User talk:Rjensen

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


the latest archive is Archive 29 as of 18 November 2017

Contents

Clarification[edit]

Hi there, you have reverted a change that I made to the Great Depression in India. I had put my reasons for making the change. Could you please provide the reason for reverting my changes without providing a reasonable explanation. The statements that had been deleted by me do not have any citations or references.

ksinkar (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

if you think an argument is " very narrow perspective" then use the talk page and explain what you really mean with specific details. Perhaps you think there are no "nationalistic" historians in India?? who knows what you mean....Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen,

The "very narrow perspective" is the idea that specific historians can be labelled as "nationalistic". One cannot ignore the fact that historians belong to a specific race, religion, nationality etc. and they observe and report history from the perspective of their life experience. If you think that there is any such thing as an unbiased historian then you are naive. For many historians from the Occident (who consider themselves as being non-nationalist and non-racist), facts are Govt. or newspaper records. The fact that the Govt. and the newspapers of the day misreported and misrepresented facts, knowingly, is often overlooked. You can always base your conclusions on the reports and observations of others but then you cannot assign derogative and dismissive adjectives to conclusions drawn from sources that you have ignored, dismissed and for some reason do not wish to account for.

I do not believe that there are classes of historians: "nationalistic", "liberal" etc. There are just historians. They may have their biases, but that is because of their origins. If you think that a historian's conclusion is incorrect, please point out the logical inconsistency, rather than indulging in name-calling and denigrating the person in an effort to dilute the weight of the argument.

Why is it that your narrative is the normative one, while the other one is "nationalistic"? It is as if you are implying that the historian who maybe an Indian National is making an emotional judgement rather than a logical one? If that is case, then point out the logical flaw instead of indulging in name-calling. Who are these outside scholars who argue that there was no impact on India, why is there no citation for that statement? What makes the statement by the outside scholars the normative one, and the one by the inside scholars "nationalistic"? Who are these Outside Scholars, what are their motivations, intentions, sources?

Let me replace the term "Outside Scholars" in that document with "White Supremacist" and see how you feel. And then when you try to reject that label, I can reply by saying «Perhaps you think white supremacists do not exists in American Universities, who knows what you mean..» ksinkar (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You have not cited anyone in support of your position. Take a look at Q. Edward Wang; et al. (2007). The Many Faces of Clio: Cross-cultural Approaches to Historiography. Berghahn Books. p. 205.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Your view is Eurocentric. You are dividing the world into "west and the rest"[1]. History as written and viewed from your perspective is "history" while from others' perspective is either "nationalist" or "revisionist".

The book quoted by you earlier is also Eurocentric[2], in the sense, their point of reference is Europe. Their narrative of nationalism of the 1800s and 1900s as invented in Europe has shortcomings. The English word Nation has been mentioned in the translation of the New Testament and the Old Testament called King Jame's Bible. There, the 12 tribes of Israel are referred to as the 12 Nations of Israel. The word tribe and nation has been used interchangeably in that book. From a Eurocentric perspective, the West is composed of nations while the rest is composed of tribes. The only difference between European tribes and Indian (NOT Original/Native American) tribes is that geography was generally shared by the same tribes, while in Europe, that was not the case. This did not generally happen in Europe, and when it did, it led to forced displacement of populations like before and after World War 2.

The label of a Nationalist that you have applied to the historians in question is a misnomer and an effort to weaken their arguments by denigrating their narrative as Nationalist. ksinkar (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Hi there, quick question. I ran across an odd sentence in Great Depression in the United States, dug back in the edits, and found you were its author. Would you mind taking a look at the paragraph beginning with "The New Deal was, and still is, sharply debated"? The "dangerous man" phrasing is throwing me... is it meant to be "men" or "a man?" If the latter, is the man Roosevelt? If you could clarify, that would be great. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

you have a sharp eye! It should be "a dangerous man" (ie FDR) and I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Your definition of fasicm being on the far-right is incorrect. Fasicm is actually a left ideal. Look up Giovanni Gentile; the originator of this ideal. His history and ideals are toward socialism. His contemporaries also dealt with Marxism and socialism.

Respectfully submitted, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

One more: the originator of fascicm, Giovanni Gentile, had ties - namely, he had written a book - with Benito Mussolini: The Doctrine of Fascism. Ironically, Wikipedia itself states that Mussoluni moved to the right; however, reading further into this man reflects his heavy socialist leanings.

Again, respectfully submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B026:3236:2D94:7F2:A31F:3DDC (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

you need to cite a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WWII[edit]

FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

yes I just did so Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Scandal categorization[edit]

Hello.

Are you familiar with WP:Categorization (especially about set categories) and WP:INCOMPATIBLE?

The Watergate scandal was a scandal, but Richard Nixon was a person.

The Dreyfuss affair was a scandal, but Alfred Dreyfuss was a person.

If there is a notable scandal, then there should be an article about the scandal itself, such as the Jack Abramoff scandals. People involved the scandal could be categorized as "People associated with ...", such as in Category:People associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals.

If there is not enough material to create an article on the scandal, then create a properly named redirect – e.g. Hugh Dalton budget-leaking scandal – and place it in the appropriate categories, such as indicated in WP:INCOMPATIBLE.

But people cannot be categorized as scandals.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

better quote the exact rule you are using. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Allright, I'll do the reading for you. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization:
  • Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France contains articles whose subjects are cities in France.
and WP:INCOMPATIBLE:
  • 24 Heures is a French-language newspaper in Montreal, but is covered in the article on its English-language sister publications 24 Hours. However, the French-language newspaper and Montreal newspaper categories must be placed on the redirect, as 24 Hours is not the name of a French-language newspaper published in Montreal, while 24 Heures is. Those categories should contain the correct name of the Montreal publication.
HandsomeFella (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Well no -- those quotes say zip about personal names. Actual practice over the years is personal names are very common in scandal categories--dozens of editors disagree with you and have added names to "Category:Academic scandals", Category:Journalistic scandals, Category:religious scandals, Category:sex scandals and so on. Please look and see for yourself. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Those rules are examples, not an exhaustive list. You know how the concept of examples work, right? You can't name every single area where the rules apply.
Yes, editors occasionally add people articles to various scandal categories, that does not make it correct. That's circular reasoning (linking for your convenience, in case you want to read the article yourself).
HandsomeFella (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You invented a rule "But people cannot be categorized as scandals. " (above) that is not useful to readers, not useful to editors, and is ignored by many editors. If readers want to think about scandals, I would say they will not be well served by deletion of (one of) the most famous scandal in British history about a chancellor of the exchequer. Your rule is found nowhere in Wikipedia's vast compendium of rules. Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not invented any rule. The rule is set out in WP:Categorization, the bit about set categories, and it's far from useless. In short, for an article to be categorized in Category:Foos, it has to be about a foo. I.e. for an article to be categorized as a scandal, it has to be about a scandal. That's how it works. Persons are not scandals. Scandals are events, occurrences – not a physical object. A person is very much physical. You cannot say that Hugh Dalton was a scandal. Him leaking the budget was.
You edited the article, adding "This was a scandal ... ". I don't dispute that, but let me just point out that you didn't write "He was a scandal".
I assume that you're not contemplating adding Category:Political scandals in the United States to Richard Nixon or Category:Political scandals in France to Alfred Dreyfuss. Right? Then why adding Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom to Hugh Dalton?
I have now created a redirect – just like what WP:INCOMPATIBLE recommends – and put that in the appropriate categories, so people searching for them via the category system will find it. I named it as I proposed above, and I have also added wiki-links to it here (see above). You're welcome to check it out, adding more categories, and/or discuss the naming.
Concluding, let me just add the fact that for every scandal, there are several, or even many, people involved – some as "perpetrators" and some as "victims". Much of that categorization would also be very subjective. If we were to categorize all those people as scandals, then those categories would be so crowded with people, that we would be looking for scandal categories proper – but hey, wait, we already have that ... Adding to the logic of what I have said above, this reason alone speaks against. Not that this is the main point, but still.
Cheers.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
To be categorized under scandal, an article has to include a scandal. That seems sensible, otherwise we lose most of the scandals in history. I agree you can add a redirect--in the last couple hundred cases you added nothing and instead deleted information. Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't assume that the reason why I was removing data from partial source was due to personal reasons.

I would just as vigorously object and remove any citation of, for example, Bin Laden as an authority on US foreign policy as I will remove the two slanted anti-Arab historians (one of whom is openly so) from the Runciman page.

It's really very simple, I'm sure you would also object to the inclusion of Bin Laden's views on US/western foreign policy as a legitimate source, for example, and yet you are fighting to keep information from a historian who casts Arabs in a poor light due to sympathies with Israeli foreign policy.

