User talk:Rjensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

09:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)see previous talk at Archive 22


Company town[edit]

Maybe you missed my talk section, you can find it here. Please take my edits in good faith. Wikipedia policy as I have read it dictates that my concerns should at least be addressed before you remove my template. -- (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I had missed it. See my reply. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson[edit]

Re your recent reversion of my two edits.

The first is simply grammatically incorrect. The word 'It's' (with the apostrophe) is short for 'It is' - clearly not the meaning intended in this sentence. I have re-reverted this.

The second one I have left alone. But I would contend that 'attractive' is POV, unless you would allow 'unattractive', in an obvious case like Eleanor Roosevelt. I think you would soon get reverted if you did. Valetude (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

. sorry about that pesky apostrophe...."attractive" is the consensus of the RS. The POV rules only apply to wiki editors, not to the RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fallen timbers?[edit]

Is there something obviously wrong with my edit? (Come to think of it, I suppose a comment at the 1794 battle would also be useful.) Reply here, I am watching. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not likely anyone would mix these up Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Two battles of the US Army with the same name? But on the other hand, a global search shows the older one, not the newer one. I appreciate your thoughts. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversions should be discussed[edit]

You recently reverted an edit of mine on the presidential assassination attempt at the Taft-Diaz summit in the Texas Rangers article, followed shortly by a reverted edit of mine on the WW1 volunteer Army unit in the Theodore Roosevelt article a with essentially an edit summary of Thank you, but no thanks.... My edits contained relevant information that, so why did you delete this? First, I believe it is rather bad manners on WP to delete a whole sub-section which is well researched, informative, written in encyclopedic style and contains in-line citations without first entering into discussions on the Talk page. Second, the version you have reverted in the Texas Rangers article is not consistent with the references I cited, although you kept the citation. When I added back my text to the Texas Rangers article, you then deleted it again.

Wiki:BOLD states "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." I opened the topic on the Texas Rangers talk page and I will do the same on the Theodore Roosevelt page. The next stage is to address objections and state your case.Ctatkinson (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete it I reduced its ridiculous excessive length. It never explains the plans or the motives of the man arrested or what happened at his trial (was there a trial or was he released when Taft left town?) . All books on Raft and Diaz ignore the episode because they do not consider it important (as the author cite admits). There was no "assassination ATTEMPT" -- just a man with a very small gun in the crowd, which he never pointed or tried to fire. Rjensen (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus -- see BRD for how this is done. In any case, a user Talk page is not the place to discuss this. I have raised the issue on the Talk:Texas Rangers Division and I will raise the issue on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt which is the proper place.Ctatkinson (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the role of an encyclopedia. It is not to include everything contained in books that run hundreds of pages. It is to summarize the most important events. If major books on the topic leave the episode out or minimize it, that is a clue that it does not deserve much attention. That is what happened here. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Beverly Potts[edit]

Can you help me bring Disappearance of Beverly Potts up to Good Article or Featured Article? There's a book (Twilight of Innocence: The Disappearance of Beverly Potts) that we could cannibalise, and facts are not copyrighted. Paul Austin (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the invite--problem is I know zip about the case. Good luck with it. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers[edit]


Hello Rjensen! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks--yes I will sign up now. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Would Pauline Maier qualify for some help. I'm especially proud of the video link in the info box. About three years ago I took it from a stub to C-class, but I feel like it should somehow develop into a higher rating, B-class or even A-class as I understand the rating system. The main critique in a request for peer review was that there was not sufficient criticism of her professionally. But I am like a puppy in tall grass in article development, so I may just not get it. (See my struggles at Bombardment of Cherbourg or History of Virginia on stamps with their respective projects). Any comments would be appreciated to help along Pauline Maier. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The late Pauline Maier was a former student of mine and a dear friend. Yes I will help. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

andrew jackson[edit]

rfC (not "a"; typo, my bad) Lx 121 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay with dropping CSA rebellion[edit]

Okay, I agreed to cutting down the material on the secession run-up to the Confederacy, and I've crafted a replacement piece. I've had my say at Talk:CSA on rebellion, and it seems I'm not persuasive. I'd rather spend time perfecting Pauline Maier, or Battle of Fort Pulaski rather than pursue a dead-end wiki-fencing contest. I've done all I can see to do on those two articles, and still can't seem to advance their rating. I've subscribed to the Bugle and the Signpost to start to read the better articles to get some tips by learning from examples. But I am still much reliant on others, like the recent assist to locate Bombardment of Cherbourg with geographic coordinates. --- basic stuff. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

that's a good approach  :) Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pauline Maier, list sections[edit]

