Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rjensen

The content dispute
Should, in the intro, Hamilton's opposition to slavery be referred to by:
 * A such moderate expressions as:
 * Hamilton was one of the prominent men who opposed slavery
 * Like many of the Founding Fathers, he expressed his detestation for slavery.
 * Hamilton was an abolitionist.


 * B statements like:
 * Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery.

B, of which Rjensen has supplied several variants, steadily more extreme, violates WP:Peacock.

Also, it's a statement of opinion. If such things appear in an intro, they should reflect an overwhelming consensus of scholarship; because there is no room to discuss the differences. (On this principle, I have left leading [American] constitutional lawyer in the intro.)

I have seen no sources that actually support B, or anything resembling it; Rjensen has claimed some, which actually appear to say A.

(Not, on the whole, William Lloyd Garrison) Most of these facts are creditable, and some are in the intro; but they do not add up to B, and (more importantly) Littlefield does not say they do. Garrison would never have done the last three. Septentrionalis 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * James Oliver Horton: "Alexander Hamilton:Slavery and Race in a Revolutionary Generation." This is eight pages, but it's online here
 * Richard S. Newman: The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic All Newman actually says on Hamilton is:
 * The New York society joined its Pennsylvania counterpart as one of the most visible first-generation abolitionist organizations. Inaugurated in New York City in January 1784, the NYMS advocated the gradual abolition of slavery, established schools for free blacks, aided African Americans in courts of law, and fought to end the overseas and domestic slave trades. Like the PAS, the New York group received official incorporation from the state government and welcomed prominent statesmen into its ranks, including John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. (18)
 * New York’s John Jay and Alexander Hamilton (both members of the New York Manumission Society) held corresponding status in the PAS.(28) (after similar mentions of PAS members from Massachusetts.
 * David Brion Davis: Inhuman Bondage p. 154. What this says is:
 * "No less significant is the fact that many national leaders including Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Rufus King, slavery as an immense problem, a curse, a blight, or a national disease."
 * Bayard Tuckerman: William Jay and the Abolition of Slavery (a book from 1893)
 * Several abolition and manumission societies were formed. The oldest of these was that of Pennsylvania, which in 1787 chose Franklin for its president. A society was formed in New York in 1785 with John Jay as President and Alexander Hamilton as secretary; in Rhode Island in 1789, under the lead of Dr. Hopkins. IN 1791, before the Connecticut society, Jonathan Edwards the younger..." and so on
 * Daniel C. Littlefield: "John Jay, the Revolutionary Generation, and Slavery" New York History 2000, 91-132. A forty-page essay on Jay, it mentions Hamilton four or five times.
 * It concludes on Jay: "[ John Peronneau, John Adams, and Robert Carter III ] were contemporaries whose reflections on the injustice of slavery (or at least its inexpediency) caused them to act sooner, with more rectitude and at greater cost than Jay."..."If Jay was not in the vanguard of militant abolitionists, he was still a leader among men of property to recognize a wrong and move slowly and genteelly towards its eradication."(132)
 * On Hamilton:
 * He was reputed to be the father of a mulatto son, William Hamilton. (91) (Rjensen may be reading the frequent references to him, who was a leader of abolitionism, as to his father.)
 * He lived, like Jay, near City Hall.(93)
 * He had written the Continental Congress about a project to raise a regiment of freed slaves.(117)
 * He was a founding member of the NY Manumission Society (119) [other sources disagree]
 * He spoke once of slaves as "injured" humanity, and offended Southerners. (119)
 * He "never owned slaves himself", but bought one for his wife (120)
 * He may have refused a memorial from the Society to the Constitutional Convention.(122)
 * He sent a slave back from New York to his owner, Henry Laurens (126; Hamilton Papers 3:606-8)

Content Dispute Irrelevant
While there is a genuine content dispute, the only content-related issue deserving of an RfC is that some of Rjensen's sources appear (to me) not to contain the statements he attributes to them. This may have a good-faith explanation, but it is genuinely worrisome. Nevertheless, I would not have endorsed an RfC based on that issue without more time to cross-check.

This RfC addresses a very specific personal attack, which I would have found extremely offensive if directed at me. Rjensen's response strikes me as unsatisfactory, because he belittles Franklin's contribution to abolition in much the same terms, yet obviously considers neither himself, nor his source to be pro-slavery.

