and 197s.”
But Gallagher`s vision does not seem to be supported by facts. During Salazar's tenure, Portugal participated in the founding of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961. In the early 1960s, Portugal also added its membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. This marked the initiation of Salazar's more outward-looking economic policy. Portuguese foreign trade increased by 52 per cent in exports and 40 per cent in imports. The economic growth and levels of capital formation from 1960 to 1973 were characterised by an unparalleled robust annual growth rates of GDP (6.9 per cent), industrial production (9 per cent), private consumption (6.5 per cent) and gross fixed capital formation (7.8 per cent).
Despite the effects of an expensive war effort in African territories against guerrilla groups, Portuguese economic growth from 1960 to 1973 under the Estado Novo created an opportunity for real integration with the developed economies of Western Europe. In 1960, Portugal's per capita GDP was only 38 per cent of the European Community (EC-12) average; by the end of Salazar's rule in 1968, it had risen to 48 per cent; and in 1973, under the leadership of Marcelo Caetano, Portugal's per capita GDP had reached 56.4 per cent of the EC-12 average.
It seems that in this case Gallagher view is not supported by the numbers and should probably be removed from Wikipedia or, if maintained, it should be placed along with the facts that contradict Gallagher’s view.
I am very appreciative of your contributions to wikipedia, so whatever you decide, fine with me. Just felt that need to tell you this. -- J Pratas ( talk) 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I certainly can see how it could be read that way given, especially the communication problems we've been having. I hope that my clarifications make it clear that I'm not commenting on the Wikiproject at all. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Since you appear to be affiliated with https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/mil-2012.htm, comments like this should be accompanied by a COI disclosure. I haven't noticed inappropriate self-promotion on your part but please be sure to be transparent about your connection. Thanks – dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Rjensen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I notice a number of minor edit corrections including yours are tagged "(ce)". I'm curious to know what it means? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, can I assume you're actively involved with War of 1812? There are a number of phantom refs.. they are cited but never listed in Sources or elsewhere. I remember Voelker for one, but it seems the worst offender is "James 1817". It's cited 12 or 13 times and never listed in full anywhere. I have tried to search for something likely, but failed. Do you have any idea what that is? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
( ←) If you know anyone who knows anything about the Bengal famine of 1943 and who isn't operating from a particular POV, the article will be back in FAC next month. Its nom was folded, spindled and mutilated last time. It is languishing in WP:PR at the moment... Meanwhile the offer of help still stands for other articles... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You restored an unsourced claim, and you stated that his death was related to this claim. Without any sources that he was a heavy smoker and that his death was related to that, that is indeed editorializing. Take it to talk or leave it out. Meters ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my edit attempt. I invite you to join the discussion about reducing the length of this article, here. Lfstevens ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The section you added to this article includes the non-word "inevolution", copied directly from Women in the Russian Revolution. It appears to be an accidental typo from an edit made to that article on 13 February 2019 by an IP editor. I don't know what that editor's original intent was, and don't have any way of finding out, and, moreover, I am afraid to guess, since I don't have easy access to any of the sources used. I wounder if you could help with this. Bruce leverett ( talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Rjensen - I must say, it was quite the honor for me to have contributed in the same RfC as you (albeit briefly and in opposition). Atsme 📣 📧 23:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen,
Thanks for creating History of the American legal profession! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
This has been tagged for 3 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn ( talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupewikimedia.org |
— MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You are Most Welcome Sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 10:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume you posted this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bryan,_Judge_magazine,_1896.jpg
Information on the file is here https://www.loc.gov/item/2010651311/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:D7F:FB92:E857:FF4F:D80C:C774 ( talk) 19:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the article Fascism in Europe I think that the same IP that has been quarreling on Salazar`s page is now trying to impose is views on other articles. Thanks. -- J Pratas ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you have a look at https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traces-of-the-confederacy-in-washington-not-all-gone-with-the-wind/2011/03/21/AFWqh2JD_story.html?utm_term=.41386cf84b1d
and tell me if you think it likely or not that Wilson would have attended an occasional event there. I do not have a specific event in mind. I'm working on an article on it (the Hall).
