User talk:Rjensen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

archive of inactive discussions Nov 2005-April 17 2006

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

I have requested mediation. You have made multiple slanderous personal attacks against me, accusing me of fraud and belonging to radical right wing militia groups, violating WP:NPA and have reverted the History of the United States Republican Party more than three times in one day, which is also against wikpedia rules. You have been notified.Citizenposse 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Deal

I am deeply sorry about my reversion on the New Deal. I undid your work when I was not even aware of the content of your edits. I am tempted to explain the source of my confusion yesterday; but I really have no exc use for my carelessness and recklessness. 172 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey no hard feelings! thanks for the note. RJ Rjensen 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Labor history (discipline)

I see that you have worked recently on Labor history of the United States. I have been working on Labor history (discipline) about the development of labour history as an academic subject. If you have anything to contribute, especially about how labor history has developed in the US, I'd be grateful. Mattley 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your essay on labor history discipline is pretty good; I think you should call it "Labour Historiography" which will explain its British cast. I have indeed been following the labor historiography in USA and would be glad to suggest some items. I did a little work on John R. Commons just the other day, and need to say more on his role as historian. As well mention people like Taft and then the new labor history folks (Gutman, Montgomery, Brody, Dubofsky, etc ... I know them personally. Rjensen 12:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Cheers - I'll try to check out some of those names. I'm not sure about a name change. My impression is that Labour history is principally used to refer to the body of research, writing and interpretation rather than to the actual history of labour - but maybe that is a British and/or academic usage. Anyhow, thanks again. Mattley

[edit] Apology

I'd like to apologize for my comment yesterday on Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. It was a lot less personally intended than came out, and it was out of place to begin with. Please see my note on the talk page, and the new vote proposal I've added there. --Woggly 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Need help

We need some help building the Labor unions in the United States page. You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome.Travb 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite--yes I will take you up on it (after the holidays) Rjensen 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] minor question

I am glad you took up the invitation.

you wrote: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1932.

The original sentence I took from Amazon said: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century

Thanks for the intro--not to nitpick, and I will leave it standing as is, but from my reading the levels of unions is the lowest since the turn of the 20th century--which would correspond with the original. Minor issue, just something I am curious about. I pulled up this article, first one I found on google, and it says the rates of union membership for private employees was:

1900 6.5%
1901 7.7%
1902 9.3%
and
2000 9.0% [1]

Now it is at 8.0%, from last I read... So maybe the correct statment would be American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1901? I have read this statment before in a similar form: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century

Again, I will leave the article as is with your new edits, and I will steer away from making filling in these blank portions of the article to avoid any disagreements. Instead, I want to focus on some of the particular strikes too avoid any arguements.

Thanks again for your time. Travb 09:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The numbers you cite leave out farm workers. However they are legitimate targets of union drives and I think they should be included.
Also it inflates membership around 1930-1932 (when many union members were laid off and did not pay dues, but were still counted as legit. Permanently laid off workers are NOT counted today.) SO I count the 1932 numbers around 7-8% if we use today's measurement methods.
This is an example of nit-picking.  :) Rjensen 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer--I think I understand what you mean (not)...woosh...(over my head)
Good job on the work on the site, maybe in a few years I will know as much about the subject as you--I think you are the "expert" that I was thinking of when I put the {{expert}} template up. You already are teaching my lots. I will come up with some cheesy award with picutre to give ya. Travb 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
hey thanks :) Rjensen 10:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Maybe just the guy to ask

Maybe you are just the guy to ask:

I was in this silly fight a few months ago with this neocon on frontpagemag (before I found wonderful wikipedia) and he mentioned about the unemployment figures in Europe.

Since then, I have heard that the Europeans count there unemployment different than Americans--that the Reagan administration stopped counting workers who stopped looking for work.

If this is the case, what is the estimated change that this had on US unemployment figures? Would US unemployemnt figures then be roughly comparable to European unemployment figures?

At one point I actually looked up all of this on wikipedia, and found some great definitions, but was never able to find any definitive answer. Thanks in advance....Travb 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are small differences, but they matter little. The OECD tries to get comparable data. In every country, to be unemployed you have to be 1) Available and 2) looking. each country defines that slightly differently. "Discouraged workers" (who stop looking) are carefully counted in US; there are not many. It's more likely Americans have two jobs, which is rare in Europe. Rjensen 11:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edit

Hi again Rjensen. Looks like we have the same interests, you popped up twice on two of my pages.

In regards to this minor edit, I disagree with it, but will leave it.[2] I feel the more information that users have the better, your edit deleted the ISBN number, publisher, and date the book was published. All I ask is think twice before taking out this format in the future. I probably was the person who added this information in this format, it takes a long time to look up all this information (for a good example of a section I changed see: Dick Cheney criticism section. Have a merry Christmas.Travb 19:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi--good to see you again. Sorry about deleting info. Every recent book is readily listed at Amazon.com so no one needs that information, in my opinion, save for rare items. Less is more.  :) Rjensen 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 18th-century American history

I appreciate your contributions to this project. Your edits have been appearing on many of my watchlisted articles, and they're always good. You have expertise in areas in which I have only interest. That knowledge would be beneficial at a pair of articles which I've found problematic. Black codes and Morrill Tariff. If you have the time and interest to edit them that'd be swell. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the invite! yes I will take you up on that Rjensen 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Great work, thanks for your participation. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questia

Noticed your Grant edits. By sheerest of coincidences, I happened to find and subscribe to Questia just today. Do you think it is appropriate to point people to a website that charges a subscription for accessing material? Wikipedia normally has a more "free material" point of view. Do you know of other such links that have withstood review? Hal Jespersen 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Questia is an online publisher of out-of-print books. Wiki has a policy against ads generally but encourages listing of publisher names in bibliographies. In this case Questia does not even get a mention on any Wiki page (just a click-through) Basically Wiki is a service to users: by clicking on a Questia title users get from 5 to 30 pages of text (the first page of every chapter), which is invaluable in deciding if the book is useful enough to get through interlibrary loan or purchase. Questia ALSO has an excellent free search feature that lets you search the full text of a million books. You can be sitting in the Yale library and prefer Questia rather than racing up and down the stacks. (Except Yale's stacks cost $300 a year for access.) I have no connection to Questia (except I bought a years subscription) and consider it wonderful for its FREE resources. How do you like it?? Rjensen 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually a bit uncomfortable with the number of external links to questia you've been putting up. I notice that you've said you're not associated with questia, but it's not a question of good faith, just of if it's a good idea. I've put a note on WP:ANI asking for some input on the practice. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Official Wiki policy is to recommend listing publishers and Questia is a legit online publisher of out of print books. It is very hard for most users to find these old books, unless they have access to a big university library. ( do not have that kind of access and find Questia and a couple other for-pay sources a godsend. So why does it hurt users? Rjensen 09:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What should not be linked to:

"Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." I would classify Questia as a bookstore, since you have to pay to get the books. How is it different from amazon.com? They have excerpts from the books too.

Also note: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."

I believe you have violated this one as well (this link in the American Civil War article, for example). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Questia is a paid library. They do not sell books--Amazon does that. In fact many public and acdemic libraries charge admission, so that's not a new phenomenon. (I live in the Denver area--the great Denver Public Library is free if you pay taxes in the city, but NOT free if you live in the suburbs like me.) Questia has purchased rights to copyrighted books that are recent (last 30 years) but out of print. They are not available online anywhere else. So it's a great service. But it's FREE services are what our users need (like first page of every chapter). We need to help our users. I think they all know about Amazon, but few know about Questia being available online unless they go ask a librarian. Rjensen 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So, you give them money, and in return, you get books. How is that not a bookseller? Amazon.com also displays limited excerpts from books for free. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Website: I think my Civil War site fits the Wiki criteria: "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Rjensen 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's great, but irrelevant. The policy specifically says not to list webpages that you yourself maintain. Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Awarded to Rjensen for providing scholarly references to articles. -- DS1953 talk 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Awarded to Rjensen for providing scholarly references to articles. -- DS1953 talk 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding references to articles, particularly on historical topics. I award you a barnstar for your good work. -- DS1953 talk 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks! i'm a born bibliographer. Rjensen 03:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Cotton

I like what you've added to King Cotton article. And I see you've quoted a senator about the importance of cotton. My first question to you, can you give me the page number of the source you got that quote from, so that I may correctly cite it in article. Second, I saw you created a second reference section. May you please condence the two reference sections. Thank you --ZeWrestler Talk 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Quote is from Hammond speech 1858 sorry about 2 reference sections! I merged them Rjensen 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the info, when i get a chance, I'll update the citation. btw, good work with the article --ZeWrestler Talk 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Rjensen 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, I just made the change to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Jarvis Raymond

Hi, your contributions to Henry Jarvis Raymond appear to be copied from http://www.aol.bartleby.com/226/1221.html this seems to be a copyright violation, and will be removed. Martin 12:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NO--that is out of copyright and in public domain. The Cambridge History was published in 1921 and all books published in US before 1923 are in the public domain. As for Bartleby it only has copyright on HTML markeup, of which zero was used here. Rjensen 13:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clearing that up. Martin 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Hi, Rjensen. I've just gone through and rephrased most of the links to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. In a couple of cases (such as at The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)) I've removed the link from the opening section (since it's not really appropriate for what should be a summary of the most salient points of the article) and moved it to a point in the article which discusses relevant material. Where I could, I've added the {{seemain}} template for conformity of style with other Wikipedia articles. I'm a little uncertain about usages such as "See Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for further details" in article text, although I can't find anything in the Manual of Style against it. I think that it's generally better either to set such references aside (either through the {{seemain}} template or a "See also" section at the foot of the article) or to incorporate them into the text, as I did at Emerald City:

Scholars who interpret The Wizard of Oz as a political allegory see the Emerald City as a metaphor for Washington, D.C. and unsecured "greenback" paper money.

(I hope that I've got the details of that correct — I know little of the monetary debates of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and defer to your expertise on the subject. I was just trying to smooth out the article's style.)

By the way, I hope you're OK with the new title of the article. While I was working on the links tonight, it occurred to me that Scholarly interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might be better (as it would incorporate the historical/economic aspects as well), but I wanted to run it by you first. (Actually, I'd hoped you would chime in on the article's talk page, but you were probably busy elsewhere. No biggie.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Political interpretations" title seems ok. Wiki never puts "scholarly' in the title since many thousands of Wiki articles are based on scholarship. Rjensen 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Organized Labour

Hi Rjensen, I've noticed your name while looking through the history of several Labour related articles (like Labor history of the United States), and I wanted to mention the new WikiProject Organized Labour to you. It's only a week old, and still in flux, but it could definitely use more people who are interested in the topic. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

yes thanks! happy to join Rjensen 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Party (United States)

Do we really need all of the references you are adding? Rkevins82 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't need them please ignore them. If you are a student writing a paper then, yes indeed, you will need them. They average about 2-3 books a decade, which is only enough to get started. Rjensen 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So we will end with, what, 28-42 books? I wasn't under the impression we were creating references for students to write papers. The article is already pushing the length limit, without the addition of more books. Rkevins82 07:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you see as the goal and audience of this article? Rjensen 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
People interested in background information on the Republican Party. Your inclusion of books seems to be for the sake of including books, not citing sources. Also, you commented on a change from "Hamiltonian" to "Whig" that we should stick with the text. What text? Rkevins82 09:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We have other users besides casual browsers: like 15 million college students in USA (and millions in other countries) who rely on Wiki for help. To beyond our short article people need bibliography, which they now have. Users who don't want it can skip it--it is in a place and style that does not intrude. Wiki strongly recommends actively searching for reliable sources, which is what I did. By "text" I meant the language of the Republicans of the 1850s who often spoke of Whig principles, but I think rarely mentioned Hamilton. History should stick as closely as possible to the ideas and words of the time. Rjensen 13:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There are two strange assertions here. The first is that we should provide a bibliography for others who want to read more. This is an incorrect interpretation of inclusion of reliable sources. That is meant for items referenced that need cited. The second point ("Whig" versus "Hamiltonian") is a bit strange. There are plenty of historical terms that we don't use because the vernacular has evolved. Historians have thus used terms (like "Hamiltonian") that make sense in retrospect, but may not have made sense, or been wise, at the time. Rkevins82 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like bibliographies then please just ignore them. They are unobtrusive. In terms of the early GOP, historians use "Whig" rather than "Hamiltonian." (Which is demonstrated in the books in the bibliography--the DO have a purpose. Use of "Hamiltonian" is original research which is forbidden in Wiki.) Rjensen 11:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of me not liking them. They add to an already over-length article and are not necessary. I cede the point on "Hamiltonian" - though it would not be original research if it were the preferred term. Rkevins82 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rkevins82. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography. We shouldn't add dozens of references in an article just for the sake of including them. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of balancing the ocmments of JW1805, I do not agree with Rkevins82 and agree with Rjensen; an encyclopaedia can, often does, and in my view should provide a jumping off point for further reading, over and above citing sources, particularly if this can be done unobtrusively and in a manner which does not detract from the flow of the text (that is, relegated to a further reading section if necessary). Simon Dodd 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Virginia

Hey Rjensen, thank you for your additions to the West Virginia page. I wanted to inform you, though, that there is already a separate History of West Virginia article. I am sure your addition of a history and references in the main article would fit wonderfully in the History of West Virginia article instead as it is in dire need of help. Also, please consider voting for the West Virginia main article as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week--it can use the help of a wiki group effort! Thanks! --Caponer 17:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note. OK, willdo. Rjensen 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  • Put all references in one section under "==References==" or something like that
  • "Scholarly" is a matter of opinion. If its a valid reference include it. otherwise don't
  • Read Wikipedia's guidelines. Really. I mean this to help you. You've made a LOT of great great great contributions, but you need to follow the guidelines.

—Mark Adler (markles) 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions. I have indeed read the guidelines. I disagree on one point: "scholarly" is not "a matter of opinion". Scholarly books are vetted by a special process that is pretty standard. For example, the book is always evaluated by outside scholars before publication, and after publication it is reviewed critically in the scholarly journals. This is a very important process and knowing it has been applied is very helpful indeed to users. (similar to articles in "refereed journals" .) Is "Valid" a useful term? I think it is much more problematical than "scholarly" since it suggests that the entire content of a book is correct, which is rarely true. (Scholarly books contain mistakes--as the reviewers always point out. If you don't think an item is scholarly then we can discuss it. If you don't have an opinion fine, but don't erase information. Rjensen 04:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Still, include so-called scholarly references in with all the other references. If they're good/valid/peer-reviewed, then they'll stand on their own merit. If they're just a bunch of hooey, then someone will delete them. Done-and-done. —Mark Adler (markles) 05:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki rules are that we should follow the standards of the appropriate discipline, which in this case is history. Historians make a big deal about primary/secondary sources, and about scholarly/non-scholarly sources. So I try to keep those distinctions alive. Of course I can make a mistake or misjudgment about a particular item and I welcome corrections. But I suggest it's a mistake to lose the distinctions. I am following the standards used in most encyclopedias (like Encarta and Britannica) and most history textbooks, and which are mandated by Wiki. Rjensen 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You should try to follow the Wikipedia:MoS guidelines (specifically Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout). For example, putting only sources that were used to construct the article in "References", and then using "Bibliography" for further reading. You seem to be adding lots and lots of references to various articles (which is a good thing, I believe). But I think most of what you're adding have not actually been used to write the articles. For example, you contributed one paragraph to Republic of Texas and then added 14 references. There's no way all those references went into creating that one paragraph. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to follow the guidelines: especially this one: "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors." and "Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work." I think the question is whether a) ONLY sources used recently by the editor go into References or, 2) the product of that active search for authoritative sources should also be there. Wiki is ambiguous and I prefer version 2 because it provides more help for the user. The basic Wiki principles are 1) we should help users; 2) we should use the approach prefrred in the discipline (history). Rjensen 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the problem is that it is impossible that 14 references went into the creation of that one paragraph. Putting all those references there makes it seem like the actual content of the article is more researched than it actually is. It is very useful for other editors to know what sources were used to write the article. Somebody could write an article by making up a bunch of information, and then if you go in and add 20 references, it makes it look like the article is well researched, when in fact, it may not be. Also, I'm not sure about all the Questia links (doesn't that site require a subscription?). I think the usual convention is to use the ISBN number for books, which takes you to the "Book Sources" page (for example ISBN 1579785360 ). That way, you can look at many different suppliers of the book. I don't think wikipedia should be providing advertising for one specific source. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
well you have some good points. The basic problem is that Wiki is trying BOTH to reference sources and to help users find additional material (the 14 sources). There is no real conflict. If someone challenges a statement then we can ask for specific pages, but challenges are not usually common in this kind of material. As for Questia, they are not book sellers. The reason I link them is they provide a) table of contents of a book and b) first page of every chapter. When you're decding if you need this book or not -- by purchase or through library--that is wonderful help. Questia is sold primarily to libraries and colleges (not individuals) so many users will have free access to her books. This is marvelous if, like me, a person does not have access to a big library. Other useful services are JSTOR, for pre 1990 articles, which is also essential for users. Rjensen 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry L. Stimson

Do you know if the connection between Stimson's honeymoon in Kyoto and his later vetoing of Kyoto as a target for the A-bomb is justified? It seems to me that it is possible that people have jumped to a conclusion here - he may well have enjoyed his honeymoon and he certainly said no to Kyoto being bombed but some evidence is needed to justify saying that these two facts are directly connected. If this evidence exists it should be in the article, if it doesn't then the article needs to be edited so as to not unjustly imply such trivial reasons for a major decision. --Spondoolicks 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the honeymoon story tends to trivialize the issue. Stimson himself never made the link w his honeymoon. Stimson was unusually well informed about the world and the Japanese. He was not in the least bit sentimental about his own youthful memories. He was VERY strongly of the opinion Kyoto should not be hit because of its cultural importance. (I've been to Kyoto and agree with Stimson). Rjensen 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the Great Depression

My recent removal of material about the causes of the Depression from the New Deal article was not due to any objection to the material. We just already have an article about the subject, as you now know. I removed it to make room for a possible merge of RJII's fork article, which apparently will not happen. Gazpacho 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm ignorant about RJII fork article??? Rjensen 14:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? It was discussed, and deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Deal and economic fascism.

