User talk:Rjensen

see also /Archive 14 I've been on the road most of the summer but I'm back now. My current editing interest includes English history of the Tudor Era into the early 18th century--I have not studied this period in many years and it's a pleasure getting back to it and reading up on the new literature. (And I confess, the great films about Henry Viii, Thomas More, Elizabeth I etc are what sparked my interest) Rjensen (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Master of the Rol

For reference, the "bibliography" section is "books or journal articles used in the writing of this article" and not "books or journal articles related to this article". Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For outstanding rescue work on History of immigration to the United States Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Suffrage Revert

Reversion of Edits on Results Etc. Suffrage in United States

First I had it chopped for heavy POV, then for RS. I'm checking the sources, but I really don't see a problem with the content or the sources. Recent good sources for recent events, contemporary sources for historical events--what is the problem? Couldn't you come up with a more constructive edit than just chopping whole paragraphs out?Brechbill123 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

there is a large, sophisticated scholarly literature on anti-suffrage. It comprises the RS, not sources like MSNBC or Washington Times (their reporters were not there in 1920). Likewise Ann Coulter is not a RS. A very starter source is Kraditor, Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement. Also Louise Stevenson, "WOMEN ANTI-SUFFRAGISTS IN THE 1915 MASSACHUSETTS CAMPAIGN" New England Quarterly, Mar1979, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p80-93, online at JSTOR. (Politically, by the way, Kraditor started on the left and moved right; Stevenson is a conservative) also see the Green article in JSTOR. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

History of Canada

Was wondering if you have a page number (or range) for the ref Restoring the chain of friendship as I was going to link up the book but i cant find the pages that are relevant.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

pp 243-44 are probably most useful. The holding forts = p 14; Jay treaty is pp 55-56; evacuation of posts = p 59; weapon sales are on p 104 & 121; support for Indians in Midwest = 59-61; Indians in Michigan = p 76; etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok wow lots - think i will just link the book with a hidden note in the ref - just in case we need that for a GA review in the future.Moxy (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

good solution! Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

hello again

We may need to defend some of our bibs in the near future - see here.Moxy (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I responded. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: your correct reversion of drive-by tag

I've made precisely that case to the user here. BusterD (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. the editor involved can't tell the difference between accurate statements based on RS and statements based on personal POV, as shown by his recent edits to the article in question. Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker and cause of American Civil War

I appreciate our previous conversations. I believe the Civil War was caused by slavery. I interpreted Baker as saying that political debate was unable to solve slavery, not political debate caused slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker says very little about slavery. He says the overheated rhetoric escalated out of control & caused the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker did not directly say, as mentioned before, overheated rhetoric caused the Civil War. His article was to point out that Charles Sumner's rhetoric was the primary factor for Preston Brooks beating up Charles Sumner in the Senate Chamber. I thought that Baker's description of the Charles Sumner "beating" was accurate. Sumner was attempting to defend himself against the attack, and Brooks attacked Sumner while he was trapped in the Senate chair, because Sumner was a large man at 6 foot tall and would have been able to defend himself. As a solution, what I propose is that any questionable "peer review" source from American Heritage Magazine, would be put in the discussion page for Wikipedia editors to discuss. This I believe would avoid controversy in the future. Does this sound reasonable? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker adds zero that is new--and something that is old: overheated rhetoric caused the war. Note how he starts his essay with the overheated rhetoric of the Clinton impeachment (1998) -- that's what really bothers him, I think. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Rjensen. A good policy, in my opinion, for American Heritage Magazine would be to put any questionable "peer review" sources in the discussion page for the Charles Sumner article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

there is no peer review for Am Heritage; they have no editorial board and the chief editor is himself an amateur; the Baker piece is a column--more like a blog. Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, I apoligize for not putting in the Baker article in the discussion page first before putting in the source and edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

