User talk:Rjensen/Archive 11

/Archive 10

Social Darwinism
Dear Rjensen, please do not remove large quantities of information as you did on the Social Darwinism article. All of the information you removed was supported by a reputable reference and it was not directly quoted from the book. The information therein was written in original language that was summarized from the buttressing book. If you do not agree with the information, please post a query on the talk page of the article; however, per WP:CENSOR, that is not a legitimate reason to remove the work. Moreover, the information there meets WP:V and WP:RS. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the stuff was from a college textbook that does not meet the usual Wiki standards of a RS --not a secondary source and none of the authors was an expert on the topic. Furthermore the paraphrase was wrong--it stated that missionaries opposed Soc Dar. and the textbook did not say that. Finally the passage went off on a tangent about learning native languages that is irrelevant to the article (before Social Darwinism very few colonizers learned native languages). Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a similar discussion on the talk pages of three editors. You might like to look at my comments at Talk:Objections to evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads-up. I left a comment there agreeing with you.Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Analysis
I saw your comments on the Wiser study in regards to the Tea Party Movement article. Unfortunately you comments fall on deaf ears here. I find it utterly astounding how many people have either a limited or completely absent understanding of statistics in general. Best, Arzel (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. the polling profession has standards that require posting statisgtical derror estimates, which were not done here because they are so ridiculously high that the results flunk the basic statistical tests of significance.Rjensen (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Three points
First, the standard manual of style on Wikipedia calls for starting sentences with capital letters. Second, it's unhelpful to simply copy the same large chunk of text to multiple articles. Instead it should be in the most appropriate article. Short summaries can be placed in more general articles where appropriate. Third, it's best to attribute superlative claims. This sentence: the most distinctive feature or of colonial society was the vibrant political culture, which attracted the most talented and ambitious young men into politics  makes two such claims. If these claims are made by many sources then attribution wouldn't be necessary, but from the sourcing I'd guess it's made by just one source which apparently concerns just one colony. In that case it'd be better to either leave out the superlatives or attribute them to the source and the location. Perhaps something like, "According to Patricia U. Bonomi, the most distinctive feature of New York's colonial society..."  Will Beback   talk    07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit
 * thanks for the suggestions. The goal is to use this stub as a starting point that can be expanded --separately--in the two articles ("multiple articles" is misleading). The Bonomi book and Tully article were the main sources, and they review the literature on all 13 colonies. I hope you will take the opportunity to add capital letters when appropriate, for we all have to work together here. Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you prefer not to use caps. One of my favorite poets didn't either. Wikipedia used to have a prolific editor who thought that placing blanks spaces after punctuation was unnecessary,like this.That was frustrating for everyone. I suggest you if don't want to go with the "detailed text in one article, summaries in others" approach, then at least correct the text in one article and use different text in other articles.   Will Beback    talk    08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A striking characteristic of Wikipedia --rare in other encyclopedias--is that multiple articles overlap. Having duplicate text helps the reader who otherwise will be baffled about which version to rely upon. Please don't erase chunks of quality history because of grammatical or spellings errors that you can easily correct. Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Overlap is inevitable, but it shouldn't be created unnecessarily.   Will Beback    talk    09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I reverted your revert of my revert ..LOL sounds funny. But i did not notice it was by a second editor so i reverted myself. Just so you know as per External links the self promoting instructional dialogue is not realy excepted here. That said there is a wider talk on his/her edits of this nature here.Moxy (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the link was perfectly appropriate--to an important original map--and the short annotation tells the reader what to expect at the site. It is covered by the Wiki rule: "3.1 What should be linked....Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Annotations by scholars at the Library of Congress represent a RS, --if there are alternative views (I doubt it), then add them, don't erase good information.Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

