• /Archive 3: April 2006- July 14, 2006

I wish you had had the courtesy to engage in debate before removing the references to Stalin and Churchill. The story of the deterioration in the relatinship between Roosevelt and Churchill is admirably described in 'For your freedom and ours' by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud which is heavily annotated with footnotes, too many to include here. I would like to reinsert my precis of the story but courtesy demands that I should, at least, offer you the chance of reading the material. I am happy to supply any particular references, not least from Churchill himself, from Lord Moran his doctor, from (prime minister) Mikolajczyk's book 'The Rape of Poland'in which he describes how he found out about the redrawing of the Eastern borders, from Doris Kearns Goodwin's book 'No ordinary time'. I am sorry not to have given chapter and verse hitherto; the apparatus of WP is clumsier than that of books. Is it possible that you might yourself restore some version of what I had written? Roger Arguile August 22nd. 2006

Roger--on this important topic Wiki needs to use the very best scholarship. Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud wrote a good book about one aircraft squadron but did not pretend to study the diplomatic literature on the subject from Britain, US and USSR. There are excellent bibliographies in the Churchill and FDR articles that make good starting points. Rjensen 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you disputing George Kennan's account or that of Mikolajczyk? Or are you saying that Cloud and Olson have misunderstood them? Have you read their book? They DID pretend to study the diplomatic literature. I am not convinced and will make an insertion unless you can come up with something more precise. The whitewash of FDR in the article is not acceptable. Moreover, the thesis that one needs the best scholarship is false. When an issue is raised, as it was, in relation to the the Tehran conference, about Roosevelt's duplicity over Poland, it may not come from a primary source but it needs either refuting or including. FDR's relationship with his ambassador to Moscow before the war, his promotion of pro-Soviet propaganda during the war, his cooled relationship with Churchill, his lack of candour, to be polite, with the Poles in exile, all indicate a less honest and less shrewd man than is indicated in the text. Frankly it won't do to ignore secondary sources which clearly rely on the likes of Harriman, Kennan andBohlen (one of the translaters at Tehran). It becomes clear that it was at Tehran not Yalta that the pass was sold well. Roger Arguile 23 Aug 2006

My point is that a highly debated topic like this needs two things: first it has to cite the best scholarship. Otherwise it's a signal that an editor has a POV to make that is not supported by the scholars who have done the original research in the archives and documents. Words like "duplicity" strongly suggest POV on the part of an editor--that is not Wiki language. Second it has to present different interpretations ofthe same events. Presenting one side is POV and can't be allowed. Rjensen 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice that you don't ansdwer any of my questions. I propose to proceed. Roger Arguile 23rd. August 2006

please don't proceed until you become familiar with the topic and feel prepared to handle it in an impartial fashion without POV. Rjensen 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr. Rjensen, Perhaps you could explain to me a number of things: a) whether your tone indicates that you have some particular authority within WP; b) why it is that you suppose that I am not familiar with the topic; c) why you act as umpire without engaging in the real issues. I confess to an increasing irritatiion at the fact that I am being warned off by someone who shows no indication that he knows any more about this particular aspect than I do, and maybe less. One of the worst aspects of WP is the presence of people who are more interested in haut en bas admonitions than engaging in discussion of the real issues. Could you perhaps engage or take your condescension somewhere else? Roger Arguile St. Bartholomew 2006

I have worked on this article for many months and read a lot of books and articles in prep for it. As have many of the other editors who worked on it. That gives a sort of proprietary interest in high quality for this very important article that is prone to extreme POV. If the issue is really important to people , I think they will do the research and not rely on poor quality information. If it is not important to them then they should not bother. I recommend you look at the bibliography of major studies, most of which talk about Poland. Rjensen 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

To Roger Arguile: The 'final' answer is that our antagonist has his own POV, claims supreme ownership of the Truman article, and refuses all objective discussion about the topic which he believes he has fully and supremely thoroughly researched, making logical agrument pointless. His IS the final word regarding Harry. And no amount of documentation and logic will change that.

Information I added to the Truman article, some of which is referenced BACK TO THE TRUMAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY, he dismissed as heresay and therefore not 'appropriate' for this article. Wiki refuses to rein him in, so I have simply noted the name and avoid whenever possible. For sanity's sake. FWIW.

You put that Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. This is a common mistake. Great Britain is the main island, consisting of England Scotland and Wales, that was a nation until 1801 when the nation included Ireland (later just Northern Ireland) and others to become the United Kingdom. Since then the head of government has been known as 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom'. I know, it's rather dry and dull, but that's my country for you. Philip Stevens 06:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

yes it should read he was the PM of Britain. Britain is the common abbreviation overwhelmingly preferred by historians instead of UK. Rjensen 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• But it isn't correct. On George W. Bush's it doesn't say 'President of America' it says 'President of the United States' irrelevant of the common abbreviation. On Wikipedia you should use the correct the terms. Philip Stevens 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

But United Kingdom is not the correct term. it's an abbreviation for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Historians prefer the abbreviation "Britain." (take a look at titles of historical books for proof). Rjensen 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:1839-meth.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This was a 1840s print made from a 1839 watercolor; Library of Congress source = [1] Rjensen 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Funny, the rest of the country never lets us forget it. I can't tell you how many Yankees ask if I helped kill JFK. I was one year old at the time. 71.199.196.105 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

yes --and a paragraph on the blame issue would be appropriate. Rjensen 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I expect, Sir, the satisfaction of an explanation of these words: Pmanderson does not provide HIS sources, so he's making things up. I am prepared to provide sources for any statement I may have neglected to source.

You may have overlooked the link to SBJohnny's proposal to end the RfC, to which all involved parties have agreed but yourself. Septentrionalis 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You reverted an edit of mine, flagging the Unemployment article - please see Talk:Unemployment#Need for references, & POV-check for my comment. Thanks -- Singkong2005 ^talk 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I responded. If you see specific problems then please specify them so they can be fixed. Rjensen 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

(Warning removed)

Whoops! Terribly sorry, I meant to place this on User:Howsthatfordamage25. Very sorry for the mistake. RandyWang ( ^raves/ _{review me!}) 10:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

hello rjensen

There is a reality that the high tax policy was the reason of reaction came from Southerns. I am wondering why there is NOT the word "tax" in those articles.

when South Carolina etc seceded the tax laws in effect were the laws written by and voted for by the southerners. When the confederacy was created one of their first acts was a huge tax increase (all goods imported from northern states had to pay a 10% tax!) Rjensen 15:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

May I ask your source?

sure-- look at Economy of the Confederate States of America. Let me add that by printing paper money and starting runaway inflation, the Confederacy destroyed 98% of the value of bank accounts, insurance policies and the like. They seized cotton and grain and horses and paid people in worthless bonds. It was the worst economic policy imaginable--yet there are people who admire their economics. amazing. Rjensen 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Why the hell are they saying that reason was the high tax policy of Lincoln. No trustable sources anyway. And thanks for info.

