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.

[1] -- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So you may have a view on Italian American politicians, on the same page, that you may wish to share -- it is also up for deletion.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tx. And tx for being one of the few intellectually honest ones in these deletion discussions. They've been rampant, of late, as a move is afoot to delete categories.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's use the article talk page to avoid edit warring. Scribner ( talk) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The June 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) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Lincoln's assassination was a major event; there's no denying that. Would you assert that his assassination is of greater significance than his actions in the Civil War in preserving the Union? That is what is at issue here, methinks. Un sch ool 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question indicates his greatest achievement came when he was president, and gives the dates and mentions the assassination. The thrust of the sentence is the term in office. Rjensen ( talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I agree, mentioning his assassination along with his term of office is most appropriate. The point is, however, that WP:LEAD tells us that the first sentence is to mention the subject of the article in terms of its most noteworthy attributes--that is, if a reader reads only the first sentence, they will know the most salient point about that subject. Now, obviously, that's often an unachievable expectation, if for no other reason than the fact that sometimes—oftentimes, th be told—there is no obvious "main point" about a subject (what is most noteworthy about this and others like it?) Yet if Automobile began with the sentence, "The automobile is a machine.", or if Christopher Columbus began with the sentence, "Christopher Columbus was an explorer.", they would be missing the point of the guideline, which is that good expository delivers its thesis up front and then presents the supporting evidence. That Lincoln was the 16th President is not what is most notable about him (though that fact can easily be placed in the lead) and even that he was assassinated does not seem, to me, what is most noteworthy about him.

As you implied more forcefully than I have, Lincoln's role in preserving the Union and in ending slavery are what historians note him for. I only suggest that the previous wording, which leads with his preservation of the Union (and for which consensus has existed for at least a year) not be discarded without some thoughtful discussion. Un sch ool 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

the guidelines are averaged over 2+ million articles and are not written to deal with highly important biographies. Readers of the Lincoln article can be expected to read a couple sentences. The saving the Union and ending slavery points are meaningless for people who did not know that he was president 1861-65. Rjensen ( talk) 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless? With all respect, I must disagree. While I am not one of those who believe dates in history are unimportant, I would give more credit on a student's Lincoln short answer on a test if all he identified were Lincoln's role in the Civil War and the preservation of the Union than if all he did was identify the years 1861-1865 as the years of his presidency. The context of the dates is critical, but (in my humble opinion) less significant than what he did during those 50 months. Un sch ool 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, but you have to know the dates and the article should give the dates first, not later on. Rjensen ( talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound to me that we are actually disagreeing here. We both agree that dates need to appear upfront (to establish some context; that's why we always put birth and death dates in right away), so that one can see when his presidency was, but we also need to establish notability. I think this can be written to satisfy all parties, though I personally plan to step away from it for at least a few weeks, both to gather my thoughts and to see what others may do. Thanks for the exchange; it's good to converse with someone who puts in as much thought as you do (not to say that it's all that rare around here, but it sure isn't guaranteed). Cheers. Un sch ool 05:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 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) 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:96SILVER.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:96SILVER.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: [[File:96SILVER.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Coal-wpa.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Coal-wpa.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TR-Farewell.JPG is now available as Commons:File:TR-Farewell.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:TR-Enviro.JPG is now available as Commons:File:TR-Enviro.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:JUDGE04B.JPG is now available as Commons:File:JUDGE04B.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Iowa-ohio.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Theodore Roosevelt cartoon Iowa-ohio.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:56, 21 November 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 12 September!
Many thanks,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The August 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) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your edit, [2] and I notice that you have the second highest amount of contribution to the Abraham Lincoln article. Thanks for fixing that Goodwin issue. I don't have access to the book. There's another Goodwin that doesn't have a page number, [ [3]]. Do you know if it's accurate, and if so, what page it's on? Also, do you want to help get this article to FA? It still needs quite a bit of work, but considering how important the subject is and the scrutiny a FA will get, it's actually pretty close. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks I'll check on it. Rjensen ( talk) 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me more, please? Can you give me more references please? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