I see your involvement with h-Net. I was the founder of h-Cervantes. deisenbe ( talk) 09:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This Month in Education Volume 8 • Issue 4 • April 2019 Contents • Headlines • Subscribe In This Issue |
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. |
I'm hopeful that you can save me some time by telling me if this is known information or not. I wasn't even looking for things on Wilson:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/332093760/?terms=confederate%2Bvermont
What I am working on is User:Deisenbe/sandbox#Confederate Memorial Hall, which still needs some info I have to write up on the legal problems that led to its closure - $500,000 contempt of court fine on Hines, though for what I haven't found. But I have the first stage of it. Hurley seems to be a nut, conspiracy theories stuff, not rational. deisenbe ( talk) 00:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a subpage of Rjensen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
the latest archive is Archive 29 as of 18 November 2017
Hi there, you have reverted a change that I made to the Great Depression in India. I had put my reasons for making the change. Could you please provide the reason for reverting my changes without providing a reasonable explanation. The statements that had been deleted by me do not have any citations or references.
ksinkar ( talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen,
The "very narrow perspective" is the idea that specific historians can be labelled as "nationalistic". One cannot ignore the fact that historians belong to a specific race, religion, nationality etc. and they observe and report history from the perspective of their life experience. If you think that there is any such thing as an unbiased historian then you are naive. For many historians from the Occident (who consider themselves as being non-nationalist and non-racist), facts are Govt. or newspaper records. The fact that the Govt. and the newspapers of the day misreported and misrepresented facts, knowingly, is often overlooked. You can always base your conclusions on the reports and observations of others but then you cannot assign derogative and dismissive adjectives to conclusions drawn from sources that you have ignored, dismissed and for some reason do not wish to account for.
I do not believe that there are classes of historians: "nationalistic", "liberal" etc. There are just historians. They may have their biases, but that is because of their origins. If you think that a historian's conclusion is incorrect, please point out the logical inconsistency, rather than indulging in name-calling and denigrating the person in an effort to dilute the weight of the argument.
Why is it that your narrative is the normative one, while the other one is "nationalistic"? It is as if you are implying that the historian who maybe an Indian National is making an emotional judgement rather than a logical one? If that is case, then point out the logical flaw instead of indulging in name-calling. Who are these outside scholars who argue that there was no impact on India, why is there no citation for that statement? What makes the statement by the outside scholars the normative one, and the one by the inside scholars "nationalistic"? Who are these Outside Scholars, what are their motivations, intentions, sources?
Let me replace the term "Outside Scholars" in that document with "White Supremacist" and see how you feel. And then when you try to reject that label, I can reply by saying «Perhaps you think white supremacists do not exists in American Universities, who knows what you mean..» ksinkar ( talk) 14:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 14:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)The book quoted by you earlier is also Eurocentric [2], in the sense, their point of reference is Europe. Their narrative of nationalism of the 1800s and 1900s as invented in Europe has shortcomings. The English word Nation has been mentioned in the translation of the New Testament and the Old Testament called King Jame's Bible. There, the 12 tribes of Israel are referred to as the 12 Nations of Israel. The word tribe and nation has been used interchangeably in that book. From a Eurocentric perspective, the West is composed of nations while the rest is composed of tribes. The only difference between European tribes and Indian (NOT Original/Native American) tribes is that geography was generally shared by the same tribes, while in Europe, that was not the case. This did not generally happen in Europe, and when it did, it led to forced displacement of populations like before and after World War 2.
The label of a Nationalist that you have applied to the historians in question is a misnomer and an effort to weaken their arguments by denigrating their narrative as Nationalist. ksinkar ( talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, quick question. I ran across an odd sentence in Great Depression in the United States, dug back in the edits, and found you were its author. Would you mind taking a look at the paragraph beginning with "The New Deal was, and still is, sharply debated"? The "dangerous man" phrasing is throwing me... is it meant to be "men" or "a man?" If the latter, is the man Roosevelt? If you could clarify, that would be great. Thank you! Jessicapierce ( talk) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Your definition of fasicm being on the far-right is incorrect. Fasicm is actually a left ideal. Look up Giovanni Gentile; the originator of this ideal. His history and ideals are toward socialism. His contemporaries also dealt with Marxism and socialism.
