User talk:Rjensen

see previous talk at Archive 21

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31

Agricultural Adjustment Act

Hello! I am wondering what problems you had with my edits on the Agricultural Adjustment Act. I added correct citations and corrected punctuation errors, as well as other errors (such as changing 300 billion to the correct number as cited in the original source, 3 billion). I don't see why you reverted my edits. Thanks. Johnson History202 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the text is copied word for word without any indication of this. You have to use at least quote marks for long quotes. Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why, for the fact that I did not add a quotation mark to a long quote (while still citing the source in a footnote), gave you merit to revert all of my edits. I will be happy to add the quotation marks. Johnson History202 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

breaking a major rule is pretty serious. I recommend you do edits in smaller chunks rather than expect others to figure out for you which if any any additional sentences you added are legit by the Wiki rules or not. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for forgetting to add the quotation marks. I went back and added them under the Implementation section where I made that long quote. Johnson History202 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

I have a question is your proposed addition for the lead or the body of the article? (Side note I reverted your addition). -- Moxy (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes? my main argument is that the lede of the chief article on Canada has to be accessible to a wide range of users worldwide. Many will only read the opening lede. They should read a brief summary of the main Canadian situation, rather than be shunted off to long articles on other topics. I think it is essential to tell them about the different ethnocultural streams that comprise all of Canadian history from the colonial era to the present. As for the history of the geographical expansion, that is indeed more complicated and perhaps can be left out of the lead. As for the American Revolution, I think all Canadian historians are agreed that it was the exiled Loyalists who became the main base of the British element in Canada, dominating Canadian culture, economy and politics outside Quebec (and indeed the economy of Quebec until 1960s as well). Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead should be short and enticing - in fact very short as most will not spend more the a few seconds reading an article anywhere - (You Won’t Finish This Article). An article like History of the United States will not be read...in fact the lead size will deter many of the bat to read any of it. Small lead that makes readers want to learn more is best in my opinion. Need to entice readers with things like "various conflicts" that are linked to overall topics of interests. All that said see what others have to say.--Moxy (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most students want some quick facts and if it is not in the lead, they will not plunge in and go to a long detailed article the great majority of which has little or no interest to them. They are not so easily "enticed." In this case Canada's history is very poorly summarized in the space given and no one will want to read more of this stuff. A reader from Japan, say, will learn very little from it. Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to disagree on this point. I see History of the United States as a huge deterrent...looks like a text book. The reason students are here is because there not reading there text books and library books to begin with. Just a different approach I guess. -- Moxy (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a student has 5 min. to spend on the Canada article, he will learn almost nothing to remember except that it large & has a long border and is ruled by a Queen & belongs to a lot of strange and unknown groups. There is no enticement. There are links to long articles that hardly mention Canada. As for the US article, read it and you can actually pass the exam. Textbooks of course are 500 or 1000 pages long. The Canada article itself is mediocre and misleading. The Government section leads with the Queen. Do kids take notes from the top or the middle I wonder? Responsible govt three sentence mentioned it happened but does not say what it was. Wars? -- check out the coverage of 1760, Am Rev and 1812. 1867--don't ask why that happened. NAFTA gets a mostly meaningless sentence.. The culture section has one sentence "Historically, Canada has been influenced by British, French, and aboriginal cultures and traditions." (leaving out the other folks) and pretty well ignoring what's happening now & for the last 200 years. All in all hard sledding for students. The economy operates very well indeed -- but without any corporations or labour unions worth mentioning. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is much that can be fixed - but the lead summarizes the topic as a whole and prepares the reader for the details in the subsequent sections. Simply no need for details and links that take readers to semi related topics in the lead. Got to remember its an overview article that leads to many main articles. We could go into more detail as you suggest but I think our readers would benefit more if we were to mention things like popular media, Income, poverty, and crime etc...over more details that are all covered in the main articles on each topic. -- Moxy (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever philosophy you have, I think the Canada lede is poor and unexciting and the article itself is mediocre. Maybe I'm just impressed with the history & politics articles on Canada--they generally are very good. A reader of this article with think the Queen runs the country! Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the token historian

Hey Jensen—I was watching your Wikimania talk and towards the end, you mentioned being singled out by other historians as "the Wikipedia editor" in the footnotes of articles (I know how historians love their footnote wars). If you have a second, could you point me in the direction of articles that have mentioned you like this? I have database access, so I won't need much more than the titles/authors. I'm curious what they had to say. czar ♔ 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the first cite is Roy Rosenzweig, "Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past." The Journal of American History 93.1 (2006): 117-146 page 140 note#65. My talk is now in print in much expanded form at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF see also http://blog.history.ac.uk/2014/02/wikipedia-the-war-of-1812-and-australian-sports-history/ also http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-done-its-close-says-historian-1C6747138 and http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/surmounting-the-insurmountable-wikipedia-is-nearing-completion-in-a-sense/264111/ Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reads—thanks!