On [ 21 February 2006] you revised the text on WP:RS that became the section at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. This text is some what US specific, dated, and does not assist editors of history articles with sourcing issues. The current WP History project B-class criteria points to the military history advice which is good, but doesn't cover how to deal with a hierarchy of lesser sources than appropriately published histories by historians. I'm intending to rewrite that section to deal with sources that won't meet the Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES criteria. Fifelfoo ( talk) 12:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

well good luck. The emphasis was on US material because (in the English language) most of the scholarly literature in history and online sources are published in the U.S., and less than 10% or so in UK. (Of course some of the best material is published simulataneously in US and UK, such as Oxford and Cambridge items.) As for "lesser" sources, (I suppose that means not peer-reviewed), the variance in quality is so huge that it will be hard to come up with a style guide. Rjensen ( talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff. Does that source have everything you added, including "A Chicago Tribune writer produced a pamphlet that detailed Lincoln's life, and sold one million copies."? I just want to make sure before I move on to the next paragraph. It reads really well, by the way. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. yes, Nevins tells about the big sales of the Scripps biography on p 275 Rjensen ( talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Super awesome! Thanks for the help. The part about the election has been the worst part of the article I've seen so far, and now it's comprehensive IMHO. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Do you have the page numbers for this edit? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

pages 325-27. 355, 445-7 Rjensen ( talk) 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate all the help you've provided. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The September 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) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to get Honest Abe to FA, and the main thing I worry about is the sourcing. I don't have a good library, so I've been doing it with Google Books. It doesn't allow me to read all the best scholarly books you mentioned. I'm about to work on the Civil War stuff, so could you tell me which are the best CW books? Hopefully some of them have a preview on Google Books. Thanks, - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend McPherson Battle Cry" and Donald "Lincoln" as the best basic volumes. My favorite is Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union (8 vol--4 vol on the war itself). On civilian side, Paludan is best (Peoples War; Presidency of AL). There are cheap copies at amazon.com. James Ford Rhodes is very good and he's free on books.google.com Rjensen ( talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you get a chance, could you maybe add references where I've put citation needed tags, or remove the taggeed statements if you don't think they're sourcable? I imagine your busy, but thought I'd ask. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

yes i'll follow up. I just fixed Altoona. :) Rjensen ( talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I kinda look up to you as far as Lincoln stuff goes, so I really appreciate everything you do. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

F

Don't know how to give a barnstar, but that entry is exactly what was needed. It identifies the difference between the "race/bilogical" idea of ethnicity, and the cultural/religious identity of people who call themselves a Jew. Sposer ( talk) 10:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen ( talk) 10:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you add the Nevins (2000) (Vol. IV), pp. 6–17 ref after "Lincoln grasped the need to control strategic points (such as the Mississippi River and the fortress city of Vicksburg) and understood the importance of defeating the enemy's army, rather than simply capturing territory. He had, however, limited success in motivating his commanders to adopt his strategies until late 1863, when he found a man who shared his vision of the war in Ulysses S. Grant. Only then could he relentlessly pursue a series of coordinated offensives in multiple theaters, and have a top commander who agreed on the use of black troops."? I looked through the history, and a lot of that was added without a cite I think, [4] so I'm trying to figure out which part is cited, and which parts still need refs. It also has a note saying Ulysses S. Grant: triumph over adversity, 1822-1865 By Brooks D. Simpson contradicts it. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

yes I added those. Nevins and Simpson are very good sources. Rjensen ( talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Does it cover that whole statement? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it cover that whole statement? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

yes it does. Rjensen ( talk) 04:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've bee taking a break on the article, but I hope to get back to it soon. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User: 195.30.17.81 is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. For more information please read this.-- B@xter ⁹ 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:1996.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 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) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your said in your edit summary here: "everything is cited; please read the bibliography before complaining)"

That statement is factually incorrect:

• Telling someone to go look at a bibliography does not help, because all citations need to be inline
• I found many instances in that article where there is a lack of inline citations
• Your removal of the refimprove tag was inappropriate and unacceptable, and I am asking for an immediate restoration of the tag. I will take this to the Reliable sources noticeboard if there is a lack of compliance.
  • However if there is content in the lead, and it is not controversial and it is cited elsewhere in the article, then it doesn't need a citation

WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

it's no help to put on a generic tag for the entire long article when you really have in mind a couple sentences that you think need reference. The "fact" tag tells what you think needs referencing. Rjensen ( talk) 03:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The generic tag tells everyone that the whole article needs work on referencing. If a tag was inherently unhelpful, then it should be deleted. Anyway, there were more than a couple sentences throughout the article that needed inline cites; there were several per section that generally needed cites. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and everytime a reference is added you can say "not that one--it's somewhere else--guess!!" It's false to suggest the whole article needs work because the article currently exceeds Wiki standards for history articles. So if there are problems you may see please say where exactly where and something can be done about them. Better yet, do some research and add the necessary cite yourself rather than relying on other people.