Respectfully submitted, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC ( talk) 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
One more: the originator of fascicm, Giovanni Gentile, had ties - namely, he had written a book - with Benito Mussolini: The Doctrine of Fascism. Ironically, Wikipedia itself states that Mussoluni moved to the right; however, reading further into this man reflects his heavy socialist leanings.
Again, respectfully submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 16:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
Are you familiar with WP:Categorization (especially about set categories) and WP:INCOMPATIBLE?
The Watergate scandal was a scandal, but Richard Nixon was a person.
The Dreyfuss affair was a scandal, but Alfred Dreyfuss was a person.
If there is a notable scandal, then there should be an article about the scandal itself, such as the Jack Abramoff scandals. People involved the scandal could be categorized as "People associated with ...", such as in Category:People associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals.
If there is not enough material to create an article on the scandal, then create a properly named redirect – e.g. Hugh Dalton budget-leaking scandal – and place it in the appropriate categories, such as indicated in WP:INCOMPATIBLE.
But people cannot be categorized as scandals.
Regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please don't assume that the reason why I was removing data from partial source was due to personal reasons.
I would just as vigorously object and remove any citation of, for example, Bin Laden as an authority on US foreign policy as I will remove the two slanted anti-Arab historians (one of whom is openly so) from the Runciman page.
It's really very simple, I'm sure you would also object to the inclusion of Bin Laden's views on US/western foreign policy as a legitimate source, for example, and yet you are fighting to keep information from a historian who casts Arabs in a poor light due to sympathies with Israeli foreign policy.
It's a little bizzare in my mind that this is being done, and my question is more directly, are you saying a poor source that can be cited must be included regardless of it's factual accuracy or the very high likelihood of implicit bias. That's a real 'floodgate' moment if the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
At Diplomatic history of World War I - however, using "infected" for an idea (an not merely an emotion) does let the reader make a link between the idea of communism and that of disease (since infected is usually more closely associated with it's usage relative to diseases than to this more imaginative usage - Merriam-Webster lists the meaning you were referring to (3b) together with "contaminate, corrupt" (meaning 3a) (according to the online version at least) 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 02:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The usage of "infected" could also fall under WP:IDIOM or, stretching it a bit to include usage of synonyms for other words, WP:SAY. 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 03:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IMPERIALISM (2016)]; 2) "In the simplest situation there are two populations, I(t) denotes the number of already infected (either with biological objects capable of transmit infection or with revolutionary ideas to be transferred to others) individuals, and S(t) is the number of susceptible individuals." [Peter Erdi - 2007]; 3) Collier Dictionary definition #2: revolutionize " to inspire or infect with revolutionary ideas: they revolutionized the common soldiers." Rjensen ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
François Robere ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding challenging sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks Andrew Spana ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Mr. Jensen,
I am interested in European History and saw your name under the "View history" page quite often. I had a couple of questions that I would like to ask specifically about the Elizabethan Era, and was hoping we would be able to have somewhat of a conversation. I was also wondering if you knew anyone who specialized in this field, as I am hoping to write a research paper on it. My main question is: How did Queen Elizabeth create a sense of national identity in England? I have been researching this topic and was hoping you would be able to provide some insight.