If he really did not mean to make the accusation carried by his words, then he can simply strike the offending words, rephrase, and explain clearly what he did mean in more temperate terms. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Rjensen also made an error in his response: it was I, not Pmanderson, who cited Bowen. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rjensen further errs in dating the insertion of, "The Russians would make the best troops..." to June 23. I had to search for the diff, but it was June 22.  It should also be noted that the speaker is Hamilton, not Pmanderson, and the quotation is properly sourced.  Rjensen does not make these points as clear as I think proper. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson deliberately put racist material in Wiki to ridicule black soldiers and demean abolitionism. That deserves condemnation. Inserting the Russian bit was poor editing on his part. Rjensen 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hamilton made the statement. If he thereby expressed a racist sentiment, it, or some reference to it, is needed for NPOV.  If the statement is not racist, then Rjensen's objection falls to the ground.  Either way, speculating about Pmanderson's motives is inappropriate: speculating in a defamatory way is a personal attack.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hamilton said that some people (whom we call racists in 2006) thought blacks were too stupid to be soldiers, then Hamilton refuted the charge saying it is false. Pmanderson wrote it so that Hamilton seemingly said the blacks were stupid. That was bad editing with a racist agenda. Rjensen 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go, again! It is simply wrong of you to speculate about his intent.  If you feel it is a bad edit, criticize the edit, not the editor.  That's fundamental, or we will never be able to edit articles like this.  As for this particular edit, we never really got a chance to discuss it -- you accused Pmanderson of being pro-slavery rather than explaining why you think it is a bad edit.  I'm sure that you could have explained it calmly and dispassionately.  Who knows?  You might well have convinced one or both of us that it was a bad edit.  Or some lurking editor might have popped up to help. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have quoted Hamilton's letter at length on the project page, so we can all see what it says. Rjensen cites the elements in the wrong order; but I agreed in the beginning, and agree now, that the passage about the Russians is probably a reply to objections. If Rjensen had asked, instead of leaping to uncivil conclusions, I would have said so. Septentrionalis 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People need a historical sensibility to edit historical articles. Garrison is a good example: using him as a model of what an abolitionist should be is the most elementary fallacy. (Garrison was born after Hamilton died and could not have been a role model). Rjensen 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the anachronism of choosing Garrison, rather then, say, John Woolman as abolitionist par excellence makes Pmanderson a pro-slavery editor, which is the personal attack at issue. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia should be written to be understood by those who read it, now, in 2006. "Abolitionist" now means, centrally, Garrison, Brown, Phillips, Sumner, Thoreau. One can use it otherwise. One can call Socrates an "abolitionist" on the basis of the Meno - I think I read that essay; but I would oppose putting it into Socrates, even with a prompt and full explanation.

But let us take William Wilberforce, born 1759. Did he buy a slave for his family, even family in the West Indies? did he stop anti-slavery petitions from Parliament? did he return a slave to its owner? If so, this argument has some bearing on the content dispute, only. If not, this is time-wasting.