Rosiestep is helping out with a fresh set of eyes and copyediting at Pauline Maier. Her critique on the “sections with lists” is that they are too long, they should be limited to only the major ones (See Talk:Pauline Maier#Sections with lists). Your editorial judgment in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Rosiestep said, The "Books and scholarly articles" section: The list is too long. Rename it "Selected works" and then only include the major ones. If your wish, discuss some of the books/articles in prose form within the body of the article. "Texts, online courses, avatar gaming" and "Popular reviews and columns" sections: Instead of list form, switch to prose and mention within the article, or drop them altogether. "Further reading" section: It is way too long (Wikipedia:Further reading may be helpful). --- Would you have a look and do some culling? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

too long? no I don't think so. What's really valuable are the short annotations. This is an article for specialists and they will appreciate the detail, in my opinion.Rjensen (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement. On an additional point that you may be able to help out with in particular, in the peer review critiques received about a year ago, Pauline Maier was characterized as “hagiography". I did not think that applied, as I tried to put her work in context of current historiography as a neo-whig historian, showing how the critiques of that school applied to her work. It may be that I was not pointed enough. But in general, I feel myself out of my depth when dealing with historiography (most recently in your critique of my application of Keegan and Bowman at "Confederate States of America" on the subject of "rebellion".)
I met Pauline Maier at a lecture she gave in Washington DC (the George Rogers Clark lecture for the Society of the Cincinnati at Anderson House), and she said she though the WP article was fair to her, but not clearly distinguishing between what she believed versus what those of the period thought as some point in the article. Again, any editorial oversight/assist you can contribute would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"hagiographer"???? that's gross. She's been one of the most influential technical specialists on 1776 and all that. yes i would be glad to help. The key now is to read the book reviews--sign up for wp:JSTOR to access them Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard--A student in my American West class at BC is interested in working on the Plan of San Diego article. Is this a good idea, or are you already working on it? Docjay57 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I monitor that article but I have no plans to enlarge it. The student should go right ahead; it's a good topic! Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

is there a limitation on copyright to use the map of the Intercolonial Railway of 1877? (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No--the map was published in USA before 1923 and is in the public domain, which means there is zero copyright anyone can use it without permission and it's OK on Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Rush and Francis Asbury[edit]

Hello Rjensen. Got your message on the Asbury reference. Yes, Asbury did affect Rush's spiritual life. The two became deep friends in America. I didn't get to add that portion to the Wiki site yet. Was getting late last night and I logged out. Can I go ahead and finish? Let me know. You can email me at Thank you for your reply and your dedication to making this a great site. Look forward to hearing from you.

the text I deleted said zip about Rush. drop all the stuff onAsbury--he has his own article. Rushe met a lot of people over the years and how he met each one is not encyclopedic. You need proof that there was an important impact on Rush--Asbury certainly failed to convert him to Methodism. I would also caution against using it's not a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


I would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the current definition of liberty by RTG. It is unreferenced. I reverted. RTG reverted my revert. We need someone with a fresh viewpoint. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK I tried something. The lede is not supposed to be merely a dictionary definition of a word. And it misses "liberty" in history. Rjensen (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

War of 1812 language choice[edit]

I would appreciate if you would add your thoughts on the several arguments I have made supporting your position in the thread you started earlier today on the use of "Canadian" English in the War of 1812 article. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Taft reversion[edit]

Absurd, frankly. There are no other annotations in that bibliography. Pointing out that this book is the work of a "conservative historian"—whatever that might be taken to mean—is an obvious instance of left-wing bias.Stealstrash (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me: there are two others, one of which similarly points out the author's "conservatism."Stealstrash (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

no bias whatsoever. "left wing bias" is a silly allegation. Doenecke made himself famous as a conservative (as did Russell Kirk) and readers ought to know that fact when looking for books favorable to Taft. see Doenecke, "Conservatism: The Impassioned Sentiment,"

American Quarterly(1976) in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tobacco cultivation (Virginia, ca. 1670).jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Tobacco cultivation (Virginia, ca. 1670).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg[edit]