once the war started the Union needed lots of $$$$ and Lincoln certainly did raise taxes. But not in 1860. Why do people say otherwise? they want to say slavery was not the cause of the war, that it was a tax revolt. Rjensen 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that right? Lincoln brought "Income Tax" and it has never gone again? I mean if we dont see the reasons behind. Just want to know where does it come from.

income tax. Yes Lincoln put in an income tax and it was ended right after the war. Grover Cleveland put in an income tax in 1894 and it was overthrown by Supreme Court. Finally William Howard Taft set up the income tax by constitutional amendment #16 in 1909 (but did not actually pass a tax). Woodrow Wilson in 1913 put on a 1% tax--and THAT is the one we have today, only higher. Rjensen 18:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Saying slavery started the 'Civil War' is like saying the Revolutionary War was caused by the Boston Massaacre. There is a lot more to it than that. Cameron Nedland 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I was not vandalizing the American Civil War page. I was actually stopping the people who kept putting up anime pictures. I would appreciate it if you asked me if I was vandalizing the page before you accuse me of something that I did not do. Thank you very much. I hope you respond to my message soon, sir. Grand Master of the Jedi 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, Rjensen, I have tried to compromise with you. Both arguments are logical and I am NOT saying you are wrong, but both of the arguments deserve to be stated in the article for future reference. I'm NOT trying to force Citizenposse's belief on you or anyone else in Wikipeida but considering it is one of the possible sources of the Republicans, it should be in there. Obviously, people have written books about it and historians support it. I doubt someone's going to take the time and money to publish a book full of BS. I'm going to have to lock the page until this conflict is resolved. Instead of acting the way you are, take a moment to consider both sides of the argument before chaning pages. My reversion was a COMPROMISE. It listed BOTH of the arguments and stated that there is no conclusive evidence supporting either of them. I'm not going to argue any more about this because if you aren't willing to compromise with other Wikipedians and are only going to repost YOUR beliefs, then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Please take time to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and I hope you can grow up.

-- CherryT 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sources? the books that citizenposse provided turned out to be fakes --most did not exist. Scholars are unanimous on the matter of the founding of the GOP. I think everyone outside NH is agreed, except one amateur in Alaska. The Ripon and Jackson stories have been verified by over 100 scholarly books and articles -- the Exeter story by one self-published collection of clippings by former governor Gregg. HOWEVER his son is a powerful US Senator (Judd Gregg) and the family of the hero of the story Tuck has $$$$ (as in Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the Tuck Building that houses the NH Historical society). The NH Hist Society (I'm a member) has hedged it's bets and does not actually promote the Exeter story. Rjensen 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see that you are right on the sources part. But as I said before, even myths deserve a spot on Wikipedia. "I'm NOT trying to force Citizenposse's belief on you or anyone else in Wikipeida but considering it is one of the possible sources of the Republicans, it should be in there." I highly doubt that only ONE of ALL the historians outside of NH said that Ripon was the place. But the myth is worth putting into the article. And I also believe you know that historians will probably never have the correct information about anything until someone invents the time machine. It's human nature to exaggerate stories a bit and to misunderstand them. 200 years from now, people are probably going to say that the "several" planes crashing into the Trade Centers in 9/11 meant there was three. Information gets distorted after time so until we get that magic time traveling power, no theory on anything should be said is wrong unless it is radically wrong, such as the US Republican party being formed in India. That's just plain stupid...

-- CherryT 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that false myths should be exposed by Wiki. It's our duty and I try to do that. Rjensen 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just as other editors have mentioned, let me repeat someone else's comments from above, "Look, Rjensen, I have tried to compromise with you. Both arguments are logical and I am NOT saying you are wrong, but both of the arguments deserve to be stated in the article for future reference." Why do multiple editors have this issue with you? In Wiki, there are no Editors-in-chief. Please drop your personal biases and revenge-driven behavior. We don't want to rehash your wholesale uninformed replacing of correct information in articles with incorrect spellings. Common, get real. And, I happen to admire ER a 100 times more than ARL. SimonATL 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My apologies if aggressive editing offends people--Wiki always gives editors the clear warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ...do not submit it." I try to follow that rule. As for ER, I think that balance is required--discussion about personality conflicts with her mother in law is one thing, but not about a nasty cousin she rarely saw. If you have some serious scholars who think the relationship was really important, then please cite them. Rjensen 00:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

More comments in your talk page....

Hi Rjensen. I've returned from my sabbatical and have made some corrections and added sources to the American System page. You know of Lind's work and maybe Gills as well, being a scholar like myself. I am wondering if you would take a look at that page and offer any helpful suggestions on improvement or email me with any suggestions on where I might have gone wrong in putting forth the material. Thanks. PS. The colors to the Progressivism template should be restored (maybe all at the blue and no red..) Thanks. -- Northmeister 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

hey welcome back. I'm on the road with very limited internet--but i think it was FDR who used "arsenal of democracy" slogan in 1940. Rjensen 05:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My bad, I thought it was Wilson. I will change that. -- Northmeister 15:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Wondering if your still on the road? Your help at neo-mercantilism would be great. That article needs serious work. As it reads now, it is a critique of neo-mercantilism and has several historic and economic inaccuracies in it. Your balancing influence would help to keep me straight in re-writing it to be more accurat - as I respect your perspective on economic matters. -- Northmeister 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip; I tried to level it off a bit. Rjensen 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have never been so appreciative to have someone delete something that I had spent so much time working on. You are so correct! That stuff was junk, and I had just spent 20 minutes trying to find a way to show it without having the balls to do what you did. Yes! Unschool 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

THANKS--after spending months working on Civil War article I was dismayed to see people had not even read it when they write about Civil War based on one map. Rjensen 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration).-- Rockero 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply

you are violating Wiki's 3-revert rule. Stop doing that. Rjensen 07:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Why don't you take your own advice ( WP:3RR) and also review WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, etc? Doughface 07:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I moved everything over from the old article, including 100% of your argument. Just try not to bite the newbies quite so hard, IMHO. BusterD 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the help--the hoaxer has been around for years and sure enough he tricked some other editors right away. Rjensen 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you are in error removing the reference to the Dresden bombing from the Churchill article. There is evidence suggesting that he was involved in the decision to bomb, and the effect of the bombing certainly affected his actions, including the later retracted telegram where he admits that the purpose of the bombing campaign is to inflict terror on the enemy population. Se the national archives. -- Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

if Dresden had implications for WC, then the implications should be be noted. of course "admits" suggests a heavy dose of POV we had best avoid. I don't think he in any sense ordered the bombing. see [2] Rjensen Rjensen 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

True that the "admits" is a question of interpretation, but I expect that the only thing that really is in doubt here is the reason why he wrote the telegram. The lines in question from the telegram are fairly clearcut: It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. and The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive..-- Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dresden was the #1 communications node esp railroads in eastern Germany, so it would get bombed no matter what. Rjensen 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I moved the edits you made to the RFM template and correctly filed them as a case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Richard Nixon. If you have other questions about the process, please ask on my talk page. Essjay (Talk) 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the help Rjensen 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, I thought you should know that there is an error on your user page. The link for leaving you a message links to a different editor's talk page for leaving him a message as opposed to your own. I'll try to fix it for you right now. Michael 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay. I fixed it for you. Michael 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That was me... sorry! HawkerTyphoon 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I This is the message I had tried to previously send you:

