User talk:Rjensen/Archive 19

see previous talk at Archive 18

Dred Scott and the 1857 Panic
In Peter J. Parish's Reader's Guide to American History, pages 119–121, he surveys the leading literature up to 1997 on the subject of the years 1854 to 1860 in US history, regarding Kansas and Dred Scott. Parish gives his highest marks to David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 from 1976. I think Potter should be considered the go-to source for mainstream consensus on the topic. Potter treats the subject of the Panic of 1857 only on page 307 of his book, and does not position the Dred Scott decision as critical to the Panic. Parish notes that various authors give more and less credence to Dred Scott as a factor in the Panic.

Unfortunately, Parish's 1997 book does not list the 1991 paper by Charles W. Calomiris and Larry Schweikart: "The Panic of 1857: Origins, Transmission, and Containment". Thus we do not have Parish's direct opinion about the paper, but I should think that if it were important Parish would have listed it. Schweikart has been widely criticized for presenting a revisionist history to the US public, for making his conclusions based on nationalistic pride rather than primary evidence.

James L. Huston is another heavy hitter on the subject of the US in the 19th century. His 1987 works are cited in the Panic of 1857 article to good effect. Huston says that the failure of the "highly esteemed" Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company was the immediate cause of the Panic, not Dred Scott. He wrote on the subject again in 2003, citing many previous historians: Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War. He does not mention Calomiris or Schweikart at all.

I got to the Panic article today by way of cleaning up after User:RoswellAliens who has added a lot of uncited text to the Larry Schweikart biography article. Plenty of this editor's work has been questionable, and even quickly reverted, such as this bit of POV at the Woodstock article which only lasted 11 minutes. Four years ago, RoswellAliens made this revisionist edit to the Robert Peary article, adding a Schweikart work which appears to be overstated in importance in addition to the fact that it contradicts other authors. There, RoswellAliens refers to a "previous article" by Schweikart but does not name it, and I cannot find it to save my life, which leads me to think RoswellAliens is very closely connected to Schweikart. The Dred Scott v. Sandford article was targeted in May 2009 by RoswellAliens in this Schweikart cite, one which I think is worded far too strongly given the consensus viewpoints of other historians. (This is the paragraph and cite that I removed today, the same one you restored soon after.) In looking at these POV edits I was spurred to hunt for other editors who might be pushing Schweikart and I found this addition to the Panic article, made by an IP from the University of Dayton where Schweikart works, citing Schweikart.

Certainly Schweikart has his fans, but I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Potter is wonderful but he died long before the 1991 Calomiris and Schweikart article appeared. Likewise Huston published in 1987 and did not see the article. The Prish book has two sentences on the Panic of 1857 (p 120)-- noting that Huston downplays the importance of Dred Scott and Stampp emphasizes it. (the Parish book deals only with full-length books, not with articles like C&S). The economic historians and economists have cited Calomiris and Schweikart many times and I have never seen a major criticism of their work; Calomirisis is an expert on business cycles and Schweikart is an expert on antebellum banking. I added two recent (2011 and 2012) essays by new scholars, and they both cite C&S--thus demonstrating that their views are current. There is no overt politics there--this is not based on S's Patriot History of the US (which does not deal with the Panic of 1857 at all).  In fact Binksternet has not cited ANY scholar who actually rejects the C-S work on 1857. It's mainstream scholarship published in the #1 journal by distinguished scholars and widely cited--as recently as 2012-- by other scholars.  As for the Wikipedia article on the Panic. RoswellAliens never made an edit to it so his views are irrelevant.   Blinksternet's startement that "I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide" is outrageous and uncalled for. Rjensen (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Odd that you address me in the third person. Regarding the suggestion that Schweikart be minimized "on topics where his opinion goes against the tide" would you not agree that this is in fact what we do all time in following WP:NPOV—achieving the proper balance between mainstream and revisionist thinking? I am not suggesting he be disappeared. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Singling out an established historian is blatant, unacceptable POV--a deliberate unfounded and unacceptable attack on a historian because years later he wrote a politically conservative survey (one that does not mention the Panic of 1857). There is clear evidence from the citations that the  Calomiris and Schweikart article is mainstream. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fort Winnebago
What do you think: ? 71.139.143.159 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it's unsourced POV -- the anonymous author has a tomahawk to grind. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks
Thank you for replying so quickly. I'm working on a project for my 5th Grade social studies class. In my fee time, I write stub articles. SmartyPantsKid (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012
Christmas Greetings. I hope that you and yours have a good holiday. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks and likewise to you and yours :) Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (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) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
I see you're one of the main contributors to this article and your credentials seem impressive, but c'mon, you know that reliable sources are needed. You seem like you are in a prime position to have access to those sources so I don't know why you'd add content that seems really POVish without a source. Plus, I just found some blatant plagiarism in that article about a week ago and I haven't had time to go through it so removing the close paraphrasing tag so soon seems nonconstructive. Finally, as far as ref improve, I removed content that wasn't at all in the ref that was supporting that sentence. So I'd appreciate it if you'd not remove the tags until some folks who arn't heavily involved in the article have a chance to look through it. I'm working on the paraphrasing, myself, but I can only do it when I have time. I've been working through it slowly.--v/r - TP 22:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * vague allegations that somewhere in the article there might be problems are not very useful. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've seen the talk page, Plot Spoiler and I were both very specific. I pointed out two sentences that were exact copies of a source and he pointed out BLP claims that were unsourced.  These arn't vague allegations with drive by tags, these are allegations that are explained on the talk page.--v/r - TP 01:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * if you want to help it's easy enough to fix the two sentences (which have been fixed). It's the vague allegations ( "some of the individuals deemed as associated with neoconservatism may find that to be defamatory") that SOMEWHERE there might be a false or defamatory statement or OR that makes yours a bad edit because it is deliberately unhelpful to editors. Rjensen (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC).
 * That's not vague at all. It's part of WP:BLP.  We do not make factual statements about living people without a reliable source.--v/r - TP 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dred Scott
My first edit was a deletion of content that was contaminated by unsourced POV with the hope that it would either be sourced to support the text before it was put back in, or that it would be re-worded to agree with the cited source. I'm willing to trust you can back up your claim that the text I deleted was consensus. I'm definitely not as accomplished as you are, but the text deleted was not supported by the source. Your revert was therefore based on either your POV or sources that you didn't include as citations. I assume the latter is the case. I've again edited the sentence, this time editing it to more accurately represent the cited source rather than simply deleting it. If you have authoritative sources supporting the previous and more strongly worded version I'd welcome the addition of these sources and the reverting of my latest edit.

