User talk:Rjensen/Archive 17

see previous talk at Archive 16

Columbus Delano
I have made extensive edits to Columbus Delano. Please feel free to make any needed improvements. I covered corruption in addition to Indian policy and the 1871 Yosemite scientific expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * nice work. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hello Professor! I attended your presentation today. It was amazing!

The article on the recent ethnic riots in Kyrgyzstan needs attention from an expert on the subject. Since you're an expert historian, I would like you to take a look at the article and help us clean it up a bit. I've made some contributions to the article, but it's very dangerous for me to freely write about the clashes. It seems like nobody is particularly interested in improving the article.

By the way, I studied at Carroll College as an exchange student a couple of years ago. It was a great experience! I really liked Montana. The winters are a bit cold, but other than that, it's a great place to be! Nataev (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the nice words. I will look at riots page in a couple days. My Wikimania talk is online at  http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812b-Wk.ppt  and  I would appreciate some feedback. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Your help will be greatly appreciated. On Saturday at 14:30 I am going to give a presentation about the blocking of the Uzbek Wikipedia in Uzbekistan. Come and see my presentation if you're interested. Nataev (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry I have another meeting to attand and will miss the session saturday. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback @ The War of 1812 @Wikipedia from Tito Dutta
Following your this edit:
 * There are some minor fmt errors (text positioning, image positioning)
 * The file is not read only! As a reader, I often mess up the content if it is editable
 * Links could be added wherever applicable (eg. Your Wikipedia page/University profile with your name, Wikipedia article page view link, Wikimania page link etc), so that readers can browse those in internet too!
 * Over all excellent work --Tito Dutta ?  02:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hey thanks! teachers are free to use excerpts in their own classes (which is why it's editable). Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interested to learn which OS and power point processor you are using? I am using Ubuntu 11.10 and LibreOffice? Is it an Operating system or power-point software issue that I am seeing texts covered by image, texts outside slide etc (if you want to see what I am seeing, I have taken a quick screenshot

--Tito Dutta ?  03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmm. I'm using win 7 and created the ppt using Windows 2010. I saved it using the 97-2003ppt format, hoping that would work for most people. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good. Is it correct though that "the popular Canadian view... totally excludes the First Nations of 1812"? Do they ignore Tecumseh?  Also the militia myth could be mentioned.   Where do Ontarians get their views on the war?  George William Brown's Building the Canadian Nation was a standard high school textbook used into the 1970s, but I imagine pre-war textbooks had an influence long after they went out of print.  TFD (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks TFD for good ideas. I'll rework Tecumseh & look into old textbooks. Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Noah Webster article
Well no shit he wrote in French, as most Genevans did. He was born in Geneva, which was not part of France at the time and the Wikipedia entry for him describes him as Genevan. Now please stop reverting my edit-- it's accurate.
 * Well no. The article is about Webster and for Webster, Rousseau's geography did not matter. His philosophy mattered and it was an integral part of French philosophy. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

McKay
You may find this amusing: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/18/peter-mackay-war-of-1812_n_1683099.html?ref=topbar
 * very funny! thanks. Rjensen (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

William Adams Richardson
I have been working on William Adams Richardson, President Grant's Secretary of Treasury, during the Panic of 1873. I thought that his reaction to the Panic was interesting. Please feel free to edit the article if you have time. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for your good work. I'm tied down right now by travel and some upcoming deadlines, but I will get to it. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I believe Grant's Cabinet, with the exception of Hamilton Fish, has long been ignored by historians. Expanding on his Cabinet, might give better understanding into any corruption during Grant's administration. Grant allowing Richardson to increase money supply may suggest that Grant himself made a proactive effort to alleviate or postpone the ensueing five year deppression. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gregg Frazer's book
Hi, I saw your discussion of Gregg Frazer's book on theistic rationalism at the Deism page. If you have the book handy, perhaps you could update the references to him at the Thomas Jefferson and Religion and the Theistic rationalism pages. Right now they refer to Frazer's Ph.D dissertation, which was the basis of his book, of course. I'd do it myself but don't have access to an English-speaking university library. --Other Choices (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * good idea...I'll do it later this week. Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tips for a history major
Hi, Dr. Jensen,

Are you the same Jensen that started H-Net?