"Hey, I saw you posted on the John Roberts article. Where did you hear his mother was Polish? Thanks. Michael 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)" reply

I saw that on TV when he was nominated a year or so ago; I believe the mother's maiden name is Polish ?? Rjensen 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, so you don't know? His mother's maiden name is Podrasky. If it were Polish, it would probably end in -ski, instead. It definitely sounds Eastern European. It sounds Jewish, actually, but he isn't, and no information exists on this. If you can find anything that would be appreciated. Michael 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Richard Nixon. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I'm very surprised by your incredulity at Reagan's claim to have been at Auschwitz. Several reliable sources corroborate it: Yatzik Shamir, Simon Wiesenthal, and Rabbi Hier. The historians Edmund Morris, Lou Cannon, and Michael Korda looked into it and concluded that Reagan did make the claim. Admittedly, Morris's book was weird, but have you looked into the history of that book and why he wrote it the way he did? The presentation was bizarre, but he did have access to most of Reagan's files and correspondence, and he was resident at the White House after 1984. I don't doubt the facts as he states them. And then there's Cannon and Korda, the Israeli M'arriv newspaper (which first reported it). And Reagan must really have believed it if he made the claim a second time to Wiesenthal and Hier. In any case, this isn't an "urban myth," which is by definition a modern folkloric story. This was not a story. It really happened. Griot 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Facts??? there are no facts--just 4th hand paraphrases that could be misread. The claim is that he filmed the camps--no one said he claimed to be there. Did Reagan mis-speak somehow, or get misinterpreted? Since no one has provided the text we cannot say. He is on record for thousands and thousands of pages without any such error. No reporter ever heard him say it. And no doctor associated it with Alzheimer's (people like that do not misremember details, they do not remember any details.) It's part of thousands of urban legends circulated by RR's enemies--as anyone living in SF might notice. Rjensen 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I more or less restored your original explanation of the polygamy colony that Romney was born in. I think that this is an important detail and it has twice been anonymously deleted by someone seeking to sanitize history... jfmcel 01/Aug/2006

thanks--that page bears watching as Mitt runs for president. Rjensen 09:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Please be mindful of WP:CITE and WP:3RR in your edits. Also I would like to point out that edit summaries like this [3]are contrary to WP:NPA.-- Mantanmoreland 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for tip. I suggest that when a cite is asked for and provided then it is proper to remove the request for a cite. Rjensen 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

However, that was not done until you were prodded three times. Please 86 the inflammatory edit summaries and do not remove properly sourced materials such as the cited and sourced quote that you reverted. -- Mantanmoreland 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have followed the WP:CITE rules --they ask for page numbers for specific quotations, which is not the issue. We have a section that has been worked on to a consensus by many people over many months and then a new editor who seems unaware of the sources that are cited at great length (I put them there myself, actually, months ago.) Good Faith I suggest requires people to read what is there--much of it online free--before wading in. Rjensen 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You had a section without a single source that (until the newest edits) was a patently one-sided whitewash of Henry Ford's record on anti-Semitism. You committed a blatant POV edit when I inserted contradictory material. I suggest that you read the article, linked on the Internet, to which I added a cite and also that you take seriously Jayjg's recommendations. Also re-read WP:V and WP:RS.-- Mantanmoreland 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

"Not a single source" ???? As early as April this year I had added these sources to the bibliography--not to mention the general books by Lewis etc which also discuss the issues:

Jews, anti-semitism and Nazis Baldwin, Neil; Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate; PublicAffairs, 2000; ISBN  1-58-648163-0 Foust, James C. "Mass-produced Reform: Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent" American Journalism 1997 14(3-4): 411-424. Higham, Charles, Trading With The Enemy 1983 Kandel, Alan D. "Ford and Israel" Michigan Jewish History 1999 39: 13-17. covers business and philanthropy Lee, Albert; Henry Ford and the Jews; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1980; ISBN  0-81-282701-5 Lewis, David L. "Henry Ford's Anti-semitism and its Repercussions" Michigan Jewish History 1984 24(1): 3-10. Reich, Simon (1999) "The Ford Motor Company and the Third Reich" Dimensions, 13(2): 15 - 17 online Ribuffo, Leo P. "Henry Ford and the International Jew" American Jewish History 1980 69(4): 437-477. Sapiro, Aaron L. "A Retrospective View of the Aaron Sapiro-Henry Ford Case" Western States Jewish Historical Quarterly 1982 15(1): 79-84. Silverstein, K. (2000) "Ford and the Fuhrer" The Nation 270(3): 11 - 16 Wallace, Max The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich; ISBN  0312335318 Woeste, Victoria Saker. "Insecure Equality: Louis Marshall, Henry Ford, and the Problem of Defamatory Antisemitism, 1920-1929" Journal of American History 2004 91(3): 877-905. Rjensen 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

So you're saying that all of the above are marching in lockstep with the article's whitewash of Ford's anti-Semitism and the absurd "I didn't know what was in my own paper" claim? Give me a break. If these august periodicals support your position, cite them.-- Mantanmoreland 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Please stop removing the image of Ford's award from his article. He earned it. He kept it in spite of pleas to give it back, and so it belongs his article. You and I have talked about it, we've compromised on it, and now you've deleted it several times more without leaving any indication in the edit summaries that you've done so. You are establishing your reputation with your actions, so keep this in mind when you edit this article. Rklawton 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

glorifying or making heroes out of Nazis is a very poor policy and Wiki should not do that. I suggest that to link one of the most famous American heroes to Nazis helps to glorify the Nazi image. Rjensen 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

That's POV pushing, and you should know better. History is what it is. Rewriting history is a bad idea. Now, if you want a fake hero, that's a different story - one worthy of elementary school textbooks. The lesson to people today: "those who write history will not whitewash your life. You will be held accountable for the bad as well as the good." More people need to think about this as they make their choices in life. Ford helped America, and he also hurt a lot of people. The graphic image of the swasticas on his medal illustrate this point. I wish more policy makers would think about how their actions will be viewed in the future than about the votes they'll garner today. At any rate, the image needs to stay. The compromise size is fine. Rklawton 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