Thanks for your time, -Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Spana ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Collinson, Patrick. "Elizabeth I and the verdicts of history," Historical Research, Nov 2003, Vol. 76 Issue 194, pp 469–91 and B) Doran, Susan, and Thomas S. Freeman, eds. The Myth of Elizabeth.(2003) a 280 page book and C) pp. Greaves, Richard L., ed. Elizabeth I, Queen of England (1974), excerpts from historians. Your librarian can get these for you. GOOD LUCK! Rjensen ( talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be of interest to you: "In his speech, he [Karl Rove] described a visit to the White House by the revisionist historian Forrest McDonald, who spoke about presidential greatness. Rove expressed delight at discovering a fellow McKinley enthusiast , and said that McDonald had explained in his talk, “Nobody knows McKinley is great, because history demanded little of him. He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years”—this last part clearly excited Rove—“and he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics. He was inclusive, and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy. The Protestant Anglo-Saxon Republicans were scandalized by his 1896 campaign, in which he paraded Portuguese fishermen and Slovak coal miners and Serbian iron workers to Canton, Ohio, to meet him. He just absolutely scandalized the country." The Rove Presidency. -- Taterian ( talk) 02:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I replied to you at the article talk page, there is just no way a single Christmas article can support including any of this, regardless of it being White. So, I'm not sure you understood why we are opposed. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 03:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, can I ask you what limitations would you put on this very lengthy article that is covered by multiple scholarship, per WP:SUMMARY? We cannot just add and add things, supported by singular (often relatively poor) sources not trying to summarize the whole body of scholarship, giving things undue weight. Right? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this where you removed a copyvio. Do you know when it was inserted into the article? If so, Template:revdel should be used to remove it from the article history. If you are unsure how to use that template, then I can apply it if you give me the original offending diff. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Please do not start an edit war. You removed sourced information (Smith 2007 417–418, Burns 1956, p. 256 and Dallek 1995, p. 180) so you are in the wrong here. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In your 02-15-18 edit of Asphalt, I'm confused by some of the wording. I can't quite tell what you intended, so won't try to edit. My questions inserted here: "By 1900 American cities boasted 30 million square yards of asphalt paving, followed by brick construction. (followed by?) It proved (word missing?) for bicycles and especially for automobiles...". WCCasey ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent contributions on the postwar economic links within the Commonwealth was interesting, but included some seemingly random text. I haven't been able to guess what the original intent was, so I thought I'd ask you. Search for "was a post" to see what I mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Commonwealth_of_Nations&oldid=822655845 [your revision]
ferg2k ( talk) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You've been a major contributor to the listing and I think it is worthwhile. To stem the push for deletion, does my suggestion about limiting the scope to notable works and authors make sense? If so, who should take the laboring oar? (Caveat - I may be unlinked in a week or so because of personal commitments.) – S. Rich ( talk) 07:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You do understand that an author uses quotes to specifically indicate that he or she is not lending credence to the text inside the quotes, for example "friendly relations" in the cite you provide?
Best,
JS ( talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
why did you revert my edit? that was not a test edit, the "Partially recognized state" is not usually used is and is unnecessary 194.68.94.68 ( talk) 10:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Your edits to this article are not in line with the source cited. Please cease making edits and discuss your concerns on the talk page, where I willhappy to answer them using specific cites from the source. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been reading about William Temple here. However there is another book in his work. Would you mind to add Christian Faith and life (1931). Thank you Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.174.205 ( talk) 11:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave it at your revision for now, but I'm not sure why you told me to "take it to talk" when there's already a thread there on this subject to which I have contributed but you have not. If you're serious about discussing the issues, then... please discuss them.— Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. I noticed that you reverted the deletion of the alumni summary on the Princeton University page. I personally agree with you - that alumni summaries are standard and should be included on all university pages. However, two users, SeraphimBlade and ScrapIronIV, seem to believe they don't have a place on any college pages and have repeatedly removed them from the Williams College page. Can we rectify this somehow? They do not listen to any of my logic behind the inclusion of these alumni summaries, despite me repeatedly telling them that it's standard. GreylockFoW ( talk) 23:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The text is very strange, it doesn't mention Philippe Pétain. I don't know French history to write the page, but I see a great black hole. Xx236 ( talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI - /info/en/?search=Talk:Richard_Hofstadter#Religion-category. Thank you! Suomalainen konformisuus ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Thanks for your work on the Kenneth Boulding article. The article is way too loaded up with relatively insignificant detail and dated piecemeal assessments of his work. The result is, paradoxically, that his lasting and most significant contributions are lost in the soup. I think this has been the impression of many seasoned editors and users who have gone to his article, so I hope you will consider trimming some of the redundant statements and less enduring facts and details concerning this great thinker. I'm not likely to do much work on this myself, so this is just food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to follow up on your feedback. Was the problem that I cited Passmore? I've found other sources that make similar arguments; my rationale was that Passmore already appeared on the page and offered a nuanced, complex view of fascism on the political spectrum. My aim is to promote neutrality and accuracy, and the current versions of the phrasing make it appear as though there is a consensus among historians that fascism = far right phenomenon when there's far more agreement that it's not that simplistic.
