User talk:Rjensen/Archive 25

see previous talk at User talk:Rjensen/Archive24

Media in Australia
Dear Richard,

I didn't actually get a copy of your reply to my long note in my Talk box, but after a lot of searching I actually found a copy on your own User Talk box. Did I not get it because I clumsilly forgot to sign with tildes?

I'll forgive you for being a Yank. (That's an Aussie joke, of course!)

Thanks for your comments. I think I will restate the brief summary I made on Electrophone, etc, including the links to the three other sites. I really do think this is important as a predecessor to radio broadcasting. I hope that you and I won't have problems if I reinstate this.

I will also add the rest of the Voigt caption, and will add a brief mention of Fisk under "Sealed Set". I will take your advice and not add any mention of US public stations.

I will also add the 1950s onwards sections to you Australian page.

With best wishes,Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * well we very largely agree! Good. we disagree on the Electrophone: 1) it's point to point and is not broadcasting; 2) its leaders did not move to broadcasting; 3) the RS do not include it; 4) worst of all it's distracting--it tells students that they should pay attention because this somehow is connected to broadcasting. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

History of broadcasting / History of broadcasting in Australia.
Dear Richard,

Wow! You certainly have been busy over the last few days. I congratulate you on all your research, particularly as Australia is a foreign country to you. (I don't mean that to sound compromising.)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree re Electrophone, etc. However, I've made a compromise by braketing that section and reducing the text size. This way, I'll hope you'll agree that we've found middle ground.

You'll note that I have made a few other minor changes.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * great working together here! Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

History of broadcasting / History of broadcasting in Australia.
Dear Richard,

Yes, I agree - it been a positive experience. I still haven't done a full proofread of the sections that you've added, and I will eventually get around to that. My next job (tomorrow?) will be to divide the list of personalities into sub-groups, such as:
 * Broadcasting pioneers
 * Management
 * Producers, back-room personel, etc
 * Announcer, DJs, etc
 * Sportscasters

However, it's now time to turn off the computer ...

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Leo Strauss embedded links issue
Hello, You restored ALL the links I deleted including ones to Internet Archive that have been removed from the site most likely due to copyright issues!

There was a Wiki notice that indicated that the long lists following the article was too long etc...so I spent time on "clean up."

Link content guidelines include this statement:

"External links should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Wikipedia is not an advertising opportunity."

Therefore I can't see the point of linking to numerous stubs to the old U Chicago Press books. Researchers can search Worldcat or Google Books and find them. One UCP link to a stub is enough as a pointer.

The guidelines for links also states:

"Non-free content—including all copyrighted content—can only be used in specific cases, and must be employed judiciously. Its usage must be considered fair use under U.S. copyright law, and comply with the non-free content criteria policy."

So I can see keeping one link to a pay article as a reminder for students to check that resource but I even question the need for one.

The size of the list is addressed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists Lists are to be as short as possible.

I think Wikipedia rules should be followed and that Leo deserves better than these messy lists and links to dead ends etc...

Thanks for you input however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmlmss44 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You erased far too many good items --You erased not only the links but also the title of the articles or even the major books he wrote. I think the proper procedure is to put a citation needed tag rather than erasing it. As far as saying that Strauss wrote too much, and that Wikipedia and should not be interested in more than a few items, I think that is deliberately denying information to Wikipedia readers about  Strauss--who gained influence and credibility by the enormous range of his scholarship. You are misreading the rules: titles and links are not copyright.  As far as "old" University of Chicago books are concerned: they are essential to the study of Strauss.  As far as "advertising" is concerned, there was zero advertising. As far as the guideline that you mentioned is concerned: "Minimal" does not mean zero--it means one link to an article/book will suffice rather than several (for example, we can skip translations and multiple reprints). "Meritable" means it was a serious work by Strauss (as opposed to a casual letter to the editor).  "Directly relevant" means that Strauss actually wrote it & it is relevant to his career.  You erased numerous items that meet these criteria and so I reverted. Rjensen (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
This seems to be a thing with you. You can't let a well re-worked lead sit for very long without getting your hands on it, can you? I spent a great deal of time on that lead, and there wasn't anything wrong with it. I took a lead which was a slight evolution from the FA upgrade in 2009, and made it more descriptive. It was chronological, concise, and had good amounts of detail. If you look at other Presidents, i.e. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, for example, you see a chronological ordering of sections done.