No honestly, Ford is one of the most recognized and heroic figures of the 20th century. Saying (falsely) that he inspired Hitler's hatred of Jews takes the blame off Hitler. The article as it stands removes the guilt from Hitler and puts it on Ford. that is false and it is nasty. (The major biographies of Hitler do not say he got his antisemitism from Ford--how ridiculous--he grew up in two major centers of antisemitism (Vienna and Munich). It was Ford's autos that influenced him, as in Volkswagen, and that is why he gave Ford a medal. Might as well get history right--which is unlikely f editors rely on weak sources. Rjensen 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Some comments have been left about you on AN/I here. I wonder if you'd like to leave a response. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I asked you to see WP:BIO when i meant WP:LIVING please forgive. i kan reed 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

yes I have read it and follow it closely. For the Clinton article it is important to explain what happened--not so much that he was poorly received but that he blew his first good hour on the national stage. The damage (nearly booed) was small--but much worse, he did not make the huge gain he expected from the event. that makes it a political disaster for Clinton, which I think every expert agrees, as does Clinton himself. Rjensen 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This one: [4]. Please note that a link to the article in question already existed under the heading "See also", there was no need to add it under "Books", particularly as it is not a book. -- woggly 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

we have two articles about the Wizard of Oz book. Neither article is itself a book, of course, but both deal with the book. Rjensen 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Boy, you are a stubborn one. Yes the article is about the book, that's why there's a link to to it on the disambiguation page under "See also". That's the proper place for it. There's no need to add another link to the same article. Definitely no need to add the link under the section "books" - that would only be appropriate if "Political interpretations of the Wizard of Oz" were the name of a book. Your article is plenty visible. Unless you actually WANT to make it onto Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. -- woggly 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

our goal is to help users find what they want, and when we have two different articles on the same book, we should have two links to it. Rjensen 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, but you made it so there were THREE links, two to the same secondary article. Rather than revert, I erased the "see also" link. I must say I was suprised you didn't add it right back. -- woggly 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

you did just right. :) 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The further changes I'm making now are aimed at reducing clutter on the disambiguation page. I'm just stating that so you don't think I'm trying to extend the tug of war. Scott Hutchinson is a completist, and while I respect his meticulous attention to detail, I'm not sure the disambiguation page is the right place to start listing every adaptation of the Wizard of Oz ever made anywhere in the world. But I've left the link to your article relatively prominent, I hope. -- woggly 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

"Vast areas of Europe, eastern Asia and North Africa, as well as the oceans, became battlefields"

I really liked you adding that bit about "oceans". This sentence is really good now and says a lot. That was a nice touch. Wallie 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks!  :) Rjensen 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, though the description appears as highly stereotypical to me. The Dutch lifestyle (whatever that is) entails more than eating cheese and drinking water! In other words, I find this sentence a bit demeaning is the reason I consider it sneaky vandalism. Lnmtw 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

you have to live there to believe it. They are not like that anymore but were indeed that way 100 years ago...the cold water is a nice touch. (no I did not write it)  :) Rjensen 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay then, if you say so. The section still comes across as unfairly one-sided to me, but have no desire to engage in an edit conflict over a minor disagreement. Thanks for replying quickly. Lnmtw 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The issue is how does a group assimilate into American culture. One thing the Dutch retained for a while was distinctive foods, though I think they now eat pizza, burritos and sesame chicken like everyone else. Probably only the religion remains distinctive (for the Protestants that is--the Catholic Dutch are almost invisible these days). Rjensen 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the edit - it substantiates the claim. I didn't disagree with you; I only disagreed with the original wording. Thanks - Dubc0724 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it is a good idea to do your summary. We will have to protect against these reverts, though. If you do a whole lot of work, and the whole article or the intro goes back three weeks, that wouldn't be very nice. Wallie 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

yes, agreed Rjensen 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I split the intro into an Overview section. I really don't know what people will think of this. If the intro became too big, I was also afraid that someone might come in and delete large sections, or even worse revert back three weeks. Wallie 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I like the split. Probably it can just be called "Overview" Rjensen 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Wallie 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I copied your request from Pacific War to the talk page of the Military History Wikiproject and it's gotten some discussion ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007). I see that you're not a member of the Project but that you contribute to milhist articles. Perhaps you'd like to join? -- ScreaminEagle 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. You may find this interesting: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson Ultramarine 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Why Because of this:

After that, vastly superior numbers of soldiers, tanks and weapons of all sorts inexorably forced the Germans into Berlin

All of that is wrong

What you are doing like so many others is playing on the myth of numbers and your view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost.

The Germans had a much greater number of raw materials, 4 times as much and a higher number of labour force 2 times as much see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29 under industrial output the thing is that the germans chose to build high cost items that is why they had less items when they had 4-5 times as much raw materials and do not forget about the axis allies Italy, Hungary, and Romania who all added many troops into the meat grinder and even more labour and raw materials. And this myth that you are trying to insert has been proved wrong by many historians

And your myth inserting comments totally ignores the retraning and reformaning that the red army went through during the war. The US officer David Glantz has in many books described in detail what happened and it was NOT because of the myth "superior numbers of soldiers" that the red army won.

And if you still dont belive me read this, in just 6 pages this guy explains everything http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

Some quotes

"The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men."

"The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942."

Ironplay 07:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. If you want to put back any of your text that has been reverted, I will definitely support you. If there is an alternative, this should also be presented. There are a number of factors which influenced the outcome of the war. I cannot imagine anyone disputing that industrial production and resources, including human, played major part. The other factors such as tactics and leadership styles can be also mentioned. These arguments are not mutually exclusive. Wallie 08:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Since it got reverted again and to avoid a revert war I made a small myth busting edit that is much more correct and much more neutral. Ironplay 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Ironplay. This is best. Doesn't mean there won't be a disagreement of some kind. Thats normal until we all get it right. By at least its manageable. Wallie 12:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Rjensen,

are you aware that you violated WP:3RR with your last edit on World War II. I won't report you now but suggest that you be more careful in the future. Also, your edit inserted new and old inaccuracies, which I will explain on the article's talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rjensen, since you are online I am giving you 5 minutes to self-revert. Details on the relevant talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gee didn't Hitler give 24 hours ultimatums? Rjensen 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not Hitler, you have been given five minutes as a matter of leniency. Self-revert now or be reported. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

but you PROMISED you would not report me--isn't that a betrayal? Rjensen 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

NO, Rjensen, I did not promise anything.

I said I wouldn't report you. As I did so I was under the impression that you might be unaware of the rule (AGF) and that you were off-line, as your revert was some time ago. When I found out that neither was the case, that you were online and posting more on top of your revert I decided to give you this chance. However, you did not only not respond to any of the issues, you posted insulting comparisons (see above) and false accusations of betrayal, straining my patience and proving to me how wrong I was when I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Good day! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Ashi b aka tock 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You and your table it is to long and it gives a false picture because the axis and when i say axis i mean the euro axis they chose to build high cost weapons and ammo even though they had 4-5 times more raw materials then the soviets and when you just look at how many weapons and how much ammo was built you get a misleading picture. The fact is that they chose to build high cost items and the soviets chose to build low cost items that is why the soviets were able to build more weapons and ammo even though the soviets had less raw materials.

Just look here and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Industrial_output

Also about the air war, the text is only about the air war over western europe and the pacific and during the d-day landings the germans had more then 3000 air planes but these were on the eastern front fighting the red army.

