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

/Archive 6

i was trying to print out,what image i could find,but part of it would be cut off.is there someplace i can print out the handbill.i like stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 ( talk) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

greetings,i was trying to secure a copy of the henry clay handbill but was unsuccessful in doing so.i am interested in stuff like that.is there a way of secure(ing) such things in their entirety? paul love —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullove ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the illustration shows the only fragment of the handbill that survives. I have not seen a complete copy of it. Rjensen ( talk) 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hi! i'm writing an essay on Cuba and the spanish-am. war. where did you find some images from hearst and pulitzer's newspapers??? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.badella ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the pages have been reprinted in old textbooks, where I scanned them. Copyright has expired. Rjensen ( talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you editing more frequently. BusterD ( talk) 12:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks! my pleasure! Rjensen ( talk) 21:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The August 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm of a slightly younger generation than you, so I need some references for perspective on the subject of Marguerite Higgins. After reading her 1965 book, "Our Vietnam Nightmare", IMHO she accurately assessed much of the situation on the ground in real time as it existed during her 1963-64 trip. While Halberstam and Browne won awards for their coverage of the self immolation of Thích Quảng Đức, it seemed to Higgins that such events were staged by communist agents which had infiltrated certain Buddhist temples, and "stunts" like the immolation were used to mislead the American public to cause them to lose confidence in Diem. To my mind, Higgins looks like the experienced, courageous reporter searching for truth, but history was written by those who stayed safely in Saigon and happened to survive. I've read the Halberstam stuff, and I believe he was wrong. You were studying during those years; does history owe Higgins any favors? Do you care to share an opinion? BusterD ( talk) 13:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I admire Higgins work, but can't say whether she was right about the Buddhists. There is no doubt that Diem and the Buddhists were definitely at swords point. Rjensen ( talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Incheon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

(I am informing you of this FAR because of your high number of edits to the Korean War.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cites. The article attracts a lot of OR (And a lot of 'He won, she won' editing) so apologies if my revert came over as brisk. -- Narson ~ Talk • 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah, people get amazingly excited about that forgotten war. :) Rjensen ( talk) 21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The September 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm afraid I've deleted the article British Empire, bibliography. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory of books. If you wish to create lists of books, please do so at Wikipedia's sister site(s) WikiBooks, or WikiSource.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all articles should meet our guidlines on notability and meet our style guide. -- Jza84 |  Talk  10:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The list was not "indiscriminate" -- it was a selection of about 5% of the books listed in the bibliographies. Just as the British Empire itself is a small selection from many thousands of facts in the history. It meets the notability and style guides, I think. The point is that it is useful to users who try to understand a very large subject. A college library will have thousands of books and we need to help them get started. Rjensen ( talk) 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, consisting of articles based on source material, and incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialised encyclopedias, and almanacs. It is not for lists of source material such as books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Alternatively, you may list sources of use in your sandbox. Please visit the introduction page for more information about Wikipedia. -- Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be to create a Historiography of the British Empire article, in the style of the Historiography of Scotland and/or Chinese historiography pages. -- Jza84 |  Talk  13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll get started not on "Historiography of the British Empire." Rjensen ( talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a useful addition, but it does not belong in the "plantation of Ireland" section! Suggest you place it as a reference at the end. -- Snowded TALK 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded is right and I moved it. Rjensen ( talk) 22:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but I moved it for you, it doesn't really below in the lede, -- Snowded TALK 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You opened up a can of worms there. Probably noone even thought about it before you made the change. :-) I'm just amazed at some of the nonsense people spout, and how some people just don't "get" what the WP:NOR rule is all about. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

well yes, I'm surprised at the reaction. I think it comes from people who have grown up with TV and not books. Rjensen ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bookworm857158367 is suffering from a severe case of WP:OWN - he reverted my edit that Pomerania was not in East Prussia (correct) and my use of "probably" instead of "possibly" given that all the Romanov remains have been found. Paul Austin ( talk) 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

well I looked into the matter briefly, and in my opinion it's not worth an edit war. Keep plugging away! Rjensen ( talk) 02:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see your proof that the effect of the Aliens Act was small. It keeps about 6,000,000,000 aliens out of Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.235.67 ( talk) 11:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jensen - You have just the precise age & background I'm seeking, plus perhaps my ultimate quest is of interest to you. How to reach you? You're not listed @MSUBillings. DEddy ( talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

try rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You may choose not to get involved here, and since it's a hot place you may not choose to do so, but this discussion could use an expert, disinterested view. In any case, best regards to you and yours. BusterD ( talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. I find Robertson is highly convincing. Rjensen ( talk) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The October 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen - do you have references for your additions to the British Empire article? In its recent review for Good Article status, the lack of references was pointed out as a problem. Adding more unreferenced material is only going to make the job of fixing the article harder. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

good idea. I will add them now. Rjensen ( talk) 05:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ow it is misintereted as referring to the discussion. Any other idea? Is there a good tag that questions the validity of a section in a particular article? thanks, Icsunonove ( talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion belongs of the talk page. people who are not interested in the subtopic can skip the section very easily indeed, but a warning that the content is "dubious" is inappropriate and sends the wrong message. Rjensen ( talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stick to the convention used on the BE page? As I wrote there, I spent an hour of my time cleaning this all up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

Regarding your recent edit to the Automotive industry crisis of 2008 article.

In the comment section, you said it was "sarcasm" and "POV" to talk about the crossword puzzles.

You are mistaken.

The information about crossword puzzles comes from the source. The article is supposed to reflect the source. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

the Job Bank people are paid to wait around waiting for a job to open. They are not paid to do cross-word puzzles (although they do that). Office workers are not paid to surf the net, but they do that too. Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gop-plank.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:~KKK.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Seymour US Reconstruction antidem poster.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Seymour US Reconstruction antidem poster.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 19:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The November 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Germans1900.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 10:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you added something like this:

Thirdly Elkins argued that slavery in North America was strikingly different than in Latin America, a theme originated by historian Frank Tannenbaum regarding Brazil. Sambo did not flourish in Brazil.

I was thinking that the reference to Sambo is at best not entirely clear, and should be explained if you really mean it to be there. Also, a minor nit, the article says "...make two ... arguments.." so you might want to change that if you intend to have a "thirdly..." clause.

Best wishes and happy holidays.

Morris ( talk) 03:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the Elkins note--I will check on it Rjensen ( talk) 05:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Reconstruction era is too long. What are your ideas for divvying it up?

My comments which you saw fit to delete, insofar as I can sanitize them—into which article would you recommend that I insert them?

I agree with you about Virginia but will politely differ with you on Georgia. Perhaps it's a question of how the Republican ascendency is measured. Republicans, although they briefly, and tenuously, held both the Georgia governorship and the Georgia legislature, could not deliver the state for the Republicans in any Presidential election prior to 1964. Republicans in Virginia were largely kept at bay in state and local politics but could win Presidential elections there.

Tennessee, as you are aware, is an exceptional case which cannot be compared, on all counts, to the other Confederate states, partly because of the Union sympathies in the eastern third of the state but mostly because of the absence of military occupation. I'm not sure the Reconstruction era article stresses this difference sufficiently.

Your thoughts on these and any other matters you have in mind I welcome with interest.

Rammer ( talk) 07:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point and I agree it's too long. Some of the tables perhaps can be moved out (a new articles is needed on Blacks in Reconstruction). I think the whole Redeemer section can be moved out (as post-Reconstruction). Each state was somewhat different, of course. 10 had GOP governments, including Georgia without any doubt (Virginia was the 11th and did not have GOP control). The state details belong in the state articles--for example, why Tennessee was diffferent. Why Arkansas was different. Why Virginia was different etc. (No two are alike). Rjensen ( talk) 08:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 06:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the article on Zachary Taylor, you appear to be a notable contributor to it. As a result, I thought you might like to get involved in a discussion I have started on the talk page concerning a proposal to change the main picture in the infobox: [1] If you do get involved, thank you. Terrakyte ( talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The December 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir:

Please put a label on the Y-axis on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GROWTH1850.JPG

It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. Thanks. I hope my request is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.56.88 ( talk) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

the label should be per capita income---it's not the subtitle Rjensen ( talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island not a country. My copy of the OED says "Great Britain England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit; the name is also often used inaccurately to refer to the United Kingdom." United Kingdom is used on the War of 1812, I think it should be used on Burning of Washington, but just incase I've started a discussion. -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find evidence of usage of UK in history books dealing with 1812. The Shorter OED says: "Britain: More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire." Rjensen ( talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I'm trying to get a higher resolution of this illustration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puck112188c.jpg

Can you lead me to the original source that you were able to upload this from?