no need to apologize.. I think we've exhausted the Am heritage issue :) Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to over discuss this, but why is it okay for you to use American Heritage as a source (and after this latest Baker kerfluffle), but not for User:Cmguy777? It seems like you're demanding source approval from another editor, but using personal discretion for yourself. What's the difference between Baker as a popular interpreter of history and screenwriter Chowder? Neither seems a scholarly source. BusterD (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My thinking is this: When Am Her publishes an essay by an established scholar, we can use it as a RS because of the scholar's previous reputation. When it publishes an essay by someone who is not a scholar or expert on the topic (eg Baker), then we can't use it as a RS. Am Heritage's imprimatur doesn't count, in my book. By contrast the Journal of American History (say) goes through a VERY elaborate review process by scholars to make sure all its articles are very solid. (I was on the editorial board for three years and saw how it worked). An Heritage does no such quality control and the results are sad to see. Chowder is an established documentary maker who worked with many experts over a couple years to make a film on John Brown for PBS. Baker dashed an essay off after browsing through a couple books. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I respect your input BusterD. I believe the Baker issue has been resolved and I do not believe Rjensen is in any way or has in the past demanded of myself source approval. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

President McKinley & the Wizard of Oz

Hi. Thanks for uploading the wonderful political cartoon depicting President William McKinley as Old Mother Hubbard, File:1897 cartoon with William McKinley and little Toto-like dog.jpg. I was wondering about the description of Old Mother Hubbard's dog as "Toto-like"; If I understand correctly that text was from you. I don't see anything in Baum's character Toto (Oz) having been influenced by the older nursery rhyme in the Toto article, so I'm wondering, what's the connection? Thanks for your work and time. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

the dog has a key role with the Wizard = McKinley is the link. In the book it's Toto who pulls back the curtain exposing the Wizard (McKinley). Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting metaphor. Is this free association, or do you think there's some actual link, eg do you think Baum had this cartoon in mind when he wrote "Wizard of Oz"? Infrogmation (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking in part because this image is currently used as an illustration in Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, which doesn't seem to be appropriate to me, even if your theory that the cartoon was some sort of foreshadowing of or influence on Baum's book is true. Infrogmation (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

it's not so much Baum it's the artist Denslow--he was a full time editorial cartoonist for a major Chicago newspaper and he drew editorial cartoons like that (no one so far has gone back and looked at Denslow's actual newspaper cartoons). Baum on the other hand was a national expert in department store window displays (such as the animated-window Christmas scenes you still see today) Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It is a wonderful editorial cartoon of the period. I'd like to see more of Denslow's work; anything else you'd care to scan and upload to Commons would be more than welcome! While I don't quite follow what you are suggesting (similar themes in the popular culture at the time?), it does sound interesting. I never thought of the story and iconography of Old Mother Hubbard as similar to the Wizard of Oz before, but I'll give it some thought. That said, any connection between this cartoon and Baum's book of 3 years later seems indirect or metaphorical at best, and the cartoon certainly doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, so I'll remove it from that article. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the words "Toto-like" should be removed from the file as original research. (Flawed, imho.) Yopienso (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

the cartoon links the dog, a shocking discovery, McKinley, and the Wizard. That complex link is repeated in a key passage in the Wizard of Oz. Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but again the article title was "Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz", not something like "Oz-like anticipations predating The Wizard of Oz", so the illustration doesn't belong on that article. Some sort of essay on images in popular culture which were were later incorporated into the Oz iconography might be interesting (I'd probably enjoy seeing it), but unless it can be independently referenced I fear it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:No original research). Best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

better double check the rule on OR; this falls inside the limits (any educated person with access to the picture can see the links).Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Since The Wonderful Wizard of Oz wasn't published until 1900, I don't see how this cartoon could possibly refer to him. I don't believe President McKinley is being represented as a witch, either, but, as the cartoon itself says, as Old Mother Hubbard. The "witch's hat" is simply the kind of hat women wore in the 1500s. See here and here and here. Scroll down on the first to see it was printed in 1912; scroll down on the second for the reproduction of a book printed long enough ago it cost three cents. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's McKinley & the dog plays a key role as = Uncle Sam = American people who the president is supposed to be taking care of. The dog/American people discover the failure. witches in the 1890s were depicted with that hat. the cartoon is dated 1897. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War - speedy deletion?