My reason for getting involved with that article was due to the superlative nature of the statement. While I agree with it in abstract, I felt it was suspiciously non-NPOV so I checked the source. The source didn't support the wording used, so I deleted the phrase. Perhaps I should have taken the time to edit it rather than delete it, but I edit wikipedia as a hobby, motivation was low, and no information is better than inaccurate information. I might have been slower with the edit button if the phrase wasn't inherently subjective to begin with, irrespective of the authority behind it.

Unrelated to the article's accuracy, and thus fairly unimportant, perhaps you should be more careful before accusing bias. I deleted one phrase, not even a full sentence, that was an editorialization based on the source rather than being based on the source from a NPOV. Assume good faith in the future, if you please. AaronMP84 (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * RS say Dred Scott it was the worst decision, but not  the most controversial because there are no defenders of it to cause controversy. (Marbury v Madison is more "controversial" because there are two sides that continue to debate it). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court says: American legal and constitutional scholars, "consider the Dred Scott decision to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court." Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With the new sourcing you added I'm happy to accept the previous wording. My disagreement was centered on the fact that material should agree with it's sources, and now it does. Thanks. AaronMP84 (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/History of Canadian women at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

History of Ontario
Hello, I've noticed you're the major contributor to the History of Ontario page. I've been working on the Upper Canada and Province of Canada pages, and have beefed them up considerably. I have also added the History of Ontario navbox to link all three pages by period. that said, the Upper Canada and Canada West sections of the History of Ontario page are now redundant ( and it's anachronistic to include them in the history of Ontario). Would you be amenable to merging that material with the other pages so that the post-confederation history has room to expand?
 * yes that's a good idea. of course the Hist Ontario article has to summarize the early events. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Thank you for the new Canadian articles .... pls take a look at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board ... if I missed any pls add them.Moxy (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks! I've been working on the History of Ontario as well.  However the main part of Canadian women during the World Wars is by someone else user:Nanner888--a newbie who should be encouraged. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions on New Deal
I know you are probably tired of this topic, but I have a few questions. Today you reverted my last revision on the New Deal. One of your reasons was that Mussolini and FDR didn't have a personal relationship. What I said was that Mussolini and FDR had made personal contact. Stanley Payne in his History of Fascism said the following: “His initial attitude was in fact more positive towards the American administration, and the Duce and Roosevelt established personal contact even before Roosevelt was inaugurated.”

You can find this quote at Amazon (the page number I cited may be wrong). The point I was trying to make was that FDR was interested in Mussolini's policies before he took office. This seems relevant in view of Roosevelt's denial of any interest in fascist-type policies in the block quote. My first question is, given this information, is the mention of personal contact valid? (Incidentally, I've never said or thought that the New Deal was fascist. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of similarities.)

Second, you also objected to my statement on how the New Deal violated some rights. I did not intend to provide a POV, but to show that some people felt that contrary to FDR's question, their economic rights were violated. Does this information affect your opinion?

Third, there are several times that I have tried to provide a quote from Harold Ickes diary. The objection is that it is from a primary source. The Wiki policy is that primary sources are valid in limited circumstances. In fact, the New Deal article cites primary sources such as Raymond Moley and FDR himself.

Fourth, should the section on fascism be dropped? It is tangenital to the history of the New Deal.

Finally, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing. Would you consider being an informal and occasional mentor? My main question would be regarding appropriateness of references and content.