One minor thing when reading texts from me it might appear that I am harsh or angry but it shouldnt be taken as that I try to write short and to the point and sometimes that can be mistaken with something else which it is not ;) Ironplay 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

the table is based on the very best scholarly sources. Is it misleading? No--it'swhat scholars use. Do you have some alternative scholarship to cite?? High cost German items? that's not the same as high quality items. For example the Germans used cheap gasoline (87 octane rather than 100 octane used by US-Britain), making for inferior performance no matter how well engineered the aircraft engines. The Germans never built proximity fuzes for their artillery so by late 1944 it was far inferior. German radar was never as good as British-US radar. As for the air war in East--you're right--it needs mention and I hope you will add material on that. Rjensen 06:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you have specialist knowledge in this area. The industrial might has to be put in at the correct level, ie, a bit in the overview, and more in the main article, plus references to other articles, which discuss this in depth. I don't think it should go in the intro, which should just go into who, when, what, but not how and why. As far as blocks are concerned, it is best to play by Wikipedia's rules. Do your two reverts to make a point, but no more. Always remember that others are watching what is going on, and many will support you, if you are correct in what you say. Wallie 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Now that the AfD is safely behind us (which you probably would have voted to "delete") I want to invite you to help us on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, since you are the smartest conservative I have met on wikipedia, and this article despretly needs balance. The article needs A LOT of work. I only ask that any deletions you make are explained on the talk page. Travb ( talk) 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Out of courtesy, wanted to let you know that I mentioned you name here... Travb ( talk) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Rjensen. I changed what you had written about Howard Smith being a feminist, and I included some citations that speak to how he introduced the amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to kill the bill, and not because he was a feminist. Remini is the official history of the House, so I think he's a reliable source. I read the article you cited by Dr. Jo Freeman. It seems to indicate that maybe he introduced this for other reasons, but that is directly contridicted by Remini. Maybe there is some way to include both scholars? Mattweng 18 August 2006.

thanks for the note. Apparently Remini was unaware of Freeman's research, and instead relied on an old quote from one of Smith's enemies who did not know about Smith's long, documented record of close ties to feminists. Wiki should not rely on people who are unaware of the best scholarship. Rjensen 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Remini's book is a scholarly source, and I'm not sure you know what he relied on, or what he was or was not aware of. He's the official historian of the House of Representatives. I don't think you can eliminate that information, or decide that it was bad scholarship, because you agree with another point of view. I added it back in without deleting informtion of his feminism. It should stay. If you disagree I respect that, but I suggest we then obtain a consensus on the talk page. Mattweng 19 August 2006.

Remini did not write a book about Howard Smith and did not research that topic--he covered the official history of the House from 1789 to the present and of course did not research all the thousands of members (He is a specialist on Henry Clay in early 19c). Wiki Editors have to evaluate sources and if Remini did not do the research he should not get the credit.

Remini has endnotes citing both the Dierenfield biography of Smith and the Carl Brauer article, both of which are cited in Smith's Wiki article. Thus, he has read the sources, done the research, and made a determination that deserves credit. This is not just something that came along. I'm not saying that the opposing viewpoint should not be included--indeed it should. But I also don't think that Remini should be discounted--he's reputable, did the research, and his statements should be included. If there's still disagreement, perhaps we should get a third opinion. (Just for the record, I enjoy your work. You did a lot on the Abraham Lincoln article that vastly improved it. I didn't want you to think it was personal.) Mattweng

It appears Remini missed the Freeman essay--so Wiki has better sources than he has. He did NOT do all the research --just for the record I've known Remini for many years and have great respect for his work. But when he has to cover 200+ years he can't see eveything. He never knew Smith was close to the feminists. Someone who does not know that will easily make make the false ASSUMPTION that Smith was anti-feminist, based on no evidence whatever. Wiki has to use the best sources and that is Freeman in this case. Rjensen 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Welcome back. First of all, I thought it was pathetic they banned you. I also stated this on the administrators user page.

I have been moving around your contribs to the main article from the overview. If you look through the history, an attempt was made simply to delete it. It is important that any research such as this at least remains somewhere. As I mentioned in the discussion, you can always move stuff back, if you think it is over-summarized.

Myself, I tend to read the whole overview, and see if some topic is over-weighted, and other topics under-weight or even not covered. Also it is very important to make sure that sections are not unnecessarily deleted. If you see this, or some wild revert, please re-instate, and also write a note on my user talk page, and I will also take action.

Overall, though, the article seems to be improving all the time... at least from where it was a month ago. Wallie 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks! Rjensen 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Not the graph again, not only is it obsolete 1988, was 18 years ago it takes up to much space and it dosent show material resources or that the Germans had many times more resources and labour then the Soviets or that the Germans built high cost items all it shows is items built. For the same material cost of building one German gun you could build 5-6 Soivet ones, but does your graph show that? NO. So please dont use it, it is bad mkay! Ironplay 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

If you have solid information please share it. Do not delete information. Building fewer high cost artillery shells and bullets was of course a mistake for Germany. And please cite some reliable sources--Wiki is not based on the personal opinions of editors. Rjensen 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Look here Eastern Front (World War II) under industrial production look at the numbers. Then read The Dictators by Richard Overy Ironplay 23:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding the latest with Ironplay. I mentioned that he can revert my latest effort starting with the attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. I merely shortened this, and did not think I had changed content. However, he is upset about something there, and I would like to clear that up first. As far as you and your table, etc, is concerned, I mentioned that he should discuss that with you. Obviously, he should not revert your work without your agreement. Thank you. Wallie 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem was the part just before zhukov, it should be: "They were now dismayed by the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter." Ironplay 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

But it was changed over time to :Setbacks occurred with the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter. Ironplay 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Small changes, but a huge difference Ironplay 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

So Rjensen are we cool? I see you quoted richard overy, he is great and many of the numbers on the eastern front ww2 article come from him. He makes a point of pointing out the very fact that I am saying just showing items is bad bad bad, mkay. Ironplay 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

yes but lets put the table back--it's more sophisticated because it weights the munitions...so that a B-29 counts more than a little plane. I'll add more Overy data too. Rjensen 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I made a small correction. The article originally said that the party believed in "bigger government" and I changed that to "smaller government." While the Party has not brought about a reduction in government size, the declared position of the GOP is "less government" in keeping with the Reagan quotation about government being the problem, not the solution.

Also, I mentioned that observant or Orthodox Jews are voting Republican. Unlike the liberal or secular elements in the Jewish community, the Orthodox vote Republican in almost the same percentages as evangelical Christians. Polling data from Boro Park (in Brooklyn) or other areas with a concentrated or large Orthodox community supports this.

very good points. Rjensen 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Professor Jensen:

Are you related to the historian Jensen once a dean at Madison? Long ago.

I agreed to give an address on Herbert Hoover: Uncommon Man of the 20th Century.

Next February, I think; dinner affair.

So am reading at random. Happened on gaps noted. Wanted to add Tracey;, Herbvert Hoover--a Bibliography, on which I was a consultant a generatin ago. Did you know he wrote 34 books (inc. published speeches?