Your statement here is provably false. Plenty of countries in the world have control of Nazi publications. The United States is not the only such country. Further, the source is not the United States, but from the British Medical Journal. Even if we took at face value that all Nazi publications are property of the U.S., it is still debatable that such an image could be declared free of copyright. Forgive me, but this is simply too broad of a paintbrush. I am reverting your change here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I refer to US law because that is operative for Wikipedia. The British medical journal cannot copyright in the USA a photo taken in Germany which is in the publioc domain in the US. The medical journal did NOT claim any copyright. Copyright expert Peter Hirtle says: "[US law] 104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S." That is reflected in federal court rulings cited at Wiki Commons US Courts hold: " On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images “to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.” source this photo therefore is public domain in the US. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • With respect, before we paint such an enormously broad paintbrush, a broad discussion is warranted. Hundreds, if not thousands, of images would be affected by such a decision. I'll see about initiating. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes and meanwhile you should read the court cases I cited especially this major case: from 1995 Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that US law explictly states that the copyright to Nazi materials is NOT restored to the original German owners. cite p 1044 column 2 paragraph 3 Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I know this is not your specialty[edit]

…as a fellow academic, I would implore you as an historian to have a look at the Kalmar Union, an article in dismal shape, both with regard to sourcing (whole sections and paragraphs unsourced), and with regard to speculation and weasel content (i.e., overall prose quality). It is in desperate need of expert attention. (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to use Harald Gustafsson, "A State that Failed?" Scandinavian Journal of History (2006) for cites. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. I noticed you reversed my recent changes to Milton Friedman. I don't want to start an edit war so I'd like to discuss it here.

I've changed the wording to: "Based on their assessments of the extent to what she describes as neoliberal policies contributed to income disparities and inequality ... what they describe as neoliberalism was as an ideological ... "

I don't particularly agree that neoliberalism is a loaded or non-neutral term - surely the term itself is neutral, with the writer either casting it in a positive or negative light, depending on their opinion? While it does tend to be used significantly more by critics, it does have an objective definition, so I don't think this should have a bearing.

I understand that asserting the neoliberalism of Friedman's policies could be controversial (well, personally I don't, but I'll concede it, if that's what's in issue - maybe it isn't?), and I think the edit still reflects this. I've removed the inverted commas because I think they implicitly call into question the legitimacy of neoliberalism itself (as though it was a personal idea of the authors' and not a concept with an independent existence), rather than the correctness of it's application to Friedman.

Does this seem appropriate to you? (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the term "neoliberalism" and find that it is not used by Friedman supporters but instead is used by his enemies and strong opponents of neoliberalism. This particular case is a usage by an outspoken enemy. That makes it a loaded POV term designed to associate Friedman with an approach the author despises and ridicules. I think such terms get scare quotes to alert readers it's highly controversial and they should think twice about using it in termpapers. this is a scholarly article on how the term became a pejorative slogan Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's a loaded term, I think retaining the wording "describes as" is enough to show that neoliberalism is a status conferred on Friedman's work by those authors particularly, but not necessarily commentators generally. Quote marks seem excessive. Change it back if you insist, I won't pursue it further (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Nice work on Right-wing politics. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you give this subject a look?[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Mercer Brooke, Jr. is ongoing. Since he was an eminent figure at his institution (and in your general field), some editors at the AFD are inclined to keep, but we need sources which help us reach that conclusion. Do you have anything to share? BusterD (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The case you make is compelling. BusterD (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


Sorry - I lost my temper. I was wrong to. And incorrect to make unfair and unfounded suggestions about your impartiality. I hope you can accept my apology. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OK let's forget it. Vidal was a bitter enemy of Bobby Kennedy (he had Vidal escorted out of the White House after one nasty encounter). Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm afraid I mistook you for another editor who has been unhelpful about the coverage of LGBT issues generally. Thanks for fixing Erasmus by the way. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Missouri Compromise and Dred Scott[edit]

I believe you made the same reading error I did when I first saw the line that had been removed by another editor who stated "POV, war was about cessation." The final line of the paragraph refers to the "decision", not to the compromise directly; the whole paragraph is about the decision's effects. Both the repeal in 1854 *and* the Dred Scott decision were indirect causes of the Civil War...catalysts. The line might benefit from some clarification so readers properly connect it to the subject, and an appropriate cite is needed.