The mention of his alcoholic father was unnecessary in the lead (could be seen as a non-neutral narrative), and other way you structured it weren't as encyclopedia-like. You also had multiple typos. Your grammatical structure was rushed too, and the way you moved around sentences and clauses lead to some things not making sense. This isn't simple language Wikipedia, we can do things in chronological order, and it makes perfect sense; if they only read the first sentence, and they don't find 100% of what they're looking for, they could either A) keep reading B) give up or C) its their problem. I improved and updated a lead that was 6 years old, to keep FA consistency, since it had been slowly changed. Many of your sentences are nearing incomplete thoughts, and would be due for being part of a larger, semicoloned sentence. I undid your edits. Please, use the talk page if you want to completely change a well-structured edit. Just like you did with Theodore Roosevelt, you had to have it your way.  Spartan 7W  §  03:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to keep in mind that people use in encyclopedia to quickly find factual information, especially if they're on their cell phones. That means the key information has to be in the first few sentences rather than buried deeper. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The revised lead was not well worked out it is full of extraneous and useless information (readers are referred to "Americans"; the film industry is Hollywood, not Hollywood California), and lacks key factors (he was a conservative leader not just a "politician"). Your  syntax is poorly done ("his family would settle in") and is full of passive voice references to unknown people ("he was quickly noticed"). You need a lot more writing experience. Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As for arrogance, I've made over 260 edits to the Reagan article since 2005. You made your only three edits in the last day-- not much experience to be so cocksure. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever tried to do something called PROOFREADING? It is embarrassing how many typos you leave behind, gosh. I have no problem with you making some small revisions, that's the point of Wikipedia. However, you ought to proofread, you ought not to have so many typos, put a bit of thought into it before you click the save button six times in a few minutes. You don't have to be a "domesticated burro" about your editing; not everybody has the leisure to spend so much time as you doing editing, but that doesn't mean a person with lower quantity of edits cannot contribute a high quality of edits.  Spartan 7W   §  13:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally you have an intelligent and useful comment to make – thank you. Rjensen (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Matthew account check-in
Hello Rjensen,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Adam Matthew through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Adam Matthew account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Adam Matthew account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Volpe Stone
I know The Lithograph is on the front cover of 'The Norton Anthology of American Literature' Volume B, but I will look for it on the wikimedia commons, thank you--Isaacvolpestone (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservatism and Poland: SDUSA
Poland is a case where SDUSA members with the AFL-CIO helped Solidarity with 300 thousand USD (and more USD later with the NED). Poland is a case where there were clear disagreements among the democracy-promotion social-democrats and the neocons (Kirkpatrick and Podhoretz), who were skeptical about reforming totalitarianism. Since Bush's War with Iraq, "neocons" are typically alleged to be promoting democracy willy nilly, so the Polish case seems significant.

There has been a 7000 character expansion of the SDUSA article, mainly about relations with neoconservatism. Perhaps you could take a look?