Thank you in advance.LesLein (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * there is a large scholarly literature on the US and Italy at this period. It focuses on diplomatic history. No scholar says Italy had any impact whatever on any New Deal programs. As for the section, there is a huge amount of popular misconception out there. Fact is people in the 1930s said the New Deal was "fascist" -- by that they meant it was too close to big business. Today you hear the same charge, meaning the New Deal was too hostile to big business. The main problem is that when people today read "fascist" they think "murderous dictatorships." As for Mussolini, Payne misreads it. The US ambassador gave Mussolini a copy of FDR's 1933 inaugural address and Mussolini wrote a warm congratulatory note & later praised FDR. FDR never praised Mussolini and often used him as an evil example. "we do not like Mussolini the dictator" he said in 1926, although he said that should not be a reasion to oppose a debt deal with Italy (Freidel 2:224)  I agree with you that primary sources can be used carefully. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's on p. 230 of this edition. Yopienso (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Payne is usually good on footnotes – but he lacks one on any personal contact from Roosevelt to Mussolini...none of Roosevelt biographers mention any such contact, nor do the biographies of Mussolini. As for diplomacy, US foreign policy Re: Europe before 1935 was to use Italy as a counterweight to Germany.  That policy failed and relations between the United States and Italy declined rapidly after 1935.  Payne seas no connection between fascism or Italian policies and the new deal.Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson
Since I'm more or less done with the renovation work, I'd be grateful for any comments you might have.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for your work. I'll look at it. Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did look and I like it....more comments on your talk page. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis article
I just noticed that you deleted some material that I had added to the Jefferson Davis article some years ago regarding his post-war residence in Memphis. I considered this information important because it is difficult to find references to Davis' years in Memphis, and to Memphians, the Peabody Hotel has been an important (and historic) place. So connecting Davis to the Peabody is significant. I intend to add back my information. --Zeamays (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Falsification of New Deal Quote
Do you really believe that the quote from the Ickes diary is falsified? If so, who is the falsifier? Did you check the source I used? Both the author and publication have impeccable scholarly credentials. Have you checked out the New Deal's talk page lately? I think you should. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 2 statements attributed to Ickies -- the one that is a paraphrase of FDR is accurate but meaningless-- people use it to mislead readers into thinking Roosevelt committed atrocities like those of Hitler and Stalin. The 2nd statement ( an increasing tendency by the public “to unconsciously group four names, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Roosevelt.") is a fake – Ickes never said it.  The statement came in a letter to FDR, one of millions he received from private citizens. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

 * thanks! Rjensen (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A pecan butter tart for you!


Have a pecan butter tart on me, for finding the page refs for the Laura Secord article I requested! Also, I enjoyed reading your "Military History on the Electronic Frontier" article.

Bon appetit!

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nueces Strip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (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) 11:33, 23 Januar 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks. It's better than collecting stamps! Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That it is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States
Okay, thanks for fixing the date, and also rewriting parts of the list Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a pleasure. it's a very important topics that needs coverage. Rjensen (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

POTD
Thanks for catching that 1964 typo. The other copyedits look good, although I guess the linking is because this is more related to the history of the parties than how they currently exist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for all your work on great graphics. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History of Canadian women
Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Byrd-plantation.JPG
Are you certain this is an image of the Byrd plantation, circa 1700? This image is used in Rhys Isaac's book "The Transformation of Virginia," in which he refers to the image as "an item of folk art of uncertain date" featuring "a mansion of late-eighteenth-century design." (pp. 39-40) However, this image appears in several places on the internet as an early-eighteenth-century folk image of William Byrd II's Westover Plantation. Any information you have on the image would be helpful. Thank you! Dtoddmiller (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * hmmm I first saw it in a book that called it Byrd's and never looked further into it. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Detroit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highland Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Freemasons
replied at my talk page Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, please leave the tags until a consensus is reached. Lots of different editors put them in and it's a shame for one to rip them out. Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * we can continue the conversation at my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper political designations
Hello Rjensen. Although I have a lot of respect for the many edits you've contributed to Wikipedia, particularly the tough political variety, I undid your edit on The Washington Post article. I don't believe the source you gave indicated the paper's political ideology. In fact, most sources inside the article indicate otherwise. Also, I believe we must differentiate between a media outlets news section and opinion/editorial pages. For example, I live in the Detroit area and know that the Detroit News opinion pages lean conservative, and the Detroit Free Press have liberal editorials, but much of the content in both outlets are fact based news stories without editorial commentary. In any case, lest we open ourselves up to interpretation edits to articles like these(1,2,3), with this type of reasoning, we should be prudent in our political designations of media outlets. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your using OR to argue with solid Reliable sources. what is meant is the general weight of editorial opinion. Rjensen (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I just used OR as an example for you here. I read your source and the sources included in the article. Perhaps I am incorrect, but the sourcing inside the article seems to reflect a move to the right or a balance. Perhaps more sourcing and a discussion on the article Talk page would resolve any conflicting sources. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says that the Post moved to the right; indeed it has, but the whole spectrum has moved further right even faster. You will find very few conservatives cite, admire or trust the Post at any time in the last 50 years. (the source demonstrates that for blogs). Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh. I don't read the Post much these days. The old media seems on it's last leg. I usually defer to your edits, because you are obviously more knowledgeable and educated than I am. I just thought this particular edit was a bit flawed. But you are probably right, I just wanted to see better sourcing because of the sources used within the article. Especially after the earlier edits from Katydidit I reverted. In any case, sorry if you took offense. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of US Grant Yellowstone Park Paragraph
Richard, per your request I rewrote the Yellowstone Park paragraph on the Grant article to give it a bit more historical accuracy and better sourcing. Trust all is well in sunny Billings. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