Finkelman addresses how it was a catalyst on p. 13. He uses the word "catalyst." Adding "indirect" provides an appropriate summation to the catalytic effect he describes: "Taney's opinion was a key catalyst in creating the crisis that would lead to Lincoln's election, secession, civil war, and the end of slavery. It would be too much to argue that the Dred Scott decision caused the Civil War; causation is never a simple matter. Surely the conflict over slavery would have eventually led to a breakdown of the Union. But, Dred Scott had a great deal to do with the way this drama unfolded and with the timing of the War." Red Harvest (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

yes it's very badly phrased. In any case Dred Scott is not an important part of the article & does not deserve mention in the lede (because the Compromise was defunct when Dred Scott was issued). Dred Scott is very important and has its own article. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]


Burkie.png The Burkie Barnstar
For achievement in constructive edits to the article Conservatism in the United States, I present to you as a member of WP:RIGHT, this barnstar. May it be a symbol to all who view it of all the time and effort you have thus far put into improving articles about Conservatism. May you continue this work in the face of editors who oppose neutral presentation of the subject. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ways of War: American Military History from the Colonial Era to the Twenty-First Century[edit]

At the Military History of the United States article, please only use the book once, either in Further Reading, or external link, by possibly merging the two links. To include it in both sections IMHO is unnecessary and meets WP:OVERLINK. From my understanding one is a link to a review, the other is to a resource guide. Why does this need to be in two separate sections?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case I believe there is no overlink. The website includes a great deal of useful material that is unrelated to the book. Furthermore everything on the website is accessible to a reader and the book is not. Our role is to maximize usefulness to readers, not to minimize the size of the article. The book review again is an entirely different item --a scholar evaluates the book and how to study mil history. The book itself is a major new textbook of high importance to all readers. So we have two references to three separate very useful items (which I carefully looked at myself). Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Southern Cross of Honor[edit]

Have you taken a look at this? Talk:Southern_Cross_of_Honor I asked for some documentation on the wartime aspects of this one 6 years ago... That yielded an link that is now dead. I've found the Act, but I'm skeptical of the rest of the text pertaining to wartime. Red Harvest (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the note. I really don't know anything about it. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road[edit]

I was right about thinking it was copyvio - it's from Tang dynasty. Will you please fix it as you reinstated it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

there is no copyvio when copying from article to article inside Wikipedia--the rule is that the copy should be acknowledged, which I just did. see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely considered copyvio if it isn't acknowledged. I know of at least one editor blocked for it. If you don't believe me, ask Moonriddengirl. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It's now fully acknowledged--a very simple process you can do without erasing material. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Tax Causation[edit]