Dame Etna (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Neocons were not especially involved with Poland, so I don't think there's much need for that section. Let me identify a few more problems: 1) It gets Kirkpatrick wrong. in 1982 she spoke out strongly in favor of Solidarity: see http://books.google.com/books?id=Gf7aaCPwa_UC&pg=PA164 for proof. 2) Did the opinions of Podhoretz reflect the neocons mainstream??? -- he did not reflect the views of Joshua Muravchik for example. 3) The section Is wrong about Kirkpatrick, deliberately ignores Muravchik and thus is badly done because of POV. 4) in general, encyclopedias are about things that happened – not about things that did not happen. 5) As far as Poland & SDUSA, I had the impression that  Tom Kahn was working explicitly for the AFL-CIO under the direction of Kirkland.    Rjensen (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply.
 * The SDUSA article clarifies "initial position". You cite a 1982 speech, while the debate between Kahn and Podhoretz took place in 1981. Domber's thesis states that Kirkpatrick wanted to deny (not approve) credits to Poland, to force it into default, while the SDUSA people pushed for using it as leverage (as in Kahn's position in the debate)., with revision and typeset . I should try to find more about her 1979-1980 position.
 * Domber has a page discussing Podhoretz.
 * Domber ignores Muravchik, so I don't suppose his opinion is relevant (although I speak in considerable ignorance).
 * Kahn reported directly to Kirkland, as you stated.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In December 1981 The communist government in Warsaw declared martial law & the Reagan Administration had an intense debate about Poland. The focus was huge debt that it owed to Western banks. Kirkpatrick and the hardliners and the neocons argue that the United States should declare the debt in default and thereby dramatically weaken the communist government in Warsaw, and embarrass Moscow. The moderates rejected that advice saying it would seriously hurt Western banks. The moderates won, and Kirkpatrick lost that debate.  My reading of it indicates she strongly supported Solidarity and was trying to bring down the communist regime in Warsaw. Take a look at the speeches he made at the time that I gave the link to.  There is excellent coverage in the new biography by HW Brands, Reagan (2015) pp 336ff Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful edit, which remains. The disagreement was earlier. Kahn's discussion of Kirkpatrick was moved closer to this material.
 * There has been an attempt to have the lede be short, calling it right-wing, Shachtmanite, and neoconservative in the first paragraphs, which is why I expanded the discussion of neoconservatism (using what I could find on Wikipedia) and quick Google searches.
 * I shall look at those references.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I think we're generally agreed :) The consensus of RS (as represented by Lipset) is to reject the Trotskyite image--A couple of neocons in their undergraduate days did linkup with the Trotskyites, primarily to oppose Stalin. That connection was dead several decades before neoconservatism arrived, and the great majority of neocons never had any connection to Trotsky. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Justin Rainmondo was banned some years ago, apparently, but expect to see more of his work blossoming again on Wikipedia, because it was cited favorably by Jack Ross's new book, which (although originally not an academic book) had its publisher bought by a university press, so it is a WP:RS. :(
 * Dame Etna (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that university presses are now publishing historical romances and alternative-history novels (and in the case of one French book) surrealism. Dame Etna (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Overt aid to Poland
I remember Domber giving 10 million as NED's aid to Poland, and given the mistreatment of Thiele by the article I wrongly inferred that the NED support was credited to the CIA (by whoever twisted Thiele noncooperatively and in extended form). Dame Etna (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS
I've revered your edit here and started a talk page discussion. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is obscene and sacrilegious to suggest that the Nazi SS was an organization that resembled the early Christian Church -- that's why I reverted it. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary article: analysis of defeat
Dear Jensen, You edited the Austria Hungary article "analysis of defeat" section with dubious outdated and very relative references. All of these well-spread imaginations misconception are based on the misconceptions of socialist historian Oszkár Jászi. Many historians copied his works ,and even his exact sentences with minimal modifications (especially in USA) without any critique, despite the fact, that Jászi used outdated informations and statistics in his works, for example: he used economic and industrial statistics from the 1890s and 1900 (which was avaiable for him at the time) for the 1910s and WW1 era. What does it mean "rural" no enough strong industry (based on his outdated datas), it is a very relative thing. Which countries are / were the benchmark gauge? Austria-Hungary had higher industrial output (see machine manufacturing electrotechnology etc...) than France in the 1910s. It became the fourth largest industrial nation of his era. (See: Schulze, Max-Stephan. Engineering and Economic Growth: The Development of Austria-Hungary's Machine-Building Industry in the Late Nineteenth Century, p. 295. Peter Lang (Frankfurt), 1996.) About etalon (benchmark) For the WW1 era, we must compare the empire with its enemies: Russia Romania Serbia and Italy. Romania Serbia and Russia were completely agricultural societies, whith historically traditionally very slow economic societal infrastructural development since the beginnings of their existence (they were orthodox countries, which were culturally not part of the Catholic-Protestant western civilization, but the semi-asian Orthodox civilization). Romania and serbia had no industrialization, thus they entirelly based on the weapon import from Other countries. Russia had a french financed arms industry before the ww1, but without Western help and import it was ineffective in long term. Italy had also very weak industry, despite the fact it was a more developed country than the above mentioned three Orthodox countries. The problem of Austro-Hungarian indsurtial capacity was caused by the war, due to the fact, that Austro-Hungarian industry was heavily dependent on foreign raw materials, thus the industrial output was shockingly paralyzed during the ww1.

Best regards and Thank you for your reply!--Truthvohl (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone else wrote the "analysis of defeat" material; They used the Encyclopaedia Britannica mostly. All I added was the final paragraph = a quotation from a very new 2014 book by Alexander Watson. I did make some additions to other homefront issues, citing major recent sources especially Max-Stephan Schulze. Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is just a wrong interpretation of facts. It might, that Austria-Hungary had weak industry in a comparison with the USA Germany and UK. But A-H had no real (armed conflicts) with these countries. All of the enemies of A-H Empire were non-industrialized or minimally industrialized countries, which were far backward in economic societal infrastructural development (Russia Romania Serbia), even its most advanced enemy Italy was less industrialized than A-H monarchy. . Therefore this bad interpretation is misleading for the reader.