GW opening segment
Thanks for your edit on the George Washington opening segment. It reads much better. My edit was attempting to make the narration flow better; remove the word "carreer"; and acknowledge the Fairfax influence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant only in reference to launching a "career" as a slave owner. The initial narration mentioned Washington had a "career" in agriculture using slaves. Using that term implies that Washington was trained to be a slave owner. Maybe I am being nit picky, but their is something uncomfortable referring to slavery as a "career". In the 18th Century Virginia farming and slavery were not mutually exclusive. The way it is written now is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism
I'd like to read your overall opinion on the current state of said article if you find the time -- seeing that you are a Yale-trained historian and that you've added minor tweaks to it in the past. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is poorly done, and the current edit war is useless.Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Koreatown
Thanks for all of this. What's the best book and/or documentary about Koreans during the 1992 riots? I have distant memories and have seen some limited video, but that's it. If nothing else, the Abelmann book might be pretty good, I'm guessing. tedder (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party page
The "Tea Party movement" page has been hijacked by TP activists. You'd have to be blind not to notice that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.255.191 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

35% of the likely voters support the TP
That's a minority; not a majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.255.191 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * its scores of millions of people--more popular than say a Big Mac and less elitist that a Rolex. :) Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Press releases
I hope you don't mind me raising this here, but the TPM talk page is already crowded. You recently wrote, "the owner of a flag company is a RS on the sales of flags". It was in regard to using a press release from a company that sells flags as a reference for this sentence: "It was also seen being displayed by members of Congress at Tea Party rallies." I beg to disagree with you.

This is basically a promotional claim. A press release might be suitable as a source for the price of some goods or services, or for the date of a product announcement, or even for the text of the press release itself, if it became noteworthy. This is different. It's just an unsourced claim designed to promote their product.

If we had an article for a "juice fast", would we use a press release from a juice company to assert that many celebrities use it? For an article on clothes would we use a press release to say that a garment, made by that company, is now very popular? I think press releases are the last sources we should think of using for assertions like that. What do you think?  Will Beback   talk    09:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the motives are not relevant; there are no Wiki rules that are violated, =--- I hope there is not grounds for suspicion that an editor may have a personal POV hostile to businessmen. the issue is: is the author a RS regarding flags; does he know a lot abojut them and what people are buying? is he someone a national reporter would call for information? yes indeed--here's a person who spends many hours a week trying to figure out what kinds of flags will be popular. He is explaining what kind of flags the Tea Partyers are buying, and he knows more about that than 'most anyone. Who could possibly be a better source? As for the counterexamples, they are not relevant--we are not telling Wikipedia readers to buy flags!  We all know the TP folks love insignia, and the question is exactly which are most popular. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply. The assertion we're making isn't about selling flags, it's about waving flags. "It was also seen being displayed by members of Congress at Tea Party rallies." If this is a notable fact then it will have been reported in independent secondary sources. Let's look at the title of this press release: "Gadsden Flags Flying Off the Shelves in Support of the Tea Party Tax Protest". Does that sound like a sober and factual assessment of year-to-year sales of a particular flag? Here's the website of the company that issued the press release: FlagandBanner.com They don't sell the so-called "Second Revolution" flag, which is perhaps used also. So it's a company with a vested interest in using one flag over another, making an assertion about the popularity of that flag. You don't see any problem with that?    Will Beback    talk    10:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, can you even find any text in the press release that mentions members of Congress displaying the flag?    Will Beback    talk    10:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the guy runs a flag factory and reports that sales of one model are extraordinarily high--and at other flag makers too, he says --and it's the flag favored by TP. That's a pretty objective, well-informed statement about flag sales, of which he is an expert. Who would know more about flag sales?  He does not claim be to at the rallies and he doesn't say anything about Congress. If Wikipedia had an article on Halloween costumes, and the owner of the factory making costumes says that there is unusually high demand this year for witches costumes, at his factory and all other factories, then that is a reliable source to say there is a heavy demand for witches costumes. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you even paying attention to what we're talking about here? The assertion in question isn't about flag sales. It's about the claim that members of Congress have been seen displaying the flag at TPM rallies. And that claim doesn't appear in the source that you insisted on restoring. Please remove the cite and restore the "citation needed" tag.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So? Do you still think that this press release is a reliable source for a promotional claim that doesn't even appear in it?   Will Beback    talk    20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again, and the blog that you added. Please re-read WP:V to familiarize yourself with the standards for sources on Wikipedia. If you have any questions we can refer this to the relevant noticeboard.  Will Beback   talk    21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)