Note that I've become considerably more skeptical of RJII's motives since editing that AfD discussion. Gazpacho 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican War

My problem with your edits is that they too one-sided. Mexico did violate the treaties, but so did Texas by refusing to free Santa Anna. True, the Mexican government refused to negotiate with the Texans, but it was more than willing to negotiate the American government once Texas was accepted into the Union. The breakdown of the negotiations with the US was because of Polk's insistence to send Slidell as plenipotentiary, something the US had explicitly agreed not as a condition for the negotiations to start. Polk knew the Mexican government would refuse to see Slidell, thus aborting the negotiations before they started.

The issue of the border was not too clear since it was agreed in the "secret" part of the Treaty, which was later rejected by the Mexicans anyway. The Texans also had problems securing the land across the Nueces. By the time of the negotiations with the US the strecht of land between the Nueces and the Grande was effectively No Man's Land, and that was the status quo for some time until the Thornton Affair, which started the whole thing.

You also fail to mention why the British diplomats intervened. They certainly did not do it out of unselfish sacrifice. The Americans at the time were eyeing expansion towards the Pacific, which made the British quite nervouse since their claim to the Territory of Oregon was pretty weak too and feared to be involved in another conflict with the Americans.

So far the only thing I agree with your edit is the fact that Mexico refused to recognize Texan independence, and the opposition for its "renegade province" to join the US.

To conclude yes, the Mexican government did many things wrong, but it was not exclusively their fault as your edit tends to imply. There's an excellent article published in Foreign Affairs (sometime last year) that went quite deep into the pre-war diplomaticy, and touches all the points I've mentioned above. I'll try to dig the reference.

I'll revert the page to what it was until you can make your edits less POV. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the second half of this article, as a preliminary reference, for instance. [3]
thanks for the good suggestions. For years the British begged the Mexicans to start negotiations, which they always refused. Mexico NEVER proposed anything to Texas (except surrender) or to the USA or to the good offices of the British. That has to be explained in article.... I can't seem to find the Foreign Affairs article you mentioned?? As for POV: this passage is unacceptable: "historically, the Nueces River (southern) and the Sabine River (eastern) had been the recognized borders of the former province of Texas. The old Mexican Province of Texas never had de facto or de jure control beyond this point and could hardly keep what it had. " That was old history that was quite irrelevant in the 1830s after the battle of San Jacinto. The choices were renewed warfare, recognition of Texas independence, or annexation to the US (with war).Rjensen 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that paragraph reads better now, thank you. I think the diplomatic background is important as to reflect the shortcomings of both sides, including Polk's expansionist policy and Mexico's hard-headedness regarding Texas. I'm still looking for the article I mentioned, apparently I got the name of the journal wrong so I'll have to find the printed copy. (As a side note I finished the hanging sentence on the first paragraph of my previous comment, sorry for that). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you--I think we have it about right! Rjensen 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It was in Diplomatic History, not Foreign Affairs... Anyway, download it from here. Please let me know once you get it so I can remove it from my server. Thanks and happy reading! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
much appreciated--Got it! Rjensen 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truce

After your Revert War (here), I think we need to calm things down and discuss your problems here.

[edit] Questia

Look at the discussion of Questia and its editing history. Questia is not the be-all end-all of sources. Yes, it has many good points, but direct citing to it will violate Wikipedia policy regarding bookstores and advertising. I notice from other comments above that I'm not the only editor concerned about your linking to Questia. You say it's not a bookstore— fine with me. It's a website that sells access to digitized versions of academic works. It even has some limited free access. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia policy if Questia is for-profit or not. Or if you have a membership or if memberships are free. It is still advertising at least. But don't worry I have a solution that really ought to work great for you!

Here's my solution for you: use ISBN. Let me explain… I like Amazon.com. Linking to it would have the same problems as linking to Questia. So what I've done is used a resource already built into Wikipedia: Book Sources (I used a bogus ISBN number ( 0 ) for this link) as well as Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers. You can change your preferences so that when you click on an ISBN link, it takes you to the book-place of your choice. It's a little tricky but since you're clearly a pretty smart person, you should be able to rig it up. Check out this link for directions: User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.

Truce: yes. Questia: we have to think this out some more. I am linking to sources that are FREE and are useful to users. Many users are at schools that have Questia subscriptions so they link into the whole book for free. That is an enormous advantage. Until Wiki sets a policy about linking to sources that offer BOTH free and for-fee services, I do not think you should impose your own POV on articless that you have nothing to do with. I consider that a form of "blanking" vandalism, as you know. Wiki does have a policy against bookstore links (read Amazon), but not against subscription services like Questa, History Cooperative, JSTORE, and Project Muse (to mention just some of those in history--there are others in other disciplines). The strong tendency among academic and public libraries in the US is to sign up for these subscription services that members can use free. The problem is that most students have no idea about this and in real life they don't go running to a librarian for help. Wiki can help and that is what I am doing. Again, it is the FREE services offered by Questia that are so valuable. If you need to order a book it reallu helps to read the first page of every chapter top see if it's worth the trouble or not. I think service to Wiki users should outweigh biases against the commercial world. After all, books are for sale by publishers--that's why we have ISBN--and that fact does not bother anyone. Rjensen 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "Scholarly"

I don't have any problem with scholarly works or the scholarly process. In fact, I'm a big fan of formal systems and peer reviewing to proof works. I think it's a good idea the way you've added lots and lots of sources for further research. That's good. So is the segregation of primary from secondary/tertiary/etc. sources. Great. It ought to be done; nobody else has done it; and you're doing it.

The problem is POV. Saying that a book is an "essay by a scholar" is sort of redundant. Does that mean that other essays are by students? Or by dumb people? It is enough to say that it's an essay. Maybe you mean that the essay is by a professional historian, not a journalist. If your point is that a scholar wrote it, so it's more reliable or trustworthy, then mentioning "scholarly" is redundant. The platonicly perfect citation would not need to affirm its reliability. In fact, unreliable or untrustworthy works either should be noted as such or omitted altogether.


Think about these things and let me know (here) what you think. BUT I want you to wait a week (at least) so you've had time to think it over and to try linking to BookSources. —Mark Adler (markles) 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :) In the history community "essay" means short thought-piece, as distinct from a long specialized monograph. "Scholars" are folks who do scholarship, like publish in scholarly journals, or have research degrees. Mostly it means people who have done research in the sources (in archives and historical societies and pubnlished sources) and use the scholarly apparatus (bibliography, review of literature, list of archives, footnotes to primary sources, for example.) The 1000+ scholarly journals in history review the books, and tell us whether they are scholarly or not. A university press book is (usually) scholarly, along eith those from certain publishers like Greenwood, Praeger, and Norton. Children's books, schoolbooks, coffee table books, novels, can be called "popular." The "popular" books are those not written by or for scholars. Sometimes they are valuable memoirs. Usually they are not based on original research in the archives and primary sources. Some writers are not academics but write scholarly books based on the sources (McCollough and Chernow, for example; I list them as scholarly). When a student is doing a paper, professors usually say "you must use scholarly sources" or "primary sources" or instructions like that, so I'm trying to help them out. History profs (see H-Net) are very suspicious of Wiki and my goal is to help reverse that by showing how valuable it is. (I'm a retired history prof, and spent 11 years as a department head in a big library, so you see where my interest in bibliography comes from. I've also prepared a series of web guides in history, and published two books on using the www for Civil War and WW2). In science & medicine they make an even bigger deal about scholarly journals versus popular sources. A historian might rely on an article in Newsweek, but a surgeon might get in trouble at the hospital for so doing (it's close to malpractice). So I do not think saying a book is "scholarly" is POV. I am saying it meets the usual criteria used by publishers, academics, and journals. Of course I can make a mistake and misremember a book that I have not seen in many years, and appreciate being corrected. Rjensen 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Markles comments. "Scholarly" seems to be POV and unnecessary. Questia is a pay site (sure, some people have access to it, but most don't) and shouldn't be linked to (use ISBN). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molly Maguires

Hello there. First in order to understand where you come from, I felt I had done a fairly good re-presentation of the page which you have totally deleted and then say the page needs cleaning up.

As next, what were your objections to my opening comprehensive definition etc. and what would be your proposals for cleaning up ??. Problem is, the MMs are primarily Irish history right into the 20th century. Yes, I appreciate the American implications but these cannot simply override essential aspects for our Irish history. I was actually intending to put a map of Ireland up top. Why a map of Penn. when the origins are Ireland. I don't follow. Or perhaps we need two pages. MMs Ireland and MMs America ?? Please be helpfully constructive with your suggestions, thank you.Osioni 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mess with your material at all--must have been someone else. (Recently all I have done is work on the bibliography.) The map of Ireland is a good idea, but the map of PA is also quite helpful. Two articles? that might weaken the US part a bit (which emphasizes the old world roots) but I have no serious objection. Rjensen 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Please post comments to other users on their Talk Page, not their User Page. Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and please stop vandalizing articles Rjensen 20:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • To reply to your comments, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics, not just history. We can't have different page layouts for history articles just because of certain conventions used by professional historians. There needs to be a uniform look to all articles, which is the purpose of the Wikipedia:MoS. References used to create the article should be under "References", other articles that the reader might find interesting (if considered by professional historians as "scholarly" or not) should be under "Further reading". That's what the MoS says, I didn't make it up. Please do not accuse me of "vandalism" for following the conventions.--JW1805 (Talk) 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki says: " try to follow conventions generally accepted in the field of knowledge described in the article. " That directly contradicts your working assumption. I am trying to follow the history conventions in history articles, which insists on differentiating scholarly and nonscholarly items. Wiki insists the rules have to be flexible and oriented to helping the user. When you erase information useful to some users, that is vandalism. Wiki also makes a big deal about refereed articles in science, so again Wiki is following the rules of the discicipline. Bottom line is You are not following Wiki conventions, you are making them up. That's vandalism. Rjensen 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, calm down. It appears that I am not the only user that has a problem with your view on how references should be displayed. I can't help but point out again that the very page you cited [4] says: "Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading." Perhaps we should initiate a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources or Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout or somewhere similar, so the broader Wikipedia community can discuss this? Or has a discussion on this topic already taken place that I am not aware of? --JW1805 (Talk) 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok I admit I get mad when vandals go around and screw up articles I've worked hard on. Note all the references are collected at the end under "References" (following Wiki rules). The Wiki rules end there and say we should use the rules of the discipine (history). I do that and categorize books as Primary sources, for example, scholarly secondary sources and popular sources. That is a useful service to users and certainly does not violate any Wiki rules. When students are assigned papers they are often told they MUST use so many primary sources, and so many scholarly sources. They can go to a librarian for help but that's hard when you're working online like so many students do. Re style: I have not seen a discussion on Wiki, so I agree there should be one. Note that Wiki has quite detailed rules on handling scientific articles, which of course are another important category and the reference standards in science are different from the humanities and social sciences. Deep down I think there are editors who are highly equalitarian and don't believe that some books are scholarly and others not. All books look alike, and they don't want to see them. I hope those folks don't try folling with history articles. I have noticed that half the time I am the first to provide ANY references to history articles. The hundreds of previous edits have all neglected the basic Wiki rule about citing sources. I rather insist on having those sources in there when an article deals with a serious historical topic. Rjensen 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, not all the pages I changed had them under ==References==, some had ==Secondary Scholarly Sources== as the main heading, clearly violating what I believe to be the convention. So, can we agree that the main heading is ==References==, and then to use subheadings to further classify them, if necessary? Also, make sure that when using section headings with multiple words, only the first word is capitalized. As for "Scholarly", I just don't think it is necessary, and seems to pose the question "Are the other references not scholarly, and if so, does that mean they are no good?" I think if a reference is a good source of information, it should be listed. How do you delineate a historical book or biography that is "scholarly" or "nonscholarly". Should "nonscholarly" sources be given at all in Wikipedia in your opinion? Please provide some examples for me. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed , we use References and under that secondary/primary/popular. I certainly insist on scholarly. I have nothing against Popular books--I write them myself and here's another popular book I coauthored and help publishers with them. They fill bookstores. They are tasty and, indeed, popular. But they are not nearly as reliable and useful to students as scholarly books, which I also write. For example, go to a big bookstore and see shelf after shelf of popular guidebooks to different places. All very useful and I certainly read them. They usually contain a short history of a city or region and I will browse that section but I will NOT rely on it (yes it's better than nothing, but not nearly as good as a scholarly secondary source). So is the term "scholarly" helpful to users: YES. They will know it's a book by a university press or similar, with footnotes, bibliographies, historiography, and reviews in the journals. That is really quite important for some users. Rjensen 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems like the real distinction you are making is between a "Good" reference and a "Not so good" reference. If so, I would say only to include "Good" references, regardless of whether they are "scholarly" or not. I have read many "scholarly" papers that were total crap. Just because it is written by a scholar, doesn't mean it is any good. Every scholarly paper written on a subject doesn't have to be included in its Wikipedia article. If a reader wants to do a literature search on a topic they can do that, but that really isn't the point here. I can't help but note your academically-oriented worldview. I think our first encounter on Wikipedia was when you tried to remove the Kennedy quote from the Thomas Jefferson article, presumably because since Kennedy wasn't a professional historian, his views were irrelevant. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, indended to be used by everybody, not just "scholars". The distinction you are making about "scholarly" references is useless to most users. (I do think the "primary" and "secondary" distinctions are useful.) --JW1805 (Talk) 01:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I am following the Wiki guidelines about scholarly articles and books: "It's a good idea to visit an academic or public library to have a look at the standard references. It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles." Rjensen 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this policy. Use the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Where we differ is dividing them into "Scholarly" and "Nonscholarly" headings, which is meaningless to most users. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

Also, you need to be more careful about grammar and punctuation in your edits. To take just one example, this edit contains two ;; and a ] for no apparent reason. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks-- I was using a cut and paste from Word perfect and the ;; was supposed to get replaced out and didnt; Rjensen 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting on references

I have noticed that you put comments about some of the references. For example "older but solid", "best", etc. I don't know if there is a convention for this or not, I realize you are probably trying to be helpful. But, I think some of your comments would be considered POV. I'm all for explaining what is in the reference that makes it relevant to the article, but I think judgements about the quality of the work should be avoided. If it's good, include it. If it isn't, then don't. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

When I comment it means I've actually read the book and the scholarly reviews, so I'm trying to represent the consensus of the scholarly community. I may be wrong, and if so please give us the alternative views. (Some of the books I read years ago, and I confess I do forget things.) The Wiki rule is that all POV have to be represented, and I guess that includes my POV and that of the history scholarly community. Erasing this information does not help many users. The history profession has 1000+ journals with book review sections. It is a very serious business indeed to review a book, and I try to reflect that seriousness. Rjensen 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your editorial comments about a book do not belong in an encyclopedia. Saying "this book is fantastic" or "this book is OK but it has problems" is POV and is entirely inappropriate here. This is not a forum to review books. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just chiming in, I think the general consensus is to allow the reader to make up his mind whether a source is good or bad. If a source is sufficiently notable then it could warrant its own article, where balanced commentary is allowed. I don't exactly remember us having a precedent on this, so asking a question in the village pump would be adecuate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest the editor who has actually read the book can help the user who has NOT seen the book by making a few comments. The user then has more information than just the bare title. Wiki guidelines say the perfect article "presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view." that seems about right for comments on books--I am certainly not erasing competing views of a book. Rjensen 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That guideline is talking about the content of the article. It does not mean to add editorial comments on the quality of the cited references. As Welsh noted above, if the reference is sufficiently notable, then it should have its own article, and that would be the appropriate place to put commentary. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Few history books get their own article. Let's look at this from the point of view of the user who needs some books on the topic. Users in small cities or small colleges, for example, will find their libraries own few of the books and they have to be ordered interliberary loan (takes a week or two). Which one book to order? any annotation or commentary that helps with that decision helps the user. As for the Wiki Guidelines, YES they do recommend that editors report the reputation of a book. In history that reputation comes from the reviews in the journals and bibliographies, which I depend upon heavily. Wiki says: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." [5] Rjensen 01:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that Wiki says: "It's a good idea to visit an academic or public library to have a look at the standard references. It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles." That is advice I do follow-- and when I see a standard reference I list it as such. [6] Rjensen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nowhere in any of the quotes you cite does it say to add editorial comments to your references. It says to include reputable sources, that's it. What am I missing here? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I think you are missing the point of an encyclopedia. Its purpose is not to help people decide what books to order! --JW1805 (Talk) 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Back to basics: Wiki is here to provide information to users. I do that. If you dont want to read the info, then please skip over it.