Would it help if I cited Robert Paxton instead on the same point? Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (reprint edition). Vintage. p.8. [3] I thought I would run it by you before bringing it up on the talk page.
Also, I'm new to wikipedia. If it's more appropriate to bring this up on the topic talk page, let me know. Contributor451 ( talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
[copied from here to
Talk:Weimar Republic
I think that matter should probably be raised in some WikiProject to resolve that question. I can live with the compromise of just putting "Germany" there for now, even though I still strongly believe that giving the official name of the state is the way to go. I also disagree with the first sentence in the Weimar Republic article. It says it "is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state", which is not the case, the term describes a period, not a state. By international law, Germany during the Weimar Republic is the same state as it was since 1871 and as it was until 1945.
Zwerg Nase (
talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You have undone some of my edits, without bothering to explain why. Your actions suggest either that you are unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:IG and WP:REVEXP, or that you are being deliberately disruptive. As you've been editing since 2005, the former seems unlikely. Kindly improve your conduct in the future. 149.14.147.61 ( talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In France–United States relations you added However as the Americans grew mightily and economic power,... I think that must be a typo or some words left out but without access to the ref, I won't try to guess a correction. Cavrdg ( talk) 08:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: Kudos for your patience in working with my student User:Haydenstephens on the Jazz Age article. Your comment does far more than I can to cue them into what Wiki editing is all about.
Seems to be missing Netherlands New Guinea 1945-1962, attempt to remove 3000 Axis Japanese officers from Java 1945-1949, attempt to implement requirements of UN Charter chapter XI during 1945-1948 in East Indies and 1950-1962 in Netherlands New Guinea. Daeron ( talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
On the page Talk:Marshall Plan, you mentioned that a page is needed on aid plans in Europe. I'm up for writing it, but what should the title be? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello you prepare to page about William Pete Van Ness that is incredibly in accurate if you wish to correct this please contact me at DK . History is to be done correctly and that capriciously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:8380:1C4B:2C56:362B:4EBA:2FD8 ( talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! this claim that you removed was sourced in McDonald's work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed your 2012 talk -- and it gave me some insight to use in improving the articles I edit: specifically, to improve the summary paragraphs of an article (a boring job I often ignore) and, two, to put more emphasis on the changing memories of an event and its historiography. Although my edit history would identify me as focused on the Vietnam War, I think of myself more as a student of the intersection of archaeology and history in the relationship of American Indians and Europeans. That's an area in which memories and historiography have seen a lot of change in recent decades. Smallchief ( talk) 11:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I took the source directly from the article about Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. If it's not a reliable source, should it be deleted from that article as well? -- Aabicus ( talk) 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Be sure to leave WP:Edit summaries. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited France–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Painlevé ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please look at the edit you are restoring. I do not object in principle to a valid summary in the lead summary of the article contents regarding negative views of the subject; but that's not what was there. The inappropriate swap of "outcome" for "opportunity" is particularly clear. By all means feel free to replace it with something decent and non-hackish! -- JBL ( talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The 2018 award was announced today. Here are some links to news articles about it: Washington Post article [3], PR Newswire [4], and Chicago Sun Times [5]. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 15:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Volume 4 | Issue 6 | June 2018
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!
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a " boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Would please be so kind as to clarify part of this edit to " Confederate States of America":
Presbyterians were even more active with 112 missionaries and early 1865.
(Emphasis added.) I'm not certain what you meant by the emphasized phrase. I tried to find an online copy of the cited article "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in the Confederacy" to figure it out on my own, but came up empty. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Editors have been working on George Washington to get to Featured Article status. Improvements have been made. More needs to be done. One issue is the placement of the Personal life and Slavery sections. I think Slavery should be included in the Personal life section and that the Personal life section should be removed from the chronochological sections of the article, and possibly be placed after the Historical reputation and legacy section. Any advice or editing on this or other matters in the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
On this question only, I don’t know what your objection is. Is it that I used a primary source, and thus it’s OR, or that I didn’t? The original, of which 6 sentences are quoted, is in the James Monroe papers, Reel 6, LOC. Embarrassing to get the president wrong. Sorry. deisenbe ( talk) 13:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with everything said. However, I have to say that under a section describing the social life at St. Paul's, how can any subjective information especially from almost 30 years ago, be held as reliable. Everything else on this page is based off of facts and statistics that are still true. You have to understand that this falsely portrays the school in a negative light. If young kids interested in attending the school believe this is the current social scene, why would they want to attend. I would almost go as far to say this is a form of defamation on wikipedia's part, and would suggest that it ether be deleted or the title of the section be changed as to not suggest that what Khan describes is the current social scene.