I'm wondering about joining the American Historical Association. Do you recommend? Also, what about Phi Alpha Theta? Both publish a journal; which do you think is the more reliable and informative?

Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yes that's me :)

I recommend Phi Alpha Theta -- is there a local chapter at your school you can join? They have very good regional meetings every spring. If you are in US History, I also recommend the Organization of American Historians (which publishes the Journal of American History). There are some specialized groups of note: Southern Historical Assoc; Society of Military History (both with journals). Good luck! Rjensen (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Yes, we have PAT. I turned in my membership form 2 mos. ago but they don't induct or collect dues till later. My daughter, a graduate of the same university, exclaimed, "What are you doing that for?? They just want to sell you coffee mugs and T-shirts!!" Which they do, but I thought it would look good on my resume. If you tell me it will also be informative, so much the better.
 * One of my professors suggested I join the AHA. I see you recommend their newsletters here. (Your link is dead.)
 * Yes, I'm in American history; how did you guess? ;-) Will look into the OAH.
 * Very best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also recommend the Labor and Working-Class History Association (but then, of course, I would), if that's a field that interests you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  '04 History grad magna cum laude, but not working in the field

Adding cites...
Rjensen, good to see more references in Henry VIII! :) Could I ask a favour though... When you're adding them, could you follow the existing style for the article? At the moment you're adding in long citations, when the rest of the article uses short citations with a particular template (see WP:CITE for more on this). Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * well, systems get changed all the time on this article. the "existing" system is pretty new. I think long citations in each note are much more useful to users who can click and get the exact page on their screen. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a look on the talk page, there was a consensus formed on this. WP:CITE is clear that a single style should be used in an article, and the existing style followed when making additions; if you feel that long citations are better (and there are, as ever, arguments for both), you should raise it on the talk page and seek a fresh consensus. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Nope. Two people commented and both objected ["I do strongly suggest not doing the harvnb thing until work has been done on the article" said one and I objected.] the translation to harvnb deletes info that is very useful, esp a direct link to the exact page. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than continuing here, if you feel that consensus wasn't reached it is probably worth taking to the article's talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