The standards for what an article should be like are generally viewed in other featured articles and good articles. An article will not pass a GA nomination if it has sections lacking sources. There is an article which is up for GA review, Architecture of Houston, which is being forced to have more sources added to it (It became GA in an era before more stringent references were required). Template:Refimprove explains that it is to be used when more references are needed throughout the article, as it is the case in German Americans. Now, apparently the tag is redundant if there is a stub tag already in the article, but "German Americans" is no stub. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If a critic can't specify a problem maybe he doesn't understand the subject well enough. Rjensen ( talk) 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, no matter what subject the article is, having gaps in inline citations means that the article won't pass GA review. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the German American article. -- Sift& Winnow 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

my pleasure! Rjensen ( talk) 06:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about the mediocre quality of the German American article. As with all the ethnic-American articles on WP, it's a shallow, chauvinistic piece that suffers from the WP policy of multi-editing. Every editor just has to get his or her own favorite factoid inserted into the article. It is, however, much better today than it was before the recent spate of editing. Although my time for intensive work on the article is limited, I will be formulating an outline of major themes that should be addressed, then gradually working on them. These will involve not only history, but also cultural themes, which are almost totally ignored in the article. As always, your contributions are valuable. -- Sift& Winnow 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

go for it--we're in full agreement and I want to help. Rjensen ( talk) 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your edits to the lead paragraph in James II of England. Have you read Steven Pincus's 1688: The First Modern Revolution? His thesis accords with your edits. -- Coemgenus 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks--yes I was influenced by Pincus' essays but have not read his new book. Rjensen ( talk) 09:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen,

Since you've discussed this subject before, I thought you might want to weigh in [[[Talk:Judaism#defining terms.3B removing ambiguity from terminology|here]]. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to discussion at Talk:Canada – United States relations, it has been proposed that the lead image at Canada – United States relations be changed from one featuring Canada's Governor General to one featuring Canada's Prime Minister. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Talk:Canada – United States relations#Proposed image change. - M.Nelson ( talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that my recent edit at Progressive Era elicited your edit shortly thereafter, which also changed any semblance of its previous content. Obviously, you seem in a position to know better. I would, however, appreciate your read of my concurrent post on its talk page. Could I bother you for a quick 'sniff test' on my assertion regarding the Era and its impact on US international relations? Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 13:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the statement that Morgan and Rockefeller financed the movement is not true so I dropped it. (No one financed it--though magazine owner Munsey did finance TR's run in 1912).) As for backgrounds of the reformers, there is a large literature that I tried to summarize in a sentence or two. Rjensen ( talk) 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Nice job on the Melancthon article replacing the Bibliography source material that was listed with references to secondary work... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen ( talk) 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've followed your suggestion, and posted a new section on the TR Talk page. Swliv ( talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The November 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) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your continued diligance! Simon SimonATL ( talk) 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ebrary, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Adi4094 ( talk) 10:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get your opinion on how I can make the statement you deleted better. After hearing several comments from undergraduate students, it appears that there is a great deal of confusion about what the terms "conservative" and "radical" meant in the Reconstruction era, and many seem to equate the Democratic Party with the GOP, and the Republican Party with the Democratic Party of the 2000's. I think it is undeniable that straight comparisons like that are not only entirely wrong, but they make for nonsense history.

It is a factual assertion I have made, citing to valid sources, that the Democratic party's "conservatism" was a literal conservation (or preservation) of the white elite's hold on power, for better or worse. In addition, the Republicans, though voting for increased government involvement in railroad construction and infrastructure build-up, were strongly pro-industrial and pro-employer, a position they share with the modern GOP.

If you could help me figure out a way to clarify this better, it would be greatly appreciated. Cdtew ( talk) 00:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

that's a good idea, students today don't realize that alignments were different 140 years ago. the Democrats in the South often called their party the Conservative Party during reconstruction. The term "radical" was the favored term of the radical Republicans. The term "progressive" was rarely used at the time but "moderate" was common. "Liberal" enters in 1872 with the third party. As for the railroads, BOTH parties promoted them, the GOP more so. Workers in the North split along ethno-religious lines (the Catholic were Democrats, the Protestants were Republican). Rjensen ( talk) 01:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the revisions, and I think they're outstandingly done; certainly better than my attempt. My attempt was born more of frustration with the issue of party identification. As a conservative southerner who's proud of my heritage, I also feel the need to recognize that many of the Republican Party's proposals, at least on the economic and industrialization front, but also to some extent on the racial equality front, are ones that today's G.O.P. clings to dearly. It must be in our high schools where teachers too often try to analogize current and past political parties. Cdtew ( talk) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Empire for Liberty, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.conservapedia.com/Empire_of_Liberty. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 09:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the scary template, I'll just go ahead and tell you that I've tagged your page at Empire for liberty as a possible copyvio of the Conservapedia page of the same title. It's unclear to me that the Conservapedia license allows inclusion of content from there on Wikipedia, and I couldn't find any info on WP one way or the other as to whether that is allowed. Hopefully it will be sorted one way or the other soon. Thanks! — æk ^Talk 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I wrote the Conservapedia article and have copyright. Rjensen ( talk) 10:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen. Given the specific nature of the Conservapedia license (see User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_17#Opinion requested for a previous discussion on similar matters), and given that you are not the sole author of the Conservapedia article, I'm afraid we cannot reuse the material verbatim on Wikipedia in its present form. In particular, the contradictions between the Conservapedia copyright policy's first and second clauses as well as their General disclaimer leave us simply unable to reuse the work in confidence.