Best regards! Thank you for your reply! --Brewglod (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A-H had an economy that was too weak to sustain a major war (as did Russia & Italy) and as that became obvious popular support for AH collapsed, as it did in Russia & Italy as well . Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The German Empire - the strongest industrial country of Europe (its industrial output was double of the UK in 1910 - too weak to sustain a major war against the whole World, and its economic collapse and starvation caused the fall of the Empire and its Emperor. Russia lost the Eastern front with long serials of heavy defeats by the Central powers. Serbia was occupied in one and half year, its army was evacuated to island of Corfu by entente navy. Romania lost the war within half year. Italy had a very deep economic and military crisis which was solved by massive Entente help (enormous import of weapons and munition vehicles etc...) It would be an interesting further discussion that A-H Empire was defeated or - de facto in the reality - dissolved before its major defeat in Italian front. When as "the defeat"? At the last Italian offensive Austro-Hungarian Army took to the field without any food and munition supply, and fought without any political supports for a de facto non-existent empire. Further note: The UK went close to a full economic collapse by 1916, which was solved by heavy loaning from the American Federal Reserve System, and enormous war material industrial and munition supply came from the USA, the UK lost all huge investments in the USA, and have a high dept. Without that American help, the UK had to left the war theater with a separate peace with the Germans.--Brewglod (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you fro your reply!

World War I
I'm baffled by your stated reason for removing the details of the last soldiers to die in the conflict from World War I. Could you explain further? Surely a better reason for removing it is that such information is fundamentally trivia? QuipQuotch (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry did NOT name the last soldier killed in the war. It was narrowed to only include the last American, last Briton and last Canadian. That shows a very strong and narrow Anglo bias-- it did not include the last German, the last Austrian, the last Frenchman, the last Italian, the last Belgian, the last Australian etc. etc. Rjensen (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Napoleonic Wars edits
Dear Richard Jensen,

Your recent edit of my edit at the Napoleonic Wars page occurred while I was still trying to fix the link to a reliable source ("RS") on U.S. immigration statistics, which I gather was your principal concern. The link is now fixed. See the History page for that article. Transatlantic migration is a specialty of mine, but I am far from being an expert at Wikipedia. I hope am posting this comment properly.

I think you are correct in referring to U.S. immigration 1815-30 as "low" relative to what came after, but not before. According to the data I have assembled (see the now correct link in the Napoleonic Wars article, footnote 83, for more information and sources), on an annual basis, migration to the USA from Europe during 1815-30 was nearly as high as it had ever been for any prior 15 year period since independence (or since the Mayflower). The initial post-Napoleonic boom happened in 1816-19; on an annual basis, migrant inflows to America from Europe for those four years were four and half times the rate during the 1803-14 period. The 1820s were a slump period after the Panic of 1819, but by 1827-30 immigration was back at 1816-19 levels, and it mushroomed thereafter. During the potato famine and aftermath of the late 1840s and early 1850s, U.S. immigration hit the all-time peak relative to domestic population. Thereafter, up to WW I, annual inflows were counted in the hundreds of thousands rather than thousands. I think few migration historians would doubt that this unprecedented scale of mass migration could have occurred had transatlantic travel been impeded by the sorts of blockades and Atlantic wide conflicts which characterized the Napoleonic era. Rather than start a whole new section of the article, I put my point about migration, where it arguably fits rather well anyway, under the "Political Effects" following the Congress of Vienna and the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Thanks for keeping a keen eye on Wikipedia history articles! Drew Drewkeeling (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you do not have a Reliable Source-- a published secondary source-- about "pent up demand" All you have is a self published blog (in which the focus is on much later period) that you wrote and published yourself. Please use a published journal article. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me add that "pent-up" Suggests a temporary surge based on the unavailability of transportation in the 1810-15 period. Therefore it is not a long-term or permanent result of the wars and should not be included. In this regard, it is similar to the short temporary surge in divorces in the United States that took place around 1946-- all of which involve servicemen who could not get a divorce during the war--there was no long-term impact of the war on the stability of marriages. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Richard. There were two effects, one short term (due to "pent-up demand" and other factors related to Congress of Vienna as noted on my site and in reliable sources listed there), the other long term (the transatlantic century of peace 1815-1914), but those two effects are related. Migration, especially the relatively quite unrestricted migration across the 19th and the 20th century North Atlantic, is highly cyclical. There was a down cycle during and for some time following the depression of 1819-21, after that -interspersed with further economic depressions- the long term trend was up, and the volumes relative to population were historically high. Strictly speaking, the long term impact [the greatest transoceanic migration ever (Europe to US, 1815-1914)] was an outcome of the terms on which the Napoleonic Wars were ended rather than the military conflict per se, but this can be said for long term political and economic impacts in general.