President Grant and Yellowstone
Good news. Contributor Mike Cline (talk) and myself worked out an edit for Yellowstone National Park in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Mike wrote most of the Yellowstone segment and posted the final draft. Turns out the Northern Pacific Railroad had a financial interest in the Yellowstone afterall. An 1870 expedition recommended the NPR put in a railroad line to Yellowstone. Around the turn of the 20th Century the NPR had put in a line for tourists to Yellowstone. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * good work! Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Kuomintang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Politics of China (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) 11:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Asymmetrical Warfare edit war dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Susanknowledgeguru_reported_by_User:Tarage_.28Result:_.29

Since you were one of the people involved I wanted to let you know about this. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson
As you may have seen, it was promoted to FA. Thank you for your help with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * congratulations on the good work you did! Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm meaning to get back to more 1896 articles but other work keeps interfering.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

German Caribbean
I noticed you made this edit to the article German Caribbean, which previously seemed to be a clever hoax perpetrated by another editor (and is currently being discussed for deletion here). The information you added appears to be legitimate (in contrast to the rest of the article, which seems considerably more dubious), and you seem to have some expertise on the topic, so I wanted to get your input on if the topic of "German Caribbean" itself was worth an article. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the German navy definitely was interested -- but Bismarck vetoed the idea and nothing actually came of it before 1890 when Bismarck was ousted. There was a lot of talk 1890-1910. By 1900 American "naval planners were obsessed with German designs in the hemisphere and countered with energetic efforts to secure naval sites in the Caribbean" says   Germany then turned its attention to Mexico where it played a much bigger role....leading to the Zimmermann Telegram of 1917. Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Walter Weyl
Dr. Jensen: I am not sure I agree with two of your undo's on the Walter Weyl page. First is the opening: if Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, then biographical entries should have short, high-level summaries, no? But you have restored the longest single paragraph in the entire to that lead line... Second is the short description of son Nathaniel Weyl:  his biography is _very_ interesting, taken in light with his father's -- just because it came long after, do you consider son Weyl's progressive politics so different from his father's that they do not merit mention? (In fact, I was surprised to see that you had created father Weyl's entry without wiki-linking it to his son's...) Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the lede should tell the whole story in a nutshell--lots of readers only look at it. Weyl was a thinker so expansion to include Weyl's main ideas seems the way to go.  As for the son, we do not have John and John Quincy Adams to deal with here. the father was certainly not famous for that. The son's notoriety developed so many years after his father's death -- and was so unrelated to his father--that his roles belong in the son's article not the father's. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Links
Not sure why you are adding this  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please get consensus at WT:MED before adding the same link to a bunch of articles. You are more than welcome to add these links to the talk page as possible sources for fellow editors to us. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea and I have done so. Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical history - sources
I think you may already have a hardcopy of one of these books, but, for what it's worth, here are two book sources available for download as pdfs: FiachraByrne (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks-- very useful. I think there may be copyvio issues if Wiki articles link to them. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Germans from Russia
Hello, I am working on the expansion of the Germans from Russia article as part of a wiki education project assigned in my Western History course. The class is being taught by Professor Marilynn Johnson at Boston College, and is meant to expand stub articles on Western History. I noticed that you have contributed to the page recently, and was wondering if you were planning on making any other significant additions soon? Thanks! Hefferjd (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * no plans at the moment--GOOD LUCK on the project and feel free to ask me for help. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Uncited claims re Sam Roberts
Look kid, if you're going to replace your uncited quotation with a partially cited allusion, it still doesn't make the grade. Unh-uh. I'm referring to your Know-Nothing business. If you have the goods on this Sam Roberts, then go ahead and fix the article and you have my blessing. But don't go spreading your net wide, making claims that the footnote cannot cover.Sallieparker (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * goodness that's a shrill complaint; I guess a little knownothingism can makes people nasty. Anyway I cited the source for Sam Roberts as KN leader in San Francisco =  which anyone can click and verify.  there are numerous additional citations here. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're going to need a little more than that. You've got some anti-Chinese agitation in that cite. Anything else? And is there any reason you didn't bother to give the cite BEFORE (I mean...other than the fact that it doesn't support your claims anyway)? And if you're going to push your ideologically-driven smears far and wide like that, you really have no business calling someone else "shrill." Got it??? OK. We'll be watching.Sallieparker (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * lots of cites have been provided--with hot links to the actual page numbers. Actually there was a great deal of anti-Chinese sentiment in San Francisco--for example "By 1853 anti-Chinese editorials were common in San Francisco newspapers. For a time this sentiment gained powerful political backing from the newly formed Know-Nothing Party." [ from ] Rjensen (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

'United States' dispute resolution.
I know we disagree. Our last exchange was your replacing my image of a Euro-Amerindian 1600s conference with a 1920s pinup of Columbia as a "better representation" of early colonial time. Apart from wikipedia sometimes, I value your scholarship and contributions as a writer-editor. I'm still learning procedural ropes, still too wordy, see first "implications" section, which I had to rewrite per Shadowjams knuckle-busting, however courteously administered ...

You are invited to join in the discussion about the U.S. introduction describing the federal constitutional republic “including territories” or “excluding territories” at Defining the United States of America. At “Questions for parties” the arbitrator asks for each to voice a preference a) b) c) d), and brief rationale.