While this is regrettable, in accordance with the precautionary principle guiding our copyright policy, the article has been deleted. Regards, MLauba ( talk) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The December 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) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained why I trimmed each individual link, at your request, here: Talk:North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#External_links_cleanup.

Thanks and happy editing, Spencer ^{T♦ Nominate!} 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, I can explain why I kept the remaining links as well. If you want this, leave a message on my talk. Spencer ^{T♦ Nominate!} 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted. Those are NOT citations. Either cite the entire original works, which are not referenced in the article otherwise, or leave them out. Citation is important for research, saying 'see this word and number' means absolutely nothing. Provide actual citations, or leave the article alone. And finally, Arguments from special authority are about as useful to me as a ten-speed bicycle is for a flatworm. ThuranX ( talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The standard practice in Wikipedea is to use use the footnotes to refer to the full citation in the "Further reading". Thus Steckel (1991) refers to Steckel, Richard H. "The Quality of Census Data for Historical Inquiry: A Research Agenda," Social Science History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Winter, 1991), pp. 579-599 in the Further Reading--and indeed there the article is hot linked to the first page of the actual journal article, which is in JSTOR. This method is approved in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Rjensen ( talk) 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Professor Jensen,

I am trying to interpret the per capita income chart in Wiki for the US from 1700 forward.

This seems to say that each person had income around $200 per year during this period.

Or a family of found would have 4 x $200 = $800 to spend each year.

But are you showing some kind of "constant dollars" here, and for what "base year."

$800 per year for a family of four would be abject poverty in 2010 dollars.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks. 173.122.97.226 ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good question! the great majority of people were farmers and the income is not cash but the value of the crops and animals produced on farms, and mostly consumed by the family. The economic historians (not me) who calculated the data also used inventories of estates when people died. Most people lived in poverty--with very few possessions such as a small stock of clothes, a shack to live in, a few household goods--and land and animals. In terms of wealth the per capita wealth of Americans in 1774 was £37.4 ($6700 in 2009 dollars); per adult male £172 ($30,700) ; and per white adult male £218 ($39,000). Source: Alice Jones, Wealth of a Natgion to Be (1980); The Historical Statistics of the United States (2006) by Susan B. Carter et al. vol 3. also see review Rjensen ( talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. William P. Hoar - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have proposed on Talk:Progress (history) a merger of four articles here on wikipedia all about the concept of progress, and as your article Idea of Progress seems to be the best structured and sourced of the four articles, I would like to seek your input and assistance on this project especially.

Thanks, -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 11:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed some of your edits and wonder if I might invite you to help work on an entry I think needs a lot of attention and where your expertise would be useful? It's the First Red Scare, and I've put some material on its talk page. The entry is watched by someone who thinks the FRS was "all about anarchism" and whose knowledge of the FRS comes entirely from the entry as it stands now.

Cheers!

Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit, thanks for citation. -- 208.59.93.238 ( talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

my pleasure. the Cadigan book is the best thing to happen to Newfoundland in a while. Rjensen ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the talk page of the Vladimir Lenin article? Notice how anti-Communist historians are considered "suspect" sources but pro-Communist sources are just fine and dandy. Paul Austin ( talk) 07:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the excellent contributions you've made to Harvard and Yale to date. If I could impose one request going forward, I'd ask that you use standardized citation templates (such as these) so that there are not competing styles within an article. Thank you and happy editing ! Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

These quotes appear almost NO where else on the Internet making the TR article truely unique. Please stop dumbing down this article. There's NO real reason to remove this information as it is not commonly even cited. I am putting several quotes back in.