czar ♔ 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, good reads. Comments like Rosenzweig's "many professional historians remain skeptical about Wikipedia" are an implicit criticism of WP:CRED. I've had no success getting history professors to sign on to the Education Program despite being a history major myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps the deepest irony is the extent to which the professors and their students themselves use Wikipedia with just about any topic since it's the first hit and most comprehensive source when searching. To my eyes, I see a gap between private use and academic posturing, which (hypocritically) precludes any formal sanctification of Wikipedia in the classroom. At the same time, I don't think "Wikipedia-in-the-classroom" is as good an idea writ large as "no-classroom-and-Wikipedia-certainly-outside-it". As a history of education grad student, I'd rather not force undergrads (or professors) uninterested in editing into the world of Wikipedia. I'll provide opportunities to become Wikipedia-literate, and eventually those interested in how source material and power dynamics drive cultural narrative (which seems to be the point of the 1812 piece) will learn to appreciate the intricacies of the most influential text of their time. But this is to underscore that we're a long way off from WP editing's consideration as a form of civic duty (in academic quarters as well as the public sphere), regardless of its current completeness. czar ♔ 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I add: that makes good sense to me. I'm inclined to encourage younger students to develop a capacity for discriminating use of Wikipedia (following links, testing sources etc), as part of the basics for intelligent graduate studies, while undergrads. should obviously be deterred from misuse of any encyclopedic source, online or in print. But so much depends on the quality of tuition, and, on the whole, good teachers are likely to be too busy as practising teachers, or maybe writing up for academic or popular publication, to make a hobby of contributing. Qexigator (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have not seen any tenured or tenure-track professor who writes for Wikipedia. (I retired from academe way back in the last century.) Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. We Didn't Start the Fire... etc, etc. Hopefully it will be closed anyway but you should have been notified. Stalwart111 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Seward

What bibliography would you recommend on him? I've just started work, and I have the Stahr and Taylor bios, plus Team of Rivals plus whatever I have from the Johnson and Stevens projects. Both books and articles. I can get more,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

those bios are good. I always liked the bio by Van Deusen, which is stronger on the New York years. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured so, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States Army country flag

First National Flag - the Confederate flag of history

An alternative Confederate country flag is now displayed in the Infobox for the Confederate States Army which is repeatedly disruptive of Jefferson Davis page and other Confederate personalities. It is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV.

The Confederate States army served under the "First National Flag", the history article at WP should picture the flag of their time, the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. This flag is used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865.

The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

Do you believe that this is sufficient documentation to replace the Blood-Stained-Banner in the Infobox of 'Confederate States Army'? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes i completely agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully challenged the use of the BSB at Battle of Fort Pulaski, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis. The last attempt to replace the First National Flag with the BSB at Confederate States of America was reverted by others. Is there some systematic way of protecting the First National Flag in Infoboxes? with a bot or something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for help. Rjensen (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California oil and gas industry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destiny revert

You did it seconds before I was using TW to undue it and add to his talk page! Alatari (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy PQ 17

You made a change to the Introduction here. I've reverted it (per BRD) as I feel it misrepresents the situation. I've opened a discussion here. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're right and I tried to fix it. Pound's role is critical--he was the one who made the decision for the Brits. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm: Perhaps you should have said this there, as I was pretty annoyed with your response, and came here to tear you off a strip. As it is, I've already re-written the text by way of a compromise, but it'd be better to discuss the matter fully first, rather than messing around with he article. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you

What is your opinion of the usage of primary sources? Should primary sources be given status over reliable secondary sources?
Also, I am having a "discussion"[1] with another editor who has changed a sentence referenced by Mallett and Shaw[2] to reflect, I suspect, their own personal opinion. As well as adding a journalist, Luigi Barzini, Jr., as a source for his changes.
I would like your opinion on these matters, if you don't mind. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay out of the Italian wars (I'm not an expert on that period). Barzini is (marginally) a reliable secondary source on 20th century Italy; he is witty and has lots of insights but does not do systematic research. His knowledge of history is mediocre. He is generally NOT reliable on pre 1900 Italian history in general. On the battle of Fornovo, however, he did read several good books and is marginally a reliable source. I would recommend that Wiki editors look at a much better source such as Antonio Santosuosso, "Anatomy of Defeat in Renaissance Italy: The Battle of Fornovo in 1495." The International History Review vol 16#2 (1994) pp: 221-250 or the more popular Fornovo 1495: France's Bloody Fighting Retreat (Osprey Publishing, 1996) by David Nicolle. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geacron/sorry.

Sorry I'm not English-speaking. You write: You seem to have an unusual interest in the GeaCron historical atlas...is there a conflict of interest?

I created the page Geacron as a translation of the Spanish version. As it was an orphan, I have tried to link to her pages with which I estimate is directly related.

As indicated help instructions on Orphan pages, create links that suitable estimates. I'm not a very experienced user in the English wikipedia and I did not know these restrictions.

Maybe you could see if geacron.com deserves that recognition.

Celemin (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)celemin[reply]

BRD

It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Begin an edit war. Please self-revert and begin a discussion in Talk. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: textbook No that's a misreading: The wp:BRD recommends against erasing serious material without a serious explanation. it says: "revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." Your offhand claim that 18 cites for a major topic covering every discipline in the modern university is "way too many" is silly; I suggest your decision to reduce the reading list to zero items seems a bit like anti-intellectualism. Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuk off you saggy-balled fag-got.