Is the speedy deletion notice on "American Civil War" vandalism? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Though you didn't ask me, I can answer: It was due to User:$1LENCE D00600D putting a speedy delete notice on a template in use in the article without removing the template from the article first -- so the speedy deletion notice appeared in the article! I advised the user to be more cautious in the future. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Osofsky journal article

And I see why you feel strongly. The article is a biting critique of Donald's methods, choices and analysis. I'll confess I've never read through the prize winning Donald opus, but seen through Osofsky's eyes, I'd feel more comfortable and safer making assessments after listening to what Osofsky has to say. This was published in 1973, when you were still new in your career, so I can also see why it would have remained clearly in your memory (somebody ripping a Pulitzer prize winning book to shreds). I'd have remembered such a work myself. I'm wondering why the article doesn't get a mention in the historiography section, given his particular opinions on the various sources (many of which we're using in pagespace). One more thing: the article mentions a book by the same author Toward an American History for the 1970's which it says "...will include a significantly enlarged version of this essay." Did that book get published? Why didn't we use the book source as more recent and more complete? I didn't find any sources reviewing the Osofsky journal article, but surely somebody reviewed his book. It would be wise to use some newer scholarship which also critiques Osofsky's observations. Thanks for sticking to your guns; I've learned something today. BusterD (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Osofsky died before completing that book and it was never published. Rjensen (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sad. He was clearly a gifted and unflinching historian. Surely there are newer works which incorporate and critique the Osofsky article, right? BusterD (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

not to my knowledge. Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Steinfels

After puffing up Steinfels's historian credentials, you can hardly object to including his DSOC association, when Lipset states that that the feud between Harrington and SDUSA is essential to understanding the bizarre history of "neoconservatism".

I had forgotten that Steinfels even put "SDUSA" in quotes and that he named Bayard Rustin a neocon!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Steinfels has his own article where he should be covered. He is not a neocon and it seriously misleads people to suggest he is by going into his biography. He is a well regarded historian of the neocons and that makes for an RS. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Steinfels is a neocon, although he apparently resigned from DSA's religion and socialism commission when they accepted a witch's membership!  ;)

I am saying (1) Steinfels was acting as an editor of a lay Catholic journal, of socially liberal/social-democratic/democratic socialist orientation, when he wrote his book, not as an academic historian, which makes that the relevant identification (rather than his knowledge about the Hapsbergs). (2) He may have had a "stake in that dog show" (as Dr. Phil says), the faction fight between DSOC and SDUSA, since he was a member and at some point was an officer of DSOC or DSA (at least its Commission): I just documented that he wrote "SDUSA" with scare quotes and that he called Bayard Rustin a neoconservative; the first strikes me as childish and the second as laughable.

I remember liking his book, but I suggest a bit of caution on some parts, that's all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Steinfels is a well trained scholarly historian and writes like one. He spends only about three pages on socialist roots--in quite sophisticated fashion--then moves on--spending most of his attention on just three people (Kristol, Bell, Moynihan). He does not call Rustin a neocon. In any case it's his evidence on the neocons that are useful for the neocon article; the rest of his career belongs in his own article. Speculation about whether he had a dog in the fight is off limits. (It's OR and irrelevant and sheds no light on the neocons). Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi RJensen,

I cited page 5 in Steinfels, and the section is visible at Google if you look. He calls Bayard Rustin a neoconservative along with young members of "SDUSA", which he puts in scare quotes. This is not writing like a scholarly historian.

I have never suggested putting my OR into the article. I'm just informing you of the facts. Another fact is that Commonweal used to be down the hall from DSA ....

BTW, those three are exactly the ones named by Harrington. You are wrong on Rustin, as I noted before: See page 5.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No page 5 mentions Rustin as a contributor to Commentary ["one also finds there"] and warns "By no means should every contributor...be considered a neoconservative." The other mentions of Rustin do not call him a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me check that then. It may be that I could only see that page at Google, and made an erroneous assumption that he was discussing neocns: that would have been sloppy! I trust that he did use the scare quotes ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I was correct. His lead sentence on page 5 says something like "Not everybody publishing in Commentary was a neocon, but ... some set and stayed the course" of neoconservatism, before listing the names of the most prominent neoconservatives----finally ending with Rustin and "SDUSA" youngsters (e.g. Gershman).  Kiefer.[[User I was correct. His lead sentence on page 5 says something like "Not everybody publishing in Commentary was a neocon, but ... some set and stayed the course" of neoconservatism, before listing the names of the most prominent neoconservatives----finally ending with Rustin and "SDUSA" youngsters (e.g. Gershman). Btalk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]] 03:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning, I could only see a few lines from the top and the middle. It is possible that Steinfels listed Rustin and SDUSA as boyscout leaders, but I have discounted that possibility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Better get the book. He lists a lot of people not usually consideerd neocons but who contributed to Commentary & Rusting is in that list. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So he starts a second list. I believe you.