Thanks SimonATL

SimonATL ( talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are original research in primary sources, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You're supposed to use secondary sources. Rjensen ( talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mistake me for one of those neo-secesshes who are striving so hard to besmirch the man's record in the interest of their own bizarre revisionist agenda(e). I am striving to keep the NPOV even on somebody I strongly admire, and I really think the epithet (almost reserved for Lincoln nowadays) is not neutral. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a neutral term. People still call Illinois the Prairie State, with not a hint of innocence or bucolic old-fashionedness. Rjensen ( talk) 02:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some Illinoians call it The Prairie State. I doubt that more than one person in a thousand outside Illinois would know that the term is supposed to mean Illinois, as opposed to Kansas or Nebraska. (You don't want to know what the average cheesehead here in Wisconsin calls it, as most of those epithets fall in the category of WP:NPA violations.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Prairie staters appreciate Wisconsin's electoral vote in 1860. (Illinois operates "Prairie State University" and takes pride in the "Prairie School of Architecture" even though Frank Lloyd Wright moved away to some obscure place north. Rjensen ( talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: the concerns at Talk:John_Adams#Referencing: you along with Krellis ( talk · contribs) and No Guru ( talk · contribs) appear to have been major contributors in the article's past. Per the those comments linked here and comments made earlier on the talk page, I am attempting to help improve the article in accordance with a requested peer review. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at the concerns and the article to help us figure out how to cite the several unreferenced sections and passages. I have tried to figure out what book(s) are used as sources in those sections but haven't been able to do so. Any help you can offer would be great. I am cc:ing this request to Krellis and No Guru on their respective talk pages. Thanks – Sswonk ( talk) 04:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I'll look at it tonite. Rjensen ( talk) 04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just to tell you the reason I modified the History of the United States article is because it already states in the article what the unemployment rate rose to, and that the opinion of a Washington Post columnist that Obama is a polarizing president is no more relevent to history than how polarizing Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were. Also, may I ask whether one small special election in Massachusetts is really relevent to history, given how it is only one local election, and how most special election, such as this one, should be included in this article?

Wikipedia's job is to report what the experts (like Balz) think, and they say it's very important, as do the leaders of both parties. Rjensen ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All that column proves is that Balz is an ahistorical ignoramus. How can he compare Obama to the first years of Truman, Lincoln, etc.? This is classic Wikipedian recentism at its silliest. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Balz is one of the most important political commentators of our time, writing for a top newspaper for many years--his books and articles are very well received. Who's orangemike? Rjensen ( talk) 03:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned in 2 ways re your nice recent addition to The Bronx. 1. It is unsourced, and needs 1 or more, to move beyond WP:OR issues. 2. It is so well written, that it might be directly from an existing publn and hence violate [{WP:COPYVIO]] - altho I doubt it given your disciplinary background. Please address on the Bronx talk page. Bellagio99 ( talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The January 2010 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, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! NPOV at its finest, with solid sourcing and nuanced analysis. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page instead of edit-warring. THF ( talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am researching the history of feminism.

George Francis Train, Copperhead and candidate for President (1868?) is implicated in the split of the American Equal Rights Assoc (AERA) into National Woman Suffrage Assoc (NWSA) and American Woman Suffrage Assoc (AWSA) in 1869. This was due to the racist beliefs and strategy that he and Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony used and propagated on a national tour promoting woman's suffrage while opposing black male suffrage. He reportedly financed their publication The Revolution.

My source is the essay "White Women's Rights, Black Men's Wrongs" by Andrea Moore Kerr, as published in One Woman, One Vote, Marjorie Spruill Wheeler. The author sites his work: The Great Epigram Campaign of Kansas. 1867

Do you have other confirmation of this? If true, he may qualify for the "most famous" Copperhead at least by impact of his actions and associations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleebraun ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Train was not a Copperhead. he actively supported the Unionand gave many anti-Southern speeches in England during the war. Copperhead =antiwar. see http://books.google.com/books?id=rggFAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22George+Francis+Train%22&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Rjensen ( talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly look at my comment at Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Semi-protection_expiry.3F? Thanks. Connormah ( talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed your interest in historiography and thought I'd mention that I have Historiography of the American Civil War on my rather extended to-do list. So far the most I've done is list some potentially relevant articles at User:Recognizance/Sandbox2 - writing the article would be a huge undertaking. There's certainly no shortage of material though. :-)

The main reason I stopped by was a sloppy I made to Reconstruction era of the United States. I hit enter by mistake (hence the lack of edit summary) and didn't realise I'd removed the material about the schools of thought. Feel free to add it back in at some point. Recognizance ( talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i added it back at the end. GOOD LUCK on covering historiography. hat will make it much more useful for advanced sudents. Rjensen ( talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Random Page button working for you? It just suddenly stopped working for me, which has never happened before. - Warthog Demon 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for adding the reference. Do you have (or have access to) the Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery? Judging by the title alone, seems like it might be useful for adding new citations and/or more information to an article on the worldwide history of slavery! (I guess Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to tertiary sources but for an overview article like this, seems like it would fit the bill pretty well) What do you think? -- Joren ( talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