Hamilton disliked slavery; but he valued the Union above the question of slavery. That is an honorable position; but each article should give its subject the honor (and dishonor) due him, and not different ones. Septentrionalis 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But, again, this is a distraction. This RfC is about conduct, not content.  Rjensen provides an alternate theory of Pmanderson's conduct (that he lacks historical sensibility) that undermines his own contention that the edits can only be explained by a racist and pro-slavery agenda.   Granted, this new theory is also a personal attack, but a much milder one.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Pmanderson bluder ignorantly into a proslavery line of argument because of his weak research skills, as suggested by Robert A. West? That of course is a possibility but we still need to explain his obsesssion with belittling abolitionism shown in dozens of edits and reverts. Does this betray a hatred of democracy as one editor suggested? Perhaps Pmanderson can explain his politics better than we can psychoanalyze him, but he has not chosen to do that. Rjensen 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not place words in my mouth. You, not I, called Pmanderson's skills weak.  The only relevance of this is that you have illustrated why we should assume good faith (which you have refused to do) and avoid personal attacks (which you have conducted and continue to conduct).  By offering even an unflattering alternative theory of his behavior you only prove that you had no factual basis on which to call him a pro-slavery editor, which robs you of your only defense for your behavior.  Since your first accusation was unfounded, by your own admission, your second, milder accusation is not to be trusted either.  Neither Pmanderson, nor you, are obliged to explain any real-world positions here, and any demand by you, or anyone else, that an editor so explain himself is deplorable.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion draws attention to Pmanderson's behaviour on democratic peace theory. He insists on keeping numerous disputed tag on the article claiming problems but refuses to give any specific explanation for them. His only argument seems to be that a thorough review may find some of the problems he states. Does he insist on this strange position because he accidentally happened to support a weak position and he is now simply unable to admit that he was wrong? Or does this reflect his political views?Ultramarine 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was Pmanderson who claimed he had a personal privilege when challenged for using pro-slavery argumentation. He never explained that secret privilege. But his poor research skills are apparent: just this week he cited as a role model Hamilton should have followed a man (Garrison) who was born after Hamilton died. He repeatedly rejects solid scholarship  claiming in un-Wiki fashion, that it does not convince him. Rjensen 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO! I confess that it never occurred to me his reference to parliamentary procedure might be unfamiliar to you, and I note that there is no article on a point of privilege.  I will amend that later this week.  Suffice it to say here that a member of an assembly may interrupt pending business to answer a grave insult.  The standard form is, "Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege."  The motion is "privileged" in that it takes precedence over all other business, except for questions of adjournment and questions of privilege related to the entire assembly.  Ah, me!  Thank you, you have just made my day!  What better illustration not to take all this too seriously. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As for real-world politics, editors are encouraged to make edits inconsistent with their own political preferences in order to achieve NPOV. Asking an editor to explain his or her edits in terms of personal philosophy (as opposed to Wikipedia policy and guidelines) is inconstent with this position, and destructive of NPOV.  In extreme cases, it can be inflammatory and divisive.  For example, I might think Hamilton was great and be delighted to see him characterized as the lion of abolitionism.  I should still demand references and should verify that those references say what is actually claimed.  If I am attacked for so doing, I might be intimidated and Wikipedia will be the less for it. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If Mr West starts removing solidly referenced paragraphs based on the latest scholarship if they seem to make Hamilton an abolitionist, then we will have POV troubles--I am happy he has not done so! Alas we have one editor who seems to enjoy removing solid material on the grounds he is not satisfied--regardless if Mitchell, McDonald, Davis, Miller, Elkins, McKitrick, Chernow, Freeman, Syrett, Horton etc etc are satisfied. When an editor systematically and repeatedly uses techniques used by neo-confederates and anti-anti-slavery people to promote a POV, then his own POV comes under a cloud. Rjensen 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One cannot consider an edit solidly sourced if it contains assertions that do not exist in the source cited. Pmanderson claims that your edits are not supported by your own sources.  I was able to check one instance, and confirmed his observation.  I so noted on the talk page.  When I have more time, I will attempt to verify more generally.  (I should not be editing now -- Real Life calls.)  If I agree that any additional statements do not verify, I will mark or delete as I think appropriate.  If I find the statements to be well-supported, and no credible sources disagree (or disputes are properly noted), I will defend the edits.  If I find the statements to be supported but disputed, or stylistically doubtful (i.e. WP:Peacock) I will edit accordingly.  This has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with verifiability.  If we disagree seriously, I hope we can discuss things, but verifiability is and must be non-negotiable.  Robert A.West (Talk) 07:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I quite agree. You will have to work with Pmanderson to get him to stop deleting information that is sourced but he considers the historian to be ill-informed. A good example is the case when young Hamilton handling business alone, which a series of historians reported but Pmanderson denied. To me that suggested a refusal to accept scholarship. Rjensen 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly, he has asserted that your sources do not agree with you on certain points. That is called verification and is not only proper, but expected. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic and reading
I see that Rjensen has spent some time above attacking me for saying that William Lloyd Garrison was Hamilton's rôle model, an assertion I have never made; I explained my reference to Garrison above, in case this was a misunderstanding. This does not seem to have deterred him. He also attributes to Robert West several things he did not say. (And I did comment, briefly, on my RW politics on Talk:Alexander Hamilton; but Robert West is right - I  should not have done so.) Unfortunately, Rjensen represents Hamilton's biographers with the same accuracy.

As for his claim of guilt by association (that I must be heir to the pro-slavery men, because I use their arguments) Robert West has already questioned its factuality (and I concur; the pro-slavery view of abolitionism was as "insidious attackers", outside agitators undermining a contented society; quote from Wm. S. Jenkins; Proslavery Thought in the Old South, p.76).

But his claim has a more serious problem: it has the same structure as:
 * Alligators are green
 * Watermelons are green
 * Therefore alligators are watermelons.

Watch out for alligator pips! Septentrionalis 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it here...
user:Rjensen once again deleted information added to the article earlier today by a user not involved in this dispute. Speaking as a reader (again, I'm no expert here, though I'm interested in learning more about Mr. Hamilton), I found the additions informative ,and wonder why they were deleted.