It's a little bizzare in my mind that this is being done, and my question is more directly, are you saying a poor source that can be cited must be included regardless of it's factual accuracy or the very high likelihood of implicit bias. That's a real 'floodgate' moment if the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud (talkcontribs) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're last statement is in opposition to the Wiki rules on bias: please read WP:Biased--it states: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. As for a "poor" source, I'm not sure what you refer to, or how you happen to make that judgment. The point here is to avoid bias by WP editors (like you and me) but NOT EXCLUDE bias in the reliable secondary sources. [copy to RUNCIMAN talk page Talk:Steven Runciman Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

About word usage[edit]

At Diplomatic history of World War I - however, using "infected" for an idea (an not merely an emotion) does let the reader make a link between the idea of communism and that of disease (since infected is usually more closely associated with it's usage relative to diseases than to this more imaginative usage - Merriam-Webster lists the meaning you were referring to (3b) together with "contaminate, corrupt" (meaning 3a) (according to the online version at least) 135.23.202.24 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The usage of "infected" could also fall under WP:IDIOM or, stretching it a bit to include usage of synonyms for other words, WP:SAY. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

An infectious disease is one that spreads from person to person by contact--unlike cancer, say, which is caused by environmental conditions. so that is exactly the idea to be conveyed. The Merriam Webster exemplar shows it is not necessarily negative. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing that it is necessarily negative. I was arguing that in this context (with a political idea), the language might be inappropriate since it subconsciously establishes a link in the reader's mind between communism and infection/disease. Also, per WP:SAY, don't use synonyms when it's unnecessary or, in this case, has an implicit POV, even if a purely semantic analysis reveals the usage is correct (much like saying "claimed", "admitted", ...). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
let people worry about their own subconscious fears--you asked for dictionary approval and you have it now. It's common political terminology around the world eg 1) "Populated mainly by predominantly Gaelic-speaking clansmen, who were still used to a life within a social structure where the authority of the chief was not questioned, the Highlands were believed to be far less likely to become infected with radicalism than most other parts of Scotland. " [Scotland and the French Revolutionary War, 1792-1802 (2015) - Page 73]; 2) "Her [Spain's] colonies on our continent, already infected with radicalism, and endangered by the democracy propagated from our shores, threaten every day to fall from her, are a burden rather than a benefit, and cost her much more than ...." [Speech ... on the treaty for the annexation of Texas, 1844]; 3) "The Zanzibar society seems to belong to the category of highly politicised societies. There are very few people, if any, who might be labelled as politically indifferent. Almost everybody is infected with politics." (2001); 4) Stalin, 1937: "Here you have a glaring example of how easily and “simply” some of our inexperienced comrades become infected with political blindness as a result of having their heads turned by economic successes. Such are the dangers associated with successes, with achievements. Such are the reasons why our Party comrades, elated with economic successes, have forgotten about facts of an international and internal character which are of essential importance for the Soviet Union...." ; 5) Ricardo (England) 1817 " to confound all intellectual distinction; to busy the mind continually in supplying the body's wants; until at last all classes should be infected with the plague of universal poverty.”; 6) Michael Oakeshott, (England, 1962) "And only a society already infected with Rationalism will the conversion of the traditional resources of resistance to the tyranny of Rationalism into a self conscious ideology be considered a strengthening of those resources.” etc etc Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
And what do all these have in common? They're criticizing whatever the subject matter is: "our inexperienced comrades become infected with political blindness" "infected with the plague of universal poverty." It being common terminology doesn't making it right, see ad populum. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
add David Hume 1767: " Fears, jealousies, and antipathies were every day multiplying in parliament: And though the people were strongly infected with the same prejudices, the king hoped, that, by dissolving the present cabals, a set of men might be chosen more moderate in their pursuits, and less tainted with the virulence of faction." Yes -- use by the reliable sources makes it "right" for Wikipedia. This encyclopedia summarizes the RS and does not introduce new ideas, -- and it downplays the personal views of its editors. "all these have in common?" -- wrong: it is a good think in Zanzibar (" There are very few people, if any, who might be labelled as politically indifferent. Almost everybody is infected with politics.") and a good thing in Spain's colonies, infected by American ideas about democracy. Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You can't see the forest for the trees. Ok, sorry I missed that one, you still haven't addressed my argument. It's not because most sources use infected that the usage is correct and neutral. In fact, some sources you link do not seem to be neutral at all. Speech ... on the treaty for the annexation of Texas, ; Stalin, 1937 ; WP policy also appears to be consistent with not always using the same terminology as sources, for example WP:SURVIVEDBY. and the Spain example doesn't seem positive, at least in the little context that is given here - the author links "infected with radicalism" with "threaten to fall from her", which from at least a Spanish POV would be a bad thing... 135.23.202.24 (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
re Spain--the American speaker was VERY happy that American radicalism & democracy was undermining the Spanish empire. what is your current argument? "infected" in politics means an idea moving from person to person--there is indeed a sense that it is "radical" in the sense of a threat to the political status quo -- but that is what the article says was happening. the passage you objected to = " When Russia left the war in 1917 these [Russian] prisoners returned home [to Russia] and many carried back support for revolutionary ideas that quickly infected their comrades." Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Except I wasn't talking about the US POV. I didn't object to the whole passage. I just suggested replacing "quickly infected" with "were quickly shared with". This is in line with WP:SAY which says that synonyms should be avoided if it can bring undue POV in an article. I am not saying we should debate the merits of communism or it's failed implementations. Only that we should avoid using "infected" in the same way it is used in political speech, because Wiki isn't political speech... 135.23.202.24 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"shared with" is too tame and nonpolitical (people share jokes. Here we mean trying to get people to overthrow the government.). Article is talking about Germany sending prisoners to Russia knowing the would spread a radical threat to Tsars. -- that is politics. as for WP:SAY -- ??? what section or rule do you refer to? Rjensen (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm interpreting the spirit of the rule, which is "do not use needlessly loaded terms when simpler, neutral, apolitical expressions can be used". The policy explicitly cites the verb say because it's the most common form (after all, people talk a lot and say a lot of things). As for "too tame" - maybe "which quickly circulated among their comrades."? Webster gives 'to become well-known or widespread - rumors circulated through the town' 135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "propagated"? This also gives the impression of radical (common roots with "propaganda") but avoids linking with disease as in the infected case - while propaganda is a more appropriate link since it is political speech.135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not loaded. everyone agrees on what Germany was trying to do-- upset the status quo. Other suggestions fail to make it clear what was happening. Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The use of the term "infected" is not used in the article to describe the action of the German decision-makers. It is used to describe the revolutionary ideas (i.e. communism), which "infected" the Russians. The term "infected" is used to describe the propagation of communism, not the intent of the German decision-makers who caused this. Therefore, we shouldn't make a judgement on communism or it's (failed) implementations, or even those behind it. We should judge whether using "infected" to describe a political idea is neutral. I think it isn't and we should use other verbs which do not bring a link with disease, such as "propagated" or "circulated". 135.23.202.24 (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
the intent of the Germans was to spread anti-govt sentiments in Russia thru the released prisoners. A POV edit means that reliable sources disagree--and there is zero evidence of any such disagreement--you have not cited any RS at all. Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I just said that we shouldn't give a darn about the intent of the Germans. My argument is not about Germans (or their intent) or communism, but rather about using "infected" to describe the spread of a political idea, which brings too much similarities to "disease", despite it's semantically correct meaning. "Propagated" or "circulated" again bring out the rapid spread of the idea (which is correct but not POV, since it did spread rapidly because of the existing situation), and the intent of the Germans is explained in the same paragraph anyway:"Meanwhile, Berlin, aware of the near-revolutionary unrest in Russia in the previous decade, launched its own propaganda war. The Foreign Ministry disseminated fake news reports that had the desired effect of demoralizing Russian soldiers.[63] Berlin's most successful tactic was to support far-left Russian revolutionaries [...] ". Also, using infected to point out that the Germans caused it, in addition to the fact that it doesn't really achieve that goal, is not really correct. The political climate in Russia was already unstable and this caused the possibility of a change of regime, which the Germans exploited - but they weren't the sole cause of it. If it wasn't for the willingness of revolutionaries, Russia's poor military (and political) leadership, and the already demoralized work force (note that Russia had a prior revolution in 1905), the Germans could have sent whoever they wanted, there wouldn't have been any revolution... The article on the February revolution cites: "The February 1917 revolution...grew out of prewar political and economic instability, technological backwardness, and fundamental social divisions, coupled with gross mismanagement of the war effort, continuing military defeats, domestic economic dislocation, and outrageous scandals surrounding the monarchy. (Rabinovitch, 2008, p. 1)". 135.23.202.24 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"infect" has been used by political historians for 250 years without any dispute and does not in any way reflect any Wiki POV. As for the multiple Russian revolutions, most RS give great attention to losing the war to the Germans. They all mention how Berlin proved decisive in getting Lenin into Russia from his exile. Hundreds of thousands of radicalized angy ex-POWs played a role in person-to-person radicalization. Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I just said that for the purpose of this dispute, I dont give an eff about Germany or the intent of it's leaders or even Lenin! The issue is the word "infect", not what happened (which neither of us seems to disagree about). "Infect" has been used about plenty of historians, as you say, but almost in all cases to reflect a negative (or at the very least mocking) opinion of the subject (as in the Spain case, where the author uses it to mock the Spanish POV of the "infection by radical democratic ides". If the sources have a negative opinion of communism, that can be noted. However, whether the POWs were radicals or to which extent, we cannot simply use "infect" to describe a larger political idea. Even the multiple articles on nazism or fascism, which are incontestably bad, don't use the word "infected" or any variant thereof. Why would we use it in relation to communism, which is less despised than either of the far right ideologies (and that, despite that fact that in practice, it had a hard time achieving it's stated goals of "economic equality" or other idealized dreams)? 135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
there is no pov -- the idea was to destabilize the status quo. if someone in 2017 likes the status quo in 1917 hey're angry at the Germans, but not at the word. oppose the status quo then applaud the Germans but in either case "infect" is exactly the best term. In the Spanish example the author was opposed to the Spanish status quo and welcomed the infection. Likewise Zanzibar. As for communists, I note that Stalin used the term himself so it's not a naughty word for them. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC).
The American author uses the word ironically... yes to applaud the idea of democracy but he does so ironically by mocking the Spanish status quo, saying it is "infected". As for Stalin 1. it's a translation, so we don't know what the usage of the word in Russian might have been - maybe it has more or less of a negative connotation than in English 2. uses infected in a negative sense, i.e. "infected with political blindness". The Zanzibar example is the exception that proves the rule. You don't seem to have read my comment about the use of infected in articles related to other (more) extreme ideologies. I'll go ask for a third opinion. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
all these historians get it wrong for 250 years??!--but you have not cited anyone who supports your private reading. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Please cite for me the part where I say that historians are wrong... 135.23.202.24 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
do you agree that the Russian ex pow's did cause their comrades to hold anti-status quo attitudes or not? Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought that was clear - yes, the attitude of the people who caused the Russian revolution, including the POWs, was clearly anti-status quo. I thought the dispute was about the term "infected". Have you read the part where I wrote about the use of the term in articles related to fascism or nazism ([1])?
Favorable usage is common: 1) "The city was a modern metropolis but still deeply segregated [in 1950s]. Leopoldville became infected by the ideas of independence and political liberation." [PALGRAVE