yes I bought a copy on amazon and it's a great source--maybe the #1 source for the topic. Rjensen ( talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with separating out "primary" vs. "secondary" sources in the References section. For one thing, except for the book authored by Johnson himself, all these sources (so far) are [[WP:PRIMARY|secondary sources]. For another, there's no guideline that I'm aware of in either the citation guidelines or the Manual of Style which indicates that such sources should be separated like this. I see this done in academic texts, but this is an encyclopedia. I'm also concerned that readers would be confused by the insertion of works into the References section which are not actually cited or utilized in the text. (And the Fiedel book you cite in a footnote is not in the References section.) Finally, your citation style is different that than outlined in the citation guidelines, and is not citing page numbers (which I've learned will be critical if the article is ever to reach GA or FA status; going back and doing this later is a huge pain.) Frankly, I won't work on the article if you are; we might edit the same sections create edit conflicts (which, if you're like me, is one of the most frustrating/annoying things in the world). What are your thoughts on these issues? - Tim1965 ( talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

well the alternative is to delete all the newspaper references as OR. I did in fact use the Freidel book, so it counts. Rjensen ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the historical usages are not currently negative, at the time of their use they were very derogatory. Please revise your text. Thanks. Castravalva ( talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just now did revise it. Rjensen ( talk) 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Great new stuff you added. Shouldn't we merge your new info with the "current political usage" to form simply "political usage"? Cheers. Castravalva ( talk) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea--do you wantr to do it? Rjensen ( talk) 00:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Do. Castravalva ( talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting that you make no edits to Irish American as it is up for mediation. Please sign on the mediation page to say that you will not edit the article (even if you don't, I will take any edits to WP:RPP). If you see content that you wish to have changed, feel free to put it on my talk page or email me. (I am the current Mediator for this request) -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 22:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Encycropedia Britainca seems to fall into a "reliably published tertiary sources".

"There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution."

I should not use EB in detailed discussion. However, the fact that slave could be killed should be regarded as a well established fact. Moreover, I don't see why other definitions of slavery could exist without citation at all while kill part of definition require citation. Vapour ( talk) 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the excerpt was POV-- the EB explains that in some societies killing was legal and not in others. Only the first group was liosted and the second was deliberately left out. That's POV designed to slant the article (and putting it in the lede made it more egregious).

that is why it said "can be killed". :) Vapour ( talk) 05:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

anybody can kill in this world. The issue is the legality and it was illegal regarding most slaves in the last 1000 years. Rjensen ( talk) 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was my understanding that slaves were routinely killed in Atlantic slave trade. Vapour ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

sometimes, but they operated independent of any legal system until 1810. after 1810 when a slave ship was captured by the Royal Navy. the crew was executed and the slaves freed. Rjensen ( talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave one's personal take on the definition. With your definition, there can't be a slave in the world right now because slavery is not technically legal anywhere in the world. Vapour ( talk) 06:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of crime in the world. Does it make a difference if the courts-government-police-army-navy are on side A or side B? I think it really does make a difference. If legality made no difference, then there would not have been an American Civil War on the issue. To say that slaves could be killed like cattle suggests--falsely--that it was legal. Rjensen ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that ILO, among others, do not define slavery by its legality. If someone in U.S. is being locked up to work in brothel. that person is a slave even if it is illegal. It is also the case that atlantic slaves could be killed with impunity. Vapour ( talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The February 2010 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) 23:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Scotch-Irish American, you will be blocked from editing. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen:

 If I may, I would like to make a friendly inquiry into your specific knowledge of the careers and legacies of Jacob Bunn and John Whitfield Bunn. I have accumulated, over the last decade, hundreds of pages of biographical information concerning these two men and their immediate and extended families, and I have discovered nothing that suggests that they ever were in any fashion local, small-scale, or restricted to Sangamon County, in their scope of commerical, financial, and industrial operations. In fact, their businesses and business associations encompassed and represented capital quantities that were measurable in the hundreds of millions (U.S. dollars) in the early twentieth century. The Bunn brothers and their extended family constituted one of the most prominent and commercially prolific industrial dynasties ever to emerge from the Midwest. If you would be willing to share your information on these men and their careers, I would be very interested to listen and discuss, as it is rare that I encounter someone who is familiar with these men. Thank you very much for your time. 
 Respectfully, a fellow dedicated American historian,

biogcontrib109 Biogcontrib109 ( talk) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen:

 You might find the book, "Jacob Bunn: Legacy of an Illinois Industrial Pioneer" to be of some interest. (Brunswick Publishing Company, 2005). Again, I would enjoy hearing your opinions of the Bunn brothers and their historical legacy. Thank you for your time. 
 Respectfully,

biogcontrib109 Biogcontrib109 ( talk) 09:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know about it--did you write it? Rjensen ( talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rjensen:

 Yes, I am in fact the author, yet I do not promote myself as such, because my principal objective is to 

make known the legacies of the men and women whom I have researched. These people have for an extended period of time escaped historiographical scrutiny. I would be very interested in your thoughts on the Bunn brothers, as you are clearly a Lincoln scholar, and I rarely--and I do mean rarely-- encounter historians who exhibit any degree of familiarity with these men and their commercial and civic legacies. Naturally, therefore, the thoughts of any fellow historian with knowledge of these men are of significant value to me. I have discovered and fully documented a great deal more about these men and their work since original publication, and have discovered even further proof that they established a global network of corporations and industry that affected a broad array of commercial sectors ranging from railroads and banks to international-scale shoe distribution and heavy manufacturing. If you are willing, I would greatly enjoy hearing your comments on these men and HOW you came to know of them. I would also be interested to know how you came to know of the "Jacob Bunn" biography. Thank you again for your response. I hope to hear from you.