Thank you! Linda Saffire 917-376-3295 (cell) pmls@aol.com

it was scanned at this resolution from a paper copy of Puck of Nov. 21, 1888. Major libraries have sets of Puck and they are the best bet. Rjensen ( talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sending to you as you seem to have been one of the original editor of this and are knowledgable on the subject. Please comment in the Recession of 1937 page under "Death of New Deal is greatly exaggerated" if you are interested.

The following is not supported by the historical record and the New Deal Wikipedia article:

"Economic historians have not agreed on the causes [1], but many of the causes show that because the New Deal involved spending money from the Federal budget, President Roosevelt had to end New Deal spending, and thus programs, as a result."

I'm going to update it to read:

"Economic historians have not agreed on the relative importance of the causes the Recession of 1937. The following are generally cited as contributing factors: The reduction of net government contributions due to balancing the budget, excessive business inventory build up, government actions that increased the cost of credit in response to rapidly rising commodity and labor costs, insufficient business investment and labor costs that continued to climb even after commodity prices collapsed."

I'll add the appropriate references when I post.

Does anyone who is a better writer than me want to do this update or are there any factual problems with the above? Oneeyedguide ( talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you add some info on source of File:Wpa1.JPG? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

my notes are packed away right now but I will try to find out. Rjensen ( talk) 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that your recent constructive edit to this article also added the word "sucked" to it, in a seemingly random section of the article. I'm guessing that this was a mistake, and I went ahead and reverted it.

Thanks,

— BMRR ( talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the fix. the word was there before I made an edit, but I'm glad it's gone.  :) Rjensen ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The March 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are displaying an ignorance of the meaning of the term "abolitionist" in a 19th-century context. The abolitionist movement was a political movement, in which Lincoln played no part and of which he was never a member; all historical records are inagreement on that. If you persist in adding him to this category, it will be reverted, as it simply is not true. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You incorrectly assume the abolitiomist movement stopped in 1860. It went on and people who favored abolition in 1862 were part of it. That's Lincoln. That is how people talked in 1862: "Lincoln is an abolitionist" they said. See McPherson's standard history. Rjensen ( talk) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say in the article that Barry Goldwater said, "I'm a very religious man. I don't go to church every Sunday." And where in the article does it say that Goldwater (not others) referred to himself as half-Jewish. Show me please -- Hokeman ( talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg, Barry Goldwater quotes are both on p. 27, exactly where footnote 5 says it is. Rjensen ( talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see now where you mean that the material is on p. 27 of Goldberg's work Barry Goldwater (listed in the general references). You're a college professor and I'll certainly take your word for it; however, there is nothing in the November 22, 1963 Time article that substantiates this as you said initially. I can't figure out why this footnote contains a link to the Time article if the Goldberg biography is the source. -- Hokeman ( talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the footnote did two things: It documented two BG quotes (Goldberg p 27) AND it added NEW material about Harry Golden's statement, which came from the Time page listed. Rjensen ( talk) 05:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure external links you add to articles comply with WP:EL, as the one at History of Atlanta didn't.-- Otterathome ( talk) 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The May 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep fighting the good fight! 71.193.206.116 ( talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added some additional explanations to File:Perkins-pinchot.JPG which you uploaded a while back. I plan to copy it to Commons. For the record, do you recall anything about the intermediate source you got this from? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your annotations. it was copied from Mowry TR and Prog Movement p 297. Rjensen ( talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Reconstruction article is one of several I've been meaning to get around to giving a thorough read, but as for this edit, I agree with the anon in that quotes should be added and the context explained if we're going to use a phrase like that. Recognizance ( talk) 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the most famous quotes in US history, and should be easy to cite. Rjensen ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, just saying it should be explained. I wasn't disagreeing with inclusion altogether. Recognizance ( talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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