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IMPERIALISM (2016)]; 2) "In the simplest situation there are two populations, I(t) denotes the number of already infected (either with biological objects capable of transmit infection or with revolutionary ideas to be transferred to others) individuals, and S(t) is the number of susceptible individuals." [Peter Erdi - 2007]; 3) Collier Dictionary definition #2: revolutionize " to inspire or infect with revolutionary ideas: they revolutionized the common soldiers." Rjensen (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not that favorable usage never happens - it's just that it's less often used when there could be ambiguity whether it's favorable or not. In this case, I prefer not creating any ambiguity (since readers might judge the term differently) and using the more neutral "propagated" or other variants I proposed. As for infect, what you are citing is examples, while we should be looking at reliable sources and concluding from what they say whether the term is neutral or not. The Collins dictionary gives multiple plausible meanings for infect, one being "to affect, esp[ecially] adversely, as if by contagion", and gives as example "His urge for revenge would never infect her." Oxford Dictionnaries (online) has "(of a negative feeling or idea) take hold of or be communicated to (someone)". The slight disagreement between these 2 sources suggests that while the use can be occasionally positive, it is usually seen as negative (because of the more common usage of the word being linked with disease). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
For propagate, Webster gives "to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area" or alternatively "to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (something, such as an idea or belief)", which both share much of their meaning with "infected", yet avoid the possibility of looking as if we were judging it in Wikipedia's voice (whether positive or negative).
Would you mind summarizing your view below so we can get the opinion of somebody else? Thanks! 135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

François Robere (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by 135.23.202.24
The spirit of WP:SAY tells us that using non-neutral synonyms should be avoided, even if it is the word used in the source - thus, it is my opinion that using "infected" to describe the spread of a political idea, no matter it's merits or the motivations of those behind it, brings a non-neutral POV to the article, especially given that other, simpler terms which do not have a link with "infection/disease", such as "propagated" or "circulated", can be used. 01:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Viewpoint by Rjensen
....
Third opinion by François Robere
Rjensen has not summarized his view, but reading through the above discussion I can the gist of it, and I completely agree with the IP editor.
1) Whatever the use of "infected" may be in literature, this is an encyclopedia meant for common consumption, and so must consider terms' common usage. "Infected"'s common usage is inextricably tied with sickness and disease, and by way of metaphor with unwanted ideologies and even people; indeed this is also the case in about half the citation brought by Rjensen.
2) On the other side is the question of accurately representing a source: is the use of that source justified without using infected? The answer is obviously yes, as there are many alternatives, such as "convinced", "swayed" and "supported", and even - in certain cases - "infectious idea" rather than "infected persons". If it was particularly relevant - and it isn't, assuming neutrality on behalf of the source - one could use "infected" in a sidenote.
Bottom line: Wiki is meant for mass consumption, and as such common parlance is used where possible. Here there are alternatives from common parlance that don't alter the meaning of the sentence or intention of the source, and do not convey a POV, making them much preferable to the term in question. François Robere (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee RfC[edit]

As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding challenging sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks Andrew Spana (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Elizabethan Era[edit]

Hello Mr. Jensen,

I am interested in European History and saw your name under the "View history" page quite often. I had a couple of questions that I would like to ask specifically about the Elizabethan Era, and was hoping we would be able to have somewhat of a conversation. I was also wondering if you knew anyone who specialized in this field, as I am hoping to write a research paper on it. My main question is: How did Queen Elizabeth create a sense of national identity in England? I have been researching this topic and was hoping you would be able to provide some insight.

Thanks for your time, -Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Spana (talkcontribs) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the "Historiography and memory" section of the Elizabeth article --especially A)

Collinson, Patrick. "Elizabeth I and the verdicts of history," Historical Research, Nov 2003, Vol. 76 Issue 194, pp 469–91 and B) Doran, Susan, and Thomas S. Freeman, eds. The Myth of Elizabeth.(2003) a 280 page book and C) pp. Greaves, Richard L., ed. Elizabeth I, Queen of England (1974), excerpts from historians. Your librarian can get these for you. GOOD LUCK! Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Might be of interest to you: "In his speech, he [Karl Rove] described a visit to the White House by the revisionist historian Forrest McDonald, who spoke about presidential greatness. Rove expressed delight at discovering a fellow McKinley enthusiast , and said that McDonald had explained in his talk, “Nobody knows McKinley is great, because history demanded little of him. He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years”—this last part clearly excited Rove—“and he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics. He was inclusive, and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy. The Protestant Anglo-Saxon Republicans were scandalized by his 1896 campaign, in which he paraded Portuguese fishermen and Slovak coal miners and Serbian iron workers to Canton, Ohio, to meet him. He just absolutely scandalized the country." The Rove Presidency. --Taterian (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

yes very much so--many thanks! Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Grant[edit]

I replied to you at the article talk page, there is just no way a single Christmas article can support including any of this, regardless of it being White. So, I'm not sure you understood why we are opposed. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you what limitations would you put on this very lengthy article that is covered by multiple scholarship, per WP:SUMMARY? We cannot just add and add things, supported by singular (often relatively poor) sources not trying to summarize the whole body of scholarship, giving things undue weight. Right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

As for White, he gave the point special attention outside his book, and that certainly counts as a solid rs for me (I did not jump into the debate, my opinion was asked for). As for bio article i favor moving lots of text to the presidential article--all presidents sign off on lots of issues that in fact are undertaken by others. On a last point: "undue weight" is a Wiki rule that in my opinion applies to historiographical interpretations that are mostly rejected by the RS--it does not apply to ideas or events that have NOT been rejected by any scholars. Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, we have some disagreements there but I recommended toward the beginning of the discussion, that although this Christmas article should not go in the bio, they should look to the other articles, including the presidency article, so that would solve the whole thing. Can you agree to not putting it in the bio? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Following up on Undue, and related issues in a more general sense for any article with lots of scholarship, I'd appreciate your thoughts, here. We have, say millions and millions of words in those sources -- we can't put them all in, how do limit them - how do we cut? What are the principled limitations? My sense is you look toward the main, what's in multiple scholars. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
agree-yes--the best place for Xmas story is the presidency article. When multiple scholars agree then yes. However when one scholar has a new idea that came after the books from other scholars were published , then it can indeed be included. Bottom line is that wiki editors decide what's appropriate for the wiki readership. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you go back to the article and opine about placement in the president article, and also perhaps address wording, you'll see the discussion but part of it is whether anything needs to be in-text attributed ('White says') and part of it has to do with the very limited nature of the law (only in DC, see [2] page 1). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok i did so. :) Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio, how to deal with them[edit]

Hi, I saw this edit where you removed a copyvio. Do you know when it was inserted into the article? If so, Template:revdel should be used to remove it from the article history. If you are unsure how to use that template, then I can apply it if you give me the original offending diff. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No i did not check the history. I noticed that you flagged the article [citation needed] and did a matching search that gave a book and isbn but not the original quote. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've found the original edit, but cannot find a book with that ISBN. If you let me know the title and author I shall do the revdel request. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

FDR[edit]

Please do not start an edit war. You removed sourced information (Smith 2007 417–418, Burns 1956, p. 256 and Dallek 1995, p. 180) so you are in the wrong here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to add those sites back then simply do so and not erase lots of new material. Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You removed more cites than you added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I only removed cites that were superfluous because they referred to the same titles over and over again. Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
They are not superfluous. Its the same sources but different pages. This style of sourcing is common in articles, including FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
it's much better to add fresh new sources instead of repeating the same one over and over and over. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not if the article already has a wealthy bibliography by which one can draw information. LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
the new cites are the basis for new info being added--they go well beyond the old standby biographies. Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Asphalt[edit]

In your 02-15-18 edit of Asphalt, I'm confused by some of the wording. I can't quite tell what you intended, so won't try to edit. My questions inserted here: "By 1900 American cities boasted 30 million square yards of asphalt paving, followed by brick construction. (followed by?) It proved (word missing?) for bicycles and especially for automobiles...". WCCasey (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

you're right--it was a cut and paste and I have entirely reworked it to make more sense and open up new scholarly studies on street paving. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations - Economy[edit]

Your recent contributions on the postwar economic links within the Commonwealth was interesting, but included some seemingly random text. I haven't been able to guess what the original intent was, so I thought I'd ask you. Search for "was a post" to see what I mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_Nations&oldid=822655845 [your revision]

ferg2k (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right--I fixed it just now. thanks. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Conservatism biblio[edit]

You've been a major contributor to the listing and I think it is worthwhile. To stem the push for deletion, does my suggestion about limiting the scope to notable works and authors make sense? If so, who should take the laboring oar? (Caveat - I may be unlinked in a week or so because of personal commitments.) – S. Rich (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the list is pretty short -- the idea is to help people find studies that interest them and so you need to provide a variety. People who want it short get that in the "surveys" list. Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

You do understand that an author uses quotes to specifically indicate that he or she is not lending credence to the text inside the quotes, for example "friendly relations" in the cite you provide?