Hi, I'm not trying to argue with the revert or anything, I just think that a lot of people tend to associate a cause of the American Revolution with the colonists' unwillingness to pay higher taxes (certainly the author I quoted, Niall Ferguson, asserts as much in the book). Would it be alright if I mentioned this belief and say that it is not historically true? This way it would prevent people from believing the popular misconception that the Revolution was caused through high taxes, rather than the no taxation without representation reason. Cheers, Uhlan talk 03:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There are 100 ways of misreading major events and I think Wikipedia should stick to the ways that the leading reliable sources cover them. Ferguson is not an expert on this topic. The article on the American Revolution states the matter clearly I think: The colonists objected chiefly on the grounds not that the taxes were high (they were low),[6] but because they had no representation in the Parliament. Benjamin Franklin testified in Parliament in 1766 that Americans already contributed heavily to the defense of the Empire. He said local governments had raised, outfitted and paid 25,000 soldiers to fight France—as many as Britain itself sent—and spent many millions from American treasuries doing so in the French and Indian War alone.[7][8] Stationing a standing army in Great Britain during peacetime was politically unacceptable. London had to deal with 1,500 politically well-connected British officers who became redundant; it would have to discharge them or station them in North America.[9]. The war article really should not be dealing with the political causes, I think, because the nuances get lost. Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, no problem. Uhlan talk 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
great :) Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, but I don't understand this edit summary. You're saying it's incorrect to call the United States the United States? And that as early as 1783 "America" had already come to mean "the United States"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary is plain gibberish. How does the fact that the infobox tells us the full name of the treaty is "The Definitive Treaty of Peace Between Great Britain and the United States of America" give any sort of context to the sentence "This matter was finally settled by the Jay Treaty in 1794, and America's ability to bargain on all these points was greatly strengthened by the creation of the new constitution in 1787."? And why prefer "America" to "United States" when "United States" is (a) 100% correct in all situations; and (b) the strongly preferred version throughout Wikipedia? I don' understand why you would do this. Does it require an RfC? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You claimed people might misunderstand "America" Nonsense--they are reading an advanced article about "The Definitive Treaty of Peace Between Great Britain and the United States of America" -- It is false to claim that Wikipedia "strongly preferred version" -- look at American Revolution and American Revolutionary War and American Civil War as proof. Using the noun "United States" as an adjective is poor style when "America" is better and smoother. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I changed "and America's ability to bargain" to "and the ability of the United States to bargain". What adjective are you talking about? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I take it you agree that Wikipedia has no rule or preference about "America." Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No rule I can find, but certainly a strong preference—it's the preference of a precise term over an ambiguous one. Even on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States there is not a single instance of "America" used to refer to the country. Could you please explicate what issue you have with "United States", especially in an article about a time in history when "America" still overwhelmingly referred to geographical area and not a newborn country? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Historians -- and Wikipedia editors--never refer to the "United States Civil War" or to the "United States language" or "United States Indians". The use of US as an adjective grates. I do not see any difference whatsoever in precision (The United States of Brazil has seldom mixed up)-- although perhaps some Canadian-Americans do. Rjensen (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, it was not being used as an adjective, so why do keep saying that? There isn't even an adjective in either "and America's ability to bargain" or "and the ability of the United States to bargain", unless you count "United". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Did you mean to do this? Not sure if "Fundamentalism has been defined by its leading historian..." makes sense or is NPOV. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to fix a bad edit that garbled the definition. Marsden's status is not POV, it is common knowledge--Google reports over 1400 scholarly books have cited his book on Fundamentalism. see google report Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Standard[edit]

So who did it? Who killed Wikipedia? (Were your quotes solicited?) czar  07:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


MOVED to Talk:Napoleon Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


This user is becoming a major nuisance, and is clearly not here to build an online encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I strongly urge you not to engage in edit warring with this user in live pagespace (edit warring which may reflect badly on you, no matter your good intentions), instead choosing to get the attention of an uninvolved admin to assist. The more eyes we have on this user's behavior, the more likely (and the sooner) this user will hoist himself on his own petard. Please don't feel you have to be the sole defender of the page in question, I see Red Harvest and other users are seeing the same misbehavior. I'm away from keyboard a bunch in the last two weeks, but I'll try to keep eyes on the ACW content area and that user's contributions. Thanks for your efforts to protect the accuracy of the page. BusterD (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

agreed. Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

On the American revoultionary War crap[edit]

Should I just be amused? For a while I was but there does appear to be too many tinfoil hats out there. I am fairly certain in the end if I tried we would be arguing about the wery first word used in the lede. I am close to deciding that if WP cannot get an article like this even close to being neutrally informative then folk should never read or trust what is on WP. Juan Riley (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that User:JuanRiley gather consensus on the talk page to support their positions, best done using reliable sources brought to the discussion. I see four different users that have reverted that editor's contributions from the ARW page in the last week (two in the last few hours), which implies that a fair number of users seem to disagree with that editor's insertions. The user can be as amused as they choose, but if that editor is here to bring us some kind of wisdom or insight, I would suggest first demonstrating ability to work within accepted social norms such as pillars, policies and guidelines. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

George Will[edit]

Please see Talk:George Will#Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And wisecracks are not helpful edits. The issue is what is George Will's position on religion. answer: he is an atheist. So when we ask: what sound was made, we can answer: "there was silence." What was his hair color? "he was bald" is an appropriate answer. etc etc our job is to provide info, not to silence atheists. Rjensen (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please respond at Talk:George Will. That is where you need to go to see if there is a consensus for your position. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
yes i did so. Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You position conflicts with modern scholarship. Eg Wikipedia's article on Religion which states: The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general. Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


I note that your edit was flagged "keep text properly sourced to major expert (ie to J. Israel)" but in fact it had the opposite effect and you may like to reconsider it. The IP certainly downgraded Israel's contribution and the editor who reverted all his work was getting back to what was there before. Chris55 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, my mistake. you're right. Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award[edit]

Marywollstonecraft.jpg Mary Wollstonecraft Award
The Mary Wollstonecraft Award is awarded to contributors who have helped improve the coverage of women writers and their work on Wikipedia through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. In particular, thank you for your efforts with the WikiProject Women writers start-up; your ideas and contributions are much appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal Policy[edit]