Hey Rjensen, can I suggest you remove the last two sentences in your comment on that talk page? It isn't very civil. tedder ( talk) 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would differ with the advice given in your edit summary here. The devil is in the details, of course, but this how I read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In your recent edit [6] at Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez you deleted comments from me and another editor. Did you mean to do that, and if so why? Work permit ( talk) 05:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reinsurance Treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Alliance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen, As requested on the talk page: Do you have a cite to specific policy text? Humanengr ( talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
“The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States,” Alexei Pushkov, a senator who sits on the upper house of parliament’s defense and security committee, said.
“The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” [1]
References
The lines that follow in that article:
Victoria Zhuravleva, an expert on U.S.-Russia relations who writes analytical papers for the government, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to.
“If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” said Zhuravleva, who said Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones.
Does that suffice? Humanengr ( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So, we have then:
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said “If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones. [1]
References
Reuters didn’t provide a date separate from the byline's 1/11/2017 for either Pushkov or Zhuravleva.
Is that ok? Shall I post to the article and talk page? Is it ok with you if I reference this discussion there? Thx again, Humanengr ( talk) 19:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for showing me where I was mistaken on the article. I have retracted my concerns about the first sentence.
I am not a regular user here, but the user Beyond My Ken who responded to me about the matter was obnoxiously rude from the first response to me and provided no reasons why I was mistaken, they just kept insulting me again and again. I don't know what kind of conduct Wikipedia tolerates but that user was being very obnoxiously rude even though I sought to address the issue as politely as I could. Disappointing, just wondering if you could say something to that user that while I was mistaken in my view of the situation that they did not need to be rude and should not be insulting someone over a disagreement expressed politely by me on content of text on a page.
I don't really care too much since I have no interest in becoming a full-time user here, but someone having that attitude towards someone they have never interacted with before and who has politely addressed an issue is not a good sign for how they treat other people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 ( talk) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit you removed the alt-text for an image without making any explanation. Alt-text is helpful to many readers, especially those with visual impairments. Please don't remove it without very good reason, and please restore it in this case. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Am you asking if I think he was wrong to define ‘conspiracy theory’ without saying they are definitionally false? Humanengr ( talk) 02:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen! You have been a top editor at Gallup (company), so you might be interested in my request to develop a new section focusing on what it is Gallup actually does. The current article focuses on the Gallup Poll, which is just a fraction of the company's work, so it could do a better job providing more information about the various areas of Gallup's business. I have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm offering these updates on behalf of the company as part of my work with Beutler Ink, so I'm looking for other editors to review. Would you mind giving it a look? Danilo Two ( talk) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Lloyd George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This section is already in his wiki article:
"Despite his quarrels with the Nonconformists, Arnold never voted for the Tories and would describe himself as a Liberal throughout his life. [1]"
Peter Viereck's book is poor scholarship and his word is not as trustworthy as literary critics focused on Arnold's life. I rarely see it cited outside of conservative circles. A critique of "Philistinism" and love for the Classics was common among many 19th century Liberals and there were likewise many quarrels within the Liberal Party.
AbsoluteEgoist ( talk) 14:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I see no evidence that Robert Frost or Flannery O'Connor should be listed as traditionalist conservatives, so unless you can find impartial scholarly sources stating otherwise (I'd avoid using the self-serving books of conservatives like Russell Kirk), I think removing them is justified.
AbsoluteEgoist ( talk) 14:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
An addendum to my previous comment on Matthew Arnold, which I wrote it haste.