Best,

JS (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"friendly relations" was a common term in diplomacy in 1930s. see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ns112.asp for a good example i'm guessing that Hitler was planning to eventually end that friendship. He explains later that economic relations were quite good until the actual day of invasion in 1941. The German-USSR treaty of Sept 28 1939 stated: The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. regard this settlement as a firm foundation for a progressive development of the friendly relations between their peoples." see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/gsbound.asp Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The point is that if the author you cite puts the words friendly relations within quotation marks, it means he or she is not saying that relations were actually friendly, rather that someone somewhere called them friendly. So the assertion that relations were friendly still lacks a cite. Also if "Hitler was planning to eventually end that friendship", that is not "friendly relations", at best feigning friendly relations. That is what actually was happening. Hitler's opinion of "Bolshevism" as a creation of the Jews meant he was never going to be friendly with the Soviet Union. Stalin on the other hand thought that it was likely that in the future, due to their contrasting ideologies, the Soviet Union and Germany would end up fighting. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was only an attempt to buy time, it was not friendship. Also for this article the meaning of the words should be whatever the present day reader understands, rather than diplomatic terms from the 1930s. JS (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
the author is quoting the famous phrase used at the time--it's in the German-USSR treaty as I quoted. that does NOT mean he denies it. the article is very specific about dates. what you're not providing are cites from the sources you are using. take a look at Gerhard L. Weinberg (2010). Hitler's Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II. p. 767. on Hitler's "newfound Soviet friends" with no scare quotes. also p 749 "The Soviet Union had wanted good relations with Germany for years and was happy to see that feeling finally reciprocated" in 1939 [see https://books.google.com/books?id=o5FiQbU_nAkC&pg=PA749] Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those topics on which there is such diversity of opinion that a cite can be found for almost every opinion. You are free to continue believing that the Nazis were friendly with the Soviets. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Wiki article on Lebensraum. "Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior and non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire indigenous populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, pursued by a racially superior society. People deemed to be part of inferior races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space." To the best of my understanding of the word, a "friend" is not someone whose house you are planning to take over after killing him. I do not have the time to argue, so I will let it go. Best, JS (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
if you want to quote a reliable source, please do so--quoting wiki is not allowed for that role. in fact the Wiki article is quoting Gerhard Weinberg about the situation in 1933. that article does not deal with the changes in 1938-39 that we are discussing--you need to read the real Weinberg not a truncated Wiki version. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

east germany[edit]

why did you revert my edit? that was not a test edit, the "Partially recognized state" is not usually used is and is unnecessary 194.68.94.68 (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

dozens of reckless useless edits in a matter of minutes is a sure indicator of vandalism--and the disruptive editor who does it deserves blocking. if you actually have a point take it to the talk page first and give some RS for your claims Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
its Obsessive–compulsive disorder i did not mean any vandalism, and there is no RS for that partially recognised label, so ok please have it removed it was added by Teddy.Coughlin who is is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts 194.68.94.68 (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

White trash[edit]

Hi. Your edits to this article are not in line with the source cited. Please cease making edits and discuss your concerns on the talk page, where I willhappy to answer them using specific cites from the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to follow Isenberg much more closely. The sources she cites are often using the term "poor". H B Stowe talks about white trash but NOT in the passages quoted in this article. President Andrew Johnson did NOT use "trash" -- he used "poor" Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You are not.
Please be aware that your continuing to revert is in opposition to WP:BRD. You'e started discussions on the talk page, and that is good, but the article remains in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. Please respect that, and don't make me report you for edit-warring, it won't help to settle the content dispute, which I'm sure that we, both conscientious Wikipedians, can come to some agreement on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
tell us why the picture belongs--it is not related to the article--no one calls these folks white trash--Isenberg certainly does not. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not having discussions in multiple places. You've started discussions on the article talk page, which is where they should all take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

William Temple[edit]

Hi,

I've been reading about William Temple here. However there is another book in his work. Would you mind to add Christian Faith and life (1931). Thank you Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.174.205 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--I added it. Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz[edit]

I'll leave it at your revision for now, but I'm not sure why you told me to "take it to talk" when there's already a thread there on this subject to which I have contributed but you have not. If you're serious about discussing the issues, then... please discuss them.—Chowbok 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have commented there. Calling serious writers "crackpots: shows a deep anti-scholarly bias. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC).
Calling obviously hare-brained theories "deserv[ing of] serious treatment" shows a deep pro-academic fetish.—Chowbok 21:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
people who sling terms like "hare-brained theories" and "crackpot" to RS materials show two things: a lack of imagination ("bunch of crap") when dealing with deep imagination in print, and having never studied scholarly articles in major journals such as American Quarterly Economic Perspectives and Journal of American Studies and Journal of Political Economy [which indeed study the Oz images] Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The political-allegory theories of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz are indeed deeply imaginative, I'll grant you that.—Chowbok 22:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
yes and yellow bricks = gold and green = greenback are beyond the ken of unimaginative people. Try reading American Quarerly Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Alumni Achievement Summaries[edit]

Hi, Rjensen. I noticed that you reverted the deletion of the alumni summary on the Princeton University page. I personally agree with you - that alumni summaries are standard and should be included on all university pages. However, two users, SeraphimBlade and ScrapIronIV, seem to believe they don't have a place on any college pages and have repeatedly removed them from the Williams College page. Can we rectify this somehow? They do not listen to any of my logic behind the inclusion of these alumni summaries, despite me repeatedly telling them that it's standard. GreylockFoW (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think they belong--Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

French nationalism[edit]

The text is very strange, it doesn't mention Philippe Pétain. I don't know French history to write the page, but I see a great black hole.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

good point--I expanded the article to include him. Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Tuesday, 27 2018[edit]

FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Hofstadter#Religion-category. Thank you! Suomalainen konformisuus (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Our job is not to parse Jewish "law" (who passed that law?) It's to follow the RS -- Brown is the leader here. All RS agree as an adult he was joined the Jewish community and was considered Jewish--and it hurt him in terms of not getting $$$ appointments. cites: 1) Brown. 2) Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life by Andrew R. Heinze, ‎Jeremy Schoenberg, ‎Bruce Zuckerman - 2007: "Hofstadter (who was Jewish on his father's side and identified himself as a secular Jew)" 3)Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Thematic Series: The 1960s (2003) bio by Jack J. Cardoso: "Hofstadter and his wife became part of the community of Jewish intellectuals." 4) online at http://jbuff.com/hall.htm "The Buffalo Jewish Hall of Fame honors those who have made a lasting contribution to the Jewish community of Buffalo and Jewish Buffalonians who have made a lasting contribution to the world. Selig Adler ... Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970). History." Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources are needed, not only one to override all other sources. A person has many roots/identifications, so why should we ignore one over another? So a "lasting contribution to the Jewish community" or Mr. Brown is not enough for this cherry picking categorisation? We have no source for Richard Hofstadter solely identifying as a Jew, if we go by self-identification as single the criteria for affiliation. Another approach would be sources that show that he was officially received in to a Jewish religious community, i.e. a conversion in some form or another. It's imprecise and definitely not not scholarly rigorous to cite comments on some of Richard Hofstadter community bondings and attachments as the single deciding factor. So, pending a more exact outcome and discussion, I hope the religious categorisation would not be applied. We can also continue the more loose and unsettled approach and just apply some/all the sources, mening we categorise him as Lutheran, raised Episcopalian and Jewish. The identity pluralist way instead of one thick in the box? I recommend no category, until further discussion and sources. Suomalainen konformisuus (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
we have proof that the Buffalo Jewish Community officially recognized him as a Jewish Buffalonians who have made a lasting contribution to the world. Now let's talk about the RS about Hofstadter that you are using--none thus far. 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Boulding[edit]

Hello Rjensen. Thanks for your work on the Kenneth Boulding article. The article is way too loaded up with relatively insignificant detail and dated piecemeal assessments of his work. The result is, paradoxically, that his lasting and most significant contributions are lost in the soup. I think this has been the impression of many seasoned editors and users who have gone to his article, so I hope you will consider trimming some of the redundant statements and less enduring facts and details concerning this great thinker. I'm not likely to do much work on this myself, so this is just food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

OK I'll look into it. His election to the presidency of multiple groups in a wide variety of fields is not I think an incidental characteristics, but indeed his central characteristic that makes them so interesting. Its hard to think of a single scholar with a wider range of interests. That is the perspective from 2018 – during his lifetime, his reputation focused on deep insights, but today I think his breadth is much more interesting than the depth. the great insights are rarely referenced in the journals of 2018. Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarifications on recommendations for editing the Wiki entry on 'Fascism'[edit]

Just wanted to follow up on your feedback. Was the problem that I cited Passmore? I've found other sources that make similar arguments; my rationale was that Passmore already appeared on the page and offered a nuanced, complex view of fascism on the political spectrum. My aim is to promote neutrality and accuracy, and the current versions of the phrasing make it appear as though there is a consensus among historians that fascism = far right phenomenon when there's far more agreement that it's not that simplistic.

Would it help if I cited Robert Paxton instead on the same point? Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (reprint edition). Vintage. p.8. [3] I thought I would run it by you before bringing it up on the talk page.

Also, I'm new to wikipedia. If it's more appropriate to bring this up on the topic talk page, let me know.Contributor451 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Rjensen (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shohat, Ella; Stam, Robert (2014-06-05). Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. Routledge. ISBN 9781317675402.
  2. ^ Shohat, Ella; Stam, Robert (2014-06-05). Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. Routledge. ISBN 9781317675402.
  3. ^ Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (reprint edition). Vintage. p.8.