My source for immigration flows, 1815-19, is Grabbe. I think his book is generally reliable, as does Ray Cohn (in his book). Older migration historioraphy (e.g. Marcus Hansen) generally agrees that there was a surge after 1815. Probably, given chain migration effects, etc. this had a lingering impetus even after the recovery from the 1819-21 slump, but in any case, the transatlantic peace wrought by the Vienna Congress (and the Treaty of Ghent) was clearly a central reason for BOTH the post-1815 surge and for the long run result of 30 million migrants moving to the US from Europe during the ensuing century. I hope this explanation suffices.

I can add in some published sources to the footnotes (though that does not seem to be commonly required at Wikipedia) rather than referencing them indirectly via my own website, but I would appreciate your leaving the text sentences in. If two sentences on immigration seems of balance in this article, I would suggest that this is because there is almost nothing there (yet) on long term economic impacts. So rather than deleting a start towards remedying that deficiency, it seems to me it would make more sense for to get more (not less) economic history included. Drewkeeling (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The long-term demographic effects of the century-long peace of 1814-1914 do not belong in this article, in my opinion.  I strongly suggest you put it in a suitable demographic article. Or perhaps put it in International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)--- that article is too heavy on diplomacy and warfare and two light on trade and immigration. Take a look at my comments on your own talk page: published Citations are required here, and references to your own webpage do not count as RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. I've read your informative post on my talk page too. I will beef up the footnotes with published sources. I thought it was okay to cite my website if there was specific and relevant source material there which credibly supported the text. But the basic points made in this case can be referenced via published articles of mine, even though they focus mostly on post 1850, along with some of the other standard reference works, and then (if I follow correctly what you are saying) my website -as a guide to accessing the articles- could also remain in footnotes. One clarification: My interest here, and in my historical research and writings generally, has been and is with migration (specifically the processes by which it occurs), not the demographic impacts of it. 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Drewkeeling

[PS: Thanks also for the comments and pointers on my talk page; see it also for my reply to your latest post there] Drewkeeling (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've now added citations to published secondary sources in the footnotes of the Napoleonic Wars article. Thanks for pointing out this deficiency.Drewkeeling (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK--Great! Rjensen (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian Reorganization Act
Sir, Do you know the names of the Anthropologist John Collier hired to work on the reorganization act? Thank you, Stephen Gunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.107.96.138 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Felix Cohen did the drafting. Rusco says the big names in anthropology were asked but gave little help. Take a look at

Timeline of African-American history
You reverted my edit to the timeline of AA history. I disagree with your assessment and the edit should be allowed time for debate. I've started a discussion on the Talk page to allow the public time to weigh in. A person born in West Africa (before transport to the Americas) cannot be reasonably or logically separated from West Africa's history. There is a reason that the hyphenated term African-American starts with the word African. History did not begin for Africans in West Africa and thus African-Americans with the slave trade. That's racist, colonial propaganda of the type that led to the crime against humanity that was the slave trade.Rod (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the timeline additions were all about kingdoms and not about the people--which of those kings captured and sold slaves? Who cut deals with the slave traders? Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

French colonial empire
The French Union article and the French Fourth Republic explains it better: they were colonies but under the French Union and then as colonies, withdrew from the French Union. As such, the colonial empire as it was ended in 1946 and instead we have colonies of the Union which fought in wars and withdrew. This matches those two articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source to the that kind of assertion. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:French_colonial_empire. Let's discuss it further there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss removal of the Chomsky quote, please
Please discuss whether or not inclusion of the Chomsky quote in the Neoliberalism on the talk page. The material is a criticism of Neoliberalism, & it is reliabbly cited. Peaceray (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has to be a reliable source by experts on the subject, Not merely an exact quotation of an unreliable source by people who are not experts. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is a secondary source published by an academic press (Routledge) and the authors are both academics who are experts in the field.
 * The source is considered to be highly reliable according to WP:RS.-- Ubikwit  ????/?? 04:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualties in Malagasy Uprising article
Hi Rjensen, thanks for taking an interest in the Malagasy Uprising article. I saw you've been adjusting the number of casualties, which vary widely in the literature on the topic. Let's discuss and come to agreement before making any further adjustments to this as it's currently written, since it's already at GA. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When I wrote in the lead was simply the repetition Of what has long been in the text. Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Truman Doctrine edits
I made the edits that you just reverted on the Truman Doctrine page. From your biography, I fail to see how you can dispute the grammatical changes I made. The 'only' was clearly in the wrong place. The Soviet Union would only respond to force? It wouldn't be doing anything else at all? And so forth.