All three of you should take the oppurtunity to use this space to work out your differences, and leave the article alone for a while. No sense involving more people in this war, and it just could be the case (however unlikely) that other editors might have something of value to contribute that shouldn't be instantly reverted or deleted because of this personal dispute. SB Johnny 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage other editors; subject to the normal canons of editing - the more eyes the better. I think Spliph's actual edit clumsy, but the thought was desirable, and should be restored. As far as I am  concerned, the edit conflict is not personal; I collaborated cheerfully with Rjensen on Amos Tuck a while ago, and respected him until he attacked me.  Septentrionalis 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am curious. What remarks and/or edits have I made in on either the Alexander Hamilton article or talk that SB Johnny feels are in any way inappropriate? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None, it's just that by keeping it going, it's encouraging the battle to go on.
 * The edits yesterday were constructive over all, but again, not knowing the topic, I can't tell what's POV pushing and/or a continuation of tit-for-tat.
 * Best thing right now would be for Rjensen to apologize, shake virtual hands with Pmanderson, close the RfC, and get back to writing an encyclopedia together :). SB Johnny 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree; even a retraction would be acceptable. Septentrionalis 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I agree as well. I have asked for no more.  We don't have to agree, we just have to treat one another with respect.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson's personal attack
I demand an apology from Pmanderson/Septentrionalis for this personal attack. Furthermore, he should explain his disputed tag on democratic peace theory. Just reinserting them without explanation is not constructive. Pmanderson, if you have no arguments, please admit that you are wrong instead of using this tactic.Ultramarine 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Several comments on Talk:Democratic peace theory find that the article is biased and confusing; it does rely excessively on the works of three extreme theorists out of the dozens, if not hundreds who have worked in the field. Some of these comments are on the present talk page; others are in the archives; and the article has not changed significantly since the latest ones were posted. This has been explained several times. Three plans for resolving these disputes have been presented.


 * Ultramarine steadfastly refuses to admit any of this; if he did not intend this as trolling, then I retract the (tentative) description. Septentrionalis 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above? I demanded an apology for your personal attack. However, this grudging retraction is at least something. I have asked if anyone supports your unexplained tags. No one has. Only you insist on having them without explanation.Ultramarine Ultramarine 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can Ultramarine assure us that his indefinite repetitions were not meant as trolling? Septentrionalis 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As noted, Septentrionalis continues with a thinly disguised personal attack. His retraction meant nothing. Ultramarine 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My retraction is not grudging, but conditional. If Ultramarine really wants to achieve moral superiority, he need merely give the assurance. A non-troll should find no difficulty in this. Septentrionalis 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None of my statements have been trolling. Now, your apology?Ultramarine 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize for any suggestion that they might have been trolling. Septentrionalis 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some earlier personal attacks against me and another user:
 * "Mr. West appears to have had a life other than Wikipedia for the last two weeks; Ultramarine does not have this excuse." This is explicitly mentioned as an example of a personal attack in No personal attacks

I also note that Septentrionalis has been criticized by other editors for his tactic of inserting unsupported tags when he has no arguments. Ultramarine 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "It would be uncivil to speculate whether he is a liar or a lunatic."Ultramarine 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to bring up the dead past, there are charming instances of Ultramarine's civility in the pages of Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine; shall I go find some? That they occasionally provoked me, last year, is quite true. But on the whole, I'd rather not. Septentrionalis 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you thinking of? I have still not received any apology for any of your personal attacks. At best a retraction or that *I* have misinterpreted the statement.Ultramarine 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor have I recieved any apology from Ultramarine. Septentrionalis 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not made any personal attack. Give quote if you claim there has been one.Ultramarine 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Cease this Digression
Gentlemen, please! The above discussion is irrelevant to this RfC, unless Ultramarine is claiming that Rjensen's attack was somehow intended to punish Septentrionalis on Ultramarine's behalf. If Ultramarine wishes to open an RfC on Septentrionalis's conduct, he is at liberty to do so: I would argue that misconduct (on anyone's part) prior to the conclusion of the Long Arbitration should be res judicata -- something akin to double jeopardy really ought to apply. Similarly, Ultramarine could choose to open an article RfC or accept mediation with respect to Democratic Peace Theory. At all events, this RfC is not the place to be discussing those issues. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An RfC is about both sides. It is not place where only one side can be criticzed.Ultramarine 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence of misconduct on Septentrionalis's part that would constitute either justification of Rjensen's personal attack, or provocation, then that is relevant.  I don't see how the distinct dispute on DPT has relevance here, and I don't see how it is helping.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I only ask that your real-world friend Septentrionalis follows the same rules that he accuses other editors of breaking. No personal attacks. Arguments must have verifiable sources.
 * Unless the two of you would like to borrow a pair of duelling pistols? We're only two days late for reenacting the Hamilton-Burr duel. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that Septentrionalis starts using factual arguments so we can have constructive discussion.Ultramarine 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)