In the opening to Culture and Anarchy (1869) Arnold states: "I am a Liberal, yet I am a Liberal tempered by experience, reflexion, and renouncement, and I am, above all, a believer in culture." You can find this quote in numerous sources besides the named text, among them. [2]
In 1880, Arnold describes himself as "a Liberal of the future rather than a Liberal of the present." [3]
The influence of thinkers like Burke, Coleridge, and Carlyle was diffuse throughout Victorian England. John Stuart Mill was also influenced by all three, and yet to call him a "traditionalist conservative" would be a huge stretch. So any influence they may have had on Arnold is not sufficient to classify him as such. Likewise there's a case to be made that Mill and Arnold were not so far apart from each other. In the Preface of Edward Alexander's book Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill he writes: "I have tried to show to what a considerable extent each other shared the convictions of each other; how much of a liberal Arnold was and how much of a humanist Mill was." [4] Russell Jacoby has also reiterated these points and pushed back against the disingenuous conservative appropriation of Arnold in his books The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in the Age of Apathy and Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age. I don't have the former on hand, but in the latter he describes Arnold as "a liberal thinker." [5] George Scialabba and many others have shared his interpretation of Arnold, e.g.: http://www.bu.edu/agni/reviews/online/2009/oppenheimer.html
Furthermore, if Arnold's criticism of Gladstone's Liberal party somehow disqualifies him from being called a Liberal, then by the same logic, Peter Viereck's (whose book you cite) own criticism of the American conservative movement, his subsequent alienation from that movement, and his support for New Deal Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson would disqualify Viereck from being considered a conservative. I think it's reasonable to ask that if the so-called "conservative" traits described by Viereck led him to support New Deal Democrats, then are they really distinctively "conservative" traits or in fact traits that are found across the political spectrum? This might explain some of Viereck's own confusion about Arnold's political stance.
As I implied before, I think you were way too quick to accept Viereck's dubious scholarship on both Arnold and "conservatism" in general.
To get a grasp of the wide range of Liberal thought during the 19th century, particularly the Liberal criticism of commercial culture and mediocrity which Arnold shared, I recommend Alan Kahan's Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville. IIRC, Kahan suggests Matthew Arnold belongs within this tradition as well, and it certainly sounds more accurate than calling him a traditionalist conservative. I can recommend other books on the matter if you like.
References
Overy, Richard. The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe, 1940–1945. New York: Viking, 2014; 562 pages; covers the civil defence and the impact on the home fronts of Allied strategic bombing of Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Scandinavia
Hi,
What did you mean to write here? "During the Second World Cup war, it was active in civil defense, providing step the officers to the Home Guard. Its membership grew rapidly as the veterans of the Second World War were demobilized."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Royal_British_Legion&diff=765229613&oldid=761637335
Should it be support to rather than step? AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 08:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss the Richard Nixon article edit in the talk page. It is not very useful to just revert after two reverts without discussion in the talk page. Thinker78 ( talk) 07:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: if you have an interest, the following pages need work:
There's an interesting historical theme of the Supreme Court increasing the powers of the police and the net results. I'm trying to work on them all little by little. Thanks for your consideration! Seahawk01 ( talk) 04:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding references to that article. Can you also cover the "Coalition victory" section? That would be enough for us to feature that on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 14. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Since this is old hat for me, cleaning up External links sections, and the burden for including external links is on those seeking inclusion, I hope you will consider just working on the one article until we have consensus.
If you'd rather me not touch the articles you've identified, I'm certainly willing to wait as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In a recent contribution on Salazar’s article you’ve included a statement, on Tom Gallagher voice, saying that “Portugal remained poor as Europe flourished in the 1960s and 197s.”
But Gallagher`s vision does not seem to be supported by facts. During Salazar's tenure, Portugal participated in the founding of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961. In the early 1960s, Portugal also added its membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. This marked the initiation of Salazar's more outward-looking economic policy. Portuguese foreign trade increased by 52 per cent in exports and 40 per cent in imports. The economic growth and levels of capital formation from 1960 to 1973 were characterised by an unparalleled robust annual growth rates of GDP (6.9 per cent), industrial production (9 per cent), private consumption (6.5 per cent) and gross fixed capital formation (7.8 per cent).