The previous editor taking the lead at Talk to find a compromise for "territories" positions, RightCowsLeftCoast said, “The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed."--RightCowLeftCoast 2:17 am, 1 Mar. Please join in if you have a chance. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually agree with you on civil war issues. (and I don't recall the bit about a 1920s pinup of Columbia)...on this dispute I'll leave it to the international lawyers and pass.  I note that US history textbooks do not cover Puerto Rico, Guam etc after 1900. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Historiography of the Cold War
Please see a discussion on Historiography of the Cold War and a recent section entitled 'Effects of the Cold War on the American Population', in which you might be interested, on the talk page here. Nautica Shad es  13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

John A. J. Creswell
Hello Rjensen. I have been making improvements to the John A.J. Creswell article. Creswell was President Ulysess S. Grant's Postmaster General. Creswell had strongly supported abolishing the Congressional franking privilege. In January 1873, Grant abolished abolished the franking priviledge of Congress. Please feel free to make any improvements to the John A.J. Creswell article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks -- I don't know much about him but I will take a look. keep up the good work. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I am learning about him too with the aid of the newspapers of the times. The Dictionary of American biography has a good article on Creswell. Historians may be rediscovering Creswell. In my opinion, Creswell blows away this myth that Grant did not associate with men of learning or favored military associates. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm learning a lot and made some small stylistic changes. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks Rjensen. The Dictionary of Amerian Biography seems to be the only "biography" on John A. J. Creswell. Apparently Creswell did not resign because of impending scandals, but rather fatigue or a personal issue. Creswell's job must of been intense as the USPS expanded during the 1870's. Amazing in the time when there were no telephones, only the telegraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

changes to Christian fundamentalism
I recall you editing that article along with me, and I've done some recent edits there, wondering if you had a brief second to take a look at the changes and give input. (cf Talk:Christian_fundamentalism) Thanks! --Wikibojopayne (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks-- I will look into it Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks for declaring the article cleaned up; I thought so too, but feel better someone else say so. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pls see
.....User talk:Moxy about the War of 1812 edits by a user.Moxy (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes thanks-- Moagim does not appreciate how Wikipedia uses scholarship and RS. so I made a comment. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lewis1946.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Lewis1946.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello, Rjensen. Just FYI, on Sandstein's talk page I mentioned an edit you made in January. The thread is User talk:Sandstein. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding lede section
I have been working on the Warren G. Harding lede section. I have been trying to balance his Presidential successes with the scandals. Harding did clean up the Veterans Bureau. He may not have known about the other scandals. The Justice Department seemed to be the most scandalized, especially the profiteering of alchohol. If you could look at the Warren G. Harding lede section and make any changes that would be good. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ok again the issue is misjudgment of scoundrels. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent that Harding trusted the "scoundrels." His enforcement of prohibition, in my opinion, was lax since as U.S. Senator he favored the liquor industry. I don't believe Harding was ever for prohibition. I am not sure that President Harding was really behind the enforcement of prohibition, since he himself got confiscated liquor at the White House. With that stated, I believe Harding has been an underrated President by historians who only focus on the scandals. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
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.


 * History of Mexican Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Navajo and Santa Anna


 * History of hospitals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mercy Hospital