If you think it was Soviet imperialism, that's fine, but this is supposed to be an objective resource, and there are reasonable arguments that it was not imperialism. It certainly didn't call itself imperialism, as British imperialism did. I fail to see why, given that this is supposed to be an objective resource, 'expansionism' is unsatisfactory. It communicates the same meaning without being tendentious.
 * "expansionism" has the same objectivity as "imperialism" But is less accurate in this regard. Check the dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines imperialism as a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world. Random House Dictionary defines it: the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. It seems to me that that definition covers the satellite countries of Eastern Europe which we're mostly talking about. Expansionism, on the other hand, focuses on how the USSR annexed territory (Which it did in the case of the Baltic states and Ukraine, East Prussia, etc.) That expansion was approved by Roosevelt and Churchill and was not at issue. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Containment
Hi Richard. Just a heads up that I went bold and hacked away at the overlong and meandering lead at Containment. I expect you will be noting that on your watchlist momentarily. Hopefully less is more here. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead is about American presidents because that is what the article is about and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a mini-essay only partly reflected in the body and having little to do with the actual topic of the piece, but I'm not married to the improvement-by-shortening. Carrite (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Too much of that information distorted the focus and scope of the article, which is on the doctrine, which is alive and well today.-- Ubikwit  ????/?? 04:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron
Hi Rjensen

David Cameron's kinship with the present Clan Chief is not influential on British policy (as you suggest) but it is a fact. There is a Wiki section about his ancestry - so by the same token how relevant is it that he is descends from William IV?

Facts! Meantime I shall restore this additional genealogical info & await further considerable comment no doubt! But on a serious note, surely it is important to know how he descends from the Scottish family (qv. Burke's Peerage)?

Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 99.99% of the facts are discarded by editors. those that remain have to have a good encyclopedic reason for being.  I suppose someone is now hunting down his 9th and 10th cousins for inclusion. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you regard this info as being irrelevant. M Mabelina (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's your job to show why it's useful and relevant... He agreed has something to do with policy. Perhaps it shaped his world view? Maybe he spends his leisure time with his eighth cousins?? Maybe he consults with them because they are his cousins?? Please tell us what your reasons are. And whatever happened to the sixth-cousins anyway? why are they not mentioned?? Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just answering your point above when you introduced some sort of clash - so in brief he descends from the 18th Lochiel via John Cameron of Fassiefern as described in Burke's - this has nothing to do with policy, simply to do with his patrilineal genealogy. M Mabelina (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

your politically motivated vandalism
why are you stopping facts from being displayed? are you paid to spread propaganda? Do you seriously suggest that someone has to speak Ukrainian to discuss the Ukraine Crisis?