Statements like "Its purpose is not to help people decide what books to order!" are wildly out of line. You are imposing your own personal views on users. Let them decide if they want a book or not--surely that is what encyclopedias always have done. Look at the 1911 EB for example, or Encarta or World Book or EB today. Wiki rules TELL US to go to libraries and get the best books. Information we have about a best book, which the users do not have (because they have not seen the book) should be shared, NOT kept secret. I simply can't understand why you want to hide information from users. Rjensen 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your point here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online bibliography. Not a forum for book reviews. Not a collection of internet links. I noticed you added 35 references to Immigration to the United States (many of them with helpful links to the Quesitia bookseller). Are all those really necessary? Were any of them used to actually write the article? --JW1805 (Talk) 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do think you guys should take this discussion to the Village Pump, where you can (and certainly will) get more input given the nature of the subject. In my opinion, it is out of place to give commentary on references. The practice of book reviews in journals is not limited to History, but happens in journals of all disciplines since it is a way for Researches to keep updated with what's going on in their discipline. Book reviews tend not to be Peer Reviewed and reflect the opinion of the author, who also may or may not be the editor of the journal. Book reviews also tend to reflect the bias of the publisher. I'm 100% sure that a History journal published in China will not review highly a book on Japanese Colonial History that got an excellent review in a Japanese History journal. Adding commentary on sources thus has the potential to introduce a whole new layer of POV, which is unwarranted ("how come my Republican source is "OK but has problems" and his Democrat source is "Fantastic", says who?"). Our job is to provide encyclopedic facts based on sources, not to do historiography. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
And also consider the potential disruptiveness and recursivity of providing sources for sources. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
We can comment all we want on Ronald Reagan or FDR but not on a monograph published by Harvard U Press? What an odd paradox! As for scholarly criteria, I suggest Rune.welsh is giving the stereotypes of people who have never written a book or a book review nor dealt with journal editors. As far as POV is concerned, we handle that just fine right now in articles on the MOST controversial issues, and I doubt we will be thrown for a loop when I write that a biography of Henry Clay is "old but useful". I suggest the editors are here to help users by giving them more information, not less. Suppressing information is not Wiki-like. Rjensen 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"We can comment all we want on Ronald Reagan or FDR but not on a monograph published by Harvard U Press?" Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'm afraid. That's why I said two comments above that if the reference is sufficiently notable, then it will get its own article. Otherwise the addition of commentary to sources seems out of place specially if you don't cite the source of your commentary (Hence the "sources for sources" comment, which you still haven't addressed). This is not suppression of information, is simply that we are not going to write an article on each monograph that's ever been published. Particularly influential papers do get their own articles (cf. Einstein's Annus mirabilis papers, all lumped into a single article by the way) but we are talking about paradigm-shifting material here.
As for my experience with journal editors I have to admit it's limited (I only have a BSc after all) but far from non-existant as to know that at least in my field Book Reviews are subject to less stringent editorial controls than regular Peer Reviewed articles. Take my comments for what they're worth, but I'll keep insisting you get input from the wider community before continuing to engage in this practice. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions to avoid revert war

Hi, I helped create Labor unions in the United States which this argument has apparently spilled over too. I suggest a couple of solutions to avoid a revert war between JW1805 and Rjensen.

Rjensen, cite your sources. If a book is considered a classic or the best book in the field, cite a couple of critics who say this. I have found in partisan debates that simply citing a source, which is unfortunatly neglected by most editors, is magical. As an example I can show you the selection of Further reading on the Philippine-American War, were I have added verbatium critics views on the book (some which have been deleted since then for being partisan).

I also suggest that we don't devolve into name calling, Rjensen shouldnt call JW1805 edits "vandalism" when the edits are explained.

I support Rjensen on this debate. I personally feel that any deletions, even well intentioned ones should always be looked upon with suspision. The advocate of such deletions must present a very convincing argument to overcome this presumption. I think JW1805 intentions are good, but the reasoning behind these intentions does not overcome the high hurdle that any deletions should pass.

From my personal experience with Rjensen, he/she is very stubborn and initially uncoperative in his/her vision of what an article looks like, but this is because he/she is very well read in the subjects he/she contributes too.

Again, Rjensen a big solution to this problem is citing book reviews which support these analysises. It will not only make your argument stronger, but more important, it will make the article much better. Travb 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! for the record Rjensen is a very stubborn "he". If we start blanking articles with no references given, we will be blanking most of the history articles I have seen on Wiki. Fact is that contributors have been very remiss indeed in citing their sources. If someone claims to know something about a subject then I welcome the input--and perhaps the debate. People who have no knowledge of topic XX do not do Wiki a favor by changing what experts actually have to say about XX, so please stop or I will denounce you as a vandal. :) In most cases, evaluations of the books in question appear already in the citations. That is, scholarly books usually have a bibliography or footnotes or historiographical passages that evaluate the literature. So the desired citations to evaluations are in fact in place. If people want additional historiographical material I will be glad to add that. Start with this: in diplomatic history I rely on Beisner, ed. American Foreign Relations 2v (2003), a 2000 page compendium of book reviews. For political & Economic topics I rely on the Harvard Guide (1954 and 1970 editions, abour 1500 pages of book evaluations) and the AHA Guide to Historical Literature (2v 2000), about 2000 pages of book evaluations. I always use the AmHistRev, JAm Hist, J Southern Hist, Diplo Hist, J Milit Hist (about 3000+ pages of book reviews a year). And I read the books themselves--that helps. I suppoose I reject 5 or 10 titles for every one I include in a bibliography. Until now I have usually avoided journal articles but I plan to start adding them (I am a long-time editorial advisor to America History & Life, which produces about 2000 evaluations of articles a year.) As a former librarian I just have the bibliographical urge, and I would respectully ask others to respect my contributions. Rjensen 15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Travb's solution "If a book is considered a classic or the best book in the field, cite a couple of critics who say this." is just a recipe for chaos. Are we going to have footnotes for bibliographies now? This is just going to create more conflict when somebody with a different opinion about a book comes along and wants equal time for their opinions. We are not in the business of providing editorial reviews for books. I just don't see how that is the function of an encyclopedia. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I can't be blamed for at least trying. JW1805, your slippery slope argument "recipe for chaos" I feel isn't very convincing, especially since people insert their POV all the time in articles and wikipedia hasn't collapsed yet.
Glad I know your gender now Rjensen, saves a lot of typing and a lot of awkard sentences. Travb 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably the biggest issue here is policing. We can read any article on Wikipedia right now and decide if it has POV issues. We cannot do the same with references that not everyone has access to. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more Refs comments

User JW1805 invited me over to make a comment. I am mostly in the American Civil War space. I'd like to advocate the following views, some of which appear above:

  1. References section should be used only for works that were actually used in creating/updating the article; use Further reading (or External links) for anything else.
  2. Limit comments on any of these entries simply to describe the scope, if unclear from the title: "Describes the impact on the civilians after the battle", "Discusses economic effects of the campaign", etc. Avoid POV value judgments such as "the standard biography". There is really no format available for people who disagree with that POV to so indicate, other than to delete the comment, so leave it out in the first place.
  3. If a work or its author is renowned, denote that by linking to them. Really important, definitive books often have their own articles, even if currently stubs. If the work is seminal on the topic of the article, there can be some mention of that work or author inside the text of the article. See my nod to Gordon Rhea in Battle of Cold Harbor, for example.

Hal Jespersen 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political dynasties

I read your last addition to Canadian and American politics compared with interest. I must confess that it was I who introduced the assertion about Canadian and American political dynasties. As your addition and others make clear, the truth of that assertion depends on what you mean by dynasty. The Bushes, Romneys, Gores, etc. strike me as families who have benefited significantly from continued political involvement, but now that you mention it, dynasty may not be the appropriate word for them. I suppose what is needed is a clear definition.

What do you consider a political dynasty to be? Do you know of a scholarly definition we could use to clarify the issues? My additions to that article have never been scholarly – I edited the article a lot because when I ran across it it contained a lot of inaccuracy and propaganda.

If we can't come up with a good definition I'd be happy to take that section out. it's only a side issue, and the inflation of that one parsgraph is detracting from the article, which has enough other problems.John FitzGerald 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

well you raise a good point. The term "political family" works. Avoid "Dynasty" in the US context because it equals royalty, and that's a nasty term in the US. Political families do exist in the US--but not all that many. Family money has not been a big issue for many years (both Kennedy in 1960 and Rockefeller in 1976 used family $$$$ to win poor little West Virginia--but I can't think of other examples.) As for Canada, add that Mackenzie King comes from a famous family too. I suggest we keep the section as it does compare the two countries.
  • Definition wise: how about 3 prominent family members in office over 40+ year period. ?? Rjensen 21:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the definition. I'm also trying to figure out what I meant by the observation in the first place. Perhaps I meant that it was more difficult for the rich to win seats in Canada, since more people could compete with them. I could estimate how many prominent Canadian families have produced 3 or more politicians over 40 years. Or I could actually show some enterprise and see f there's any research on this topic. Anyway, I'm going to do something with your definition. More later. John FitzGerald 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

good luck & keep me posted Rjensen 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice edit on ...

... Eisenhower. Sfahey 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • thanks! Rjensen 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican American Politics

I see you added Salazar back into the Politics section of the Mexican American article. Look at the List of United States Senators from New Mexico and you'll see that Joseph Montoya served in the U.S. Senate "in recent times". I'm not even actually sure that Larrazolo was the first, but the date seemed to place him there. There have also been numerous Mexican American representatives in the House. The Mexican American article is in constant need of work, so I appreciate your efforts there. But politics are nothing new to Mexican Americans.--Rockero 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    • thanks for the note & the help. I'm pretty familiar with the New Mexico and Arizona politicians (I grew up there). The NMex group I think are not exactly "Mexican American" (they called themselves Spanish American as I recall) But in any case the first senator since the 1970s is notable Rjensen 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Johnson

Hi, Rjensen. I noticed this edit of yours at the Andrew Johnson article. I've seen this claim before about Johnson being a runaway "slave" (or indentured servant). It's on several other webpages, and most notably was once on Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" (certainly not a scholarly source!). Can you provide a specific source that refutes this claim? Or have any idea how this story got started? I would like to include it in the article as a common misconception or urban legend. That way, people won't keep adding it back. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Trefouse biography covers the story. He had a labor contract that obliged him to work for a tailor in Raleigh, whom AJ disliked. AJ lived at home and was paid a small wage--hardly slavery!--but the tailor refused to release AJ so he was unable to get paid work elsewhere. He simply moved to another town (age 19 or so). We still have labor contracts--especially for $$$$$$ sports stars who are locked into their contracts. Rjensen 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCC image.

I'm interested in a clarification about the image removed from the CCC artcile. Is it because the Deschutes project was under the Bureau of Reclamation? The sources I have seem to interchange CCC and Bureau of Reclamation on the Deschutes project. Perhaps the relationship between the two agencies is something you could clarify in one or both of those articles.

On an unrelated note, I've been filling in alphabet agencies as I discover them. One web site claims there are 59. Do you have a tip on where to find others? JonHarder 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On CCC image. The old CCC camps were used by various agencies -- for example many held the Japanese internees. A photo from the post-CCC period is interesting but is not an authentic description of the CCC. List of agencies--I can't recall seeing a complete list. Rjensen 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning and Justification in making edits

Nobody said people in Mexico City called themselves "Mexican Americans", so what's your justification for removing a section on the redundancy of the term Mexican American ? --Deepstratagem 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant was used in a disparaging way as if the common usage of tens of millions of people every day is somehow stupid. that POV and not allowed in Wiki. Rjensen 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that it's stupid. Just redundant. --Deepstratagem 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
what is the nonredundant term people should be using? Rjensen 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
U.S. Americans of Mexican descent. Or just U.S. Americans. --Deepstratagem 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
First term is not used because it grates the ear. I have listened to lots of conversations on ethnicity and have Never heard that phrase. The second term misses the whole point. Here we have 20+ million people who have genuine connections with two nations, the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. The second phrase denies that reality and gets into real political landmines (like the English-only movement). Rjensen 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about what term people should be using. The first term doesn't grate the ear as much as it is unwieldy, but it is more precise than "Mexican American" which can mean different things, one which is redundant. The second term potentially produces a loss of relevant information. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use the term Mexican American. I'm saying it is redundant and linguistically imprecise. I don't see how the term U.S. American gets into political landmines. How? --Deepstratagem 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
because lots of people want to minimize or erase Mexican-American influence in USA. Losing their name would be a start. Rjensen 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on what you mean by Mexican-American influence... when you say Mexican-American do you mean Mexicans on vacation, Mexicans with dual U.S.A. / Mexico citizenship, descendants of Mexicans living in the U.S.A. legally, or descendants of Mexicans living in the U.S.A illegally; and do they speak Spanish and/or eat Mexican food or have they completely immersed into individualistic U.S. Culture? Or perhaps you are referring to the Hispanic population of Los Angeles which has a "pro-Chicanismo", anti-Mexican, anti-U.S.-American mindset. Losing a crappy, ambiguous name would not be so bad, would it? Please clarify. --Deepstratagem 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about Congressman Tancredo and his efforts to cause so much trouble for Mexicans that they will stop crossing the border and -- indeed he talks of deporting millions. It's a serious issue. Rjensen 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing about this word is that it actually segregates U.S. Americans from so-called Mexican Americans by placing them under a different category. If they were truly accepted as U.S. Americans, then everyone would recognize that being "American" (I'm using it in the U.S. Citizen sense of the word) or a U.S. Citizen can mean different things, including people who look different or speak different languages. Congressman Tancredo would have a difficult time arguing that the descendants of Mexicans need to be kicked out, because that involves wide variety of people... not just "Mexican Americans" an umbrella term used mainly for "Chicanos" and "illegal immigrants".
Since we are on a slight tangent, isn't Tancredo the guy that wants to bomb Mecca because a small percentage of Muslims are hostile to the U.S.? How sensitive to the millions of Muslims who have nothing to do with this. --Deepstratagem 06:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah that's the Tancredo we're talking about. (I live near his district). In fact the Mex-am community is real, it's very large and it's growing fast. (The neighborhoods are full of kids). And xx millions are illegals and that drives crazy about 30% of Americans. So it's a very live issue and will be for a while. It may well split the GOP (Bush is pro-Hispanic as is the business element in GOP). The more recent legal immigrants are not citizens, by the way. One problem is that the Mex-Am are not fighting back. For example, many of those eligible to get citizen papers do not bother to get them, and most of those who are citizens do not bother to vote. That's a bad mistake I think. Rjensen 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the majority of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. are uneducated... that may be a reason why there is no awareness of the ability to get papers. That may also be the reason that they drive some 30% of Americans crazy. What surprises me is the difference in culture between Mexicans in Mexico (with no intentions to emigrate) and the ones that live in areas like L.A. I suspect the difference is due to racial/social/cultural tensions. In Canada, Mexican Culture is much different as well. Anyway... I suspect arguing about the redundancy of "Mexican American" is moot, although I think a little more awareness would benefit everyone regardless of their final position. In a sense it is unfortunate because the term can imply that Mexicans were not already American before coming to the U.S. and that - being American - *is* a part of their history, ancestry and their identity. --Deepstratagem 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No they were not "American" when they lived in Mexico. They did not have American loyalties, memories, tastes, skills. But they heard about America and went to a LOT of trouble to come here, and I think plan to stay here and become Americanized. The nativists in US fear the growth of an alien culture (another Quebec, people say)...but I think that is not at all true. Rjensen 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the point is moot. We are using two different versions of American. --Deepstratagem 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Specialist?