 Sincerely, Fellow Lincoln Scholar,

biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

well I read up on Lincoln topics :) (I scan the Amazon listing, sor example). The Bunn brothers were friends of Lincoln and his personal bankers to 1861, but they became important in terms of big business after Lincoln left Springfield and I can't recall seeing any major relationship with him during the war. Lincoln as President had very little to do with big business, railroads or banks (cabinet members handled that), so the tie between the GOP and big business doesn't sprout from Lincoln's personal bank account with the Bunns, in my opinion.

Dear Rjensen:

 You are one of the very first I have encountered who actually knew that Jacob Bunn was Lincoln's banker. It is also of note

that Lincoln was the general counsel to certain of the Bunns' businesses. John Whitfield Bunn served as a special messenger and coordinator for the mobilization and transfer of Union Army soldiers from Chicago to Cairo, Illinois. Additionally, John W. Bunn was appointed by Lincoln to the post of Pension Commissioner of Illinois. (See: James Alfred Ellis, "History of the Bunn Family in America" (Publisher: Romanzo Norton Bunn) (1928) P. 211 (See: Ancestry.com). Also, the book, "Abraham Lincoln By Some Men Who Knew Him" contains an extensive and detailed personal memoir related by John W. Bunn as to his close personal friendship and association with Mr. Lincoln. (See: Paul McClelland Angle, "Abraham Lincoln, by some men who knew him: being personal recollections of Judge Owen T. Reeves, Hon. James S. Ewing, Col. Richard P. Morgan, Judge Franklin Blades, John W. Bunn" (Ayer Publishing Co.: 1969) Pp. 100-117. See: http://books.google.com). The Bunns and their allied families had either organized, owned, directed, controlled, and/or managed businesses that represented capital quantities of more than $700 million ($ U.S.) by about 1920, and many of these enterprises became the foundations of later business enterprises. The Illinois Watch Company, for instance, was the foremost engine for the standardization of railroad time, from the mechanical and technological standpoint. There is in fact extensive historical documentation of the Civil War communications between Lincoln and the Bunns, and their corporate influence, although not international until after 1870, was indeed instrumental in Lincoln's political successes. It is tragic that these people have evanesced from historical cognizance, as so many contemporary commercial entities either derive from, or relate to, in some manner these men, their colleagues and family, and work. I strongly believe that cursory reference to their connection to Mr. Lincoln is not inappropriate in the "Prairie Lawyer" section of the Lincoln article, as they not only purchased a German newspaper for Lincoln during his initial presidential campaign, but they were also the primary contributors and managers of his campaign capital fund. All of this is fully documented. Are you by any chance familiar with Benjamin Ferguson or John Stryker?

 Sincerely,

biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American.
Message added 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While not immediately relevant to the Abraham Lincoln article, I would like to add politely that these men did far more than run the local bank. Their Springfield operations were vastly more extensive than banking. They were never restricted to Springfield in their scope of business and civic operations, and they were as prominent in Chicago as they were downstate, and in some instances, perhaps more so. John Whitfield Bunn's memoir of his personal friendship and association with Mr. Lincoln furnishes definite proof of their close connection to, and friendship with, Lincoln. See: "Abraham Lincoln By Some Men Who Knew Him." If I may humbly ask, were you unfamiliar with the large-scale economic significance of these men and their families, which impacted everything from aviation and large railroads to the building of global-scale manufacturing firms of what were, in some instances, unprecedented scale and volume? They were ANYTHING but merely LOCAL businessmen and bankers. It is not possible to frame or compose any comprehensive Illinois economic history without salient reference to them and to their historically interconnected families, such as Edwards, Capps, McClure, Stryker, Richardson, Jones, Willard, and Ferguson. I would be particularly interested in your knowledge of these latter families, as I do not often encounter anyone who has learned of them, despite the undeniable magnitude of the commercial and political achievements that some of them attained (particularly Ferguson, Stryker, Edwards, and Capps). Sincerely and respectfully, biogcontrib109. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln had very little or no connection with these industrial enterprises so it does not belong in the Lincoln article. There are hundreds of historians who have worked on Abe and mostr of them never even mention the Benns. Put them in the Springfield article. As for illinois history, you should read Illinois: A History (2001) parts are online. Rjensen ( talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rjensen:

Please tell me exactly which of the below statements of fact you consider false or opinion. If any are such, perhaps

removing them would be a better response than the wholesale deleting of half the article. If rather you simply find

some of the facts inconvenient or disturbing, I believe the managers of Wikipedia will not like your removing such

facts. Nor would you like having wholesale paragraphs unilaterally deleted from some of your many Wiki articles.