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Andrew Jackson article...I was wondering if you could review or possibly make edits to the Indian removal policy section. Was this the "extermination" policy Ulysses S. Grant was refering to when he became President? I added links to Ethnocentrism and Ethnic cleansing...possibly narration can be tightened up a bit...otherwise the article is vastly improving...thanks for you time. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK I will look. looks ok--I made a few minor stylistic changes. (book publishers say too many footnotes bothers a lot of readers), Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The "extermination policy" was not a policy. It was the epithet pro-Indian reformers used to denounce the army. In AJ article, it should be included that Democrats supported AJ's Indian policies but Whigs rejected them (reformers wanted Indians to modernize and that could be hindered if they moved far to the west) Here's an 1866 NY Times editorial : Robert G. Hays (1997). A Race at Bay: New York Times Editorials on "the Indian Problem," 1860-1900. SIU Press. pp. 258–59.  Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen for editing the Indian removal policy...One historian Latner 2002 believes Jackson's removal policy was one of race ethnocentric, in other words, Jackson wanted only a white society not shared by Indians...and that his policies ultimately led to casualties during the "removal" process...The article does not state extermination policy...Are there any other areas the section can be improved ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Latner seems to be saying something else: that state governments should have jurisdiction over Indians inside their boundaries. If the Indians disagreed the Fed gobvt would pay to remove them west where they could run their own affairs without any state govt. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on "Republic of Georgia (1861)" and similar?[edit]

I stumbled across the Republic of Georgia (1861) and an associated "pre-CSA states" template. The GA article has been nominated for deletion and from what I saw of its history I voiced my support. That led me to Alabama Republic and Republic of Florida which also appear unreferenced or very weakly sourced. I notice that Republic of Louisiana was deleted/converted to a redirect in this manner. The question I have is if these others should be deleted as well? Alabama's at least says "informally" but the links to the state archives don't look like very strong support for the claim--amounting to a sum total of "This flag has often been referred to as the Republic of Alabama Flag." There is a mention of this in the "History of Alabama" article as well, and not surprisingly it is un-sourced.

There seems to be some effort to create these "Republic of" articles, but I'm not seeing contemporary documentation cited for most that the names actually existed. The official wording in convention journals and such is typically "State of ..." before and after secession, which is self-consistent with their claimed right of secession as "sovereign states." Now, if they commonly went by such a "Republic" name and/or perhaps used it for official documents in some fashion, then I would have no objection. But if instead these are attempts to create new modern names based on speculation or fringe blogs, then they should be deleted. Red Harvest (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

yes these are junk articles not based on suitable reliable secondary sources. They are inventions and should be deleted--"State" is the proper terminology. Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm confused as to how you continue to justify removing the information that was added by me. You keep claiming that Sherman was not related to Sharecropping yet you fail to see the direct connection between his policy of 40 acres and a mule and the evolution of sharecropping in the US. I realize that the information may bother you however it is truthful. It can all be researched, and yes eviction was a major issue for black families that attempted to stay on the land they lived on.

Your edits remove an important part of Black History and belittle the abuses upon the community via sharecropping. If this were a philosophy debate there might be middle ground, but your claims for edit remain unfounded where as mine are cited and clearly visible.

I study sociology, specifically race relations and wealth inequality. The information I had added is valid and I would request you stop removing data that is founded in truth and evidence. The picture currently painted on that wikipage is one that hardly mentions the influence of race relations on Sharecropping in the US, and if you talk to people educated about Black history, they will certainly tell you that Sharecropping and the Freedmen's Bureau had a profound effect on Blacks during Reconstruction. It was yet another tool which was used to lift up White America at the cost of Black America. This is evident by the fact that wealth overwhelming belonged to Whites, and even poor Whites could at least afford to sharecrop. For many Black families even Sharecropping was not a valid solution since you still needed money to get started.

The history painted of sharecropping on that page is one of White history. It mentions Black people 6 times, each time as a counter to White. As if it was an afterthought, tossed in there to try and show some level of inclusion.

IDK, maybe we should break the US section up, or create a subsection to discuss the ways in which Sharecropping affected Blacks.

As for the Sherman thing, yes, Sherman was very much linked to Reconstruction, Slavery, and Sharecropping.