BTW you may enjoy Historians politely remind nation to check what has happened in the past.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the harm resulting from my hybridization of the two Steinfels excerpts. Please look at that section again: I do think that it is in better shape than before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn: Good article review

The article Tom Kahn needs a Good-Article reviewer, and your knowledge and goodwill (coupled with mild irritation) would make you an ideal reviewer.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

George Anastaplo needs an article

I read that you have worked in Chicago and published on Illinois history. Given your knowledge of Leo Strauss, you may enjoy writing about George Anastaplo, whose mentioning of the "Right of Revolution" in the McCarthy era got him in Dutch with the American Bar Association, which then asked him about his political affiliations. Anastaplo, a Straussian and decorated Army Air-Force officer, asserted his First-Amendment rights (association) and declined to answer the question. The Supreme Court heard the case, and Anastaplo never was admitted to the Bar. However, he did receive a stirring dissent from Justice Hugo Black, which is worth reading.

Justice Hugo Black's dissent affirms the right of revolution

George Anastaplo was barred from ever practicing law simply because he stated that American constitutional law supported the right of revolution discussed in the Declaration of Independence and then insisted on the Freedom of Association in declining to answer questions about his political affiliations (during McCarthyism). Here is the closing dissent by Justice Hugo Black, the whole of which has been added to WikiMedia: "The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War. Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those. In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. [1] Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself. This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. [2] It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France [3]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots [4]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party [5]-men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it. But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. [6] This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free."

(I find it bizarre that neoconservatives are accused of having personality pathologies and political goals that are displayed by nearly all Americans on July 4th!)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Anastaplo and Kahn need attention, but it's not something i'm working on these days. Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: September 2011

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

---

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

See talk

I would suggest you have a look at Talk:Crusades section I just added regards Montalban (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your LBJ edit

Thanks for doing the work, providing the cites and making the text verifiable. --Javaweb (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

thanks--ok I admit to being a footnote-freak! Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Sumner article

Hello Dr. Jensen. I have recently been making edits on the Charles Sumner article. I have expanded on the Dominican Republic annexation treaty and information on President Grant. Are there any other areas that need work on the CS article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your good work! I'll look at it again. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Theses and dissertations

Hello,

Regarding your edit of the Canadian History bibliography, several of those authors are also included in that bibliography elsewhere, having published articles and books on the topic. I thought the resources I added would be a useful addition because they're open access. My understanding is that theses can be admissible if they are of 'significant scholarly value,' although the definition of that hasn't been forthcoming. Given the above facts, would you consider those works to be applicable? Thanks. Cbakker (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

significance -- one test (which is listed in WP:RS) is whether anyone cites it. I checked one item (RALSTON "john robinson campbell") published in 1984, and google shows zero citations in 27 years. Rjensen (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to be the only test listed in WP:RS and there seems to be no other assessment of quality. However, works by Hayes, Iarocci, and Campbell, among others, are all included in the bibliography as journal articles and books, many of these being based on their earlier work, their theses. Cbakker (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

well that's the point: the good theses get published, the others do not. Publication is a major test--lots of editors and experts decide its quality, not one thesis director. In the case of the MA cites, I fear that the person who posted them did not read any of them to gauge their quality. Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that those journals and books are inaccessible to the majority of people in the world, unless you're fortunate enough to have access to libraries with enough funding. The theses on which they were based are accessible to everybody with an internet connection. I can't speak for every individual who has posted anything on wikipedia, but personally, I always read what I cite, on wikipedia or anywhere else. Of course, that's beside the point. I'm just trying to understand how quality is determined in this community. Cbakker (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

in the history world quality is judged by PhD committees, editors, editorial boards, reviewers (in journals), & scholars (who cite items and compile bibliographies). Rjensen (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the wikipedia community as a whole, since theses aren't being judged on a discipline by discipline basis. I also find it interesting that in your experience theses are approved by a single thesis director, since this has never been the case in my experience. But, it appears that this conversation is not necessarily leading to a fruitful dialogue, so it would be best if we left things where they stand and simply respect that we have differing opinions. Cbakker (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of American conservatism