New Deal
The Fair Labor Standards Act was a major legislation too. Aditionally the Republican gains in Congress in 1938 mark a turning point. Why shouldn´t we say the second new deal ended in 1938? --Pass3456 (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yes that was about it (and it had support of New England Republicans). The key years for 2nd New Deal were 1935-36. Kennedy says that it had petered out in 1938 and reverses outnumbered advances in 1937. That is not to say the programs all ended--social security & Wagner act etc are still alive. For cites see, , , , and Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edwards Pierrepont
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on Edwards Pierrepont, President Ulysses S. Grant's U.S. Attorney General. He was teamed up by President Grant with Grant's appointed Secretary of Treasury, Benjamin Bristow, to purge out government corruption. Pierrepont prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. Pierrepont was involved with Reconstruction, however, I am not sure how extensive his involvement was. Please feel free to make any improvements to the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * that looks promising and I'll get to it in a couple days. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. In addition to the Whiskey Ring, I think there needs to be a section on the Boss Tweed Ring in New York in the early 1870's. Was the Grant Adminisration involved in any way with stopping the Tweed Ring? Pierrepont was involved with the committee of 70. Did Grant's New York U.S. Attorney prosecute the Tweed Ring? Also, what did Attorney General Pierrepont do during Reconstruction? As far as I know, these are things they don't teach in the History classes at College. I am relying on Smith and McFeely for information. I really think a whole semester of college could be taught on the Guilded Age. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweed was Gov Tilden's target so I'd guess the feds were not involved. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I would have to find out if Tweed was indicted in a federal court. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a good NYT article source: Battling the Ring PDF version (September 24, 1871) The article lists Pierrepont on the Committee of Seventy. I have to read if anything is mentioned on federal court. I believe the actual Tweed trial took place in 1877 during President Hayes Administration. Not sure if that was in a federal court. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweed's trial was in 1873 and appears to be by the state, not federal. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a segment on the Committee of Seventy and references. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added segments on the Whiskey Ring and Reconstruction. Please feel free to make any needed improvements to the narration or content. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pierrepont was quite active as United States Attorney General appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant. I added two sections on naturalization and Southern reforms. Possibly narration, context, and flow could be added. Apparently there was corruption in the southern U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshalls departments that Pierrepont cleaned up. The NYT stated that President Grant sustained and endorsed Pierreponts investigations and reforms. Feel free to take a look at the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rjensen. I added more information on Pierrepont's ancestry. His distant relative was Robert De Pierrepont, who fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 under William the Conqueror. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits Rjensen. I may have gotten side tracked with his ancestry, but I thought the Battle of Hastings was a significant battle to mention. However, I realize that Edwards Pierrepont had nothing to do with the battle. I suppose his ancestry up to his great grandfather is good enough. A separate article on his ancestry would good. How does the article look from an overall perspective? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the article is greatly improved--keep it up. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I added more on Pierrepont's prosecution of the John H. Surratt trial. Pierrepont showed his knowledge of the Bible by quoting verses in his closing arguements. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Historiography of the British Empire
Can you advise? According to User statistics you (Rjensen) have been the first and main contributor for this article []. After seeing that Canada has now been added while others are still missing, Qexigator proposes that the "See also" section could include one or more of: Commonwealth realm, Statute of Westminster 1931, Territorial evolution of the British Empire. The article British Empire provides a good general account, but perhaps many readers, not being experts, may (unlike professional historians) need to be reminded that there is this other factual background to the historiography? (In the meantime, I am awaiting delivery from Amazon of the book about Midwest.USA.) Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * that's a good idea, but keep in mind this article is more about how historians have interpreted the events (how did they see Westminster 1931 for example). Enjoy the Midwest! Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Now done in a way which I hope is appropriate, but may need amending. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

History of New Zealand
The Further reading section of History of New Zealand is now quite long. I would like to see it split out to a separate Bibliography of New Zealand history similar to the Bibliography of Australian history. I have slowely pottering away on one for New Zealand in general at User:Alan Liefting/Articles/Bibliography of New Zealand. The NZ WikiProject had not shown a lot of interest in a page of this type. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * that's a good idea. The main article should have some wide-ranging surveys, and I very much like the idea of annotating most of the entries. Rjensen (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thank you
Dear Dr. Jensen, thank you so much. A great article that you started about an important subject. I happened to stumble upon that article this night, and just thought I might improve it a little. Thanks for the article, your kind words and for all your great work! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

inquiry re: chart "Economic Growth in America Per Capita Income 1700-1840"
Hello Rjensen! I don't know if this will work, as I haven't been able to set up a Wikipedia account (tech difficulties) so I have not talk page, and am trying to get a message to you. This is Jenny Krieg -- jkrieg(at)isicollc(dot)com -- with a question about your chart "Economic Growth in America Per Capita Income 1700-1840" in Wikimedia. Could you please tell me where you obtained the data for this chart? I am helping with a project, and this information would be of great assistance. We are amateur researchers. Thanks a bunch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.114.23 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it's based on George Rogers Taylor, "American Economic Growth Before 1840: An Exploratory Essay," The Journal of Economic History Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 427-444 in JSTOR your librarian can get a copy (or email me at rjensen2uic.edu) Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I digitize the pages in question pls see ...... Moxy (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You rock!! Have a great weekend, Jenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.114.23 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ACW and Treaty of Ghent