Weimar Republic[edit]

[copied from here to Talk:Weimar Republic
I think that matter should probably be raised in some WikiProject to resolve that question. I can live with the compromise of just putting "Germany" there for now, even though I still strongly believe that giving the official name of the state is the way to go. I also disagree with the first sentence in the Weimar Republic article. It says it "is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state", which is not the case, the term describes a period, not a state. By international law, Germany during the Weimar Republic is the same state as it was since 1871 and as it was until 1945. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The official name was "Deutsches Reich" -the Germans used only the German language in official documents -- the English translation was never "official". Much worse: the English term is highly misleading to English language speakers (which is the audience for this Wikipedia). Cambridge English dictionaries say that "the Reich" is a standard term for Nazi period. Evans is very useful here: The continued use of the term 'German Empire', Deutsches Reich, by the Weimar Republic....conjured up an image among educated Germans that resonated far beyond the institutional structures Bismarck created: the successor to the Roman Empire; the vision of God's Empire here on earth; the universality of its claim to suzerainty; and a more prosaic but no less powerful sense, the concept of a German state that would include all German speakers in central Europe--'one People, one Reich, one Leader', as the Nazi slogan was to put it." Richard J. Evans (2005). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin. p. 33. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Misguided reverting[edit]

You have undone some of my edits, without bothering to explain why. Your actions suggest either that you are unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:IG and WP:REVEXP, or that you are being deliberately disruptive. As you've been editing since 2005, the former seems unlikely. Kindly improve your conduct in the future. 149.14.147.61 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You did not explain them on the U of Notre Dame talk page--and you have never been part of the editing team for this article. The galleries follow the Wiki guidelines--they exist in 2% of the articles, which = 100,000 plus galleries in Wikipedia. ND alumni are a major part of what makes the school famous. Even more so the football stars that have had many media articles over the decades. Likewise your denial that Rockne was famous & likewise the Gipp quote is pretty far out extremism. WP: Peacock is about UNSOURCED exaggerated claims, Neither point applies. NPOV is about including multiple viewpoints--which you have not told us about. this discussion belongs on the article talk page Rjensen (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Typo?[edit]

In France–United States relations you added However as the Americans grew mightily and economic power,... I think that must be a typo or some words left out but without access to the ref, I won't try to guess a correction.Cavrdg (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--you have a sharp eye! I fixed it to read "grew mightily in economic power" Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working with student[edit]

@Rjensen: Kudos for your patience in working with my student User:Haydenstephens on the Jazz Age article. Your comment does far more than I can to cue them into what Wiki editing is all about.

History of the Netherlands[edit]

Seems to be missing Netherlands New Guinea 1945-1962, attempt to remove 3000 Axis Japanese officers from Java 1945-1949, attempt to implement requirements of UN Charter chapter XI during 1945-1948 in East Indies and 1950-1962 in Netherlands New Guinea. Daeron (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--i'll work on Netherlands New Guinea later this week. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

On the title of an article?[edit]

On the page Talk:Marshall Plan, you mentioned that a page is needed on aid plans in Europe. I'm up for writing it, but what should the title be? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Try "United States foreign aid after 1945" -- and good luck with it! (It can have a brief mention of $ amounts in marshall plan). should also include Asia Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant plans similar to the marshall plan out of Europe (as in a page sole on the Asian plan). Thoughts on that title? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
we already have a very brief history section at United States foreign aid that can be expanded. The $ to specific countries can be mentioned in that country's history. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Van Ness[edit]

Hello you prepare to page about William Pete Van Ness that is incredibly in accurate if you wish to correct this please contact me at DK . History is to be done correctly and that capriciously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:8380:1C4B:2C56:362B:4EBA:2FD8 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take the comments to the talk page of the article, tell us what you think is wrong, and tell us the sources that you are using. Make sure you read Thomas N. Baker, "'An Attack Well Directed': Aaron Burr Intrigues for the Presidency." Journal of the Early Republic 31#4 (2011): 553-598. Good luck. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit was sourced[edit]

Hello! this claim that you removed was sourced in McDonald's work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, and pardon me if I misunderstand the situation. Hamilton wrote 38 essays supporting the treaty. YoPienso (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your 2012 talk on improving Wikipedia[edit]

I enjoyed your 2012 talk -- and it gave me some insight to use in improving the articles I edit: specifically, to improve the summary paragraphs of an article (a boring job I often ignore) and, two, to put more emphasis on the changing memories of an event and its historiography. Although my edit history would identify me as focused on the Vietnam War, I think of myself more as a student of the intersection of archaeology and history in the relationship of American Indians and Europeans. That's an area in which memories and historiography have seen a lot of change in recent decades. Smallchief (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

yes indeed--thanks for the note. :) Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to Alexander Hamilton[edit]

I took the source directly from the article about Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. If it's not a reliable source, should it be deleted from that article as well? --Aabicus (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

the RS on Hamilton say nothing about it. so it's not encyclopedic regarding Hamilton. Is it a major story re electors???--if so you will have multiple cites instead of one lightweight story by a non-historian who is unaware of the historical issues. As for your edit the "large group" turns out to be two Democrats who are trying with zero success to find Republican electors who will be unfaithful to Trump. They are not contacting any Republicans, the two say--merely using a web site and social media. Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It was a major story in late 2016. Washington Post. New York Times. LA Times. Fox News. New York times again. CNN. Washington Times. Fox News again. Washington Post again. ABC. CBS. ABC again. And literally countless other smaller news outlets have mentioned the term "Hamilton electors". I think they're worth a mention in the section dedicated to Hamilton's legacy, even if I need to completely rewrite the sentence and use different citations. --Aabicus (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
To write about Hamilton you need an expert on Hamilton and none of the newspapers brought one in. Hamilton of course ignored any such "Hamiltonian" advice after the Constitution was adopted, esp 1800 election. the people who coined the "Hamiltonian" term are not reliable experts on Hamilton and none of the discussion tried to grapple with Hamilton's writings or ideas. We have many many books on Hamilton's legacy and they do not mention this idea. (eg Burgh 2016 states, " Virtually no scholarship documents the hunt for faithless electors through concerted lobbying efforts." Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not writing about Hamilton, I'm writing about a part of his legacy, an event that occurred many many years after the man's death. I understand your requirement that we use only scholarly sources when talking about the man himself, but I think credible news sources should be good enough for the 'Legacy' section, as they prove the event in question happened and is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. There are already other examples of news sites being used to cite events in that section (For example an article from The Enquirer is the only source for a statue of Hamilton erected in Ohio).
I have a suspicion we are not going to come to an agreement on this. I am opening a new section in the talk page for the article in question so we can get some additional opinions. --Aabicus (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
uou are lacking a RS who knows about Hamilton's legacy. there are hundreds of RS available. But none discuss this point that two politicians with zip knowledge used to title a pet project to get Republican electors to desert Trump--(the project went nowhere and the politicians involved said zip about Hamilton.) Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi. Be sure to leave WP:Edit summaries. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox[edit]

Looks like you have a stray sandbox page in mainspace at Rjensen/sandbox/Ottoman. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited France–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Painlevé (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Welfare state[edit]

Please look at the edit you are restoring. I do not object in principle to a valid summary in the lead summary of the article contents regarding negative views of the subject; but that's not what was there. The inappropriate swap of "outcome" for "opportunity" is particularly clear. By all means feel free to replace it with something decent and non-hackish! --JBL (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit comment suggested you did not want to see any opposition viewpoints represented. That's a strong bias that might make it difficult to judge the legitimacy of the opposition views. Rjensen (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, my edit summary suggested that I have examined the other edits of the editor I reverted: 90% of them are attempts to slant articles in a particular POV, without any regard for sourcing or our policies, and this edit adheres to that pattern. Maybe you should look at the content of the edit before you revert in the future? --JBL (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to challenge sourced statements you must use the talk page. Instead you erased with this very unconvincing justification: deeply dumb edits by a WP:NOTHERE POV-pusher --that is unacceptable editing--it is close to violating the rule--which you just cited--against edits that show "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" Rjensen (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh good lord. --JBL (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pritzker Literature Award[edit]

The 2018 award was announced today. Here are some links to news articles about it: Washington Post article [3], PR Newswire [4], and Chicago Sun Times [5]. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2018[edit]

Wikipedia Education globe
This Month in Education

Volume 4 | Issue 6 | June 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue


Featured Topic Academia and Wikipedia: the first Irish conference on Wikipedia in education
From the Community

Ashesi Wiki Club: Charting the cause for Wikipedia Education Program in West Africa

Wikimedia Serbia has received a new accreditation for the Accredited seminars for teachers

Côte d'Ivoire: Wikipedia Classes 2018 are officially up and running

Basque secondary students have now better coverage for main topics thanks to the Education Program

What lecturers think about their first experience in the Basque Education Program

From the Education Team Education Extension scheduled deprecation
In the News

Wikipedia calls for participation to boost content from the continent

Wikipedia in the History Classroom

Wikipedia as a Pedagogical Tool Complicating Writing in the Technical Writing Classroom

When the World Helps Teach Your Class: Using Wikipedia to Teach Controversial Issues

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018[edit]

The Right Stuff
July 2018
DISCUSSION REPORT
WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

By Lionelt

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

ARTICLES REPORT
Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

By Lionelt

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)
RECENT RESEARCH
Research About AN/I

By Lionelt

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:

  • 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
  • "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
  • "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.

(Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for clarification of an edit to 'Confederate States of America'[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Would please be so kind as to clarify part of this edit to "Confederate States of America":

Presbyterians were even more active with 112 missionaries and early 1865.