Despite the effects of an expensive war effort in African territories against guerrilla groups, Portuguese economic growth from 1960 to 1973 under the Estado Novo created an opportunity for real integration with the developed economies of Western Europe. In 1960, Portugal's per capita GDP was only 38 per cent of the European Community (EC-12) average; by the end of Salazar's rule in 1968, it had risen to 48 per cent; and in 1973, under the leadership of Marcelo Caetano, Portugal's per capita GDP had reached 56.4 per cent of the EC-12 average.
It seems that in this case Gallagher view is not supported by the numbers and should probably be removed from Wikipedia or, if maintained, it should be placed along with the facts that contradict Gallagher’s view.
I am very appreciative of your contributions to wikipedia, so whatever you decide, fine with me. Just felt that need to tell you this. -- J Pratas ( talk) 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I certainly can see how it could be read that way given, especially the communication problems we've been having. I hope that my clarifications make it clear that I'm not commenting on the Wikiproject at all. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Since you appear to be affiliated with https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/mil-2012.htm, comments like this should be accompanied by a COI disclosure. I haven't noticed inappropriate self-promotion on your part but please be sure to be transparent about your connection. Thanks – dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Rjensen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I notice a number of minor edit corrections including yours are tagged "(ce)". I'm curious to know what it means? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, can I assume you're actively involved with War of 1812? There are a number of phantom refs.. they are cited but never listed in Sources or elsewhere. I remember Voelker for one, but it seems the worst offender is "James 1817". It's cited 12 or 13 times and never listed in full anywhere. I have tried to search for something likely, but failed. Do you have any idea what that is? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
( ←) If you know anyone who knows anything about the Bengal famine of 1943 and who isn't operating from a particular POV, the article will be back in FAC next month. Its nom was folded, spindled and mutilated last time. It is languishing in WP:PR at the moment... Meanwhile the offer of help still stands for other articles... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You restored an unsourced claim, and you stated that his death was related to this claim. Without any sources that he was a heavy smoker and that his death was related to that, that is indeed editorializing. Take it to talk or leave it out. Meters ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my edit attempt. I invite you to join the discussion about reducing the length of this article, here. Lfstevens ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The section you added to this article includes the non-word "inevolution", copied directly from Women in the Russian Revolution. It appears to be an accidental typo from an edit made to that article on 13 February 2019 by an IP editor. I don't know what that editor's original intent was, and don't have any way of finding out, and, moreover, I am afraid to guess, since I don't have easy access to any of the sources used. I wounder if you could help with this. Bruce leverett ( talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Rjensen - I must say, it was quite the honor for me to have contributed in the same RfC as you (albeit briefly and in opposition). Atsme 📣 📧 23:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen,
Thanks for creating History of the American legal profession! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
This has been tagged for 3 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn ( talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupewikimedia.org |
— MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You are Most Welcome Sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 10:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume you posted this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bryan,_Judge_magazine,_1896.jpg
Information on the file is here https://www.loc.gov/item/2010651311/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:D7F:FB92:E857:FF4F:D80C:C774 ( talk) 19:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the article Fascism in Europe I think that the same IP that has been quarreling on Salazar`s page is now trying to impose is views on other articles. Thanks. -- J Pratas ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you have a look at https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traces-of-the-confederacy-in-washington-not-all-gone-with-the-wind/2011/03/21/AFWqh2JD_story.html?utm_term=.41386cf84b1d
and tell me if you think it likely or not that Wilson would have attended an occasional event there. I do not have a specific event in mind. I'm working on an article on it (the Hall).
I see your involvement with h-Net. I was the founder of h-Cervantes. deisenbe ( talk) 09:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This Month in Education Volume 8 • Issue 4 • April 2019 Contents • Headlines • Subscribe In This Issue |
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. |
I'm hopeful that you can save me some time by telling me if this is known information or not. I wasn't even looking for things on Wilson:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/332093760/?terms=confederate%2Bvermont
What I am working on is User:Deisenbe/sandbox#Confederate Memorial Hall, which still needs some info I have to write up on the legal problems that led to its closure - $500,000 contempt of court fine on Hines, though for what I haven't found. But I have the first stage of it. Hurley seems to be a nut, conspiracy theories stuff, not rational. deisenbe ( talk) 00:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)