Maybe you are looking to lose your account as an editor? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.102.143 (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to use a reliable source on Ukrainian politics...Someone who has not been in the country, has not talked to any of the leaders, and who is unable to read the news media sounds like a pretty weak source. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked to the sources that were used, and none of them actually state that the United States changed the regime--the article is Only about "Covert United States foreign regime change actions". Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Editorial cartoon mocking FDR's "Alphabet agencies".jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Editorial cartoon mocking FDR's "Alphabet agencies".jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. The cartoon is in the public domain. The copyright on that 1935 cartoon expired in 1963 and was not renewed according to the US Copyright Office. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * hi, nice upload, however please use template:information and template:PD-US-not renewed. it allows the metadata to be machine readable for wikidata. the wizard will also put in the appropriate fair use licenses. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Truman Honorary DCL at Oxford
Rjensen, you recently deleted the "Mr Truman's Degree" part of my update to Harry S. Truman (diff) with the edit note "Trivial items supported by primary source-- need a reliable secondary source that says this is actually important in Truman's career". I don't dispute that principle, but it seems to me that if the Oxford degree is important enough to mention—which it might not be—then Anscombe's well-documented intervention should be mentioned too. It is very unusual for Oxford's Congregation to be asked to vote on an honorary degree, and back in 1956 it was really quite extraordinary. I was concerned to correct the widely-republished canard that his honorary degree was in "Civic" law, which isn't a field that has a specific degree and anyway is called "Administrative" law by the faculty. I might be able to provide other sources but it isn't clear which one(s) you are objecting to. Such sources will probably be from archived papers so please be specific about your concerns. Frankly I don't understand your objection, but if you were concerned that my edit was made by a thoughtless youngster I assure you the opposite is true! - Pointillist (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * this is all about Anscombe and should be in her article. It's not really about Truman, it's about her views on atomic weapons & how she used the occasion to gain publicity for her offbeat views on military policy.  Oxford dons rejected her action by a large margin so she was not very convincing to her peers.  you need a published reliable source that says the episode is important for Truman's career.  Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the English trip is important to Truman's career. McCulloch gives seven pages of details, including two pages to the Oxford ceremony. His point is that it validated Truman's special relationship with the British and indeed that it demonstrated Britons close ties to the United States (despite the Suez crisis at the same time). Rjensen (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to have replied sooner – I'm working long days at the moment. Agreed let's leave the Oxford mention in place, now it has the correct degree. To determine whether the Anscombe protest had significant contemporary coverage I'll need the Bodleian and/or a 1950s newspaper archive so this aspect will probably have to stand until September. I'll give you a heads up if I find anything. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ok. Notice that "significant contemporary coverage" of the sort that requires archival work in the manuscripts or contemporary newspapers (which are primary sources) is not allowed by Wikipedia. You need a reliable published secondary source that makes the point that it is important regarding Truman. That is very doubtful indeed. I checked a half a dozen biographies and encyclopedias on Truman, and they do not mention Anscombe.  There's no question that it is important enough regarding Anscombe, and indeed the episode is covered in her Wikipedia entry. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already secondary coverage of the facts, but it isn't clear whether the story actually had any significance at the time, so contemporary reports would be useful. The 1956 trip isn't mentioned in biographies of UK politicians I've checked, but I found that Robin Day raised the matter when he interviewed Truman on TV at the time (Day, Grand Inquisitor, pp 97–98; Cox, See It Happen, pp. 52–54) and it could be that there was some discussion around that. It might come to nothing but there's no harm in casting about. - Pointillist (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:TR-panama-canal.jpg
hi, nice image upload. however, don't know why you say unknown author. it's obviously half of an Underwood & Underwood stereo-card. the problem with cropping out the watermark, is that an artist that did the colorizing might claim a copyright. i suspect it may be this artist here. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * colorizing was done to thousands of photos at the time to sell copies about a current topic. all these are now in pre-1923 public domain. to colorize later than 1923 an artist needed to purchase rights from Underwood, file a separate claim in Washington, and put a (c) on the image--AND renew it on time. No (c) is on the image.  The watermark leads to this: "You have to contact the artist directly. At the top right corner of each artwork page, you'll see a link with the artist / photographer who created the artwork. If you click there, you'll be taken to the artist's profile page on Fine Art America." --thus we get  "Artist Granger" But "Granger" is not an artist it's an agency with several million PD images. So there is no artist claim or copyright claim.  as for  Dullaway-- She does not claim to have painted it & her color work is much more complex than revealed in this photo So there is no reason to suspect she's the artist. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron
RJensen I experienced an unwieldy ambush from you before, so please check before making further statements about your knowledge (or lack of)... Sorry to say this, but please do check properly first. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the consensus is against you on the talk page so give it up. Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus of knowledgeable people? M Mabelina (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus of wikipedia editors, who are the ones at work here. You are an anonymous person with a nearly blank home page that claims no credentials or expertise. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary adds material not in sources
I was concerned by both [edit] and its summary. That's a wholesale revision; describing it as "Tweaks" is misleading. Furthermore, the sources do not say taht Wilson "felt tricked"; on the contrary, they make it clear that he knew exactly what the film was about. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it lacks an RS--there are numerous good sources. Wilson felt tricked see The Birth of a Nation. The trickery is emphasized by Cooper: see  Rjensen (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Conservatism in the United States#disagreement
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Conservatism in the United States. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC){{Z48}

Time Link to paywall
Just a quick question, as I noticed that you replaced the External Link I removed in the Hugh S. Johnson article. I understand how it could/should be in the sources, but I was under the impression that paywall and subscription based links were not to be in External Links. The link you posted goes to a teaser page that doesn't even cite the subject, unless you are logged in (I assume). I'm just trying to understand the logic. Thanks ! Zeugzeug (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked to a cite that gave some historical info. that makes it exempt from the guideline, i think. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I did a little digging, and found Template:Subscription required, providing some clarification on subscription sites in the External Links. I think putting that flag on the link satisfies both of our concerns. Wouldn't you agree ? Looks like it might need to be on the source entry as well.Zeugzeug (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the link provided useful info WITHOUT paying. so subscription in not "required" & this rule does not apply ["a reader must pay... to gain access to the linked page."] Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to go over this, but I don't think that you and I are seeing the same thing at that link. Here is a screencap of what I am seeing : http://imgur.com/vaNzU2q is this the same page you see ? If so, please explain what is useful, as the subject is not even mentioned. Zeugzeug (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We did not pay for that page so it is not covered by the rule. It tells who did not make the cut in 1933...that's a small bit of useful info regarding who became the "1933 Man of the Year." Rjensen (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that clarification. While I don't share your view that the information in the external link provides enough information to justify being listed in the External Links, I do respect your argument. I defer to your judgement, but I do want to reference this conversation in the talk pages should others have the same questions. Thanks again for the conversation.Zeugzeug (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, only bendable guidelines. But any time any rule says "X and Y and Z must all apply" then I check to see if they all do apply. As for the info--i agree it's minimal. However we do alert people who might otherwise pay $ to see a weak source. Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Military career of George Washington
This article needs some help - I really don't have the time to fix it all up, am hoping someone like yourself who's into American military history/American Revolution history can help. Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. I made some revisions and added some citations-- I hope that helps a bit. Rjensen (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PMML Update
We've been having a busy summer at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library. The Literature award was announced on June 30th. The 2015 recipient is David Hackett Fischer. A new exhibit on late 19th century military life entitled Dignity of Duty opened on June 24th. The exhibit has a companion book, Dignity of Duty: The Journals of Erasmus Corwin Gilbreath, 1861-1898. Lots of Library Interns/Wikipedians in Residence have been busy updating biographies and creating stubs for WWI songs and WWI battles. The Museum & Library has gotten a lot of good press as a result. Please help me spread the word! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