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny
You refusal to accept the possibility of American expansionism in the War of 1812 seems to be getting in the way of more important things like obedience to the rules of wikipedia. Like not removing reliably cited,non-anachronous(just thought I should emphasize that) edits which add to the page. Please,in the future,refrain from removing reliably cited additions. I would also greatly appreciate an end to your opposition of contributions of this topic,but judging by your actions in the past,this seems to much to ask. Thank you,and have a good,unbiased day. Rwenonah (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You misread the Nugent book (as well as Stagg) and relied on Pratt's 90-year-old scholarship that has long been supplanted by scholars. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to commend you on your non- total deletion of my edits. Thanks. I'm impressed. However,I find your claims of my misreading Nugent a little extreme. He gives expansion as an objective,and does not state the thing should sue to soften his words in the places you use them. And how can scholarship be supplanted? Pratt had access to the same original sources as modern scholars. it is only prevailing views that have changed,and those are not justification for removing this valid and valuable source.Rwenonah (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pratt was speculating and many scholars followed him up. by 1940 they had found there were few prominent Americans speaking of annexation before war was declared. Madison's goal was to get a bargaining chip, as Nugent explains.   The Jefferson quote, for example, came after the war started and was not a cause. Pratt (by 1955) had dropped his earlier theory and said the main goal of the westerners was stopping the Indian raids. Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did Pratt say this? And do you have any sources for this "Indian raids" point you consistently refer to? And how does Pratts' possibly nonexistent change of opinion modify the use of his earlier article as a source? Rwenonah (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is what Pratt said in his 1955 textbook A history of United States foreign-policy: regarding the war Hawks. "The northwesterners would seize Canada, expel the British, control the St. Lawrence River and its tributary lakes, and make an end of Indian hostilities." No mention of settling there. Pratt notes that Burt "contends that they were of minor importance to were not essential factors in bringing on the war." pp 130, 131.  The problem with linking this to Manifest Destiny, is that in the latter case proponents wanted the farm and ranch land, and wanted to impose American civilization.  In 1812, most Canadians were French Catholics, who were not considered good material to become American Republicans.  No one ever talked about annexing Québec or the Maritimes  -- only the unoccupied lands of Western Ontario which were the base for Tecumseh and his Indian allies.  The Indian raids prevented Americans from settling Ohio Indiana Michigan and Illinois.  The Americans did not talk about settling in Ontario or Q – they wanted Ohio Michigan Wisconsin which the British were preventing by arming the Indians. Pratt says (p 126-7) "there is ample proof that the British authorities did all in their power to hold or win the allegiance of the Indians of the Northwest with the expectation of using them as allies in the event of war.  Indian allegiance could be held only by gifts, and to an Indian no gift was as acceptable as a lethal weapon.  Guns and ammunition, tomahawks and scalping knives were dealt out with some liberality by British agents." Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exscuse me. Are we now using textbooks as reliable sources? Hah. And the textbook(laughing fit) mentions expelling the British,just as I wrote. And last I checked,to control the St.Lawrence,as said in the textbook(ha ha), one must also control Quebec,which you later say they had no intention of annexing. What were they going to do instead. Clearly not leave the British in control,if they'd already expelled them and wanted to control the St. Lawrence. Maybe create a French-speaking client state. But given the racism and recentness of the French and Indian War at the time,that seems impossible. ANd insofar as I know,we were talking about Pratt here,and nothing in that paragraph you wrote says anything to change the reliability and possible usage of his source in the article.  I agree that Burt contends that expansionism was unimportant,but Pratt doesn't. No one disagrees that the British gave the Indians weapons,but a gun can as easily shoot a deer as a man,and there is little direct proof that these were meant to be used against the Americans. Rwenonah (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked me about Pratt's views and I answered. Basic points: a) is there was no serious demand for annexation BEFORE the war started ergo it was not a cause. b) manifest destiny did not include Canada because Americans did not want all those French Catholics.  c) the US goal was to stop Indian attacks on Midwest. Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that. Nothing you've shown me so far says Pratt does. Rwenonah (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pratt stressed the tomahawks and scalping knives, which are not used on deer. lease read up on Tecumseh. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Great. What about intertribal warfare? Now .... What about the whole annexation/manifest destiny/War of 1812 bit? Where have you demonstrated Pratt followed your view on that topic? Rwenonah (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your revert
If you're re-instating that material, please come to the Talk Page and begin the process of discussing it. We're going to need to go over each sentence, line by line, comparing the sourcing to the assertions made therein plus addressing the synthesis issues. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes line by line is the proper procedure. Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you returned the WP:BLP contested material this evening with this edit asking for talk page discussion; you probably didn't see that OrangeMike already discussed this with the comment he made at the very bottom of the page. As he considered it a "gross violation of BLP", I'll cut-and-paste his comment here to make sure you've had a chance to read it fully; please feel free to delete this when you're finished. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass reversion
I've reverted this gigantic section because as written it was a gross violation of BLP; frankly I'm surprised an experienced editor like Rjensen hadn't done so already. This entire section is a massive act of WP:SYNTHESIS, full of accusations unsupported by the provided sources, combined with a tacit assumption that everything done in Illinois is to be blamed on Quinn's "leadership" failures. I hate to break it to you flatlanders, but Illinois has been misgoverning itself quite thoroughly since before Quinn took office; indeed, since before he was born. The pension shortfalls, for example, have been traced to decades of mismanagement by Democratic and Republican officials alike.

I would urge both sides to rebuild this stuff line by line, salvaging only what meets WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP and follows WP:NOR, reflecting what reliable sources say about Quinn not about Illinois. I also ask that all of you abandon the loaded verbs like "confessed", "conceded" and "admitted", which reek of bias and NPOV violations. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
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.


 * Catholic Church in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Keane and John Ireland


 * History of Roman Catholicism in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Keane and John Ireland


 * 19th century history of the Catholic Church in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Ireland


 * Americanism (heresy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Ireland


 * Department store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Lewis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?
Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):


 * Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
 * Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
 * Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
 * Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
 * What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

"...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics."

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
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) 03:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

George S. Boutwell
Recent changes have been made to the George S. Boutwell article. Boutwell was President Grant's appointed Secretary of Treasury. Please feel free to look at the article and make any improvements. I have used Ackerman (2011), The Gold Ring, as a reference for understanding Boutwell. Are there any areas that the article could be improved? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

re: internet sociology
It's a good article, I believe I read parts of it before. I didn't realize it was yours, though :) May I invite you to join the ranks of SOCIO? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks--yes I'd love to join. Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War I
Hi Rjensen, I've noticed that the article on the Battle of the Yser (the most important event for Belgium during WW1) is looking in pretty poor shape, and wondered whether you might be interested proving helping expertise, in light of your sterling work on Belgium in World War I? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've started to work on it. Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Please template refs where possible though! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS
Rjensen: just a note to tell you, good catch as to the prior article move which was done (without consensus). The original title is what was agreed to and would be the more common search term for general readers. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

 * ok. the picture shows exactly what I eat--missing is orange juice & English muffins/toast/bagels. Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for signing on, and please feel free to contribute there! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note
Not sure if you noticed, but there's a discussion at WT:WikiProject United States History that is related to the deism dispute at Alexander Hamilton. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads-up....I left a comment to the effect that this is a point leading scholars have considered at length and Wiki needs to rely on them. Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African-American history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harold Ickes (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) 19:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

NIRA
I appreciate the work you are doing on the National Industrial Recovery Act article. This article tends to draw a lot of POV-pushing, and as the person who greatly expanded it in the first place I want to stay out of those issues because it looks like I have a personal interest. I can help add page numbers, but am stuck on a few other very big projects at the moment. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ok thanks for the heads-up Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaannnd now it looks like the discussion is *really* veering into Godwin's Law territory... Shearonink (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah it's pretty funny what people can imagine -- for the record, I have not been paid by the FBI, CIA, NKVD or MI3 for my edits about Abe Lincoln's mother. Rjensen (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