Copying your old published work hardly makes you a specialist. I've noticed plenty of errors in your reasoning to question any lable of "specialist" I also do not like your deletion of sources outside academia. They are NOT always the best sources. Take Nita Rudra, Joseph Stiglitz, or TJ Pempel...all of them "great scholars" with big reputations in academia, who in my opinion have a penchant for destorting information, confusing variables, and ignoring many others to secure a point.


Rudra slaughtered the stolper samuelson model, Pempel made a sophmoric arguement believing that because the fixed exchange rates worked for 15 years or so that it could not be the problem in the Asian Financial Crisis, and Stiglitz built a massive strawman out of his free market opponents and distorted a great deal of information, or just plain ignored other bits of information and left it out of his famous book "Globalization and its Discontents".

Just being an academic, hardly makes one a specialist. (Gibby 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Jude W is not considered very seriously by many people. He's a popular writier (with no degrees in economics or history at all). The Wiki encyclopedia should not rely on oddballs -- in fact here is a rule against that. Rjensen 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously what data? I'm just asking for alittle data tid bit I dont think saying "whites data contradicts..." is suffecient. Can you just write alittle more. (Gibby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

    • Wanniski assumes that foreign trade people dump their stocks and cause panic when tariff threatens. White shows that the foreign trade sector had same pattern as domestic sector, QED. Historians and political scientists have shown that business community strongly supported S-H tariff--they insited on its passing so it's hard to see why they would behave as if it were going to hurt them. Rjensen 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont beleive in panics or any of that herd mentality in regards to investors but just because a domestic buisness sector argued for tariffs does not mean it might not hurt them, furthermore, tariffs always hurt the consumer.

Companies will argue for tariffs if the absense of tariffs causes them some kind of harm or extra costs...such as companies with homogenus factors in relation to foriegn companies. For example use of unskilled labor or even agriculture, especially in labor scarce countries. With these variables it is very rational to argue in favor of tariffs to raise consumer costs so that foriegn competor goods are priced with your own.

I can see how rising tariffs can slow the economy as tariffs are a wealth redistrobution from poor to rich which slows the economy and it also acts as a an incentive for not solving effeciency, productivity, and innovation problems that would protect the company in absent of the tariffs (what i mean is that with the tariffs they do not act effecienty, they do not produce properly, and they do not innovate thier product as well as the foriegn competitor...thus in the long run companies are worse off and require more tariffs. This being the case, and also the case that tariffs had been rising for some time, it could be argued that American buisnesses were running into effeciency, production, and innovation problems that were indicitive of some future economic meltdown... not to mention the wasted resources of society because of high costs and factors being directed into a lower valued use both cause declines in potential economic growth if not a decline in growth alltogether.

Tariffs do have a role to play as an important variable in what caused the great depression perhaps Wanniski is wrong...i'd have to read his article, but I dont think tariffs can be dismissed as an explination quite yet. (Gibby 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

On S-H tariff, I think most specialists agree it made the depression worse (I think so too). But Wanniski said that fear of S-H tariff caused the stock market to crash. Nobody at the time or since thinks that. Given his superficial research --he covered 200 years of economic history and re 1920s he did not bother reading the 30 or 40 main books or couple hundred scholarly articles--it's hard to place much reliance on his "conclusions." As for the efficiency argument on tariffs, that surely is a long-run phenomenon (years!) and Wanniski was looking at day-by-day and week-by-week data. Rjensen 06:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


IF thats what he said is the single variable or single most important variable then i'd have to disagree. I'd say deflationary preasure and later inflationary preasure is what caused the great depression, over regulation and taxation worsended it, and economic interference and more regulation sustained it...in my opinion.

And yes the effeciency look is a long run outlook...years is correct but by years we've noticed it doesnt take more than 30 to notice major differences. GM was calling for greater tariffs after Japan had been making cars for less than 20 years. GM has continued to call for tariffs and other trade barrier restrictions for the remaining 35...(Gibby 06:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

I think we're pretty well agreed here. Rjensen 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello - I saw your discussions about this and FWIW I wanted to chime in, perhaps settle it.

A. Whatever you think of Wanniski, it is wrong to say that nobody in scholarly circles agrees with him that the tariff act triggered the crash. A quick google search found this abstract of a recent academic paper that looks like it argues something similar.

B. Rjensen is wrong to say that since the business community "insited on its passing so it's hard to see why they would behave as if it were going to hurt them." E.E. Schattschneider gave us the answer to this paradox in 1934 in THE standard scholarly book about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, and also the most comprehensive book about it ever written. He shows that the businessmen all tried to get benefits INDIVIDUALLY for their own companies, but the problems the tariff caused were CUMULATIVE. Britain, Germany, and all the other countries didn't retaliate against the U.S. because one businessman got protection for his company (which would've advantaged him if no other did). They retaliated because thousands of businessman got their tariffs and it cumulatively put taxes on almost every major competitor import. What was good on a company-by-company basis was terrible when taken all together at the same time.

C. Scholarly consensus is that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was generally a very bad thing. The only credible debate about it is ENTIRELY around the extent of its ramifications. Every credible scholar agrees that it killed trade at the worst possible time. Some stop there. Others go further and say that the death of trade also incited other events like a banking crisis. Trade economist

thanks for the comments and the link to that paper. It argues that S-H helped worsen the depression after 1930, I agree.

B. I agree S-H made it worse, for the reasons Schattschneider says. C. I agree. But I also think Friedman-Schwartz have identified an even more important monetary factor. Lots of things were going wrong at the same time. But should Wiki bring in Wanniski with his superficial "research"? He argued something else (that the POSSIBILITY of SH passage CAUSED the depression in 1929--I can't find any scholar that agrees). Rjensen 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The second half of this article has many names of academics who have validated various aspects of Wanniski's argument. Trade economist

TE, but was Wanniski saying that the SHTA caused the great depression? Because the great depression technically (Well the recesion) began well before Black Tuesday and Black Tuesday was several months before SHTA even passed. What can be said, which the article currently does, was that SHTA caused a worsening of depression conditions. (Gibby 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

What Wanniski says that is new is that FEAR of SH caused the stock market to crash in Oct 1929. (None of the cited articles agrees on that point). As White (1990) shows, stocks that had an international market declined at exactly the same rate as all stocks. Wanniski never ran any tests, of course--he just noted a "coincidence" between committee meetings and the market in Oct 1929. The SH tariff did not go into effect until spring 1930, and everyone agrees the depression was underway. So Winniski is a red herring and diverts attention from the fact that the RATES of SH were damagins, as was the retaliation. Rjensen 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Well if anything the depression actually began as a recession well before octobe 1929. If such a SHTA meeting took place in october just before the black tuesday that is just not a strong enough correlation given recession signs well before then. I still think we should say that the SHTA contributed to worsening economic conditions. (Gibby 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

I agree take a look at current version Rjensen 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lincoln death photo

Surely a Lincoln historian such as yourself are aware of the photograph of Lincoln taken by John Batchelder in the White House only hours after his body taken there, the photograph proven since as authentic taken by Batchelder within 24 hours of Lincolns assasination, re: Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130"),

From the book: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

This alone shows the importance of this photograph and its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and scholars.

Not looking for a fight Rjensen,....only seek the truth.... "...with malace towards none...and charity for all" A.L. peace out. (Cathytreks 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

there are lots of Lincoln photos--why is this important? How do you know it's not a fake--there are LOTS of fakes out there in the Lincoln word. Who wrote the inscription. What is the provenance of the photo. What museum owns it and attests to it? Where IS this photo now? Which experts have looked at it? Why does no Lincoln book use it? Citations please to the scholars?? Rjensen 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I am glad we can talk about this way, you have every right to be skeptical and I do not blame you! There have been too many pretenders out there to make skeptic's of us all, but please go to the link i'm providing and order the book for yourself? I too was shocked at first, but am now a believer in the photographs authenticity, meanwhile in the interests of peace and truth seeking I have placed the article with the phto as a link at the bottom of the Lincoln article untill it passes the test of you and the other understandable skeptics. please believe me...I am in earnest about this matter! I will provide more proofs for you and other naysayers in the days ahead...it is all part of my on going research on the great President...done with respect and honour. (Cathytreks 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)) [[7]]

so what makes you think it's real? What experts also think so. Where IS this mystery photo--who owns it? What does the owner say? Without solid answers this joins 25,000 other Lincoln fakes--Wiki is for facts not hoaxes. Rjensen 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please no need for calling this one in the catagory of a hoax!, And that answer to your question as to why I think its real...is an easy one, at least for me, Rjensen. The John B. Bachelder family is still in possesion of it, as is stated in the book and kindly allowed Mr. Lloyd Ostendorf (a highly respected and well known Lincoln Authority!) permission to use it in his book on the complete photography collection of President Lincoln, please allow me to get my scanner at work and i'll reprint the piece in its entire form, meanwhile you might google the subject yourself as there is more on this photograph than you might suspect?, best wishes, Cathy (Cathytreks 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

how do you know the Bachelder family has it? Where are they? do they have a mailing address that you can senq question to? Rjensen 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not previously know where John B. Bachelder's decendants had lived but do so now Sir, and they had this to say in the 1800's for added proof in Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130, on page 274 it states: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription:

"Lincoln taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

So "Uncle Bachelder" a noted photographer as well known as Brady in his day, seemingly did in fact take that hidden historic shot, then proccessed them at Bradys studio...so what? As this is not a hoax situation... the truth wil prevail as its unveiled, right guys?, I feel now after reading that article Rjensen provided us in my belief of the photographs authenticity all the more. , the article which went out of its way to not mention the actual Batchelder photograph, plus it also mistated several key facts of the events of the immediate days following the asasination on April 16, 1865 regarding Batchelder, Brady, and others. The death photo "O-130" of Lincoln in its authenticity is proved now more than ever.

(Cathytreks 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

so the photo ha now disappeared. why don't you write the Lincoln Center to see what they know about it. they are the experts. Rjensen 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article...

Are you being serious with your edits to this article??? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No I was not serious--this belongs in the supermarket checkout counter next to the men from Mars, not on WikiRjensen 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay... just making sure you didn't take some of the yellow pills this morning. Remember, only on Fridays! ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John C Calhoun

I notice that you do careful work so I am asking you to look at what has happened with the last 4 edits to John C Calhoun by a single editor. I don't know whether this is valid information or vandalism or what? Thanks Hmains 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right, and I tried to fix it. Article needs more work. Rjensen 04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it; good. Hmains 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain

I appreciate your effort to add some sources, but I don't think any of them really back up your point about the Bob Jones incident contributing substantially to McCain's loss in SC. The Salon article does seem to discuss how it hurt him in the Super Tuesday states, but doesn't discuss South Carolina at all. The Religious Tolerance site says pretty much the same thing, but more about his attack on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There's a pretty simple solution to this. Just write a seperate paragraph about Super Tuesday and how these incidents affected his performance there. Also, I do think the way it is worded as far as "reporters said" and "what reporters call" is very awkward and unneccesary. I had changed it to make it read better while retaining the meaning, but you reverted it back. If you have no objections, I will change it back. - Maximusveritas 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

good ideas! thanksRjensen 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That's better. I'm going to add back the part I had before and make a few changes to what you wrote just so it makes more sense. - Maximusveritas 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK -- please check out what I just added on the KEating 5 case Rjensen 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
well, there already is a paragraph on the Keating 5 case in the controversies section. I think it makes more sense there, than as a whole subsection in the political career section. - Maximusveritas 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I just dropped the Keating 5 issue from the "controversies" section and retitled it. The other 2 are not especially political, and the Keating 5 was too important to his development (esp re campaign reforms) to relegate to the bottom, I think. Rjensen 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I don't really mind either way. We'll see if there are any objections from anyone else. - Maximusveritas 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime against humanity

Hi there, would you mind taking a look at this article? There is a conflict about the question whether area bombing is to be noted as a possible crime. Get-back-world-respect 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Vietnam war POV but otherwise it's dry-as dust and rather meaningless article, I think. The author is unaware of the raging debates on the topic, so let's leave it that wayRjensen 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American System

I'd appreciate your input on American System (economics). The otherwise-obscure topic is very important to the Lyndon LaRouche philosophy, and so there is natural tendency for believers in that philosophy to inflate its importance, or to bend it to their own interpretation. I'm sure the article could be better with your help. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. What is your objection to current article? Rjensen 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In its current form, it assigns a longer list of principles than is customary, or at least does not distinguish between the core and peripheral principles, it claims that the Centennial Expo was a fruition of the American System, and claims that the American System was the policy of McKinley, TR, and FDR. It had claimed that Hamilton and Washington were the pioneers, but I reworded it. -Will Beback 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll get to it. Hamilton and McKinley were strong supporters. Not TR. FDR opposed it. Rjensen 11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the article. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Just want to thank you for the edits you've made to the American System page. I justy did new edits and would appreciate any input. My intention is accuracy about the system and I hope I've gotten it right. My degree is in History (American-Russian-German) and Political Science, so I know a lot about this stuff, but I believe you stated yours is in economics, so your additions have helped. Thanks Again. --Northmeister 07:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- glad to help. Rjensen 07:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, I continue to have problems with Will Beback on this page. He has been rude, falsely accuses me, and most recently is accusing me of being a sock-puppet. Is this the sort of harrassment new comers get? What can be done about this? You've been honest and fair and I need your assistance or direction to those who can help against the attacks on my character and honesty. --Northmeister 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
alas that's how Wiki works. I've grown three new layers of skin and now my gloves don't fit. I recommend patience. You're having a great impact on the article--much better now than before. Rjensen 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank You again for your attention. I really appreciate it. --Northmeister 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Tennessee

Hi Rjensen, I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this edit. What does it relate to specifically? And why was it inserted in the middle of the article rather than at the end? Kaldari 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting a bibliography of Tenn history, and it should come before the endless list of lists so people can use it. Rjensen 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not add it as a subsection of the History section then? Kaldari 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
good idea--DONE! does it look ok? Rjensen 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1912 presidential election

Just wanted so write “Thanks” for your work on this article, and on all the articles I've seen you do work on.

Thanks!