Vaughn Davis Bornet age 89 Ashland, Oregon

--Vaughn, good to hear from you. I am NOT related to Merrill Jensen at Wisconsin. But I was in Grant's Pass last week (my wife and I taught a seminar in Crescent City and drove through the Redwoods to Grants Pass--wonderful little restaurant called Summer Jo's. We then flew out of Medford back to Denver where we live. Rjensen 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks like you are in charge of the Irish American article. Well it's very poorly presented all in all, especially the opening paragraphs. There shouldn't be specific debates in the introductory paragraphs, period. MelForbes 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I entirely agree with you. It's contested terrain! Rjensen 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

There are many contested articles on WP. Why allow it to hacked at to the point where it just ceases to be a well balanced and enjoyable read for the reader? Politics and allegiances have entered key areas of the page. MelForbes 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not in any way "in charge" of the article. Rjensen 08:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have told you perhpas 1 million times look here Eastern Front (World War II) under industrail production the numbers come from here Richard Overy, Russia's War, page 155. And from "Campaigns of World War II : Day By Day" written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252. And from The Dictators Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia By Richard Overy p.498.

So the only one who is doing "vandalism" is you by saying that there are no sources.

Eastern front is interesting. So is the rest of the war. But Overy does not support your approach--does any scholar???? Rjensen 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rjensen --

We don't seem to be on the same page regarding what should and should not be on Taylor's death page. You seem to have some fixation on Michael Parenti's 'conspiracy theory.' Personally, I don't find them convincing either. But you must keep in mind that the POSSIBILITY OF ASSASSINATION was such that HISTORIANS CONVINCED TAYLOR'S FAMILY to LET THEM DIG UP HIS BODY!!!

Thus, DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY of assassination is certainly worthy of the page. Here was my effort at trying to convey a motive for killing taylor:

Given the dynamic period during which Taylor served as president, some historians have proposed that Taylor might have been poisoned. His anti-secession and anti-slavery stances could certainly have been seen as acts of betrayal by some fellow southerners, although assassination would have been an irrational risk: Millard Fillmore, Taylor's replacement, was a northerner who also opposed slavery.

What's your rationale for deleting this section?

Next, Michael Parenti researched the autopsy and revealed a huge blunder in their method. NOW: WHILE PARENTI IS CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL, HIS RESEARCH IS NOT MADE UP. NOTE THAT I DO NOT ENDORSE ANY OF PARENTI'S CONCLUSIONS, MERELY HIS RESEARCH INVOLVLING THE AUTOPSY.

I leave the question of assassination very much in the air. There were questions, autopsy was done to answer them, errors in autopsy leave some question. THAT'S IT!

Please show me some respect and stop reverting back to inferior versions.

do you think Parenti is relaible? Rjensen 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Then it is your contention that ANY AND ALL “scholastic opinions” are appropriate for inclusion in the subject-matter article?

Hi there. Your recent changes to the page were helpful and are appreciated, but one part confused me. You had a ref tag inside a ref tag, probably just an oversight; but I couldn't integrate the intended changes well enough to be comfortable with the 40,000 note and such as footnotes. I saw where you were going with it though. Maybe you can find a better way to relegate the sourcing and actual footnoting as I'm not very good with this whole HTML ref system. Moulder 12:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the heads up--I get confused on the html too and will try to repair. Rjensen 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm one of the most active contributors to the Robert F. Kennedy page and an editor on. I have been thinking about undertaking a major editing of the RFK page to bring it up to scratch, expand crucial topics, and make it worthy of becoming a featured article.

I'm not going to do so (even though it's badly needed) until 'Achilles2006' ceases from doing what he has done since he joined Wiki - turn the articles on both men into sordid reviews of one's sexual life and the other's failings as a diplomat.

I've attempted on numerous occasions to ask him to either add constructive edits or stop subtly rewording the articles in order to make various pointless accusations. Since I informed him I was reporting him for harrassment he's laid off only fractionally.

My question is, what can I do to stop him playing about with the RFK page? I am worried that every time I add another passage he will do something to undermine it, and to be frank it's pretty obvious from the talk page there how aggravated I am becoming.

I would really love to write a thoroughly well-written article but will hardly muster the motivation if this person continues to attempt rewrites of history based on a rather inane ant-JFK (and therefore anyone connected with him) obsession.

Would really appreciate your advice at my user page.

Best,

Iamlondon 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Rjensen. I decided to give all the parties you named two options. The first way would essentially be that I consider the old arguments, along with any new ones that are presented, and render a decision. If you choose this method, please also agree that my decision will be binding, no matter the outcome. The second method involves a negotiation process whereby we will discuss the matter. If you choose the second, I would ask that you be willing to compromise. Please let me know on my talk page which method you prefer, or have another suggestion. LawrenceTrevallion 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Rjensen. I apologize for my earlier suggestion about the mediation. My asking for the decision to be binding is perhaps not appropriate or usual for such informal mediation. LawrenceTrevallion 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rjensen, I realize it is difficult to pick up the nuances of online comments, so if I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. That said, your last comment in the mediation section regarding the chart seemed to be a shot at Haber; moreover, it added nothing to the process. I must ask that you refrain from such comments in the future, as they are a violation of Wiki policy and serve to undermine the mediation process. LawrenceTrevallion 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, have you read Ehrenreich's book. First, its about the upper middle class, not poor poeple-she states in the first chapter that its about the top quintile of society. Second, in the chapter concerning the Yuppie phenomenon she covers the coperate elite-which is not the same as the blue blood elite. Also, the information you removed is a credible vantage point. We must cover all theories in the subject-there is no wrong or right here-we are talking about an ideological concept, not counting sheep. BTW: Please use the citation templates not just external links for your sources-I do appreciate the fact that you have added sources! Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ehrenreich's top quintile = 20% is about 60 million people. The top corporate elite is more like 1000 people. Totally different analysis is called for I suggest. I've read many sociological and historical studies of this group, as well as follow the regular reports in the media. Rjensen 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Who says its 1,000 poeple? As I have said there are going to be many different views on the subject. Some say the top 5% are an elite, some say its only the top 1.5%. There is no wrong or right here. Our sources state different theories-we must document all theories-we are not to chose which is most applicable and which is not. Also, to be blunt, why spend so much emphasis on listing CEO salaries? -No offense-its good research, I just don't quite see why. The word elite is highly subjective and we may have to include paragraphs featurng ideologies that contradict each other. Regards, Signature ^brendel 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