H B Stowe
Thanks for your edits over at Harriet Beecher Stowe. Do you feel comfortable with the term "minor mystery" without a citation? It seems to me a bit unencyclopedic unless we can put those words in someone else's mouth (or ink). Of course, I didn't want to revert you without noting it, as I don't want to look like I'm started an edit war! Relatively insignificant concern anyway. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stowe biographer Joan B. Hedrick repeats the Lincoln line & adds “One would give a good deal to know the details of this meeting between Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln, but the accounts leave almost everything unsaid." I think the citation (& direct link to the book) in fn 15 is enough for a RS. Some editor tried to call it an "urban legend" (like alligators in the New York sewers) but that is clearly off-base, and I think "minor mystery" puts it in proper perspective. But Lincoln DID say something very funny, everyone agrees. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree he said "something very funny", as that implies only one thing! I still don't like the word mystery either. I'd love to find a historian that says it better than Hedrick. Actually, a quote from a historian saying something like "the quote is a legend" seems a better option, if one exists. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * well that negative attitude doesn't help Wikipedia any. Historians have looked for 150 years to solve the riddle/mystery/puzzle and that's all that is claimed. Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear... I didn't mean to offer a "negative attitude". Your note ("Historians have looked for 150 years...") is not all that is claimed at all. I'm suggesting that the term "minor mystery" is not encyclopedic if written by a Wiki editor, might violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and is possibly synthesis. I'm not sure what's so negative in suggesting that we find a reliable source who makes the claim on our behalf to sidestep these problems. Assume good faith, fellow Wikipedian. -Midnightdreary (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I should apologize as I might, in fact, be a bit punchy; I'm a Bostonian and recent events have affected me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm upset about Boston too! My point is that the RS statement "One would give a good deal to know the details of this meeting between Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln, but the accounts leave almost everything unsaid." can be paraphrased as "minor mystery" and is certainly not  OR or synthesis. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

History of the Poles in the United States
Ok, I am not disagreeing with you about Polish nationalism in the U.S. What I want to tell you is that the information I deleted is a double of the exact same paragraph shown earlier. Do you see it? It's right there under History of the Poles in the United States.Pola.mola (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * my apologies! I'm glad we're working together. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for a very hard working Wikipedian
P.S. While I was here I followed a link to your essay about the War of 1812, Wikipedia style. It's a great read. Interesting story - even the statistics were interesting. And I loved the tone in which you talked about Wikipedia; I thought I detected equal parts affection, frustration, and irony. Completely NPOV of course. Thanks for writing that. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hey thanks!!! you've detected my mood exactly. I have a little more work on San Diego to do. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical and mental health of Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Donald (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) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mulatto
Hi. If you have some time, could you look at this page? Perhaps someone with more knowledge can offer an opinion. Txs. Tobby72 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
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) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for the help at MOOCs. I really feel that that article will be fairly important, it needs a lot of work, and that I'm not the proper person to do it. But I keep on plugging away in the hope that it will start making sense and that I can get a lot of building blocks stacked and ready to go.

All help appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it's what journalists call a breaking story, and I expect a lot of developments in the next few months. Keep plugging away! Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

NIRA lead
I think the changes to this article are lovely. But I have a concern with two things in the lead. The first has to do with that sentence that begins "The National Recovery Administration (NRA) portion..." That doesn't make sense. We're talking about a piece of legislation, not an agency. Even if that sentence were changed to read "The portions administered by the National Recovery Administration (NRA)..." would not make sense, because NRA administered all but the public works portion of the act (most of, but not all of, Title II). Business never liked Title I, Section 7(a), but did like Title I. Wouldn't it be better to say "The many portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act..." instead?

The second sentence that I think is unclear is: "The NRA was abolished by the Supreme Court in 1935 and not replaced." The Court didn't abolish the agency. It never discussed the statutory authority to establish the agency. The agency sunsetted, but never was abolished by the Court. The Court also did not abolish the NIRA. It held some parts of it unconstitutitional, but did not address others parts -- which to this day remain good law and on the books. Since we are talking about the legislation (and not the agency), wouldn't it be better to say that "A portion of the NIRA..."? This sets up what the Court does in the rest of the sentence. The Court doesn't "abolish" any thing. The Court does a single thing: Hold constitutional or hold unconstitutional. (It also interprets law when it can, not reaching constitutional questions if it can help it. But that's not our concern here.)  So instead of the word "abolish", we should use the word "unconstitutional", shouldn't we? That would leave our sentence now reading: "A portion of the NIRA was held unconstitutinoal by the Supreme Court in 1935..." I can live with the word "replaced", but a more proper word would be "reenacted" -- since Congress enacts legislation, rather than "placing" or "replacing" legislation.

I don't think the lead is using jargon. Being accurate about what we're saying might mean writing about a fourth-grade level (like newspapers do; don't get me started on The Missoulian or the Great Falls Tribune!!), but it's not writing jargon or at a technical level.