— DLJessup (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bluch  :) Rjensen 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
¿Que? — DLJessup (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thanks :) Rjensen 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoliberalism and the GOP

In actuality, the concept of neoliberalism predates Clinton. If you read the neoliberalism article in full, a paragraph down it will state "In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism." It even states in the GOP article that the party is widely recognized as being more socially conservative and economically neoliberal. If you examine the economic principles of the GOP and the DLC (Clinton's democratic platform), you will in fact find that they are both "right wing" and fairly similar except for a few key differences. Therefor, you see, the GOP and the DLC are both considered neoliberal. --Howrealisreal 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly and correctly says "Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council." So it's not a GOP term. The GOP term is "neoconservative"!! Who are these neoliberal Republicans and how do they differ from Clinton? Rjensen 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Neoliberal is primarily an economic policy term, while neoconservative is primarily a foreign policy term. The two aren't mutually exclusive -- IMO more evidence that the terms conservative and liberal are pretty much meaningless nowadays. Jpers36 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Neoliberal as an economic policy term is only used for Democrats as the Wiki article correctly explains. Republicans do not use it for themselves. There's enough confusion in the world without suggesting Bush = Clinton. Rjensen 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of economic principles, they are actually very similar. Social issues aside, both are pro-gloalization. Let's remember that NAFTA was originally introduced by George H.W. Bush, and then executed under Bill Clinton. Neoliberalism = free markets, which both Clinton, Bush, GOP, DLC all were interested in expanding (with minor tweaks for each). Regardless, they all were promoting the same neoliberal flavor of economics. --Howrealisreal 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is you can't use that word for GOP without causing serious confusion. It's not standard practice. If all you mean is free trade, then say so. The key is the root word "liberal" in American politics means supporter of New Deal & LBJ policies. Rjensen 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused. Neoliberalism is directly in contrast to what you see as "liberal". The New Deal is very different, if not the opposite, of neoliberalism. One is on the economic left wing, and the other is on the right wing. Don't be afraid just because you see that bad L word in there, it's something entirely different. --Howrealisreal 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk about confusion!! you seem to say Bush = Clinton and Liberal is opposite of Neoliberal. Just leave well enough alone, please. None of the standard books support your position-- nor does Wiki-- so it's an outlier that does not belong in an encyclopedia of established facts. Rjensen 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Bush does not equal Clinton, just as Bush does not equal Republican Party and Clinton does not equal Democratic Party. Read the full neoliberalism article - which is about economic liberalism, and you must say it is a better fit for Republicans than Democrats, as the article offhandedly recognizes. Other sources back this up. Also, you have reverted three times in less than 24 hours. Rkevins82 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The word "liberal", as seen, is very tricky. Most of the time when someone uses it they are talking about social values. Some where along the line, the term also got connected to really what is better understood as progressivism or left-wing politics. In the general sense, liberalism is something that emphasizes liberty which can be in direct contrast to the economic left, that is more of a planned to mixed economy. So in that usage, it's not totally accurate and thus presents confusion. Neoliberalism, a specific geo-political ideology, is economic liberalism meaning the "right wing", and stresses globalization and free market philosophy. The Democrats tend to take a more "centrist" view but only be a small amount: This example, although not the end-all-be-all, illustrates that John Kerry of the DLC and George W. are still in the "right wing", and thus both considered neoliberal. You are right, they are not entirely the same, but as Rkevins has also said, the GOP is a better fit. --Howrealisreal 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What I am not seeing is lots of citations to the GOP as neoliberal by commentators in the US. A Google search shows some Marxist usage, but that's about it. So what we have is an effort to import European terminology, and it does not ring true. We have liberalism is very unlike neoliberalism. But conservatism, neoconservatism and neoliberalism are in bed together. As I say, you need to cite some scholarship. Rjensen 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. This has been a learning experience. One of my favorite websites has helped me realize that I am not totally correct: globalissues.org has "A Primer on Neoliberalism" that breaks it down clearly:

U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

And so the dilemma is that while currently, George W. Bush represents a very hard right (more so than his most recent Democratic competitors) he also is very stern in subsidizing the War on Terror via the military-industrial-complex. While economically neoliberal, the melange of more authoritarian values makes him fit the neoconservative criterion better. But the article in question is not just about Bush, it's about the GOP in general so I'm not sure if the same situation generally applies to all Republicans. Perhaps, the terms neoliberal and neoconservative should be used to explain the party's philosophies, explaining that more recently there has been a synthesis toward neoconservative perspectives. --Howrealisreal 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very nicely put. The "authoritarian" line is old Frankfurt school Marxism from the 1950s, by the way. As far as I can tell this is the school that promoted the "neoliberal" label, making it far out of the mainstream. Can anyone name some GOP neoliberals? like Bush, Cheney, Rice, McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Schwarzenegger, Hegel, Hastert, etc etc? None seem to fit. Rjensen 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith please

Hi, Rjensen. Could you please assume good faith, instead of calling me a "child at play"? If your opinion differs from mine, in that you do not think Bush's Google Bomb info should be included, you can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks :) EuroSong 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Google bomb = children at play. Surely you do not think that is serious business! Let's keep this a serious encyclopedia. The material is POV because it encourages people to play the game. Rjensen 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EB1911

What's the copyright status of http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ ? I couldn't find any statement on whether they're claiming or disavowing having a copyright to their version. —wwoods 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim a copyright. They of course did not write any of the words so they have no claim to them. The might have a claim to the HTML coding, but they have not asserted it. Rjensen 02:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson

On the recent Thomas Jefferson edits. The various things I disagree with:

  1. The article is very long already. We don't need to add enormous blocks of text quotes.
  2. An extensive narrative is not necessary in the section on Political philosophy.
  3. Please be careful with your grammar, punctuation and language. Sentences like "Jefferson's worst fears came true" are very dramatic and not encyclopedic, in my opinion.
  4. The "activist judges" business seems like a blatent attempt to link Jeffersion with the modern-day Republican Party. It seems like most of what they were doing was simple anti-Federalist political maneuverings. And you don't seriously suggest that the GOP advocates overturning Marbury v. Madison? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1 Jefferson is one of the most important people in 500 years, with a difficult philosophy. Hence long article with quotes--all of which are short.

The narrative can be moved but that splits the discussion and makes article hard to follow. Topical breakdown seems to work OK. The activist judges theme was very important to Jefferson--and to FDR in 1937 as well as conservatives today. One reason Jefferson is important is that people today use his ideas. And yes there is serious discussion in last year over removing Supreme Court jurisdication on some hot-button issues. Rjensen 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't you think "Attack on the Federal Judicary" is a bit strong language? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Hofstadter bit that you've pasted into at least three articles is a bit hard to read. Your statement that "He did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Federalist party" is also a bit confusing. Surely he recognized that the Federalists were a real party that won elections? You make it sound like he didn't recognize the legitimacy of the government (For example, like China doesn't recognize the Taiwan gov). Also, you are presenting one guy's theory as a fact. Keep in mind the NPOV requirement. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe Hofstadter's views are generally held by historians--see also Chambers, Wallace and Lipset who agree with Hofstadter. Legitimacy of PARTY is what is in dispute, not the government. Washington strongly warned against any opposition party, for example [Farewell Address]. Jefferson quote shows that he was manichean, good and evil. TJ wanted the Feds to cease to exist. They had to be rooted out of the Army and out of office, and he worked at that goal with some success. I will try to rephrase the points.Rjensen 03:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong

They do not meet fair use criteria. For fair use criteria to apply, we need a few things:

  1. A fair use rationale.
  2. They need to be reduced resolution - most of them are not.
  3. They need to be used more carefully. One carefully placed email/call to Time and we'll be in a lot of bother.

I shall continue to delete the covers that are not fair use.

Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is Wiki = a serious noncommercial discussion of the topic. They all meet that.

--Reduction is NOT a fair use criterion in law or practice. However, the original cover resolution was high grain film--tens of millions of pixels. Try blowing up the thumbnail to 8x11 inches and see the difference. They are used carefully. They only are used in major bio articles which refer exactly to that cover. Time in fact is gving these versions away free. So let's not blank any more--and read up on copyright law. (And yes I have been on panels at law schools on fair use & the internet. Rjensen 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you were, then you'd know that we are skating on thin ice with the sheer number of TIME covers we have on Wikipedia. Most of them aren't actually being used transformatively at all, they are being used to illustrate an image for an article. That is bad. If you are an expert in fair use law, you'd also realise that a) TIME are NOT just giving away their covers, and b) fair use rationale's need more than "we are non-profit". I'm continuing to remove the borderline cases and have initiated notification of admin action on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, Ta bu shi da yu knows nothing about fair use, I am reverting all of his destructive edits. I warned him strongly on his user page. Please keep an eye on his edits, if he continues to vandalize, please report him to vandalism in progress, and let me know on my user page.Travb 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
To TravB - yes agreed. Rjensen 00:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I reported him--there's more vandalism on New Deal and Al Smith. Rjensen 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not considered vandalism, both entries on the vandalism pages have been deleted.
I am going to talk with him, hopefully I can resolve this, if not, I will instigate RFC. Can you diplomatically say something to him too, because of the requirement of RFC:
For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
I started, then aborted a RFC here: Category_talk:Fair_use_TIME_magazine_covers.Travb 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war on Vandalism in progress

Thanks for your diligence in reverting, you made me realize that the user who keeps deleting our complaint may be incorrect.

This is what I wrote on their user page:

Regarding your deletes

I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response.Travb 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(later)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Was I mistaken? Vandalism in progress makes no mention of Fair use. The only mention of images is:
Image vandalism
Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.
Redirect vandalism
Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the Autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves.
I told the person deleting these Time photos that:
"I will hold off on the RFC. I will also hold off on escalating this beyond what I have already stupidly done."
Otherwise, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, I would have reverted your edit.
Your logic seems to be rest on the assumption, that the user's edits are correct interpretation of fair use. This is erroneous (mistaken).
Further, it appears that the wikiuser is deleting these photos without any clear consensus, which is the bedrock of wikipedia.Travb 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor entry

BTW, I think the comparison of US labor and the world should stay on the page temporarily until all of the other portions about US labor have been filled out. Right now there is little content on the page. I have always agreed it should move, but only when the article is too long.

I know that the info is not top labor scholars, I had a lot of problems with this woman's book, it tended not to be very scholarly. As soon as there is more content (hopefully from yourself, you seem like an expert on the field)--I will happily move it. Thanks for all your efforts.Travb 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

well I keep plugging away. The problem is that extremists of right and left exaggerate the level of violence in order to discredit unions. Rjensen 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Enforcing fair use, even if it it erroneously (and I am personally not convinced that is so) is not vandalism and never will be. Your continued listing of Ta bu shi da yu on WP:VIP is extremely hostile and disruptive, please desist. I am removing it now, for the final time. Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockefeller gem

Rjensen - You scoundrel! You reverted my revert, and your reason was "his philanthropy was systematic & led by experts not by personal whims." But that's exactly my point.

It was deeply ironic that Rockefeller retained such residual faith in homeopathy even as he financed the world's most sophisticated research operation." - Chernow, 479

I certainly appreciated the irony, and think the Wiki readers would as well. I guess from your profile that you're a careful sort and not enamored of people reverting your well-considered contributions. Please consider how much more annoying it must be when an editor does this because they agree with you! So, I ask you, kind sir, to please return my snippet.--DocGov 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK OK  :) Rjensen 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Greatly appreciated!--DocGov 03:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same user deleted all the photos

The same user deleted all of the photos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Ta+bu+shi+da+yu&page=&limit=500&offset=0

He has deleted hundreds of photos.Travb 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think so too. you report it this time. Rjensen 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't, I was a diplomat on his page. I promised that I wouldn't submit anything until we resolve this. If he starts reverting my deletes, he will have broken my good faith truce, then I can act.
Please diplomatically write something on his page too. I need two people for a RCF, if the two of us can't talk it out, and he refuses to discuss the issue.
Please see the user's page who deleted the vandalism in progress--you were 100% correct. I argued the guy into a corner by a couple minutes of research. It appears like he may be deliberatly twisting vandalism policy.
How do I email you? I have an idea I can't share here.
Also see my edits about this user, I changed the link, he HAS deleted hundreds of TIME magazine photos. Travb 03:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
rjensen at uic dot edu Rjensen 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You can delete the address, I got it.Travb 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I just found out you can email a person by clicking the E-mail this user link on the left side of this screen, in the toolbox menu.Travb 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We are #$%!ed

We are fucked, read my user page.Travb 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No; commercial copyright law does not apply to not for profits like Wiki. Wiki may take notice if you report he has erased hundreds of files. Rjensen 06:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The people will then argue that Wales made a deal with about.com, and all the content is commercial. I have been in the same argument with countless others. I argued the same thing, exhastively, on many, many pages.
This is really not about copyright, it is much more than that. The majority of people on Wikipedia will side with the arbitrators, whether or not it is legal or not. I have stated appelate court cases and they are ignored, repeatedly. I have argued every side of this issue, and I am ignored. You would think since I am a law student, non-law students would listen. I think if I became a intellectual property lawyer people would still not listen.
I destroyed the reverter's weak arguments, and revealed his imagined Wikipedia policy on Vandalism, one by one, and it made no difference. Ultimatly it came down to "I am arbitor so I said so" and "the decision has already been made."
I have found that the most zealous copyright police are usually conservatives who are law and order types who like the authority. The majority of wikipedians are Americans. America is a very conservative country, and people gravitate toward the law and order types. The majority of wikipedians will support the copyright police.
I suggest we create a wikipage where like minded people like us can gather, that is the only way our edits can survive the copyright police. The copyright police already have a wikipage, I argued for several days on that page, to no avail.
As I stated on User talk:Tony Sidaway's page, when I conceded defeat (once again):
I am not surprised by this action, actually, Wikipedia will continue to become more conservative in its actions, all organizations do as they get older.
From what I have seen, wikipedia foundation has built an incredible, wealthy organization and they don't want one law suit to destroy this foundation. In otherwords, err on the side of caution to keep the status quo. I have disagreed again and again and again about the legal argument. I have also argued that by trying to keep the status quo, the empty statments that founder Jimmy Wales once made, is perverted. Instead of being on the forefront of freeing up information for the entire world, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution.
Tony responded with a trite response, a response that I have heard echoed a million times before.
The only thing I can suggest is organizing. We lost this battle, and will probably lose the war. Wikipedia will continue to become more and more restrictive on their copyright policy.
If you have any suggestions beyond "organizing", let me know.Travb 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No it's time to give up. I've spent years fighting the same battle at H-NET, and you're quite right it's a psychological problem. Rjensen 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to hear that. :( I was hoping you would say something different. That you would rally me to action.

Just to make sure we are on the same page about Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the court ruled that thumbnail photos was fair use, low quality images do not break copyright and are therefore legal. This is very similar to the deleted Time magazine photos.

I am not sure about your statment about non-profits never losing a case in regards to fair use, but I don't doubt it. As I argued before to deaf ears, www.commondreams.org takes entire articles and posts them on their site.

I will have to look on google to see what H-Net is. Best regrards.Travb 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

copyright is a funny thing-- Google is putting online thousands of copyrishted books without permission! But let's find a better Wiki battle to fight. try http://www.h-net.msu.edu Rjensen 09:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch-Americans

In one of your edits you added "3 See Flick: op. cit., I, p. 285." to an otherwise unnumbered reference section and unlinked to anything in the text. What does it refer to? Rmhermen 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

that was to Flick's history of NY -- should be erased. Thanks for spotting it!Rjensen 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Just wanted to say thanks for the civil discourse about Able Archer 83 on Talk:Ronald Reagan. cheersNatebjones 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Editing Irish American

You have no source and you are a racist that edits only out of hate. 69.218.181.192 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually I'm an expert on the Irish. :) The voting data can be found in "Why Can't They Be like Us? America's White Ethnic Groups." by Andrew M. Greeley - 1971. Page Number: 204. and in polls reported in Mark R Levy, The Ethnic Factor (1972). That's wheer I get information. Where do YOU get information on Irish Catholic voting? Rjensen 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to prove that, though, can't tell from one poll and it is very unlikely to end up exactly 50-50. And there was no change in 1968 that made 50 percent of Irish Catholics switch parties. 69.218.181.192 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

    • What we know about Irish voting is from the polls. They show a big drop from 1964 to 68 and another drop to 1972. WHY they changed between 1964 and 1968 is a big question--most European ethnic groups also switched. At the leadership level Reagan was especially popular (he boasted about his Irish heritage) and people like Ed Gillespie (GOP national chairman 2000-2004) like to talk about how the Irish changed. Rjensen 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Warfare reverts

Hi Rjensen, I happened to see your edits on Chemical warfare (I contriubted the Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report portion and am determined to make sure it stays).

I notice that you are using weasel words "most people" and uncited sources in your additions. I just wanted to let you know, what I usually do is to avoid a revert war, I find a book or magazine which supports my contention (99% of the time I have already read what I want to add, but 1% of the time I try and find a source afterward to back up my previous additions) and footnote it. Guaranteed if you cite and footnote your edit people will think twice before reverting your additions.Travb 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I accidentally removed Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report (I think someone else did that). I try to avoid weasel words. As for sources, I was the one who put in most of the bibliog in the Further Reading area. The best books are Haber, Hammond and Tucker. Is there any point on which we differ? Rjensen 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No you never removed the section, I was just telling you why I watch the page. I ws also suggestion adding footnoes to your additions, to avoid a revert war. None of my business really, just trying to help...Travb 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just got an okay from time magazine

I posted this on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hallow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses.

My message:


I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com


Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.


Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.


Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Time_Magazine. Lupo 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln intro

We seem to disagree. Why would his overseeing the war belong in intro (without even making clear he was president at the time & not a genreal) - while context for the assassination (something sorely omitted in most articles) be omitted? Lincoln's assassination was not like that of Kennedy - Lincoln's was clearly linked to a plot and to events of his presidency. The JFK article gives context to his asassination, even though it is less clear that the act was anything more than senseless. While other assassinations were committed by apparently deranged people, Lincoln's can be "understood" as part of the Civil War. I see no reason to delete this.--JimWae 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree the assassination plot should be in the article. But not in the summary because the summary is what Lincoln himself did. As for the war effort: he selected all the generals and approved (or changed) their strategies; he was in charge of fundings, diplomacy, and politics, he picked all cabinet members and other senior officials, he took personal charge of emancipation and reconstrcution policies. That pretty much puts him in charge of the war effort, don't you think? Rjensen 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did I even suggest otherwise re being in charge? Biographies (and their intros) are also about the significance of people's lives, not just what they did. Using your argument, the intro would not even mention the assassination. Mentioning the plot also "gives a hook" to the reader --JimWae 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people just read the intro so it must tell what they need to know. The fact that he was assassinated is important only because it shaped attitudes and Reconstruction policies. As for the hook bit, there are 100+ fascinating things about his life, which people can discover by reading the article. Rjensen 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And why is his managing the war "more intro-worthy"? Leave out the plot & you leave out any hook at all. --JimWae 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

it was a big and important war. foget the hook: this is an encyclopedia. Rjensen 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You have trivialized the introduction --JimWae 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you say were AL's 5 to 10 most important doings? That's what should go in an intro. Rjensen 06:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Reconstruction started with Lincoln and was well underway when he died. Likewise abolition. the conspiracy is not nearly as important as what he accomplished Rjensen 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Their answer is not terribly satisfactory: I've seen this already. Firstly, most of those articles don't have any text describing them in the article. Secondly, the image sizes need to be reduced. Thirdly, most of the images are being used to illustrate the image of the subject, not talk about the TIME article itself. And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, we (Wikipedia) frowns on fair use. We only want it when it is absolutely the only image that can illustrate an article: otherwise we want GFDL license compatible images. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

TIME's answer is that we have their permission. What sort of answer from TIME would satisfy your copyright concerns? Rjensen 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bourbon Democrats

Hello. Thanks for clearing up the question on Redeemers. Thanks also for posting the new article on Bourbon Democrats. Great job!! James084 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go ahead and move my entry

You have done a lot of good work, go ahead and move my entry on the labor page to a new page, if you still want to....Travb 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

thought you may want to comment.Travb 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can you take a second and comment on this RfC? Thanks in advance. Travb 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulysses S. Grant article

Hi Rjensen,

About the historical rankings statement: it's a good thing to add to the article, but it is simply an opinion statement. If placed in the intro (which is, after all, a summary of the article as a whole) it may unnecessarily bring up issues of bias. Also, the rest of the paragraph addresses the issues surrounding his presidency (both good and bad) in a satisfactory manner.

I'd like to hear your side of the story concerning your edit. You are welcome to post a message on my talk page, so we can sort out any differences.

Thank you,  Cdcon  23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

USG's presidential reputation among historians is a fact, and not my opinion. Should that information be in the summary? I think that is what he is (politically) best known for. As for "bias", all articles have biases and the Wiki procedure is that all sides ought to be heard, so if there is another side it can and should be presented. Is there another side? Rjensen 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union blockade

Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions; that article has been sitting for a long time and I'm happy you moved it along a bit. Kaisershatner 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr on Richard J. Daley

You've probably broken WP:3RR on Richard J. Daley. Don't do this or you will be blocked; see WP:AN3. William M. Connolley 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rjensen 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prudent edits. Tx

Hi, I see you've adapted my language on a couple of pages. You did well. Thanks. Now here's a question for you: what is the origin of the term neoabolitionist or neo-abolitionist? It seems like a misnomer. If not, what were they trying to abolish? Does Foner et al. use that term himself or did some other faction put that name on him/them? When I googled the term, it popped up first on Wikipedia, then on the many sites that copy Wikipedia so that is self-reinforcing, not exactly explanatory. Many thanks. skywriter 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note. neoabolitionist means someone reviving the abolitionist/anti-slavery viewpoint. It's used in the history journals and is I think a good fit (there is not other term that does the job). There are 76 hits at books.google.com so look at [8] and 33 at scholar.google.com [9] dating back to 1960s. Oldest citation is 1969: "Today's neoabolitionist historians, whose own social roles often intensify their sense of identity with the antislavery radicals...." Rjensen 11:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving my ideas about the neo-abolitionist page to its Talk page. See you there! skywriter 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the neoabolitionist page. It's better. I'm wondering about this: attacked for corruption the Radical Republican coalition, including the national leader Thaddeus Stevens When I looked at the Thaddeus Stevens page, there's no hint anyone thought he was personally corrupt. Who made the accusations that Stevens was corrupt? Were they valid? skywriter 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

the main charge was a black mistress (probably true)--which was heavily emphasized in "Birth of a Nation" movie and Bowers book, Tragic Era. Financially Stevens was honest. Rjensen 13:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USHA

Someone recently created United States Housing Authority. Looks like a topic you may be interested in if you haven't already seen the new article. JonHarder 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks for the tip! I will look at it. Rjensen 14:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Southern literature

If you get a chance, could you comment at Talk:Southern literature. Someone wants to change the article's title from Southern literature to Southern American literature (or the like). What they are hinting at is that the title is biased because it assumes a United States POV. Editors here do this type of PC renaming all the time but in this case I want to fight it because the genre of literature is not known as anything BUT Southern Literature and to change the accepted name of something is not encyclopedic. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the tip! I left a comment on that stupid POV. Rjensen 15:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sometimes I don't fight this type of stuff when it doesn't matter but in this case it would mean changing an accepted literary term. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

You initiated this discussion, and you should accept that the consensus is against you. See Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines about this. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Questia links do NOT require subscriptions or registrations, the points that bothered some people. Nor does it sell books. Rjensen 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You pay money and get access to books. It is not Project Gutenberg. It is not free. Look, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. I don't know if you have stock in this company or what, but unless you can get other people to agree with you, I and other editors are just going to keep removing these links from articles. It isn't just me that has a problem with this. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The consensus was that if a site is FREE, does not require registration, and has useful material, then we can link. The useful material at Questia is free to everyone, so why hide it from users? Yes the site has ads--LOTS of sites have ads. Rjensen 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Questia does require money and does require registration if you want more than a preview of the articles. This is not a free source, and should not be sprayed across Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • for free you get detailed TOC and first page of every chapter. Nobody else provides that and it's very helpful in decising whether to ask library to get ILL book. Note that we list publishers: Oxford University Press does NOT give its books away free, and does not give even TOC in most cases. So what's the difference between a publisher of paper books and a publisher of electronic books? Rjensen 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You know what other site has free excerpts and table of contents: Amazon.com. Should we link references to that site?--JW1805 (Talk) 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • One of them's spam. If you want to go on an anti-Oxford campaign, please, be my guest. For my part, I don't like spam in the 'pedia. I'm not going to make this about paper media vs. electronic media. This is link-dumping to a commercial site. JDoorjam Talk 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Wiki needs to be a good partner in the electronic world. We borrow HEAVILY from commercial publications like Encyclopedia Britannica (the 11th edition)--and indeed most of use use commercial sites like Google (don'y you use Google and Yahoo?) Rjensen 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-promotion

There is a clear policy on Wikipedia against self promotion. This includes links to your own personal webpages. The policy is (I'll find the exact link) if you think your personal site is a good reference, to mention it on the talk page, to let other users decide if it should be included. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    • please quote me the Wiki rule. Rjensen 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Found it: At Wikipedia:External_links, it says under Links to normally avoid: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article." --JW1805 (Talk) 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • it suggests asking someone to link it. So will you please link it--as you can see it is not self-promotional. :) Rjensen 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Brant's parentage

In Joseph Brant you wrote "He was the son of Aroghyiadecker (Nickus Brant), a prominent leader on the New York frontier during the mid-eighteenth century. His grandfather Sagayeeanquarashtow..."

You might want to look at Isabel Kelsay's life of Brant-- she says Brant was the stepson of Brant Canagaraduncka, who was a sachem; and Sagayeeanquarashtow was his "grandfather" only in the loose sense that he was an important member of his (step) family. She is also the source of my assertions that Brant's lowly birth was a problem for him throughout his life. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems pretty well situated-powerful stepfather, grandfather, and a very powerful older sister. The point is that he was singled out for special prvilege at a young age--one of only three sent to the Yankee school, for example (I relied on O'Daniel's study in Edmunds; the DAB says he was the son of a chief.) Rjensen 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well-situated he became, certainly, but not by birth, and primarily by way of his sister (and Wm Johnson), and later, his wife, Catharine Croghan. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
good point. Take a look at the Dict Canad Bio article that explores some of the connections. What does Kelsay mean by saying his birth status "hurt" him?
Just that his birth was so out of line with his ambition and his abilities. As John Sugden says "Brant was not the head war chief of Britain's Iroquois allies, as is sometimes represented. He owed his influence to his abilities, the support of his sister, Mary (whose influence was reckoned "far superior to that of all the chiefs put together"), and later to his marriage to Catherine, sister of the leading Mohawk sachem" ([10]). Yet Catherine, whose right it was to name the chief of the Mohawk nation, could not name Brant himself-- rather, she named her brother Henry, a loyal friend to Joseph. Working through Henry and Catherine Brant could accomplish much, but he was never able to wield power directly as a hereditary sachem. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
<just wandering in> It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's article on Mary Brant overstates her actual status within Iroquois society. According to her entry by Robert Allen in the fairly recent American National Biography: "there is no substantive evidence to suggest that Molly was ever a clan matron or mother within the Iroquois matrilineal society." Likewise, in the same publication's entry of Joseph Brant, Thomas Abler writes that because Joseph Brant worked so well with the British elite, "he was credited with far more influence than he probably actually had."
The Brants were influential (or were perceived by outsiders as being influential) in large part because of their connections to whites, not because of their birth status. Theirs was just one more example of a process that had been taking place for nearly two centuries: those who worked well with Europeans (or excelled in resisting them, like Pontiac and Tecumseh) often displaced the hereditary chiefs in influence among whites. Whites (and white historians, until relatively recently -- the DAB is essentially fiction when it comes to American Indians) just called them all "chiefs", obscuring the power struggle that was going on. Richard White's The Middle Ground is the bible on this subject. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodrow Wilson

Umm.. Out of sheer curiousity, how do you know that Wilson's earliest memory was at age three? Wilson was almost four years old when Lincoln won the election. Check the dates. Do you know where the age 3 fact comes from? Are you saying that Alice Osinski's published information is wrong..? I'm sorry if I am breaking Wiki customs or something, I am not a member, and I haven't edited anything before. However, I am writing a research paper on Wilson right now, and thought that it might be useful to fix that age and provide further verification that he actually remembered that bit. Cheers! - Eric. 12.223.117.91 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilson said he remembered people crying out that Lincoln was elected and that means war. That happened in early November 1860 when he was 3 years old. He turned 4 about 7 weeks later but the custom then and now is to call the boy three years old. Rjensen 02:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Ford

Will you please review your edits. You have deleted almost all the footnotes for the article and have left the note section looking like a disaster. I will assume good faith, but I can't help but be left with the impression that you are not reviewing the page after editing. Jtmichcock 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK--but in turn please do not include lots of trivia (like boy scout awards and useless dates) and please do not reference items of low importance. It leads to terrible clutter and a waste of user time. Most of the info is in the biographies in the first place or in the Ford websites that are already listed. In other words: ref is useful for high quality info that is not readily available. Rjensen 20:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is going to Peer Review in just a few hours and thereafter into FAC. I'm certain that there will be a consensus reached on what constitutes trivia. Jtmichcock 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Generations}}

Hey - I am not familiar with this template - just found the second great awakening from the Joseph Smith, Jr. page - and am in general a fan of navigation templates - if there is concensus that this formulation of generations is not widely accepted - shouldn't the template be listed for deletion? personally, I don't agree with the way it pigeonholes some of the generations through which I have lived :) - thx - Trödel 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

it's just a low level pop history exercise that no one takes seriously. One person however copied the whole thing from the book into Wiki. Rjensen 08:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a copyright violation - do you have a reference to the source material? Trödel 12:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's all taken from Strauss and Howe Rjensen 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE STOP EDITING AS A TROLL ON THE REAL LINCOLN DEATH PHOTO ISSUE!

What you say here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, Sir!

That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sir!

Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sir!

I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3. for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find!!!

(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)

Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare to say that you and your alter ego "Looney Pilgrim", are not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which they have not even bother to investigate themselves in detail, as I have viewed the photograph personaly and WILL NOT BE CALL A LIAR BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE SIR!

The "in depth" research I have done, by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", and that cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature!

In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3

If this continues I shall consider a law suit against you for defamation of character... Sir! You are not a Lincoln Scholar as I am, and am in fact a multi-degree Professor, with a Doctorate in History. Sir!

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

I would be thankful if you would now leave off, Sir!

(Cathytreks 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Comment - Cathytreks may be a historian, but anyone who could write, "I am, and am in fact a multi-degree Professor, with a Doctorate in History Sir!" needs to forget history for a while and take a course in spelling and grammer!! that's "Lincoln scholar," "multi-degree" and "professor" the last time I looked those words up, right? SimonATL 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am nearly blind, due to diabete's forgive me my failing eyes? (Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))


how did the phone call go yesterday to the owner?
Look Rjensen is no Troll, believe me. He is a decent editor who has a great point. My take on the issue is simple. Whether the photo is real or not is a matter of fact that needs to be proven. I must admit it's got my curiousity going. To think I am seeing America's greatest President after his assasination is fascinating to my curious mind. But it is rather morbid to put that photo on a page dedicated to his Life and Deeds. If you can prove that the photo is real with documentation that can be looked up, then by all means create a seperate page about the photo itself and its controversy, covering all angles for the readers. But the photo does not belong on the main Lincoln page. I find it disrepecting the dead to do so. It is like posting JFK's autopsy photos on his main page. Please, consider these points, and realize Rjensen is a good editor looking out for the interest of Lincoln's article. There is no need to get upset here. We are all here to work collaboratively towards an encylopedia of fact. Let's do so. --Northmeister 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry foralling Rjensen a troll, they are not but have hurt my feelings terribly just for my part of standing by my beliefs in the picture. (Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removed Peterson

Gosh I had to remove it. It is so terrible. Im sorry I just cant stand it. We can work the deist issue out but please dont put it back. It really doesnt belong there. Do you see how its commentary? What gives a biographer authority to decide the religious views of one of the most influential founding fathers? He didnt even know Jefferson and as I said before he only has limited information to work with. It really doesnt belong there.

71.131.180.37 08:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Peterson knows Jefferson pretty well. He spent 40 years reading everything by and about TJ. You really should read his book. Rjensen 09:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Motto "Write and Fight"

Reading thru this discussion page. Wiki is like a RELIGION to people! You stir up a LOT of hornets nests!! I don't mean it to be negative, only by way of commentary. Wow!! SimonATL 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks--I think!  :) Rjensen 05:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen...you disgraced wiki for attacking my character here as well as now illegaly removing my edit on your page for the blight you did against me on the Lincoln Talk page, and stirred up A HORNETS NEST, that would be having everyone against me for what in the end became a debate for even trying... to get the truth out as many scholars have in the past, and whom continue to debate that photograph you smeared as a hoax and a lie, to this day more and more....why?


You illegaly removed my departure note to you on this wiki user page in violation of wiki policy, they have been informed, Sir!

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!

        A PERSONAL HERO TO MANY!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!


Lincoln in 1847
Lincoln in 1847

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy here. (Cathytreks 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] I just mentioned you name on User talk:Jmabel

Just a corteousy message that I mentioned your name on User talk:Jmabel here[11]. You really had me fooled over at Labor Unions: International comparisons.

I thought you were an expert, who knew what you were talking about. How many of those books have you actually read?

The whole ugly mess at Business Plot as I wrote User talk:Jmabel, makes me realize that underneath your "thin layer of authority, which is very convincing...is a POV warrior, who will manipulate and even invent sources to support his own POV." Travb 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

"RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you. The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

What can we do on Business Plot to avoid an RfC. I had to go through arbitration once and even though I "won" it was a horrible, time consuming experience, which I don't want to repeat. It was a hollow, empty victory.

I find your editing conduct highly objectionable, but you do seem very intellegent and open to comprimise. You seem to know more anout the Business Plot then almost ever single person on wikipedia, including, in some respects, me. I have to thank you because if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know as much about the Business Plot as I do now. Your agressive stance forced me to become an ametuer expert in some aspects of the Business Plot.