The below piece treats several important aspects of passenger train travel. They are part and parcel of the history

of rail in N. America, and I will not suffer their cavalier removal.

Tell me which facts you feel are incorrect, be specific. I will then cite you authorities by book and page. If I am

unable to do so, only those facts may be removed. RSVP to hannum7@yahoo.com, because I cannot figure out

how we can communicate otherwise.

Sincerely, James Hannum, Author of below article:

1. It's all polemics, not a balanced statement. 2) it says very little about Trains in USA--it's more about advertising, taxation, & autos; 3) the photo is a fake (it's from Ukraine); 4) the sources are fake. Rjensen ( talk) 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed Arkansas and Oregon, because they did not belong there. However, may I remind you that Vermont was named by Samuel de Champlain and lake Champlain bares his name. Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan were part of Canada before 1783 and were named by French-Canadians themselves. Louisiana was name for King Louis of France by Lasalle. Napoleon sold it for 5 million without the French government's consent and doubled the size of the United States at the time. Maine was named after the province of Mayne in France and I put in references to those that needed sitations. Talk to me! Why you and you along choose to abolish this. You also removed French influence on American society. It was France that gave the statue of Liberty for the United States' 100th birthday. It was France that helped them gain their independence by sending 46,000 men, the French fleet and a debt of 26 million dollars back then. You know, if you want to be fair, why don't you abolish French immigration to the United States through the years, since it does not take into account the one million French Canadians that immigrated mainly between 1860 and 1930. -- 142.169.118.147 ( talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, to be fair, there should be a section on French Canadian Americans and one on French Americans. The two are not the same. From the middle of the 17th century, Canadiens had already become very different to Frenchmen. Even during the seven years war, the Canadien Governor Vaudreuil did not get along with the French General Montcalm, who did not like Canadiens, and who often did not want to use them in battle. Then came the French revolution, and they became very different, more different than a German versus a Frenchman. The language also changed, because the Revolutionary guards did not want to continue speaking the language of the beheaded King and Marie Antoinette. To this day, Canadiens and Frenchmen do not like each other that much. Since most Franco-Americans are of Canadien decent, you should have a separate article. -- 142.169.118.147 ( talk) 20:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

that's a very good point and I agree. The number of French who permanently immigrated after 1789 is not large (not counting the temporary refugees like Talleyrand). In 1910 there were 70,000 people born in France living in the USA. Rjensen ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sir! I appreciate the response. I also liked what you said. I removed Delaware and kept only the 6 states named by the French explorers. You made me rethink about its' usefulness. Thank you!-- 142.169.118.147 ( talk) 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the French explorers were not permanent immigrants. Like Talleyrand and deTocqueville they were visitors. Rjensen ( talk) 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Samuel de Champlain who named Vermont, was permanent in the sense that he not only founded Canada, but died there. Only his heart went back to France to his lover! Cavalier de Lasalle, who named Lousiana, met an unhappy ending, and died in present day Texas. Father Jacques Marquette, who was the first to put Wisconsin on the map, not only founded Sault Sainte Marie in Michigan, but also founded La Pointe, Wisconsin, and did live there for some time. La Vérendrye was a Canadien and not French, so were the Lemoyne brothers, Pierre d'Iberville and Bienville. But I like what you did and I thank you! So, if you agree with me about having two separate articles, one for French Canadian Americans and one for French Americans, would you help me put it together. This is where it would become interesting and more to the point, especially when you mention the French Huguenots. On one side, you would have the French Canadian Americans which would include: Canadiens, Acadians, Cayuns, and Québécois who immigrated to the states and became Franco-Americans. On the other side, you would have the French that came to the thirteen British colonies, like Dupont, Paul Revere, Peter Faneuil, the Huguenots, and the French that came during and after the French revolution. You would therefore have a more precise picture of what went on. Now, it is all together as if Irish Americans and English Americans were all one. What do you think? Can we do it? -- 142.169.118.147 ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

those explorers are always called Canadians--never Americans. Yes I agree we can do a new article. They should be named "Franco Americans" and "French Americans", I suggest. Ldet's use the article talk page Rjensen ( talk) 22:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American#RJensen's Deletion of Other Editor's comments for details. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 19:15, 23 March 2010 (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.