What do you think? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

PS - Did you see that the constitutionality thing is mentioned in both the first and second paragraphs of the lead? That's duplicative. How do we deal with that? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note--I'm on the road and will get back on Tuesday & will look into it then. Duplication happens a lot in WIki and sometimes it is deliberate-- for example the first couple sentences of the lede summarize the whole lead. Rjensen (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
Hello: regarding your comment here, can you help me find the source that indicates that Hiss was definitively found to be a spy? My understanding, and the Alger Hiss article seems to back this up, is that there is still no final conclusion. Hiss was convicted of perjury, but that didn't show that he was a spy; rather, it showed that he lied about specific facts during his testimony. Looking forward to your help here, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says the consensus of the RS is that he was a spy. Legally, he was convicted of perjury when he swore he was not a spy. Here are three RS: 1) "the present-day consensus among historians is that Alger Hiss was in fact a Soviet spy" ; 2) Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason by Christina Shelton (Simon and Schuster, 2012), title; 3) "the consensus today (aided by the release of Soviet intelligence files) is fairly strong on the side that he had indeed been a spy"  Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits of Booker T. Washington
At first I wanted to revert your edits of the Booker T. Washington intro which I recently rephrased, doing my best to avoid any edit wars. However after re-reading your edits over a few times and comparing the end result to the original prior to my poor effort (which I didn't like for its one-dimensional portrayal and ad hominem POV gist), I came to the conclusion that your edits trimmed the fat while leaving the article summary just as it should be - neutral, short and to the point. Good job!

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * hey--thanks! I plan to do some more work--the organization of the article is poor (there is a lede, a "Overview", and a "Career overview" --all overlapping) The opening lede is most important (many people read only it) and it needs a better summary of his importance and the criticism he he has received.  I think the  lede should mention Atlanta Speech, Tuskegee, autobiography, and his ideology. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Josef Beck-Nazi German Invasion
Last time I checked, it was not a country called Nazi that invaded Poland, it was Germany. Divorcing the "German" part is just wrong on all levels. This is verifiable as I'm sure you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.85.162 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance request neutrality dispute Haller's Blue Army (Poland) page
Hello, to resolve an ongoing neutrality dispute on the Blue Army (Poland) page, I'm requesting any assistance possible from experienced Wikipedia editors to look at the 'Controversies' section of the Blue Army page, and review the text for possible bias. I'm not an seasoned Wikipedia contributor myself, in fact I don't really edit much at all. But, when I came across the Blue Army page, I was taken aback by the blunt and inaccurate way in which the subject matter was portrayed! The list of possible neutrality violations is extensive, and due to my novice editor status all my past attempts to modify the text have been dismissed as being disruptive, and subsequently reversed:

Possible neutrality issues found on the Blue Army (Poland) 'Controversies' section: Neutrality Tag is constantly being taken down without reaching a final consensus on the subject matter. Weasel word are used to create an overall exaggerated impression of the events in question, and others are used to cast doubt on anything reported by the Polish side as being legitimate. POV and the use of questionable secondary source references, which contradict primary source accounts of the events. In this case the investigation conducted by the United States envoy to Poland Hugh S. Gibson and his subsequent State Department report on the issue. The American envoy found that: many of the newspaper reports alleging antisemitism were planted by the German and Soviet governments, and had been inflated or even based on hearsay and confabulation. Also, the envoy reported that many of the "pogroms" were in fact food riots, where an even larger number of Christian shops were ransacked. Undue Weight specific events are taken out of context, such as: abuse of civilians during the military campaign by the Blue Army troops is automatically labeled as antisemitic. Thus, taken out of context, when in fact looting was not only restricted to jewish households.

In the end, I understand that this is a difficult subject matter, and that some of the troops did engage in open antisemitism. But, by breaking the above listed neutrality rules, the editor (Faustian) who wrote much of the section, is creating a false picture of the Blue Army, in which the reader comes away with the bias impression that "Pogroming" is the only thing the Blue Army did.

Again, for a quick snapshot of the primary source's account of the events, please see the United States envoy Hugh S. Gibson Wikipedia page. And, thank you for any assistance in this matter. --68.191.79.36 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Americana Encyclopedia
I am not sure which edit you have seen. I am not adding or taking away any citations I am altering the parameters of those that already exist in about 1.5K of articles that use the Americana citation template with an unnamed parameter. I copied and converted an AWB script I had used on Appleton' citations to work on Americana citations, and I made a mistake and did not change the edit message, however the rest of the edit line showed the actual change made. But if I made another mistake and accidentally converted any Appletons' citations to an Americana citation let me know because as far as I am aware I have not made that mistake. -- PBS (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth and Protectorate
This may not be your speciality, but I'd welcome any comments or suggestions you could offer about my stub Commonwealth and Protectorate, which I'd originally created as a hard redirect to the rather skimpy paragraphs in Kingdom of England. I decided it would be better to direct the reader to the two component articles Commonwealth of England (under Parliament, 1649-53/1659-60) and The Protectorate (of the Cromwells, 1653-59). I also added a bare definitional outline and added a host of See Also links to loosely-related Wikipedia articles (e.g. Confederate Ireland, Restoration (Scotland) and Battle of the Severn [Md, 1655] ). I see no point in trying to grow the stub into a full article as that would just inexpertly duplicate in micro-scale what's in the two component Commonwealth and Protectorate articles. (I think that at one point they may have been a single article.) But I'd welcome any thoughts you might have (or references to 17th-century British history editors). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * the stub does the job--good work. As for substance I 'll get back to those in a few months. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)