Unfortunatly my sharp words and quick temper do not help the situation either.

What would you suggest? I am open to suggestions. Business Plot has been an ongoing argument for months, solely between you and me, what can we do to end this?

Please, I welcome your suggestions. Travb 14:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the kind words--why son't we cool off for a week then think of something. Rjensen 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Photo

I'm sure Cathy wouldn't mind reviewing YOUR death photo, apparently. :)(

____________

Thats not funny, or fair, I bear no grudge against Rjensen, but seek only the truth.

Photograph?.....or Very well done Engraving of Lincoln?

Whether it was came across to some as an unintended hoax (by me! I thought it genuine ..) or a real photograph, or maybe just a exstraordinary and remarkable likeness via a well done engraving, done post mortem is not known, but the likeness to Lincoln is uncanny as well as haunting in it's portrayal of him,

With out question The photographer or engraver Bachelder, knew Lincolns face very well...HE WAS THERE the day after with Brady at Lincolns side, that cannot be debated..it is history.

Bachelder was both an artist and an early photographer and he knew his subject well...the original photo may have been destroyed, and all that is left is Bachelders extraordinary likeness of it.

I have updated the description page of the likeness..thusly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg (Cathytreks 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] World War I: "add Britain in war and del postwar events" (?)

Hello there, - You have done much adding and deleting in WWI recently, and I wonder, why the deleting? Most of the deleted information are quite important and were not compensated or included somehow in your addition! __Most appreciatively, -- Maysara 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article should be about WW1 and leave postwar events to different articles. The article is already long but it is very thin on issues of economics and society and I am trying to add material there. Rjensen 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan "new terms"

I feel that the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Ku Klux Klan article, which I changed yesterday and you changed back, really requires more explanation. As it stands, it is a particularly unclear statement. Are there actually many other "new terms" starting with the letters "K" and "L" that are meant to sound Greek? Are you implying that inventing "new terms" in this way was a practice specific to that era, or that such naming is so common today that it requires no further explanation? I hate to quibble over minutia, as I can see you are very busy here on Wikipedia, but I really think additional information needs to be inserted into that sentence in order for it to make sense. Dunne409 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

all I meant is that the KKK invented a lot of new words that started with K or KL -- Klavern, Kleagle (recruiter), Klecktoken (initiation fee), Kligrapp (secretary)--they sort of souned Greek but were entirely made up. Did other groups do that too? I don't think so. Rjensen 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan coalition

Hi, I just read your addition to Reagan coalition, and I would like to thank you for the good job. Thanks. Eivindt@c 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks! :) Rjensen 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jan Smuts

Thanks for your contribution to the above article, it's great to see another person taking an interest. I hope that you don't mind, but I propose to revert your changes.

i) I'm not sure what was wrong with linking and capitalising the 'General' in the phrase 'Boer General during the Boer war'. 'General', as a military rank, seems to be a word that it is reasonable to link to and is almost always capitalised.

ii) Smuts's role after the two World Wars was not confined to the League of Nations and the UN. He played a significant part in the Versailles negotiations and was a trusted advisor to Churchill after WW2. I thought that 'played a leading part in the post war settlements at the end of both world wars' encompassed it quite well.

iii) Again I think that Smuts did a lot of work outside the Commonwealth in respect of imperial-colonial relations. Well before the Satute of Westminster, he sought to redefine relations, these had their culmination in the Commonwealth but were largely done outside it.

I hope that you don't mind too much, I just think that the previous edit better captured the nuances of his role.

Xdamr 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have been influenced by the Hancock bio and think his roles in Commonwealth, League and UN were not just supporting but rather dominating. "played a leading part" is what we might say about 100 other people and downplays his importance. As for "general" it's such a common word that I cannot believe any reader needs dictionary help.Rjensen 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hancock's is an excellent reference and I don't disagree with you about the importance of Smuts's role. The thing is though that this is just a prologue, perhaps this kind of analysis is best in the article body and the appropriate subpage?
Xdamr 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes take a look at the changes I just made to the summary. The summary is not just a prologue or teaser. Probably half of all encycy readers read only the first paragraph, so the meat should be there for them. (They click on Smuts because they run across his name somewhere, not because they want depth.) Deeper in the article I suggest tying his philosophy of holism to his belief in world organizations. Rjensen 03:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame, but you are probably right about people not looking beyond the first paragraph, makes you wonder if all the work is worthwhile ... ingrates! I like your edit, perhaps replace the 'four or five most important people' with 'he was a key participant in...' or 'he was one of the driving forces behind..', what do you think?
Xdamr 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think all encyclopedias have this "problem" of looking at the first line. (If you read a book that said "Lloyd George rejected Smuts' suggestion about XYZ" and you're interested in Lloyd George, then the summary is all you really want. As to importance: several hundred people can claim they played a key role at Versailles etc. Hancock makes him #1 regarding the commonwealth and we should say so. should it say he was one of the two most impt people in the British delegation? Rjensen 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan article

Rjensen, I must apologise for having reverted your good-faith edit on the Ku Klux Klan article earlier on. Perhaps because I have previously seen numerous cases in which this particular article was vandalised, I made a hastened decision to revert which, in this case, was wrong. I will be more careful in my anti-vandalism reverts for now on. Please do not take offense - I do not consider you a vandal at all; it was my mistake. Once again, please accept my apologies. - Tangotango 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

hey thanks for the note! no offense taken. I've been plugging away at the article which started out as a strange mixture of 40% pro KKK. 40% anti-KKK and 2% scholarship. There has been a burst of scholarship in the last 25 years which I am trying to include re 1st and 2nd KKK. Rjensen 09:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Plot

Hey Rjensen, I am still editing Business Plot, particularly the timeline, would you like me to come back later while you edit now? I don't want the dreaded conflicting edits message. Let me know....Travb 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • sorry about that! give me one minute to add details Rjensen 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me know. Thanks. Travb 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, done, thanks for patience. Be sure to emphasize it was Butler planning to be dictator Rjensen 01:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I envisioned the timeline as being very general, just meeting times and places. Thanks for your contirbutions, I will set the exact dates on Spivak.Travb 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to be working on the rest of the article, if so I will let you have at it...Travb 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No I;m about done right now. Mistake: Van Zandt said (Nov 21 1934) that conspirators would meet him at VFW convention (Not Legion convention). He said Butler talked to him "less than 2 month ago" or sometimne late Sept or maybe early Oct 1934. (not 1933). Do not assume that Butler was just "playing along" -- he was clearly conspiring with Van Zandt as late as Sept 1934. Rjensen 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I don't understand that last sentence.
good luck on the edits. I liked your last edit about Spivak. Will let you have at it--the timeline is not done and some of it is incorrect (hard to figure out all of the dates from the congressional testimony). Laters.Travb 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Van Zandt told reporters on Non 21 1934 that "less than 2 months before" (ie late Sept 1934) Butler told him the plot was on--and that plotters would meet with Van Zandt at the VFW convention. This means that Butler though it was go as late as Sept 1934. Rjensen 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KKK article

I appreciate your work on the Ku Klux Klan article and, as I've said, you have a lot of good information. I also appreciate the support you've given me before on Southern literature. I'm not quite sure, though, why you are so opposed to the prescript. According to my research, it appears to be a valid part of the article. Just curious. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for comments--much appreciated! The old draft got it wrong. The Prescript was a proposal that went nowhere--no one adopted it. (see Wade) It DID influence Simmons 50 years later (so mention it there). The opening paragraphs were put in the old version to make a ringing POV statement in favor of kkk. The main substance of the Prescript was ignored in the old article. Rjensen
      • Then let's mention the prescript in the section on the second KKK. Seems like a good place to do so. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • vg idea Rjensen 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Liberal democracy

Hi. You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pmanderson Ultramarine 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inuse Re:Business Plot

My apologies Rjensen, I meant to use {{inuse}}. I used the wrong template,my mistake, my apologies. To avoid edit conflicts, please refrain from editing the talk page.Travb 09:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK :) Rjensen 09:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To avoid an edit conflict, please respect the {{inuse}} template.Travb

[edit] Reversion

I have been with Wiki for almost 5 years and an administrator for 3 - i therefore feel entitled to be given some respect. i put the POV check on Ronald Reagan at the request of others - please do not treat me like an anon vandal to be reverted on sight - i could bring a complaint against you for such behaviour and i should - but i won't - all i want is the respect due of a Wiki veteran please. PMA 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    • No disrepect intended. But if there is POV it needs to be pointed out and discussed on the TALK page and that did not happen. What sort of POV did people complain about? Rjensen 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • People from both sides of the political fence - the article was too soft on Reagan for the left and too hard on him from the right - thats why i was trying to look for someone neutral on the talk page to check wether the claims of bias were true (i.e. someone who was not a partisan Republican or partisan Democrat). PMA 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
well you may find neutral folks like that in Australia but not in the US! :) Rjensen 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • laughs* you rock you know that :) PMA 09:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery

Is the any possibility of redemption for 7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery, or should the deletion continue? Though each instance may be true, it is an odd compilation. You help and judgment would be appreciated. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the author seems unaware of the large literature (start with Genovese Roll Jordan Roll) and just copied come textbook. Rjensen 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generations (book)

Are you disputing that this is a history book? --JeffW 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

yes--the authors were politicians interested mostly in predicting the future. I checked the major history journals online in JSTOR: all the editors decided not to review it (they review 500-1000 history books a year). Rjensen 03:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It may not meet your standards, but there's no denying it's a history book. A lot of it is describing and justifying the concept of a generation but at least half of it is an exposition on the history of the US. --JeffW 05:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The publisher, the authors, and all the history editors have all decided it's not a "history book". So who is Wiki to fight them? It's about the future. Rjensen 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate liberalism

Would you mind taking a look at corporate liberalism? I've gotten the who but not the what. Thanks. --RedJ 17 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

it's a good start. Look at Berk, Gerald with replies by Livingston, James and Vogel, David.

Title: CORPORATE LIBERALISM RECONSIDERED: A REVIEW ESSAY. Citation: Journal of Policy History 1991 3(1): 70-84. ISSN: 0898-0306

Abstract: Reviews James Livingston's Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 (1986) and Martin J. Sklar's The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (1988), two books that discuss corporate liberalism, an ideology in which the principles of classical liberalism are "reconstituted to assimilate large-scale concentrations of property and organizational hierarchy associated with the modern corporation." Livingston accepts Berk's criticism of his argument but disagrees with Berk's contention that there was an alternative to the evolution of corporate capitalism. Vogel disagrees with Berk's view that there was an alternative to corporate capitalism during the Progressive Era, claiming that small business existed and continues to exist alongside mass production rather than as an alternative to it. Rjensen 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the leads. I had consulted Berk's 1994 Alternative Tracks but he didn't devote a lot of ink towards the historiography of the topic. Much of his argument there is directed towards demonstrating the existence, in some Americans' minds, of an alternative to corporate liberalism.--RedJ 17 17:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Business Plot

I'd appreciate getting your side on the issues being discussed at Talk:Business Plot. Thanks. Fagstein 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

i've had it with the kooks there :) Rjensen 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help

Your up to date on economics; could you take a look at my edits on Laissez-faire and see where I may have made factual mistakes. If you agree with the challenging editor, then that is okay; at least I have an honest opinion from someone who knows. This editor stalks every edit I do and challenges everything I add as you well know from the American System page. I am not perfect so your critic however harsh or in favor is worth the time for me; as you've been a fair editor in the past. Thanks. --Northmeister 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment later, but I think the article seems to be unreferenced. People are getting historical material somewhere but they would be on much firmer groundwith some footnotes or references. Rjensen 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Northmeister 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling another third opinion

Rjensen, Your attitude is completly against wikipedia policy. On three wikipages:

You delete referenced material because it does not fit your POV. Your behavior at business plot was appaling:

  • referencing materials which actually contradicted your claims,
  • referencing books which do not even mention the plot,
  • deleting full sections you didn't agree with,
  • being shown that your view is completly incorrect and never admitting you were incorrect, etc.

I called a third opinion on your immature attitude on Business Plot, and those third parties encouraged you to stop deleting items.

Now you have started deleting several referenced paragraphs on United States presidential election, 1900, with no discussion. Despite my continued encouragement to talk about your deletions, you are starting a new revert war on United States presidential election, 1900, with little explanation, deleting several well referenced items.

I didn't want to have an arbitration and I have tried everything in my power to avoid one. But I don't want to spend months reverting your deletions on United States presidential election, 1900, have you make up sources which don't exist, and have to show that you know little about the topic, prove you wrong, and still have to fight your POV.

That said, I am going to call another third opinion on United States presidential election, 1900. The worst that I will be blamed for is being uncivil. If this behavior continues, then I will be forced to start arbitration. Travb 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1996.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve

I've read several of the books on that list and they are not technical. I may be willing to back down on the "Further Reading" list, pending checking of Wikipedia policy, but the "External links" lists and uncited reference in the "References" section have to go. -69.243.49.152 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Bibliog is essential. The books range from popular to highly technical but all are serious and of course Wiki has a range of users. So there should be a book for every user. Wiki policy strongly recommends it saying the perfect article "branches out; contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and outside materials that may add new meaning or background to the subject or give relevant, connected information, so readers may easily understand where they should go for more background or information."[12]

As for the links--what is the problem? Why should users not have them? Rjensen 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of New Hampshire

Could you check this new page, if you get the time (Republic of New Hampshire)? Is it accurate? (Also - you might want to archive some of this talk page; it's so long that it's going to choke some browsers.) = DavidWBrooks 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. it's a hoax. Rjensen 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you and apology

Hey Rjensen, those new references you use are awesome. Thanks for indeirectly teaching me them.

I apologize because I assumed bad faith on Philippine-American War today. After all our strong arguments, I guess I started to think the worst. I thought you had deleted all of the footnotes, when only one of the footnotes was actually broken.

After all of the water under the bridge, and our startly different POV, and my short temper, I we can another truce as we did at Labor unions in the United States.

anyway, thanks for the teaching me the new way of referencing.Travb 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note--yes, cooperation is the goal and we can work together effectively Rjensen 07:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Kick ass Rjensen, I love those new footnotes! Thank you so much for introducing me to them. I love how if there are mutliple references to the same footnote, in the footnote section there are little supscript lettes, referering to all of the locations in the article. (For example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#_ref-P_0)
One suggestion. When I introduced the new footnotes to Plan Colombia.
I typed in the Notes section: <!--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for how these new footnotes work-->. That way future users can easily learn this system too.
I was once looking at your past edits, did you have a part in creating this new footnote system?
Thanks again.Travb 08:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just trolling recent changes and came across your comment about Lieberman on Talk:Democratic Party. "No, not that one...the one we're talking about was the 2000 VP nominee..." Hilarious reply. Kaisershatner 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Know-Nothings

I would like to discuss your edits to that page. Please take a look at it before I wikified it. It was bare bones. This is no edit war, but I do feel a few links, such as for Catholics, are justified in their return. WillC 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

no real disagreement at all. I recommend against useless links, like Catholic and Protestant which only divert users and give them no real information. Rjensen 10:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a tendency by all of us to over-Wikilink pages. However, years and months should not be linked, for example, nor should common words. On to more substantive issues - do we think that the article in question is optimal? I think it's a pretty good article, myself. -Will Beback 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
yes it is pretty good. I just now moved the para on South to end of article so it doesn't disrupt main story. Rjensen 11:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truman Policies Reversions; 'del gossip'

You have chosen to revert-out important information regarding Truman's relationships with Gen Douglas MacArthur and President-Elect Eisenhower, both of whom publicly displayed their low esteem of Truman.

Your comment 'del gossip' implies heresay basis. Both relationships were clearly visible in news photos and television coverage of Truman with these two important individuals from American history. I strongly disagree with the 'gossip' label.

I have to confess, very puzzled here?

Closet History Buff-California

rumor and gossip does not fit well into an encyclopedia. The story about Wake Island is probably false. Newsmen said the two men were very friendly. Both Mac and HST said in their memoirs the meeting was friendly: Mac: "Truman radiated nothing but courtesy and good humor during our meeting." HST: "our conversation was very friendly," and "I found him a most stimulating and interesting person." After 1948 or so Truman and Eisenhower disliked each other. Ike campaigned in 1952 by denouncing Truman at every stop, as is discussed in his article. -- lots of people dislike each other without mention in Wiki. Two criteria are needed: is there a consensus among scholars? and 2) is it important or does it distort the main story? Rjensen 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus among scholars: Not a realistic criteria when coming to a topic like Truman. Given the hard-liberal bent of 'scholars', I would expect that the 'consensus' would be highly reluctant to be wholly objective when it comes to one of their 'darling' presidents.