 * - See, ACW Talk is why you are ‘my’ professor, though our respective ‘professions’ are sometimes at odds. The Mangum cite you furnished reinforces my initial readings and expands them considerably along the lines I was exploring, but with much better scholarship than I could bring to the table without you. Just like office hours again. Thanks ... more on that later.
 * - On another matter that I have not had the chance to follow up with you, War of 1812. Treaty of Ghent. | Article the Tenth “Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.”
 * - Paul Johnson in “Birth of the Modern” said the U.S. Navy assisted the British in the suppression of the slave trade with its African Squadron in the following way. U.S. frigates intercepting slavers took them to Sierra Leone for prize money, and deposited captives to land in freedom. I would give you a page citation, but I fear I have given away my European history books while downsizing.
 * - Approaching Freetown, they would rendezvous with an HMS warship, transferring the slaver’s crew along with an affidavit as to their origin. The slaver crew, being “outlaws” by Act of Parliament did not have recourse to trial, but were summarily executed aboard the British ship by hanging. The U.S. ships captains thus sidestepped the problem of returning the slaver crew to trial by the U.S. Supreme Court with a majority of slave holders on the bench, never mind jeapardizing their careers in the eyes of Dough-faced Presidents.
 * - This may be the origin of U.S.-U.K. military collaboration around the world … in addition to the aspect that scholars have variously noted, that for years Secretary of State John Quincy Adam’s “Monroe Doctrine” was practically enforced at sea about South America by the British Navy before the U.S. Navy had the wherewithal to do so … and given the diplomatic consideration, that once the Napoleonic Wars were over, the Brits stopped kidnapping our sailors on the strength of an individual’s accented dialect spoken on-deck in a line-up, Americans believing citizenship was an act of discretion, changing by an individual's oath, the Brits believing citizenship an accident of birth, changing by permission of the Crown.
 * - Thanks again. I always leave you with more work to do than when I came to your door. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WAR 1812 terminologies
Pls see Talk:War of 1812.Moxy (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Alpha Company, 28th Signal Battalion
I am working on the 28th Infantry Division (United States) Alpha Company, 28th Signal Battalion section, which is tagged for spacing (i.e. copyediting) and also for importance or relevance. I agree with the tagging, the section is one huge paragraph filled with peacock wording, and worse, the 28th Signal Battalion is a small unit in a big infantry division, and a small unit in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would appreciate your advice on where, if anywhere, this section should be placed. Should it be where it is now? Should it be in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Should it be an independent article? Perhaps it should be Userfied, and if so, with what user? What is your advice?

I am working on the GOCE September drive, and came to this section deliberately, since I am from Pennsylvania, and a former Army Ordnance lieutenant. I met you and your wife at Wikimedia 2012, and I was sorry you could only stay for drinks and not dinner. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes we do have a problem there. It's not encyclopedic in style and is grossly disproportionate in length. The role of signal companies generally in the 28th is worth a couple sentences (esp re Internet). Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So chop the whole thing down to two sentences? I can do that. Not sure I should take credit for 2,469 words, but maybe making a judgement, with your advice, it is OK. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree -- but the text should be about signals units more generally in the division Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "2008 Presidential Election talk page". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  23:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador Program
Hello RJensen,

I am located in Gunnison, Colorado, have access to Western State Colorado University and Leslie J. Savage Library on campus, and would like to engage in the Wikimedia Outreach and Education Programs in this area. Boulder, Colorado has wikipedians working with campuses on the eastern slope, but the western slope has no one (that I am aware of). I would be interested in becoming a spokesperson on this side of the divide and organizing some activity within the scope of the Outreach and Strategy groups.

I have hesitated contacting the Public Relations people at Western State until I have a firm understanding of the programs I may present to their faculty and student bodies, although I have mentioned my intentions to the kind folks at the library on campus and the public library in town.

I also have a repoire with some of the elementary level schools in the area and would work with them on projects for younger academians.

I would consider as well the local museums and art galleries in the area for the GLAM projects.

And a final note on the Wikimedia Chapters. This would be another area I would discuss with anyone interested.