(Emphasis added.) I'm not certain what you meant by the emphasized phrase. I tried to find an online copy of the cited article "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in the Confederacy" to figure it out on my own, but came up empty. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My copy of the Daniel article states on page 182: in January 1865, it was reported that 112 Presbyterian ministers were then serving in camps and hospitals." the cites are in footnote 11 p 182. I can send the article [W. Harrison Daniel, "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in the Confederacy". Mississippi Quarterly 17.4 (1964): 179+. ] if you send me an email to rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. No need to send the article—I just wanted to bring it to your attention so the phrase could be corrected. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

George Washington[edit]

Hello Rjensen. Editors have been working on George Washington to get to Featured Article status. Improvements have been made. More needs to be done. One issue is the placement of the Personal life and Slavery sections. I think Slavery should be included in the Personal life section and that the Personal life section should be removed from the chronochological sections of the article, and possibly be placed after the Historical reputation and legacy section. Any advice or editing on this or other matters in the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

ok good work!--i'll take a look later. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Your input on the article would be great and beneficial. My question is whether the special sections, Personal life and Slavery, should be be after the Historical reputation and legacy sections. There has been some disagreement over the matter. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
before, i suggest, since the legacy comments on those topics. Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary source[edit]

On this question only, I don’t know what your objection is. Is it that I used a primary source, and thus it’s OR, or that I didn’t? The original, of which 6 sentences are quoted, is in the James Monroe papers, Reel 6, LOC. Embarrassing to get the president wrong. Sorry. deisenbe (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

who says the comment of an unknown lieutenant is important???--that is an interpretation that needs a reliable secondary source.Rjensen (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Khan[edit]

I agree with everything said. However, I have to say that under a section describing the social life at St. Paul's, how can any subjective information especially from almost 30 years ago, be held as reliable. Everything else on this page is based off of facts and statistics that are still true. You have to understand that this falsely portrays the school in a negative light. If young kids interested in attending the school believe this is the current social scene, why would they want to attend. I would almost go as far to say this is a form of defamation on wikipedia's part, and would suggest that it ether be deleted or the title of the section be changed as to not suggest that what Khan describes is the current social scene.

It's soldid scholarship. Years AFTER graduating he came back and he spent several years studying the scene and interviewed hundreds of students, faculty and alumni. Then he gave papers at leading sociology departments to get feedback. You really should read the book. My daughter taught at St Paul's and I think the book is excellent. Wikipedia is based on respect for solid scholarship, --editors do not heavily weigh the personal opinions of one high school student. Rjensen (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Saint Paul[edit]

Hey Rjensen, can I suggest you remove the last two sentences in your comment on that talk page? It isn't very civil. tedder (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

you meanL Is it a surprise that the school is highly oriented toward privilege and prestige?? Going there is the height of "privilege" in USA. --the comment seems civil to me....lots of scholars use the term "privilege" for that and similar prep schools. (I did not go to any prep school--but I was at Yale for grad school and saw a lot of privilege on campus.) Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I know exactly what you mean, but it seems inflammatory to me. You can do what you want- I wanted to stop by and ask/suggest, not demand. tedder (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
i have a hard time figuring out who would get upset at that comment, which I believe is common knowledge and supported by lots of RS. Rjensen (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Summarization of reliable sources by unreliable Wikipedia editors.[edit]

I would differ with the advice given in your edit summary here. The devil is in the details, of course, but this how I read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

???? what you cited was not my edit. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion in Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez[edit]

In your recent edit [6] at Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez you deleted comments from me and another editor. Did you mean to do that, and if so why? Work permit (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

that was my mistake--I did not mean to do any erasing. My apologies and please replace the deleted text. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, I figured it was but wanted to make sure. Work permit (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reinsurance Treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Russia–United States relations[edit]

@Rjensen, As requested on the talk page: Do you have a cite to specific policy text? Humanengr (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

you seem unaware of the basic rules here--for example on using primary sources instead of secondary ones. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I see now I transposed my clips from the article. The article reads in part:

“The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States,” Alexei Pushkov, a senator who sits on the upper house of parliament’s defense and security committee, said.

“The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”

where the para breaks in that quote are as given in the article.
What I would like to insert, then, is:

In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”[1]

Does that satisfy your objection re primary and secondary sources? Humanengr (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

it is a primary source of the sort Wiki warns against. You're lacking the reliable secondary sources that are necessary to make sense of Russian politics. You assume for example that Puhkov is an expert on US internal politics. Rjensen (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Who are you identifying as the primary source here? Do you think I have not used a secondary source? Humanengr (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
More explicitly: Are you saying Reuters is not a reliable secondary source? Humanengr (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
news reports on AP, Reuters etc = primary sources in Wikipedia. They are just reporting what XYZ said. A quote from a politician = primary source. A quote from a historian = secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree re that as a general distinction between primary and secondary. Do you have a policy cite for "it is a primary source of the sort Wiki warns against"? Humanengr (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
the Wikipedia rule is pretty strong at WP:PRIMARY : Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Pardon but exactly how does this insertion “analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source”? Humanengr (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
an editor who chooses to insert a primary quote without secondary source backing is asserting its importance--unimportant items are left out. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The lines that follow in that article:

Victoria Zhuravleva, an expert on U.S.-Russia relations who writes analytical papers for the government, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to.
“If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” said Zhuravleva, who said Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones.

Does that suffice? Humanengr (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

yes much better-- add that she is a Russian academic who helps the Russian gov't and give date--Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thanks for that. So, we have then:

In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said “If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones.[1]

References

Reuters didn’t provide a date separate from the byline's 1/11/2017 for either Pushkov or Zhuravleva.

Is that ok? Shall I post to the article and talk page? Is it ok with you if I reference this discussion there? Thx again, Humanengr (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

yes to all questions. good job! Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Care to comment on the reversion? Humanengr (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Obnoxiously rude user on Talk:Fascism[edit]

Hi, thank you for showing me where I was mistaken on the article. I have retracted my concerns about the first sentence.

I am not a regular user here, but the user Beyond My Ken who responded to me about the matter was obnoxiously rude from the first response to me and provided no reasons why I was mistaken, they just kept insulting me again and again. I don't know what kind of conduct Wikipedia tolerates but that user was being very obnoxiously rude even though I sought to address the issue as politely as I could. Disappointing, just wondering if you could say something to that user that while I was mistaken in my view of the situation that they did not need to be rude and should not be insulting someone over a disagreement expressed politely by me on content of text on a page.

I don't really care too much since I have no interest in becoming a full-time user here, but someone having that attitude towards someone they have never interacted with before and who has politely addressed an issue is not a good sign for how they treat other people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alt-text for images[edit]

In this edit you removed the alt-text for an image without making any explanation. Alt-text is helpful to many readers, especially those with visual impairments. Please don't remove it without very good reason, and please restore it in this case. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

it was a very poor alt-text that misled users, in my opinion--it focused on hair color and collar instead of expression and status. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Re ‘mistaken’ — offline discussion[edit]

Am you asking if I think he was wrong to define ‘conspiracy theory’ without saying they are definitionally false? Humanengr (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

it's hard to figure out what you are trying to say? Try rephrasing it. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
[Preface:] I should have started this with acknowledging that the text you have "A 'conspiracy theory' is a belief that a conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event which the theorists strongly disapprove of." is a fair statement. I was only questioning the insertion of 'political' as the term 'conspiracy theory' is more general. But it's not a big deal.
Re Uscinski: The other aspect, which is what troubled me on the conspiracy theory page was that the lede was changed some time ago to indicate that all conspiracies theories are 'unwarranted'. With the recent edits, that was softened somewhat to 'without credible evidence'. Does that make sense so far? Humanengr (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Empire in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ashley Jackson
Germany–United Kingdom relations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Edward Grey
History of the Caribbean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ashley Jackson
Latin America during World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ashley Jackson

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Request at Gallup (company)[edit]

Hello, Rjensen! You have been a top editor at Gallup (company), so you might be interested in my request to develop a new section focusing on what it is Gallup actually does. The current article focuses on the Gallup Poll, which is just a fraction of the company's work, so it could do a better job providing more information about the various areas of Gallup's business. I have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm offering these updates on behalf of the company as part of my work with Beutler Ink, so I'm looking for other editors to review. Would you mind giving it a look? Danilo Two (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

yes happy to help. keep me posted. Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, Rjensen! Since my last note to you, an editor has declined my request at Gallup (company), but I would value your opinion as well. The reviewing editor cited no specific concerns with the content of my request, but rather general ones about COI editing. I still think the current article is troublesome because it largely focuses on one aspect of Gallup's business. You'll see my proposed updates cite independent, secondary sources. Of course, if you see any POV issues, I'm more than happy to adjust as necessary. I appreciate your time! Danilo Two (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the solution is to go to the independent business press and get all you info from there--and keep in mind that apart from its polls Gallup is a small minor company with 2000 employees and ??? revenue that deserves at best a very short article. Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Lloyd George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2018[edit]

Wikipedia Education globe
This Month in Education

Volume 4 | Issue 9 | September 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!


In This Issue
From the Community

Edu Wiki Camp 2018: New Knowledge for New Generation

Education loves Monuments: A Brazilian Tale

“I have always liked literature, now I like it even more thanks to Wikipedia”. Literature is in the air of WikiClubs․

History of Wikipedia Education programme at Christ (Deemed to be University)

Preparation for the autumn educational session of Selet WikiSchool is started

Wiki Camp Doyran 2018

Wikicamp Czech Republic 2018

Wikipedia offline in rural areas of Colombia

From the Education Team

Presentation on mapping education in the Wikimedia Movement

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 01:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Arnold[edit]

This section is already in his wiki article:

"Despite his quarrels with the Nonconformists, Arnold never voted for the Tories and would describe himself as a Liberal throughout his life.[1]"

Peter Viereck's book is poor scholarship and his word is not as trustworthy as literary critics focused on Arnold's life. I rarely see it cited outside of conservative circles. A critique of "Philistinism" and love for the Classics was common among many 19th century Liberals and there were likewise many quarrels within the Liberal Party.

AbsoluteEgoist (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I see no evidence that Robert Frost or Flannery O'Connor should be listed as traditionalist conservatives, so unless you can find impartial scholarly sources stating otherwise (I'd avoid using the self-serving books of conservatives like Russell Kirk), I think removing them is justified.

AbsoluteEgoist (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum on Matthew Arnold[edit]

An addendum to my previous comment on Matthew Arnold, which I wrote it haste.