That is but one example that discusses the way in which General Sherman, 40 Acres and a Mule, and Sharecropping in the US are related.

I'm not here to have an editing war, I am here to update that wikipage so it more accurately represents history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmacdonald86 (talkcontribs) 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that I typed in and linked to Andrew Jackson, not I've fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmacdonald86 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sherman idea had no sharecropping component--there would be no landlords and no sharecropping. His proposal was never implemented--and as a general in the army he had no role in handling land claims. Historians do NOT treat Sherman as a major player. Inclusion weakens the article with a unrelated side issue. I have worked on issues of Sharecropping and the Freedmen's Bureau for 40+ years and consider it very important, which is why I get involved. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2014[edit]

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe · MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

John Foster Dulles[edit]

You might want to review your change at John Foster Dulles -- perhaps you clicked save too soon? — Brianhe (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks -- I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternate name for "Religion" infobox descriptor?[edit]

Having gotten involved in that crazy template infobox person discussion about atheism, it is clear that nothing bearing that name will be allowed in the infobox, even in the form of "None (atheist)" which satisfies all of their concerns, but none of their biases. Reminds me of why I avoid religious discussions--the circular logic. Guy Macon's reasoning has been the most sophomoric I've ever seen by an experienced editor, nearly every piece of it is easily dismantled. It has become obvious that his arguments are shifting/morphing merely to keep the info out in any form as long as the descriptor is "Religion", even though related counter views and such should carry weight/notability as well. What they are doing isn't right, but they have been getting away with it under a phony consensus claim. Method has been to repeat a falsehood often enough...

So a potential solution I see is changing or adding a descriptor so that alternatives to standard religion can be included as they should be. One way is changing it to "Religion/Irreligion." That would strip away any cover for exclusion. Another would be to have two separate choices of descriptor: one to cover the spectrum of defined variants of "None" and the other to fall under "Religion" as it does now. But what is the best name for the new category? "Irreligion"? There should be a good answer for it, but I don't expect one from the anti's in the discussion. Any ideas for terminology that would fit the broad bill? Red Harvest (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would not necessarily be opposed to using "Religious identification", as used in the US census. That also has the advantage of indicating that the subject actively identifies with, or is identified with in reliable sources, the description - which in my view could include "Atheism". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That term "Religious identification" is going to allow the same argument. There appear to be some atheists commenting who don't want the religion tag nearby either even with "None (atheism)." Rjensen, we can move this to my page if you want, I figured we needed some place to discuss this rationally without a bunch of noise about "why does it even have to be in the infobox." Of course on my page Guy Macon is posting warnings so it won't be noise free there either. Oh well. Red Harvest (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Helmut Schmidt[edit]

Hello, I understand your disagreement leading to your original revert but was hoping to explore further your objection about "lightweight trivia" that pokes ridicule at an elderly politician. His cigarette habit features frequently in writings about him, both in German (a book about him titled "Helmut Schmidt - Der letzte Raucher") and in English e.g. a recent Guardian piece. Perhaps this is a symptom of lazy journalists eager to latch onto something to fill out their interviews or flesh out his character, but I don't see this as ridiculing anyone (other than possibly EU bureaucrats). As an aside, I am a lifelong non-smoker but have no particular agenda vis-à-vis smoking. I do welcome your feedback before I make any further changes to the article. Thank you for your time.-Ich (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

this story About buying 200 cartons of His favorite cigarette brand he thought would be discontinued is only designed to ridicule a very old man, and it disgraces Wikipedia to be used as a vehicle for such petty politics. Doubtless a lot of German's hated him and think he deserves nothing but ridicule. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Dean Acheson[edit]

Information.svg Hi. While I don't necessarily disagree with some of the content of your edit, it was a bit grammatically awkward, and contained some unsupported conclusions. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Blackout (wartime)[edit]

That was a good edit you made here except why did you undo my work? SlightSmile 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OOPS--my mistake. I restored your good edit. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. SlightSmile 21:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

New Spain[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits, removing "Kingdom of New Spain" and adding a citation. I'd like to go further and clarify references to the King of Castile. It seems that, in the later days of the Spanish Empire, the King of Castile was not necessarily the King of Spain, and that the New Spain article should note changes happening back in Spain. What do you think? WCCasey (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. The historians of New Spain emphasize the change to a Bourbon regine. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.