Draconrex (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes I am delighted to help. email me at rjensen@uic.edu  Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you for your reply, response at above email. Draconrex (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Draconrex, we would love to have you participate in the US Education Program. To start, I would encourage you to become an active WP editor, making edits and working on articles and topics you are passionate about.  The experiences you gain by learning how to participate in the WP community will be invaluable in outreach efforts in higher education.  If you haven't already done so, becoming familar with the Overall Wikipedia Education Program is important.  Additionally, you can contact |Jami Mathewson or |Annie Lin, both Education Program specialists at the WMF for even more information. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued discussion at your email, also I see Mike now, and thanks for inviting him into our conversation. Draconrex (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Colorado education
WP:Mountains, WP:Geography, Categories:Wikipedia requested photographs in Colorado, Talk:Gunnison Country Times, these are some things I would like to pursue in my Wikipedia adventure. Perhaps you and Mike would like to guide me in the right directions. Meanwhile, I shall use good judgement in my boldness. Draconrex (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You may also like to comment/review what I've created so far here. Draconrex (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have some Colorado connections but Mike knows the scene much better than I do. Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

HST
Re, if you're going to add stuff, please properly ref it in format consistent with the rest of the refs so others don't have to come by and fix your entries. We're trying to get this to FA. Thanks. Pumpkin Sky  talk  13:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the format change is illegal by Wiki rules. Keep with the original foornote system it says. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is no way illegal. Pumpkin Sky   talk  16:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, but we have consensus to not retard this article. (LOL, “illegal”;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki rule: "editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" = WP:CITEVAR and see the lack of consensus at Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 4 Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 2008 talk is worthless. /And/ you pointed at old comments by PumpkinSky, fka Rlevse, who has over a thousand edits to this article, who took it to FA Status; and we're going to take to back there. Kindly don't be disruptive of that effort. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @RJ, Oh, come on. I and others have been working this for two months or so, during which you've made several edits and never complained, and now, the day after I finish it, you bring this up. Are you saying that is coincidence? Not to mention, there was no standard for refs in this article as before sfn conversion started, there was a plethora of ref formats in use. That doesn't fly at FAC, the format has to be consistent. Are you saying you don't want this to attain FA? Your argument is completely baseless. Pumpkin Sky  talk  16:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * hard at work since June of 2012--my my...I've worked on this article since 2005, as well as many closely related articles (like History of Dem Party, Modern Liberalism, 1948 election, FDR, Barkley, Taft, Cold War, McCarthy, New Deal Coalition etc etc). I complained because my small edit today was immediately erased by someone who knows very little about Truman and the scholarship on him. For example the most useful books on the president are the two by Donovan that got dropped because the editor was ignorant of their importance. Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your critical eye and experience with the topic is needed at Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/archive2. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Non diffusing subcategories
. . . are supposed to be identified as such: and  templates. (Non diffusing subcategories is what your statement implies - see WP:DUPCAT). But I am ok templating the cats. A template might help automate the diffusion in the future (if it isn't already). Then all faculty will have to be added as American Historians though. There isn't anything called partial non diffusion (I guess you were using the word in a different sense). Churn and change (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the goal of a category is to help the reader find people. If the reader has to look through several hundreds subcategories (there are 3000 universities in the US) then it defeats its purpose. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, hierarchical categories do work that way; I guess we are supposed to write tools to produce total counts or lists. See, for example, a similar category "American Academics," which has few explicit entries and requires totaling of subcategories for obtaining a count or a list. But, anyway, so I assume you are ok with my adding the non-diffusion templates to "American Historians" and the subcategories, and including all members of the subcat upward? Churn and change (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the subcats cannot be added to produce a count--some professors teach at many schools in their careers and are listed at each. Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tools can handle that; generate a list, weed duplicates, and post counts. This is a generic problem with all categories; American Academics a good example. But, anyway, I am then going to template the cat and subcat and upmerge entries. Please let me know first if that is not. Churn and change (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Generic problems are real problems. Our goal is to make the categories useful to max number of readers. I don't know what you mean by "template the cat and subcat and upmerge entries" but it doesn't sound useful to readers. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal is this (all of the following steps):
 * 1. Add the template American historians
 * to Category:American Historians.
 * 2. Add the template American historians
 * to its subcategories.
 * 3. Add category "American historians" to all the entries of subcategories of "American historians". The templates are useful for future editors who have to decide how to categorize a historian; they may also help future automated tools. Step 3. will ensure the total count in Category:American historians is correct, obviating a need to go through subcategories. This doesn't solve the generic problem (that requires developing tools which can go through subcategories, weeding duplicates, and posting lists and counts), but at least would be a start. Churn and change (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems OK at first glance. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta article should not link to Missisippi-Delta since the articles don't have the same topic.
Dear user Rjensen, the German Wikipedia article Missisippi-Delta does not describe the same thing as the English article Mississippi Delta, despite the similar name. The German article describes a much larger area with a focus on the Mississippi River Delta, not the specific region in NW Missisippi state described in the English article. Therefore I removed the interwiki links since as far as I understand it only articles about substantially the same thing should have interwiki links. You reinserted the link in the English Wikipedia (in the German Wikipedia the removal was OKed by an editor, but then a Bot reinserted it there too...). Care to explain? Thank you! -- 92.226.26.60 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * exactly the same no. Overlap, yes. And it's overlap that makes "see also" of value to readers. The claim "only articles about substantially the same thing" is not true. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