You are really doing a bang-up job over there. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks! you got the ball rolling and we all appreciate that Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

John Edgar Thomson

Please take a look at the factual errors and overwrought tone of this article. For example, the PRR was founded in 1846 (not 1852). Such flowery praise may be justified for Thomson, but the claims should be supported by more specific citations. The ExplorePAHistory site may be helpful: http://explorepahistory.com/search.php?keywords=thomson&page=1 Thanks. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

any help in fixing wrong dates is appreciated. Historians (esp Chandler) say Thomson was one of the most innovative & important businessman of the era and his role needs to be pointed out. The citations are appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New Deal pic

Hi, what do you think about uploading this pic for the Conservatism timeline? Or this? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

they are both excellent and the copyrights have expired (it was not renewed). Rjensen (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to upload? I would do it but the I didn't see the source for the expired copyright and commons will tag it without substantiation. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Crusades

Hi,

I don't know much about the crusades, so I went to that page to learn something about them and wound up learning zilch. The page is a poorly referenced hodgepodge of phrases and sentences without any flow. Lots of information without references and lots of POV from every side. If you want we can try to work together and put this article into some kind of decent shape because right now its neither here or there. I am going to slowly start at the top and try to go down, verifying references as a starting point, since there are so few of them. Lets talk on the article's discuss section if you have any ideas how to fix this up. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you read a book or two before rewriting a major article like this. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for adding refs. Devourer09 (t·c) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GI Bill

hey i want to talk to u regarding the GI Bill. Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Act of 2011 was Introduced in Congress REcently. a section be added in GI Bill called "Veterans Benefits Proposed in the United States Congress" - then we can put our WIKI under that. similar (but a little different) to List_of_intellectual_property_legislation_proposed_in_the_United_States_Congress Veterans issues are one of the most important social issues facing the United States today - and other countries look at the United States as a model for how to recognize military service. This would be a socially, and legislatively important section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanpatriot1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

about 50 similar bills are introduced every year. When one passes Wikipedia will cover it. The added section lacks a reliable secondary source and lacks criticism--it does not say how unemployed vets will get the half-million $$$$ or more needed for a cheap franchise Rjensen (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:~tj2.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:~tj2.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated taxes for French and Indian War?

Not sure why it had to be in Immigration article, but I had seen somewhere that the British thought the colonists should help pay off the bonds to fight the French and Indian War since they were primary beneficiaries. The colonists did not see nor understand the connection; therefore (ultimately) the revolution. While you correctly deleted the material, the edit summary seemed to say that this was not the intent of the British at all, but intended to provide positions for the military. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

the colonists were not the primary beneficiaries--the Brits fought the war to expand THEIR empire and they made sure the Americans had no role whatever in ruling Canada or the western areas. Britain had a lot of politically connected officers who needed jobs. The new tax revenue was to go to 10,000 soldiers stationed inland to guard AGAINST the Americans and stop them from moving west into the new Indian nation the Brits were setting up. (They had this Indian nation demand as late as the Ghent Treaty negotiations in 1814). Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

More confusion

Hi Rjensen
I've just replied to your 'B-29'/'B-32' comments on the United States aircraft production in World War II talk page.

I also looked at the Google link; I'm not sure if you mean "The Development of the Heavy Bomber 1918-1944" or "USaaf Very Heavy Bomber Bases...". If it is the latter we have to be rather careful that we don't end up going round in circles, i.e. I note that the source used for this publication is... Wikipedia !

Regards RASAM (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

yes that would be a mistake! :) Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and slavery article

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. One issue that I believe that can be addressed is Lincoln's views on African Americans in terms of white supremacy. With your background, I believe you may have the resources for this complex issue. If you have time, I believe your guidance in the matter could improve the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your edit at Evangelicalism provided an excellent reference to a recent, well-received recent publication, and it strengthened the article. This barnstar is given to you in recognition of your particularly fine contribution to Wikipedia. Senator2029 | talk 04:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rjensen! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

your opinion is needed on this article Trust_Clause

Hi Rjensen. What do you think of this article? --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)