In the opening to Culture and Anarchy (1869) Arnold states: "I am a Liberal, yet I am a Liberal tempered by experience, reflexion, and renouncement, and I am, above all, a believer in culture." You can find this quote in numerous sources besides the named text, among them.[2]

In 1880, Arnold describes himself as "a Liberal of the future rather than a Liberal of the present."[3]

The influence of thinkers like Burke, Coleridge, and Carlyle was diffuse throughout Victorian England. John Stuart Mill was also influenced by all three, and yet to call him a "traditionalist conservative" would be a huge stretch. So any influence they may have had on Arnold is not sufficient to classify him as such. Likewise there's a case to be made that Mill and Arnold were not so far apart from each other. In the Preface of Edward Alexander's book Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill he writes: "I have tried to show to what a considerable extent each other shared the convictions of each other; how much of a liberal Arnold was and how much of a humanist Mill was."[4] Russell Jacoby has also reiterated these points and pushed back against the disingenuous conservative appropriation of Arnold in his books The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in the Age of Apathy and Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age. I don't have the former on hand, but in the latter he describes Arnold as "a liberal thinker."[5] George Scialabba and many others have shared his interpretation of Arnold, e.g.: http://www.bu.edu/agni/reviews/online/2009/oppenheimer.html

Furthermore, if Arnold's criticism of Gladstone's Liberal party somehow disqualifies him from being called a Liberal, then by the same logic, Peter Viereck's (whose book you cite) own criticism of the American conservative movement, his subsequent alienation from that movement, and his support for New Deal Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson would disqualify Viereck from being considered a conservative. I think it's reasonable to ask that if the so-called "conservative" traits described by Viereck led him to support New Deal Democrats, then are they really distinctively "conservative" traits or in fact traits that are found across the political spectrum? This might explain some of Viereck's own confusion about Arnold's political stance.

As I implied before, I think you were way too quick to accept Viereck's dubious scholarship on both Arnold and "conservatism" in general.

To get a grasp of the wide range of Liberal thought during the 19th century, particularly the Liberal criticism of commercial culture and mediocrity which Arnold shared, I recommend Alan Kahan's Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville. IIRC, Kahan suggests Matthew Arnold belongs within this tradition as well, and it certainly sounds more accurate than calling him a traditionalist conservative. I can recommend other books on the matter if you like.

You admit that Arnold describes himself as "a Liberal of the future rather than a Liberal of the present." Arnold was NOT a liberal in his lifetime and strongly attacked Liberals, as the specific examples indicate. Viereck won the Pulitzer Prize and is widely cited in the scholarly literature. Richard Weaver stands high in the conservative pantheon. Brendan A. Rapple (2017) Matthew Arnold and English Education is a very recent scholarly study. It's real published scholarship as opposed to OR based on one editor's personal selection and interpretation of quotes. Wiki relies on published reliable sources and not arguments made up by anonymous editors. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As his Wiki article indicates, Viereck won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry. This does not make him a qualified historian or scholar of the history of ideas. I have explained why Viereck's arguments for calling Arnold a "conservative" (such as a critique of philistinism, or some influence from Burke and Coleridge) are dubious at best, and I have provided citations to recent scholarship that support my case. There is no good reason Viereck's word should count more than Edward Alexander, Jacoby, Trilling, Scialabba, Clinton Machann and many others. I have looked at your Brendan A. Rapple citation, and it is solid, but it only tells me that Arnold was critical of aspects of the Liberal Party, which I never denied. Rapple does NOT argue that Arnold was a conservative of any sort. If I missed the quote where Rapple says so, please show it to me. And as I said, if criticizing certain aspects of the Liberal Party of his time makes Arnold a conservative somehow, then Viereck's complete alienation from the American conservatives of his time and his support for New Deal liberals would make Viereck a liberal. Therefore, simply proving that Arnold was critical of the Liberal Party (but never stopped identifying with it, and in fact received a pension from Gladstone in 1883) does not ipso facto make him a conservative. There is nothing to classify him as such except the dubious arguments of Viereck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteEgoist (talkcontribs) 18:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
What is Viereck a RS on conservatism?? because hundreds of scholars have cited his History of Conservatism -- for example 1) the "Conservatism" article by Quinton in A companion to contemporary political philosophy (2017). 2) Beckstein, Martin, and Vanessa Rampton. "Conservatism between theory and practice: The case of migration to Europe." European Journal of Political Research (2018). 3) Bourke, Richard. "What is conservatism? History, ideology and party." European Journal of Political Theory (2018) 4) Cliteur, Paul. "The American Conservatives, Edmund Burke and Natural Law." ARSP: Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie/Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (1988) etc etc Wiki's WP rules requires the inclusion of all legitimate views --editors are not allowed to erase views they disagree with. and Wiki strongly discourages its editors from relying on their own interpretation of primary sources. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Machann, C (1998). Matthew Arnold: A Literary Life. Springer. p. 19.
  2. ^ Born, Daniel (1995). The Birth of Liberal Guilt in the English Novel: Charles Dickens to H.G. Wells. UNC Press Books. p. 165.
  3. ^ Novak, Bruce (2002). "Humanizing Democracy: Matthew Arnold's Nineteenth-Century Call for a Common, Higher, Educative Pursuit of Happiness and Its Relevance to Twenty-First-Century Democratic Life". American Educational Research Journal. 39 (3): 593–637.
  4. ^ Alexander, Edward (2014). Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill. Routledge.
  5. ^ Jacoby, Russell (2005). Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age. Columbia University Press. p. 67.

Bibliography of World War II[edit]

Overy, Richard. The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe, 1940–1945. New York: Viking, 2014; 562 pages; covers the civil defence and the impact on the home fronts of Allied strategic bombing of Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Scandinavia

So which one of these countries is NOT in Europe (Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Scandinavia)? Not trying to be difficult Herr Professor, but plenty of these works could use further explanation into what historical contributions they make, some focusing on one aspect or another, so I am not sure I see your point here. Do you intend on clarifying further for the rest of these titles? You'll notice that we've not done this for the rest of the works. If this particular book by Overy is so unique, perhaps it warrants its own Wiki-page and then you can just link it from here. By the way, I have it and have read it and while it's a good work (Overy normally writes fine history), elucidating it further begs the question for the other listed books.--Obenritter (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Overy book is excellent but it's title is misleading because it only covers part of Europe. So if you want to know about Bulgaria, for example, or one of the others, you can either track down a dozen books or lock right into this one (it has 40 pages on Bulgaria). If you want Greece you can skip its few words on that country. For most books the title is enough. But "Europe" in this case is much too broad when most countries are not covered. I think the editors working on this bibliography usually know much more about the books they list than 99% of the readers--so if editors have factual non-controversial information that will help readers I believe they should share it with readers and not keep it to themselves. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can accept that line of reasoning. By the way—on an unrelated note that I've wanted to ask you given your expertise—what are your thoughts on Mortimer Adler's advocacy of the Great Books?
I'm pretty negative on the "Great Books". It was a VERY heavily advertised expensive promotion in its day (1950s) -- lots of people --like my in-laws--paid $$$ and displayed the set prominently but never read a page. The books are just not that "great" for readers in the 20c. They did influence intellectuals in the past but in ways that are never explained to purchasers. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That's sort of a bummer to hear, but I've heard that a few times. I have the entire set and have read a good number, but my area is European intellectual history so it makes sense in that regard. Without somebody to guide the general reader, it's quite a lot to digest. The first two books, which comprise The Synopticon provide topical indexes and contain some exposition on the Great Ideas, but for most novice readers it seems a bit much. I'm pretty selective with what I recommend to students, friends, or acquaintances due to the inherent complexity of synthesizing so much substance that requires the proper foundations to grasp. Strangely, I find myself in regular discourse with M.Div grads regarding many of the concepts that show up in the medieval works. as I am no theologian. Sure, I've read some of the Church Fathers, but only with Oxford's Bible Commentary and the internet close by for assistance. Thanks for your thoughts.--Obenritter (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
yes I agree with you--I think few of the purchasers took the necessary historiography preparation. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo in The Royal British Legion article?[edit]

Hi,

What did you mean to write here? "During the Second World Cup war, it was active in civil defense, providing step the officers to the Home Guard. Its membership grew rapidly as the veterans of the Second World War were demobilized."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Royal_British_Legion&diff=765229613&oldid=761637335

Should it be support to rather than step? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have a sharp eye! I did some fix up and citation work just now. Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hi. Please discuss the Richard Nixon article edit in the talk page. It is not very useful to just revert after two reverts without discussion in the talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Invite to help edit[edit]

@Rjensen: if you have an interest, the following pages need work:

There's an interesting historical theme of the Supreme Court increasing the powers of the police and the net results. I'm trying to work on them all little by little. Thanks for your consideration! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018[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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1918 United Kingdom general election[edit]

Thanks for adding references to that article. Can you also cover the "Coalition victory" section? That would be enough for us to feature that on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 14. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I did that. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I put that article back in, and as a result, I got to use a photo of a shoe being thrown at George Bush. Win-win. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure!! Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there are better ways to address this[edit]

Since this is old hat for me, cleaning up External links sections, and the burden for including external links is on those seeking inclusion, I hope you will consider just working on the one article until we have consensus.

If you'd rather me not touch the articles you've identified, I'm certainly willing to wait as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reported you for vandalism at the ANI page-- or is this edit warring? I took this to the ANI page. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope you'll withdraw it. My comments above stand. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Gallagher on Salazar[edit]

In a recent contribution on Salazar’s article you’ve included a statement, on Tom Gallagher voice, saying that “Portugal remained poor as Europe flourished in the 1960s and 197s.”

But Gallagher`s vision does not seem to be supported by facts. During Salazar's tenure, Portugal participated in the founding of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961. In the early 1960s, Portugal also added its membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. This marked the initiation of Salazar's more outward-looking economic policy. Portuguese foreign trade increased by 52 per cent in exports and 40 per cent in imports. The economic growth and levels of capital formation from 1960 to 1973 were characterised by an unparalleled robust annual growth rates of GDP (6.9 per cent), industrial production (9 per cent), private consumption (6.5 per cent) and gross fixed capital formation (7.8 per cent).