The American historians category
Per our previous discussion, I finished the final point—adding the category name to all articles in the subcategories. I didn't do that for the subcategories "Historians of America" and "Historians of Native Americans" since looks to me they shouldn't be subcategories of "American historians" to start with. Churn and change (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation
Lincoln did not have the authority to enforce emancipation proclamation. Removing my work while leaving others work that stated Lincoln did have authority because his command of military forces allowed him to enforce anything he wished shows your bias. Can't we resolve this by leaving both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby ronayne (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * you're speculating about history--all Wiki material requires reliable secondary sources. What sources are you using?? Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't put yourself into 3RR territory either. As it is, we have an active edit war, regardless of who is correct. I've warned User:Bobby ronayne he needs to produce sources for this and make his case on talk. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not notable
In regard to this edit, that IP is all over the map (well, mainly the Indiana map) plugging what appears to be their own work. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes I've erased in several times (he keeps trying to put it in the lede on Jane Addams). It's low quality. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep my eye on this, trying to get them all gone and making sure that it stays that way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Fifth Party System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to George Romney


 * Timeline of British diplomatic history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Triple Alliance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant reputation section
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on Grant's presidential reputation in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. This may be the most important part in the article since there seems to be a delicate balance between the corruption or scandals and his successes as President. I added more information, mainly that the corruption was reformed in six of his seven Cabinet positions by his second term in office, the exception being the Department of Navy. I added the Secretary George Robeson had implement U.S. naval reform after the Virginius Incident. If you could take a look at the Presidential reputation section and or make any changes that reflect current historical opinion on Grant's Presidency, that would be fine. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to do so. :) Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What I believe might be overlooked by historians is that Grant had talented and exceptional cabinet members including Hamilton Fish, Benjamin Bristow, Amos T. Akerman, Alphonso Taft, Edwards Pierrepont, George S. Boutwell, and Marshall Jewell. At one point, I believe in 1875, Grant had five reformers on his cabinet, Secretary Fish, Secretary Bristow, Postmaster Jewell, Attorney General Pierrepont, and Secretary of Interior Zachariah Chandler. Grant's strongest cabinet had to be in 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * H.W. Brands new book The Man Who Saved The Union including Grant's presidency. This might be a good source on Grant's presidential historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes Brands is very good at biography and is favorable to big business; I have not yet seen the book. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am currently reading his book particularly the Presidency section. I believe he is actually kind to Grant on the Panic of 1873. One part I read was that Brand really went after Charles Sumner and Carl Schurz for not supporting Grant's Ku Klux Klan Act. That was refreshing. Sumner's opposition to Grant was on a personal level and he would not support anything that Grant wanted, good or bad. Schurz is viewed as somewhat devious for neglecting the rights of freedman. Brand contends that Santo Domingo and the Ku Klux Klan bill is what divided the Republican Party in 1872. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Brand is very positive on Grant's annexation attempt of Santo Domingo. Brand states that Grant wanted to clear Europe from America, end slavery in Brazil, and alleviate the condition of blacks in the United States. Sumner and Schurz come off as the "villians". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rjensen for the correction on Brands with an "s". His book might be the strongest pro Grant book on record. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your article in The Journal of Military History
Greetings,