7/5 Revision
Thank you for your editorial vigilance. That Wikipedia article has been taking quite a lot of abuse recently. MaynardClark (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Confederate States of America
I've restored the stable lead to Confederate States of America which you seem to have destabilized by turning a comma into a period and removing more appropriate and accurate language which introduced many grammatical errors. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK but "sovereign foreign state" is gibberish so I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Question
If you're going to drop the "fringe theory" about Stonewall Jackson, how about dropping the exact same "fringe theory" on John Wilkes Booth? Why is one accepted but not the other? Thor2000 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you believe either one is true?? Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Course not, but not a lot of people know about the Stonewall myth, but yet everyone knows about the legends about Booth, Billy the Kid and Jesse James. Whether these stories are true or not, the legends are a part of the histories of these characters. Thor2000 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i don't see much need to refute little-known myths as is the Jackson case. Billy the kid & Jesse James are 95% myth in the first place, while Jackson is mostly real, and we should keep it that way. Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I understand the question here? When is a "myth" sufficiently notable to be in an article? There must be a cutoff...no? Not that I am an authority but I had never heard of this Jackson myth whereas I am quite familiar with the Billy the Kid and Booth myths. How does one extrapolate from me to consensus? Historians I guess. Juan Riley (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the editor who proposes it has to show that RS consider it important. There is a real danger here that the 10th grader will tell his brother the myth ("I read it on Wikipedia") and the bit about historians doubting it will get left out.  That would make us complicit in spreading myths of the sort young teenage boys gobble up.  Rjensen (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispute in article Second Sino Japanese War
I see you are a history expert. I hope you can solve the dispute in this article based on your professional experience. Recently, I use a source from China as the citation for casualties of Chinese communist in this war. However, User:?????? deleted my edition and changed the figure based on the citation from another wikipedia article. Moreover, the figure he cited is just the casualties of Chinese communist in two battles alone not the entire 8-year war. I told him wikipeidia cannot be used as the source in wiki article but he kept this edition. I don't want to involve a edition war and I don't have the professional history experience. I see you are a modern history professor and a wikipedian. I hope you can give some professional idea for this problem, Then I hope you can check the recent edition from this user. I see the editions from this user are all about how nationalist Chinese killed the Japanese civilians in this war and the massacre committed by Chinese. I did not revert any of his editions about these and did not debate with him because I see he cited some Japanese sources even I cannot understand Japanese. However, he continued revert my referenced editions by a citation from wikipedia made me doubt his previous edition. It seems he is a single purpose editor who focus on article related SSJW. I hope you can determine whether his recent editions in this article are fringe theory based on your professional knowledge. Actually there is a discussion about his edition here, Thank you.Miracle dream (talk)
 * I can't help you here--sorry. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your use of rollback on American Civil War
Was that a mistake? You shouldn't use rollback for those kinds of edits... Dustin  ( talk ) 19:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources, please
Regarding Religion in the Netherlands, please produce RS to demonstrate that 'most Dutch Jews were murdered in The Holocaust' as there are no sources cited for the percentage of the Dutch Jewish population who perished during that period. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct to say that all the Jews killed by the Nazis were murdered as part of a deliberate policy of killing them all. the Holocaust Encyclopedia says 75-80% of Dutch Jews were killed by Nazis. see   Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hitler as Jackson
The article is called "Jackson: Hero or american Hitler?" Check it out: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/12/news/OE-BYKER12. It was absolutely sourced. please check your facts before reverting edits next time. I will add it back accordingly. Neddy1234 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)