Despite the effects of an expensive war effort in African territories against guerrilla groups, Portuguese economic growth from 1960 to 1973 under the Estado Novo created an opportunity for real integration with the developed economies of Western Europe. In 1960, Portugal's per capita GDP was only 38 per cent of the European Community (EC-12) average; by the end of Salazar's rule in 1968, it had risen to 48 per cent; and in 1973, under the leadership of Marcelo Caetano, Portugal's per capita GDP had reached 56.4 per cent of the EC-12 average.

It seems that in this case Gallagher view is not supported by the numbers and should probably be removed from Wikipedia or, if maintained, it should be placed along with the facts that contradict Gallagher’s view.

I am very appreciative of your contributions to wikipedia, so whatever you decide, fine with me. Just felt that need to tell you this. --J Pratas (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Gallagher is a distinguished British professor now writing a biography of Salazar, and I summarized his published position in 2018 as = "Portugal remained poor " When Salazar died in 1968 Portugal was the POOREST country in western Europe. Maddison (2001) has Portugal = $5081 per capita, all 29 nations in western europe = $9423; Spain =$6262, Ireland = $5769, Greece = $5266. and for comparison USSR = $5194. Portugal was the 2nd poorest in 1950--ahead of Greece but then fell behind. By 1998 -- 30 years after his death, it was 2nd poorest just ahead of Greece. Full $$ details are online for all Euro countries 1950-1998 = p 278 at Angus Maddison (2001). Development Centre Studies The World Economy A Millennial Perspective. p. 278.
Yet the sentence “Portugal remained poor as Europe flourished in the 1960s and 197s.” does not seem accurate if the Portuguese economic growth from 1960 to 1973 under the Estado Novo created an opportunity for real integration with the developed economies of Western Europe. If in the 1960s the gap diminished then the sentence is not accurate. The way the sentence is written it implies that Portugal stalled as Europe flourished, which was not the caseJ Pratas ([[User talk:JPratasRjensen (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)|talk]]) 14:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Poor is poor and Portugal under Salazar remained at the very bottom (with Greece)--it's long-term per capita growth rate was a bit higher than west euro averaga 1950-1968 for Portugal = 246% and for W Europe = 205%. When you'ree stuck last place for decade after decade it's hard to celebrate the brilliance of the leadership. You mention 1973 it was 56.4% of EC -- in 2017 it was 56.8%. Perhaps we should compare with Spain: Port/Sp 1950 = 86%, 1968 = 81% and 2017 = 75%. It's steadily falling further and further behind Spain since 1950. So much for integration. no need for us to feud on this-- I was trying to summarize a current publication by a scholar. In Wikipedia if we think a RS is wrong we cite alternative RS to the contrary, and not delete the original statement. We do not cite our own alternative reading--we only cite other published RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with the Wikiproject[edit]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I certainly can see how it could be read that way given, especially the communication problems we've been having. I hope that my clarifications make it clear that I'm not commenting on the Wikiproject at all. --Ronz (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

COI notice[edit]

Information icon Hello, Rjensen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Since you appear to be affiliated with https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/mil-2012.htm, comments like this should be accompanied by a COI disclosure. I haven't noticed inappropriate self-promotion on your part but please be sure to be transparent about your connection. Thanks –dlthewave 13:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to follow the explicit COI guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. Let me add there is zero compensation involved. (re work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation). In this instance I was seconding what another editor said about the site, while commenting on the policy he proposed regarding other cites. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don't view your edits or comments as inappropriate. A conflict of interest simply means that you have a close connection to the topic and should make other editors aware of that per WP:DISCLOSE, even if your edits are purely constructive and unbiased. I realize that the template is a bit harsh since it's primarily used for blatant paid editing. –dlthewave 16:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I was responding to a statement by the previous editor who said, the COI issues are not a problem--so there was no hidden COI issue. The COI rule applies when an editor has a close personal connection to the topic of the article--'Military History' in this case. I have an academic connection with teaching the topic for many years, and coauthoring three books and multiple articles and several websites on it. None of my books or articles are mentioned in any way in this article. wp:coi states Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise. Issuing a warning notice seems to be inconsistent with that welcoming guideline. I'not blaming you--I think the rule is too vague on when warnings are warranted. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You have a quite personal connection to one two of the links which is under discussion, and you are the one who originally added it to the article. –dlthewave 17:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The COI rule says Using material you have written or published is allowed -- I quoted it above. As for H-Net I left it 20 years ago. The statement is about H-WAR today not 1998 so there is no personal connection. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia[edit]

Saturnalia 2017 (27235417509).jpg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Rjensen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Rjensen![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ce?[edit]

I notice a number of minor edit corrections including yours are tagged "(ce)". I'm curious to know what it means? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

ce tag = copy edit. it comes from Wikipedia:Basic copyediting which has the abbreviation WP:CE Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

war of 1812: phantom sources[edit]

Hey, can I assume you're actively involved with War of 1812? There are a number of phantom refs.. they are cited but never listed in Sources or elsewhere. I remember Voelker for one, but it seems the worst offender is "James 1817". It's cited 12 or 13 times and never listed in full anywhere. I have tried to search for something likely, but failed. Do you have any idea what that is? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

you have a knack for research! That item is rarely used by historians anymore having been replaced many times over by better sources. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Many of the sources on that article seem questionable to me. That's exactly why I hate that reftool gadget that places an impenetrable thicket of ref info inside articles' body text... It enables and even encourages creation of reference fever swamps... But in the case at hand, if you have any strong desire to improve its referencing or know anyone who does, all the work I did should bring that task closer to "doable". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
agree see http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF and https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1387 Rjensen (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm an English teacher, not a historian, though if I were able to take up a moonlighting job then "historian" would top the wish list... If you ever need any help with anything, just ping me. Will help if I can. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
great--but there are VERY few real jobs for historians these days so clutch tightly what you have in English. :) Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

() If you know anyone who knows anything about the Bengal famine of 1943 and who isn't operating from a particular POV, the article will be back in FAC next month. Its nom was folded, spindled and mutilated last time. It is languishing in WP:PR at the moment... Meanwhile the offer of help still stands for other articles... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

i think Bengal 1943 is one of the most POV-ridden 20c topic I've ever seen. it's hard to see a way forward. :( Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is POV-ridden? Or just the atmosphere around the topic? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I mean the real-world's ugly debates. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I worked hard off and on for 2 years to make the article NPOV...There are still 3 bad references on War of 1812. As I said earlier, some of the sources are also shaky... What article is high on your to-do list? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been deepinto Media bias in the United States and also foreign policy articles for Cold War era. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha ha. I always read BOTH Fox and CNN, because I like to get my propaganda from both directions. As for Cold War, closest I came was creating Wolf Ladejinsky. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Claire Lee Chennault[edit]

You restored an unsourced claim, and you stated that his death was related to this claim. Without any sources that he was a heavy smoker and that his death was related to that, that is indeed editorializing. Take it to talk or leave it out. Meters (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

the problem is not "editorializing" it's a lack of sources. try: Earle Rice, Claire Chennault: Flying Tiger (2003) - Page 95 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0791072177 "at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington revealed a malignant tumor on his left lung—cancer. (Chennault was an inveterate cigarette smoker.)" Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So why didn't you source it the first time you restored it? I removed as being unsourced. You had no business restoring it without a source. And yes, without sources that say both he was a heavy smokier and that his cancer resulted from his smoking that is editorializing. I can't access your url. Does it actually say that his cancer resulted form his smoking, or is that your opinion? Meters (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
the text does NOT say that his cancer resulted from his smoking. here are some more statements from RS linking the two points: 1) Tale of a tiger - Page 71 " he was a chain-smoker, about three packs of cigarettes per day up to the time of his death in 1958. In case you may be wondering if he died of lung cancer, the answer is Yesl " 2) Madame Chiang Kai-shek Page 375: "her old friend Claire Lee Chennault lay dying of lung cancer. ... in New Orleans, where he was being treated by Dr. Alton Ochsner, among the first physicians to speak out on the evils of smoking. Ironically, the World War II hero—and inveterate smoker—had recently appeared in a cigarette advertisement. " Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with the sources you have provided saying he was a heavy smoker, and that he died of lung cancer, or including those sourced claims in the article. My concern was that you restored an unsourced claim, and now the apparent implication that this smoking was the cause of his cancer. It's not up to us to say that, or to imply that Taking information form different sources and combing it to make a claim that is not in either of the sources is WP:SYNTH. Rewording the sentence might solve the problem. Meters (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
wp:synthesis says wiki editors should not juxtapose fact A from source 1 and fact B from source 2 to suggest that A causes B. the two items (A = smoking and B = lung cancer) are ALREADY in each of the RS I just quoted. As for some implied implication of causality the RS published years ago-- so this is not some new medical discovery announced here. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Thanks for noticing my edit attempt. I invite you to join the discussion about reducing the length of this article, here. Lfstevens (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2019[edit]

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 2 • February 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Union[edit]

The section you added to this article includes the non-word "inevolution", copied directly from Women in the Russian Revolution. It appears to be an accidental typo from an edit made to that article on 13 February 2019 by an IP editor. I don't know what that editor's original intent was, and don't have any way of finding out, and, moreover, I am afraid to guess, since I don't have easy access to any of the sources used. I wounder if you could help with this. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OOps. I will fix it. you have a sharp eye! Rjensen (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC[edit]

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Levivich 06:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--I voted for C Rjensen (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019[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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick drive-by[edit]

Hello, Mr. Rjensen - I must say, it was quite the honor for me to have contributed in the same RfC as you (albeit briefly and in opposition). Atsme 📣 📧 23:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve History of the American legal profession[edit]

Hello, Rjensen,

Thanks for creating History of the American legal profession! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions and plan to work on them over the next couple weeks, starting today. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)