Your article in the Journal of Military History has inspired me to venture into the Wiki frontier. You recommend training Wikipedia editors in historiography and the use of scholarly research. I'm in a different situation. I am a professional military historian who has no experience editing a Wikipedia article. So before I jump in a make a mistake -and gain a bad rep- it seems prudent to ask your advice on how to get started. Any advice you have will be appreciated.

Thank you in advance Military historian zephyr (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am delighted to help. a) email me at rjensen@uic.edu for any technical help you need at any time b) start with an existing short article on a topic you know about. c) avoid ongoing edit wars (Look at the "Page history" of the article to see what recent activity there has been) d) add say N=2 or 3 cites to major books/articles that should be in the Further reading. e) repeat b-c-d) on several other articles and wait a day to see if there is a response. f) let me know how it's going! My 1812 article (with some small errors not yet fixed) is online at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF  Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for posting your paper and presentation. You're more youthful than I'd expected. :-) You must have gotten through Yale quickly. My "scary" professor would have been there soon after you were. (He gave me an unscary answer once I mustered up the courage to ask him for help.)
 * Next time you peek in at Talk:Thomas Jefferson, I wonder if you'd care to comment about my take on slavery at Monticello. I agree more with the daughter article, Thomas Jefferson and slavery, though I admit I haven't studied every word of it. All together I've spent a little more that 4.5 minutes there, though! How do you track that stuff? Can you tell how long I spend on any given page? Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think I saw your PowerPoint on the War of 1812 some time ago. Do you still offer that? Yopienso (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments :)  My Powerpoint on the war of 1812 at Wikipedia is also online at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812wiki.ppt The journal article is much better, however, at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Rjensen (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yopienso (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ford Foundation and the CIA
The Washington Post article does in fact discuss McGeorge Bundy and the Ford Foundation. However, I am trying to collaborate, and I would agree that the article does a better job of verifying the existence of a wide-ranging scandal in 1967—that's why I moved it earlier in the sentence. I'm not sure why you and the IP editor feel it doesn't belong. But rather than edit warring, I suppose I will find other sources that discuss the broader scope of the scandal at the Ford Foundation all at once. In the meantime, if you are interested in working on the Ford Foundation page, maybe you'd consider some of my suggestions on the talk page over there. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the text you used says zero about the Ford Foundation. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct; the quotation I used in the cite (an optional inclusion in the footnote, for clarity) simply confirms the existence of a "wide-ranging scandal concerning the funding of domestic and international organizations by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)", in which the Ford Foundation was implicated.
 * Elsewhere the article begins a section:
 * "A Bundy on the List"
 * "THE LIST of Establishmentarians involved with the CIA in its penetration of private institutions is lengthy and includes such other figures as Robert J. Manning, editor of the Atlantic Monthly, and McGeorge Bundy, who has had experience both inside and outside the Government. As a foreign policy advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Bundy in effect supervised the CIA operation. Today he is president of the Ford Foundation."
 * The other sources cited for the same sentence discuss the Ford Foundation's involvement in greater depth but have less its scope and significance to the public sphere in 1967. Should we include the above quotation to make the WaPo article's relevance to the FF clear? Or maybe we can find a clearer way to include it and make clear that it's mostly about the '1967 scandal' (which by the way could use its own article). I want to collaborate on this page, but I can't help but feel frustrated when other editors seem fixated simply on deleting a reference. I don't mean to offend, that's just how I feel. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that perhaps you are more interested in the CIA & Bundy than the Ford foundation. Maybe you should be writing about them instead. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel that regardless of my personal interests, you ought to restore the Washington Post citation you deleted based on inaccurate grounds, and maybe also do something productive over there on the Ford Foundation page! But since I am interested in self-reflection in questions of bias and soapboxing, I'll respond to your idea that I'm "more interested in the CIA". I've worked on at least two articles for events which, I discovered in the course of research. involved money from the Ford Foundation: school decentralization in Ocean-Hill Brownsville and a 1966 colloquium. I admit that I'm curious about the Ford Foundation's role in American politics and culture, and I surely would not subscribe to a rigid conspiracy theory according to which the CIA was somehow dictating the FF's policies. I would also suggest that the two events described above are things I sort of like, so I don't think it's a question of being out to get Ford and Bundy, or something like that. I am perhaps inherently suspicious of interlocking directorates in the same way that Wikipedians are suspicious of sock puppets! I don't know. What's your interest in the Ford Foundation? groupuscule (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My interests stem from an interest in Henry Ford (& other philanthropists like carnegie & Rockefeller). But to repeat the WP clip does not deal with the Ford Fdn and therefore is out of bounds. Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Charles Sumner
I recently made some changes to the Charles Sumner article. Lawrence Goldstone (2011), Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903, p. 18 contends that Sumner conditioned African American suffrage on literacy. Did Sumner ever really back down from this view? Was Sumner for the 15th Amendment that President Grant advocated without any conditions on suffrage? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Rjensen. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.105.147 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Republicanism
I understand that you have been writing scholarly articles and popular books for some time,now; however, I believe you have been doing so with an erroneous point of view.