Wake Island episode 'probably false': Sorry, can't disagree more. I have read the episode in more than one place. [Alas, cannot cite here and now.] At least one of the sources likely from a daily newspaper, such as Los Angeles Times, which indeed might be one of my sources, as we subscribed to it at the time of the incident.

Lots of people dislike each other: The firing of MacArthur was one of the top [or bottom] defining moments of Truman's presidency. Comments regarding the low esteem in which Truman was held, both by him and Eisenhower are therefore relevant to his total picture. The two individuals are not radicals taking pot shots from the sidelines, they were both highly involved in America's history in the period that Truman occupied the White House. [Or maybe I should say 'Blair House'?] And neither personal interface is typical of relationships between presidents and their military-experienced VIP's. I believe the information should be included in the Truman Policies section.

CHB-CA

the gossip about Wake is full of falsehoods; MacArthur's plane circling the island is for example false--he arrived the day before Truman. Both Truman and MacArthur explictly said the meeting was friendly, so who is Wiki to disagree with BOTH men? Was their ill will--why yes, Truman fired Mac and Ike attacked Truman vigorously. Wiki says all that. What more is needed? Rjensen 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

point conceded re the circling / jockeying planes; I did find how THAT story gained legs: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/wake/meeting.htm "His plane arrived about six o'clock the night before. Merle Miller's book [Merle Miller. Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. New York, Berkley Publishing Corporation, 1973] is completely wrong on that. There was no jockeying in the air as to which plane [MacArthur's or Truman's] would come down first."

That said, I can not concede the friendliness / hostile issues. MacArthur fumed to people that Truman was calling the Wake Island meeting for political reasons. Wanting to bask in MacArthur's early successes in Korea to bolster the off year elections to be held in 1952. Search on the linked page for 'political'.

See also: "And he [Truman] always just talked in front of us; everybody did. . . . Well he said, "Listen, you know I'm President, and you're the general, you're working for me." This was about the tone of it. All right, "You don't make any political decisions; I make the political decisions. You don't make any kind of a decision at all. Otherwise, I'm going to call you back, and get you out of there. If you make one more move, I'm going to get you out of there." . . . " Secret Service Agent Floyd Boring

And he did NOT salute the Commander in Chief: "General MacArthur strode to the foot of the landing ramp and, with hand outstretched, greeted the President. The President shook hands and remarked, "How are you, General? I'm glad you are here." There were no military honors or ceremony.

Thanks for making me dig this out... it was a quite useful exercise... very useful... I still think the stuff (taken from the TRUMAN LIBRARY WEB SITE), belongs in Truman's Policies pages... repeating myself, given what a debacle it was when he fired THE GENERAL...

Secret service agent recollection 40 years later of exact language? unlikely he got ity exactly right. But Truman always was gruf and talked tough to everyone. Dean Rusk concluded "MacArthur went out of his way to pay his respect to his Commander in Chief and showed the deference due by a General to his President." As I said the two men both insisted years later it was a friendly meeting and that is the consensus of historians that Wiki should report. Rjensen 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there ya go... we are poles apart on what the reality of the time was... the pablum reported by the media was the true situation... Conclusions: Most delusional attitudes, especially when based on irrational thought, are impossible to argue against...

I am ceding that there ARE swaths at Wiki that are black holes for objectivity and reality... and this page appears to be one of them...

It 'might' be time to wake up and smell the coffee... as I pointed out, the firing of the General was a turning point for HS's term... as I recall, MacArthur addressed a meeting in San Francisco [a UN group???] when he returned, and then addressed a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS as he made his exit... I can't remember any military officer of any service making such addresses... it's not something that would have happened if your suppositions / position had a scintilla of reality, irregardless of the very obvious observable facts ...

For those of us who lived thru the actual events back in 1951, we know what the truth is... sail on, and keep those tinted glasses firmly in place...

[edit] Personal attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Regarding this edit of yours, please confine your comment to the merits of the edit, not the editor himself. I view your comments as an ad hominem argument, and I read your comment to be a violation of WP:NPA. For this reason, I am placing a NPA warning on your talk page, along with this notice. Please do not remove that warning or this notice, as I am reasonably sure that might be a violation of WP:VANDAL, regardless of this being your talk page. Thank you. Merecat 06:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Deal

See my comments at the New Deal talk page. I don't understand your reasoning for taking out the template. As the article states itself: "The New Deal, drawing heavily on the experiences of its leaders, reflected the ideas, and was influenced by the programs, that FDR and most of his original associates had absorbed in their political youths early in the progressive era; had absorbed while serving in the Woodrow Wilson administration; and had absorbed holding other offices in the 1920s." The Progressivism template series is a work in progress to represent the Progressive idea as it formed and developed. I know of no historian who would debate that the New Deal was conservative. :) --Northmeister 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of the connection between the Progressives and the New Deal is hotly debated. (About 2/3 of the progressives opposed the New Deal--most favored Hoover). As for "absorbing" well yes everybody absorbs things. But FDR rejected many of the Wilson ideas too. For example antitrust was high on the Progressive agenda and New Deal never supported it, and in case of NRA suspended antitrust laws. The basic problem is that the template suggests the issue is resolved, and it is not. Rjensen 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Factually you are right. I don't contest what you stated above. But, the progressive era consisted of more than Wilson's version. Theodore Roosevelt favored similar methods to what the New Deal implemented in his New Nationalism. According to Lind, many Progressive's moved from the Republican Party to New Deal Democratic Party as Taft and others pretty much silenced them after 1912. That's why I feel it belongs under the header of the New Deal. What are your thoughts? --Northmeister 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
well that's part of the debate all right. Some TR people like Ickes moved to FDR, others like Pinchot did not. However most TR supporters followed Hoover and Landon, not FDR. I think the debate has never been settled and Wiki should not mislead readers into thinking it has been. For example, prohibition was a major part of Prog movement but FDR fought for repeal. Aid to schools and science and medicine was high on Prog agenda, low on New Deal's. Rjensen 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We do not disagree on the facts. But, the Progressivism series I am working is to link the collective ideas together, not to say the New Deal was the same as the New Freedom or Great Society for that matter. What holds all these programs today is the common foundation in social and economic progress that is at the heart of progressive thought, together with what Croly stated (and Teddy Roosevelt agreed with) about using Hamilton's means to achieve Jefferson's ends in the USA. Progressivism as it was espoused, took up many divergent causes, but the root of those measures was social and economic progress through government intervention. The New Deal clearly took this angle and not the conservative angle. I don't think historic evidence indicates that most TR progressives went with Hoover or the Republicans after 1929. --Northmeister 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Otis L. Graham, Jr., An Encore for Reform: The Old Progressives and the New Deal, shows 2/3 rejected FDR (Jane Addams for example). I guess I would argue the GOP and Dems have been equally influenced by Progressivism over last 75 years--and have equally rejected parts of it (like elitism, racism, isolationism). Rjensen 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Again we agree based on your last statement. Why are you removing legitimate templates that show the roots of the New Deal...by removing that, you are more or less saying the New Deal has roots in conservatism. You keep parsing history..History is best understood in the broad view. I don't see where the template does harm here. You are making a molehill into a mountain with individual pieces of history and pretty much arguing that progressivism did not influence FDR - so conservatism must have. --Northmeister 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that no one is putting in all the templates--for liberalism, conservatism, internationalism, this-ism or that-ism. Progressivism influenced FDR and his opponents alike. As did other streams. Rjensen 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I know all this. But, the Liberalism template with one exception does not fit for the New Deal..it explains classical liberalism and outside the USA liberalism itself. In the USA the word liberal has been used differently and modern liberalism does not resemble liberalism outside the USA or classical liberalism nor conservatism. It is closely aligned to the tradition in the USA of progress that began with the Whigs - the the original GOP - and then after 1912 starting merging into the Democratic Party that exists today. Most former Democrats that are now Republicans are classical liberals and call themselves conservatives. Wikipedia should get it right. I didn't add the template to individuals and won't only to programs by government that represent this train of thought. The New Deal did, not classical liberalism as mentioned above or conservatism. --Northmeister 17:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I take it you like Progressivism a lot. Well so do I, in some ways. But I will revise the template to remove some of the POV that slipped in. The negative side has to be there for this to be a NPOV encyclopedia. Better start the Dem party linkage in 1896 (with Bryan). Rjensen 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Your right. Hey, since we both have an interest, then lets just work on this together and not bicker. --Northmeister 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
deal :) some of my thoughts are online at [13] Rjensen 17:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks interesting. I'll read it later today. --Northmeister 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
172 has jumped in a reverted the New Deal; not aware of our discussion. Plus, I added reconstruction and took out Jim Crow, see my comments. I don't understand your reasoning here. --Northmeister 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article

I began reading your article online, from above. Excellent work! I think I see where your coming from about the New Deal and how you interpret it. Quite interesting how you feel Progressive lead to New Deal etc. - Hey I will leave the template to you for now, I am going on sabbatical - however if you will - email me so we can chat via email. Best wishes... --Northmeister 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Coalition

Hi Rjensen, this is just to let you know that you're in danger of violating 3RR at Christian Coalition if you haven't already done so. Any repeated deletion of another editor's work counts toward 3RR, even if you're changing a different section each time, and even if you make other edits at the same time. Please try to work the issue out on talk rather than reverting so much. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry L. Stimson and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

Hi Rjensen.

You seem to have inserted this text,

He strongly opposed the Morgenthau Plan to de-industrialize Germany, and since he had control of occupied Germany, it never went into effect.

Where this text used to be

Following the surrender of Germany, he was the major proponent within the administration for what would become the Nuremberg Trials. He argued that war criminals should have trials to reflect and reinforce the domestic American respect for due process.

I think they both merit some space?

Also, I think you could be a bit more precise. I agree that Stimson strongly opposed Morgenthau and his plan. He worked hard to limit his influence in the resulting occupation policy, not entirely successfully though.

But I feel the last part of the sentence is a bit dicey.

“he had control of occupied Germany”

In 1945 Stimson may have had indirect control of the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. The French, Soviets, and the British had their zones and were equal partners in the endeavour. And the executive power for the U.S. rested with Eisenhower, who seems to have been a proponent of the Morgenthau plan, at least initially during the occupation.

The common policy had however been set by the Potsdam Conference, and the policy of the U.S zone had been set by JCS 1067, wherever it did not conflict with Potsdam. Even though Eisenhower was encouraged to influence the other powers to adopt the same policies, it was only mandatory for the U.S. slize of Germany. I don’t se much control of the U.S. zone in the hands of Stimson at this stage. In the end General Clay took over as Governor in Germany and did his best to fight the Morgenthau legacy in JCS 1067.

What I’m trying to say is that you could probably nuance the statement somewhat.

The same goes for the Morgenthau Jr. article.

I do not understand your reasoning. You wrote the following in your revert:

JCS reported to Stimson who strongly opposed M Plan

Yes, the Joint Chief of Staff may have reported to Stimson, who disapproved of 1067, but the JCS directive 1067 was binding as a law. You obey laws even when you don’t agree with them don’t you? Event the president of the United States has to obey the laws, even if he tries to have them changed in the meanwhile.

As Beschloss writes on page 270: Stimson adviced Clay, "sure, you’ve got to live with 1067." But they mustn’t "let this country starve to death.".

Besides Stimson stepped down in 1945, JCS 1067 was in effect until July 1947. Stor stark7 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stimson was not primarily responsible for the Nuremberg trials, but he (his War dept) did have primary responsibility for the American zone. JCS policy statements are not laws (all laws have to be passed by Congress), and at that time they were merely advisory. Not till much later did JCS have command authority. In any case Morgenthau was out of the JCS loop (and after FDR died he became powerless and soon resigned.) Rjensen 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I buy the Nuremberg part, but not the rest.
You agree that Stimson did not "have control of occupied Germany", at least.
And Ok; I admit not having done any reading on the legality of the JCS 1067, but all I've read indicates that the personel set to implement it took it seriously.
Besides, I fail to se what Morgenthaus resignation has to do with JCS 1067. The damage was done, the document was in effect. You don't remove the reference to the Bretton Woods system just because Morgenthau was not in office when it was being effected, do you? Also, Morgenthaus ideas permeated the Treasury, and those burecrats remained in office and did their best to keep things on track.
General Draper says he was almost charged for not strictly implementing the directive. That seems to me like people in Washington took it real serious that it should be obeyed. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/draperw.htm

Anyway, the level of industry was finally determined on a level that didn't last long; it wasn't realistic. It took about two years to change. It was after I was back in Washington as Under Secretary before that directive was finally officially revoked. In the meantime, we didn't pay as much attention to it as perhaps we should from the point of view of military discipline. There were several efforts to pull me back and have me charged with not carrying out the directive. General Clay always defended me. He knew perfectly well that such a policy couldn't last just as well as I did. We fought it out and finally persuaded Washington. General Marshall himself defended me in testimony before a Congressional Committee. So, it finally worked out. The real turning point came when the currency was devalued or revalued in 1948. At that time we gave the Russians the opportunity to do the same to revalue the mark in their sector, in their zone; they refused. I was back in Washington before this -- when they walked out of the four power council meeting -- the Kommanditura. A few days later they declared the blockade of Berlin. HESS: Which we will get to in just a minute. Did you ever discuss the Morgenthau plan with its author, with Henry Morgenthau?

And here he shows that he felt the the directive that he was trying to wrigle out of was infact the Morgenthau Plan.

And Mr. Morgenthau was of the opinion that Germany should be prevented from having the where withal to ever start another war, and he persuaded President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill to agree to his proposals. He believed that if the Germans were limited to growing food and to light industry and were not permitted any substantial amount of steel production or other basic industrial production, and not permitted to build ships or any of the other things that are required for war, even when on a peacetime basis, that they would be kept perpetually and forever in a condition impossible for them to wage war. That also would be in a condition which would become impossible for the Germans to exist unless somebody helped them and provided the necessities of life. It became evident to us very quickly that this was the case, and that if we carried out literally the terms of the very famous Morgenthau directive, the United States would have to support Germany for the rest of time or as long as that policy stayed in effect. And so, we had to wiggle here and waggle there and do the best we could without openly breaking our directive to permit the German economy to begin to function. We argued with this one and argued with that one here in Washington and in Germany, wherever we had the chance, and bit by bit, we recouped or revised the situation so that it became possible.

Could you show me how Stimson effected disobedience to directive 1067? (By the way, sorry for eating up your talk-space, but I feel the quotes and citations are necessary for me to make my point)

Stor stark7 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

several things were happening. The original Morgenthau plan was dead by late 1944 and never went into effect. Rjensen 18:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the original plan; with the Internationalisation and leveling of the Ruhr mines, the partitioning of Germany etc., was officially dead. But it was not the original plan that we were discussing was it?
We were discussing wether JCS 1067 should be mentioned in the Morgenthau Jr, article.
I fully agree that the original JCS 1067 was eroded over time, but it was certainly in effect in 1946. The fact that for instance the currency reform did not take effect until 1948 speaks volumes in my mind.
Then there are the other issues that were included in the original Morgenthau Plan. The annexation of East Prussia, Upper Silesia (Churchills original idea in order to to keep the Poles happy), forced labour of germans outside germany as reparations. This and more was in the plan and was in fact in the end effected. I grant that they may not have been Morgenthaus ideas originally, but Morgenthau was told to merge his ideas with all the other ideas that were going around at the time and resubmit his plan. This is the reason it also includes isssues such as denazification etc. The Internationalisation of the Ruhr was still on the tables in early 1947, but I have a bit of reading to do to ascertain if this was exclusively a Morgenthau/White idea or if someone else was also thinking along those same lines at the time.
The fact that General Eisenhower chose to distribute one thousand copies of Morgenthau's book containing the original plan to his officers in Germany seems to me to be a poignant reminder that not everyone thought the original plan dead. I expect his subordinates were expected to get the hint...
I'll continue this discussion on the Morgenthau Plan talk page, where you've made a start, I might be a few days late responding though due to work. Till thenStor stark7 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Morgenthau was out of the picture. the JCS1067 had a historical legacy of some sort, but by June or July 1945 when it took actual effect, Morgenthau was almost gone. Therefore the discussion is misleading when included in his biography. Put it under Eisenhower or (better) Clay. Rjensen 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/j/e/User_talk%7ERjensen_Archive_1_efbb.html"