An elite is not 60 million. In 1890 it was "the 300" in New York city. How many today?? We are limited by the data. The Wall Street J study uses the CEO's at 300+ top corporations. Business Week uses 1000 ceo's. Add in top non-corporations (law firms etc) and perhaps a top elite of 1000-2000 makes sense. In politics and government, 250 people is more than enough to cover 90% of the "power", I suggest. Key point, in terms of $$$ and power both: it drops very sharply below the top. That is the CEO averages $6 million but their numerous VP's are paid 10-20% of that. (sources are cited and linked.) Same thing in baseball: top major league players get $10 million and top minor league players get maybe 2% of that--even though they are "almost" as good. The old Zipf law maybe id breaking down Rjensen 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The top 20% can be seen as a quasi-elit seeing as 80% are yet below-but that aside. I am not arguing that the top 0.1% are much more powerful than the mere top 1.5%. I am just saying there are different vantage points that need to be covered. Ture compared to the "real" top, the top 1.5%, 5% or 20%, may not be an elite but compared to rest of American society 240,000,000 poeple, they are. You see, both vantage points are credible and need to be mention. It's all relative-whose to say what is and what isn't. For example, VPs and regular executives make a LOT LESS than CEOs but they are still quite priveleged compared to the vast, vast majority of workes. They direct and conceptualize what the workers do-they devise, plan and counsel. The average American just sits in a cubicle taking order of an upper-middle class person. Both ideologies are valid and need to mentioned-the reader needs to make up his or her mind-we are not to omit info-that's a type of OR. Regards, Signature ^brendel 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was just wondering about the book you added at [5]. I noted that this was the only edit you made to the article as far back as July, so was this actually a source that you used as a reference? --  Netsnipe   ►  14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

yes--i used the book to check the article's accuracy. Rjensen 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. You might want to note that down in the edit summary next time you do that. For a second I was wondering if it was subtle advertising. Sorry about that. = P --  Netsnipe   ►  14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

yes I should have done that. Rjensen 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Howdy. I haven't jousted with you recently. Here's an article stub that could use some attention and that might interest you: Dennis Hart Mahan. Hal Jespersen 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hal--thanks for the tip. I'll look to it. Rjensen 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice one - you're the first editor I've been reduced to calling a name. Leave the List of Presidents alone and stop pretending you own Wikipedia. That list has been used for years, is completely justified and apparently only you consider it an exaggeration. None of the post-Truman candidates' Irish ancestry has ever been questioned. It is not stating that they were anything other than "Of definite Irish descent" maybe your problem is that you don't know the difference between 'Definite' and 'Definitive'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_American#American_Presidents - I managed to find 3 presidents at a glance on this link that prove you have no f###ing right to keep slapping a revert on that list. Go off and do research just to assuage your obsession? I think not. This is typical Wiki Ego Posturing. You're seriously denying that Bill Clinton wasn't of Irish descent?! Or the Bush family?!

I also noticed that you're yet another individual trying to edit in subtle variations of sentences in order to either slant such sentences to the negative or debase the content.

Leave the list alone. Iamlondon 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The list has fake names on it---why keep them? That violates Wiki rules about reliable sources. If you are so sure of it, then please tag the controversial names with relibale sources -- until then it's a scam. Rjensen 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yet again I repeat myself, keep your warnings to yourself if you can't abide by the etiquette of your own accord. Your reverts left the list out of format and removed men of obvious ancestral ties to Ireland. As stated elsewhere - the Bush family is descended from tow of the most famous families in Irish history. I think this proves that the next time you're tempted to slash into a contribution you yourself ought to check you have your facts right. You could start by readin the Dublin Guardin - GUARDIAN , DUBLIN. Friday, Jan 28, 2005. Instead you chose to just do a "I don't buy it and I don't really feel I have to base my argument on anything other than personal opinion". I.e you yourself weren't aware of those men being of Irish extraction and so just decided you'd keep reverting it rather than 'fess up to your lack of knowledge. How gallant of you. Iamlondon 11:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If you don't like Wiki rules about respectable behavior and using reliable sources, then perhaps you should be back in graduate school for another try. The local newspaper as a reliable source?? Perhaps but the rwequisite quotation was omitted. Rjensen 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I only put him up there, as there should be a representative from the UK. The Soviets (Zhukov) and US (Bradley) are represented. To my mind, Cunningham did more than any of the other UK military leaders, and made good stratgic descisions. He was involved in so many important battles. I always thing it is a good idea to have a few pictures of leaders among all the death and destruction. What do you think? Wallie 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Cunningham is a possibility but that is a terrible picture--an official portrait does not fit in with the article. Needs an action picture, Rjensen 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Fine by me.... andreasegde 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Richard,

I ran across your entry for Little Egypt today. This is my first semester back in college (I am 55 years old) majoring in History. I have a research paper due in December for my historical methods class - 15 pages. The topic is only limited to the Ohio Valley area. I thought since you had already researched the Little Egypt area you might have some suggestions in narrowing my topic.

I am interested in early immigration/migration into the area and possible influences on the local culture of southern Illinois. Although I am interested in the German and English for personal reasons, I though maybe it might be less broad and more interesting to research any Asian or Middle Eastern(non-European, non-Western Hemisphere)groups that may have settled here.

Any ideas or resources you might suggest would be most welcome.

Debbie V.

(As a personal note, my family has lived in the Frnklin County, Illinois area since the 1840-50 decade and I have a German line as well as English. I was born and raised in Calfornia due my parents move after WW2. I have done quite a bit of genealogy research, but for the most part have not managed to locate how and when my ancestors came to the U.S. I get stuck in places like Virgina and North Carolina.)

Debbie-- thanks for the comments! One way to start is to go to books.google.com and enter Egypt Illinois and see what turns up.

• Books by James E. Davis is the author of Frontier Illinois; Frontier America, 1800-1840: A Comparative Demographic Analysis of the Settlement Process; and [6]
• Peck, J. M. A Gazetteer of Illinois (1837), a primary source online
• Quaife, Milo Milton ed. Growing Up with Southern Illinois, 1820 to 1861: From the Memoirs of Daniel Harmon Brush (1944)

You have time to look at dissertations like

• Hays, Christopher K. Title: "Way Down in Egypt Land: Conflict and Community in Cairo, Illinois, 1850-1930."  : Ph D thesis U. of Missouri, Columbia 1996. 485 pp. Citation: DAI 1997 57(12): 5273-A. DA9717183 Fulltext: is in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
  • look at [7] also Logan = [8] Mrs Logan = [9] geography = [10] Rjensen 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Richard, Thank you much for these leads on sources - I hadn't seen these yet. Debbie V.

Bro, you are fascinating. Please tell me where you're from?

Thanks--i'm a retired history prof. [11] Rjensen 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

While reverting that article was correct - as the vandal's content was incorrect to call republicans centrists, your justification is incorrect. Just because there is no party that IS centrist in the US doesn't mean it wouldn't be a valid statement of a US parties politics if such a party did exist, even if it wasn't labelled as such in america. Lordkazan 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Good point--someday there might be a centrist party. Wiki tells users the consensus of political commentators, and there is no consensus that the GOP is now a "centrist" party (that's a European term where you have multiple parties). Rjensen 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would like to get some compromise language on this issue. Despite your edit comments, as I last edited this piece it stated that the CSA did NOT claim recognition. Also, my edits are not original research as I cite published primary sources on the point that a request for an exequator has been regarded in international law as de facto recognition. This is an historical fact. Did you bother even to read these sources? I also challenge you to point out exactly what in my edit was false about Raven.