J.B. Jensen Little River, SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.225.86 (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well I am always willing to talk to a Jensen on the matter. What is your viewpoint? Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 66.99.132.30 / Toddsmith199 / Toadsmith / 50.103.xxx.xxx. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit of Mussolini
Hallo, I reverted your edits about the popularity of Mussolini "argued" by a "new scholarship". There are several problems about it, let's go from the less to the more important:
 * In the article we don't cite the name of the scholar who has some thesis;
 * You did not put your edit under a paragraph and, what is worse, you inserted it in the article at the beginning of the fascist dictatorship. So one could argue that in 1922-25 Mussolini enjoined a vast popularity, which is wrong.
 * It is true that starting at a certain point of his career Mussolini became immensely popular (especially among the poor and simple people), and so remained until the end of the Ethiopia's war, but afterwards its popularity started to decline, crashing with the war. After July 25, 1943, he was for sure the most hated man in Italy. Also in the last years there have been faithful peoples and fascist that were sure that he had been only cheated by other fascists, but they were largely a minority. There are numerous studies which confirm that, since the problem of the "Consenso" has been studied since decades, also using letters, diaries, and the work of the OVRA. About that, I advise you to read the chapters devoted to it in the volumes 2.2, 3.2 and 4.1 of the monumental biography of Mussolini written by Renzo de Felice, which is the fundamental work on him. Alex2006 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WASPs both White and Wealthy...
Hacker (cite #8 in the article) says on p1011 "To their Waspishness should be added the tendency to be located on the Eastern seaboard or around San Francisco, to be prep school and Ivy League educated, and to be possessed of inherited wealth." From this it appears that wealth is a secondary W to White, adding to the cloud of meanings, as found in Times Litt Supp: Mary Beard; Jewish Press.com; Educational Foundations: Diverse Histories, Diverse Perspectives, Grace Huerta, 2007.

There are also plenty of flaky sources like the Urban Dictionary and worse.

I think this is easily enough to show that W can mean both White and Wealthy, as indeed the article already says, so it should go in the lead also. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)