As for your own edits. First, what does Raven's citizenship have to do with the recognition question? He was appointed as an agent of a foreign government. It was not unusual for countries to appoint citizens of the host country as consuls. Second, please either cite a source for Raven being appointed before the war (better yet would be his appointment prior to secession) or remove the comment. Third, unless you can produce a survey of all historians showing that none of them regard the request as de facto recognition, please remove this comment as it is speculation and implies that other historians, besides Berwenger, have even looked at the issue.

Now let's see if there are some facts we can agree on and from which we can formulate a compromise.

1) Saxe-Colburg-Gotha appointed Raven as consul for Texas. [Not the Confederacy]

2) A letter requesting an exequator for Raven was submitted to the CSA government. [the only document we have says RAVEN sent the letter, not the Duke]

3) It is unclear from the sources who wrote the letter, Raven or the Duke himself. [there is NO EVIDENCE the Duke knew about the letter Raven sent.]

4) If Raven wrote the letter, it would have been in the name of the Duke under his appointment as consul. [NOT TRUE--Raven as consul had no political or diplomatic power, said Benjamin]

5) There is precedent in international law for such a request to be regarded as de facto recognition, but not de jure recognition. [NOT TRUE -- that is originial research and was rejected by Benjamin]

6) The Confederacy never cited this request as a recognition by a foreign government. [right--the first time it was raised was by some unknown person 130 years later]

I believe these are all factual. Do you disagree with any of the above points? If so, please explain why. I really would like us to settle this issue without further edit wars.

Nicholas F 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Raven was not appointed to the Confederacy; he had no diplomatic or political power. He was a Confederate citizen. He could not speak for the Duke and did not try. The Confederates knew all this and NEVER claimed recognition by Saxe. The recognition myth was invented in the 1990s. Why are you involved in this hoax? Rjensen 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not trying to perpetuate a hoax, just trying to get to the truth. If you check, you can see that I was the person who first pointed out in the article that Benjamin rejected the view that the Pope's letter to Davis implied recognition. If I may, I will reply to some of your points above:

1) Raven was appointed consul FOR Texas, not TO Texas. The reference to Texas only indicates the area of his responsibility, not the government to which he was accredited. (I hope you are not advancing the argument that SCG was recognzing Texas as an independent nation.)

2 & 3) Looking back on your previous arguments, it appears we do indeed have evidence the SCG government sent the letter and that it was not just a personal request from Raven. In your earlier citation of Berwanger, he writes: "In asking for the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." This clearly indicates that the request came from the SCG government, although Berwanger does say that SCG attached a caveat to the letter or otherwise communicated to the CSA that the request did not imply recognition. Furthermore, the apparent need to caveat the request supports the argument that minus the caveat that such a request would normally imply de facto recognition.

4) You are being pedantic on the issue of Raven's diplomatic status. Yes, he wasn't a diplomatic official, he was a consular official. Lacking diplomatic credentials, Raven could not issue any de jure recognition on the behalf of SCG, but if he was authorized to request an exequatur, then this action would carry implied de facto recognition, unless the SCG government explicitly stated otherwise. In any case, Raven's official status is moot if Berwanger is correct in that the letter was sent by the SCG government.

5) Again, citing previously published primary souces is not original research as defined by Wikipedia. The sources I provided clearly state that a request for an exequatur normally carries de facto recognition. Benjamin's quote that you use as your evidence makes no mention at all of the recognition issue, only that consuls are not entitled to exercise diplomatic functions, which are distinct from consular functions. Please read the sources that I provided.

Your earlier argument that cited Berwanger on the SCG government's caveat on its request for an exequatur for Raven is stronger ground on which to stand than your newer argument that Raven was acting on his own without any authority or knowledge from SCG. How could the SCG government "make clear" that the request for an exequatur did not imply recognition if it wasn't even aware that a request was made? hmmm

So where do we stand? I would suggest that it is that the SCG government did make the request for the exequatur. That such a request normally implies de facto recognition. But, according to Berwanger, that the SCG government caveated its request, thus overriding the customary understanding normally attached to such a request. Thus, per Berwanger, the action did not carry any form of recognition by SCG. We can also add that neither the CSA nor any contemporary commentator ever claimed that the request implied recognition. I would prefer some confirmation of the SCG caveat, but I can live with citing Berwanger. Nicholas F 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe no reliable source has ever said there was recognition. So where did you hear otherwise--sources please? Rjensen 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for helping me balance out the Parkman article. I probably agree with you more than seems apparent -- I find Jennings's attitude towards Anglo-American colonists to be as biased and distorting as anything Parkman ever wrote. But previous versions of the article tried to paper over Parkman's racial views, which were a central feature of his work, although of course his was a rather typical 19th century view of race. Regarding factual accuracy, Parkman's book on Pontiac is no longer considered especially reliable (beginning with Howard Peckham's 1947 book), but I probably emphasized this too much, since most (all?) history writing eventually gets revised. Parkman's work on Pontiac is cited now for its influence and style rather than its accuracy, and I suspect that much of his other work is similarly regarded. • Kevin (complaints?) 04:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we agree. Parkman was abreast of the latest scholarship of his day--both in history and in ethnology. But scholarship and science move on. It would be impossible to find any major historian in the 1860s whose work has nor been to some extent surpassed by 2006. Alas literature has not advanced much, and nobody writes that well anymore. Rjensen 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It should be mentioned then somewhere in the article that JFK opposed abortion. 75.3.23.157 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The issue in the 1950s was birth control (not abortion) and Kennedy always refused to discuss his position on birth control(he was never asked about abortion). See O'brien bio pp 417ff Rjensen 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, then maybe it should be put in that he opposed birth control. 75.3.23.157 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

He probably favored it but refused to answer any questions. He did oppose spending foreign aid $ on birth control programs because it would cause resentment in those countries. Rjensen 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

He belonged to organization's opposed to it, so he was probably against it. 75.3.23.157 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I doubt it (read O'Brien's very good coverage). Politicians belong to dozens of organizations; and the KC and AOH did NOT take right-to-life positions in those days (1950s)--that came much later (late 1970s). 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you are not willing to acknowledge the point which was aptly made, supported, and cited.-- Black Flag 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is that judges in none of these legal cases attempt to NAME the war. They do not belong in a serious article. Rjensen 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. · ·-- Black Flag 17:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

P.S. -- I thank you for the kind manner in which you chose to welcome me to the Wikipedia community. WP:BITE; WP:EQ; WP:CIV.-- Black Flag 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm always ready to help newbies who don't understand the etiquette and traditions. Rjensen 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

REGARDING “[those] who don't understand the etiquette and traditions..."

Yes, perhaps you are just the one to enlighten me...

User notice: temporary 3RR block imposed on Rjensen -- 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block imposed on Rjensen -- 13:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block imposed on Rjensen -- 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block imposed on Rjensen -- 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

-- Black Flag 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply