Talk:Richard J. Jensen/Archive 1

Archive 1

More complete listing of publications & some more data

Books

• Historians Guide to Statistics with Charles Dollar (Holt 1971; reprinted by Krieger, 1974);
• The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896 (U of Chicago, 1971);
• Education and Social Change: An Historical Study of Iowa, 1880-1930 (Newberry Library, 1976) with Mark Friedberger;
• Illinois: A History (U of Illinois Press 2001; Norton, 1978);
• The Evolution of American Electoral Systems (coauthor, Greenwood, 1981) ;
• Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983 (Greenwood, 1983);
• World Population (Excelsior College Press, 1999); World War Two on the Web (2002, Rowman & Littlefield; coauthor);
• Trans-Pacific Relations: America, Europe and Asia in the Twentieth Century (Praeger, 2003) co-editor;
• Civil War on the Web (2nd ed. 2003; Rowman & Littlefield; coauthor);
• Americans at War: Society, Culture, and the Homefront (coeditor of vol 4, Macmillan Reference; 2004)

Articles (selected)

• "American Election Analysis: A Case History of Methodological Innovation and Diffusion," in S. M. Lipset, ed., Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford 1969), 226-43;
• "Family, Career and Reform: Woman Leaders of the Progressive Era," in Michael Gordon, ed., The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective (St. Martins, 1973), 267-80;
• "Quantitative American Studies: The State of the Art," American Quarterly 26 (1974), 225-40;
• "The Modernization of Frederick Jackson Turner," Western Historical Quarterly 11 (1980), 307-20;
• "How Democracy Works: The Linkage Between Micro and Macro Political History," Journal of Social History 16 (1983), 27-34;
• "Historiography of Political History," in Jack Greene ed., Encyclopedia of American Political History (Scribners, 1984), 1:1-25;
• "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19 (1989) 553-83;
• "The Culture Wars, 1965-1995: A Historian`s Map" J. Social History (1995), 17-36;
• "Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885-1930," in Shafer and Badger, eds, Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000 (U of Kansas Press, 2001) 149-180;
• “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization,” Journal of Social History (Dec 2002);
• "Victory and Defeat in the Vietnam War" in Jensen, Sugita and Davidann, eds, Trans-Pacific: East-West Relations in the 20th Century (Praeger, 2003), 171-216
• “Nationalism and Civic Duty in Wartime: Comparing World Wars in Canada and America.” Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens 2004 (Winter): 6-10;
• Comparative Nativism: The United States, Canada and Australia, 1880s-1910s,” Canadian Journal for Social Research (2010) vol 3#1 pp 45-55;
• "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812," The Journal of Military History 76#4 (October 2012): 1165-82;

Professional Leadership

• American Journal of Sociology, Editorial Board, 1977-79; America History and Life, Editorial Board, 1996-2009; Continuity, Editorial Board, 1979-present; Historical Methods, Editorial Board, 1967-91; acting editor 1985; Journal of American History, Editorial Board, 1976-79; The Public Historian, Editorial Board, 1980-86; Illinois State Archives, Advisory Board, 1975-86; LaGuardia Archives, Advisory Board, 1980-present; Social Science History Association, nominating committee, 1985; program committee, chair, 1988; program committee, 2001

Major Grants, Principal Investigator or Co-Director

• Humanities Montana (2014); Missouri Humanities Council (2014); Robert H. Michel Civic Education Grant from Dirksen Congressional Center (2001-02); History On-Line Gilder-Lehrman Foundation (2000-2001); Politics On-Line Luce Foundation/Center for Study of Presidency (1998-99); Text96, U of Illinois (1995-99); H-NET: Humanities On-Line (NEH 1994-97, four grants); Kentucky Modernizes, 1800-1980 (NEH, 1982-85); Strategies for Inheritance, 1870-1920 National Institutes of Health (NICHD 1981-84); Demographic History of Mental Retardation (NIH-NICHD, 1979-81) ; Demographic History of Old Age, 1880-1900 (NIH-NIA, 1976-1980) ; Social Predictors of Mobility, 1875-1915 (NIH-NIMH, 1974-77) ; Family and Community History Center, Newberry Library (grants from NEH, 1973-81); Education and Social Structure: Iowa, 1885-1925 (National Inst. Education, 1973-76); Chicago Metro History Fair (multiple grants from NEH, Illinois Humanities Council, McCormack Foundation, Chicago Community Trust, 1977-82).

With thanks to Richard J. Jensen. -- Mdd (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No Irish Need Apply

A Myth of Victimization, 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darragh1518 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved

I removed the sentence "In 2015, the New York Times, published an article examining it's archives and finding at least 29 instances of 'No Irish Need Apply' or similar. " as it was not in chronological order. I have inserted more complete information with quotes and citations at the end of the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darragh1518 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bio section

I have added citation needed tags to numerous claims in this section, almost nothing is cited to a reliable source. GregJackP Boomer! 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added the cites. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that editing one's own biography is discouraged by policy. Some of your uses of Bowker 1978 are used to support claims about your doings after 1978 which seems impossible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the cites for claims after 1978 as dubious, as I doubt very much that a book issued in 1978 predicted what Jensen was doing in 1988, in 1996, etc. I also address the user-generated source (which is unreliable), and a statement that still needs a citation. GregJackP Boomer! 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

the main rule is "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." it goes on "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." Adding a footnote removed the "poorly sourced" status. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the main rule is that editing your own biography is "strongly discouraged". I dont know if you added the two sources I just removed but they were clearly misused to falsely support a claim of notability. That is exactly the kind of problem that arises when writing autobiographies, as WP:autobiography explicitly states and explains at length.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

GregJack, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I thought material had to be contentious in a BLP before it could be removed for being uncited. (I refer to your edit summary when you reverted my reversion of your 10 gratuitous cn tags.) Did you find some of the statements in the Bio section contentious? Secondly, if you had looked back through the history of the article, as I did, you would have seen that much of the info was cited to the 1978 Bowker Directory (I have no idea why those cites were removed). It's called AGF, old man. Don't let your emotions cloud your judgment. 108.56.199.37 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

GregJack didnt remove any material. And you are incorrect about the rule. All unsourced information in a BLP can be aggressively removed. He was being generous and assuming god faith by allowing the citation tags to stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

GregJack threatened to remove material if his 10 gratuitous cn's were removed—gratuitous because the whole Biog section was already templated with "Citations needed". He was generous with his tag-bombing and not in good faith at all. Accusations of sockpuppetry are further evidence he is failing AGF. 108.56.199.37 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I stated we could either leave the tags or remove the material, and that it was your choice. Whereupon Rjensen immediately started to provide sources. I'm not blind, and I have been on Wiki long enough to recognize editing patterns that would lead one to believe that socking was involved. As I noted below, I have not filed an SPI—do you really want me to do that? I can tell you how that will likely play out, but I have no desire to see you blocked. I will if you want me to do so, or if you continue, but I would recommend moving forward instead of playing games. GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed the two citations to works on electoral politics cited in support of the statement that Jensen "is an American historian, and was professor of history at the University of Illinois, Chicago from 1973 to 1996, known for his work on American political, social, military and economic history as well as historiography and quantitative and computer methods". The books however make no claim that Jensen is "known" for any of these things, but rather simply cite Jensens work on Midwestern politics in the late 19th century, and briefly discuss their relevance for their study of electoral politics. Being cited or having one's work summarized does not imply that one is known or notable. All scholars have their work cited in this way. Indeed I could easily write an article on myself using this approach to sourcing and notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have placed an autobiography warning on Rjensen's talkpage and reverted the additional edits that he has made. I also am questioning the 108.56.199.37 IP, as its editing pattern fits Rjensen's pattern. I don't want to elevate this to an SPI investigation, but will, if necessary. I am perfectly fine with the information staying in the article, but we need reliable sources to support that information. Reliable sources does not include publications that were printed prior to the cited event. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

" we need reliable sources to support that information". yes and I tried to add it. the rule is "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction as to who can do this and no edit warring is involved in answering a request. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No there is no brightline prohibition against adding sources to one's own biography. But there is a strong discouragement (original emphasis) against doing it. This is because there is a well-founded reason to believe that editors may not be able to adequately judge which sources are reliable for claims about themselves, or to adequately assess what claims the source actually support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some of the sources you provided are not reliable sources. A source published in 1978 is not a reliable source for your being a visiting professor at West Point ten years after the source was published. A book written with you as a consultant is considered a "self-published" source, in you are the one providing information on yourself, and is not considered reliable. Removing valid tags is considered edit-warring, and does not fall under the BLP exception. The BLP exception is for the removal of contentious material - and tags are not contentious. You don't get that exception, because it does not apply. A number of people have asked you to quit editing the article about yourself, I strongly advise you to follow that advice. I have not filed an SPI (which I could have), I have not taken you to the 3RR board (which I could have), nor have I deleted unsourced material (which I could have). You are the one who told me to look at this article (here) or to call the Chancellor at MSU-Billings. You even provided a phone number. If I were trying to "retaliate" for some imagined reason, I would have just deleted the unsourced material. Please post any suggested edits on this talk page, and other editors will evaluate them, and then either make the edit or explain why they are not making the edit. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The part about a book with the subject as consultant being selfpublished and unreliable is incorrect. An autobiography published by publisher is ont selfpublished forexample, and it is also not necessarily unreliable. A person's statements about themselves are, when professionally published, a reliable source of information - at least uncontroversial information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

to GregJackP 1) A source published in 1978 is not a reliable source ... Agreed--I added a more recent source. 2) A book written with you as a consultant is considered a "self-published" source You made that rule up--it is not in Wikipedia. Publishers pick the consultants and vet them before spending money one them. Infobase is a major publisher (they Do Facts on File, World Almanac etc etc) 3) Removing valid tags... you made that up too. a cn is a serious request for better info. when that info is provided the cn tag is removed. see the rule: it states: "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the 'Citation needed' template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction as to who can do this and no edit warring is involved in answering a request. 4) Please also see this wp:RS rule: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." I think that covers a cv. 5) no sockpuppets are involved here. 108.56.199.37 is not me --he has lots of edits on topics I never touch Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where you are not supposed to edit the article about yourself? GregJackP Boomer! 03:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"not supposed to" is not quite right. You might re-read the rules more closely on BLP and . For example: 1) "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself." 2) "Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites." 3) "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced....the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." 4) Wikipedia:Autobiography states: " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." and my favorite: 5) "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not a biographic subject arriving for the first time to correct errors in a biography already written, you are an established longtime editor of the encyclopedia who should know much better than to be this engaged in using wikipedia as a medium for an autobiography/CV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Widely cited

There is a cn tag regarding a claim that the book The Winning of the Midwest is widely cited. I guess that is a subjective term but Google Scholar shows 266 citations for that book [1]. I would have to say that looks widely cited to me. Is there a better way to phrase this? I think the citation tag should be removed but I'm not sure of the best way to do it in this case. Springee (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To support a claim of something being widely cited, I'd normally be looking for a source that makes that specific claim about the work, rather than us undertaking what might well be considered to be OR. I think that Maunus's edit is probably fine though. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That would definitely be the best type of source. But I have not been able to find any sources that describe Jensen as a person or scholar - the only sources about him simply summarize his work. If it werent for the recent NINA coverage, I am not sure he would be considered notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Recognition? see what the scholarly books say about H-NET: 1) "Under Jensen's and Kornbluh's dynamic leadership, H-Net has expanded to more than 100,000 subscribers internationally with 10 million messages..." online 2) "In 1997 the AHA [American Historical Association] officially honored H-Net with the James Harvey Robinson Prize, accepted by Jensen and co-networker Mark Kornbluh, for the outstanding contribution H-Net is making to the teaching and learning of history" online. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your awards might in fact be enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Though the quote about "dynamic leadership" seems to be written the co-founder.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IN any case I don't think the article is in danger, and so it makes sense to include some description of the importance of your work, and Winning the Midwest seems clearly to have been most influential.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

bad history

What historian uses sentences like this: "No one has ever seen one of these NINA signs because they were extremely rare or nonexistent." Just in terms of logic, someone must have seen a sign if they were extremely rare. What kind of journal publishes this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocats (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

to get it right you need to read the full 2002 statement not the very brief abstract: "NINA ads for men were extremely rare--fewer than two per decade. The complete absence of evidence suggests that probably zero such signs were seen at commercial establishments, shops, factories, stores, hotels, railroads, union halls, hiring halls, personnel offices, labor recruiters etc. anywhere in America, at any time. NINA signs and newspaper ads for apartments to let did exist in England and Northern Ireland, but historians have not discovered reports of any in the United States, Canada or Australia. The myth focuses on public NINA signs which deliberately marginalized and humiliated Irish male job applicants. The overwhelming evidence is that such signs never existed." online here Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we aren't really in the right place to debate the NINA claims in the cited articles/books. The books/articles appear to pass the [WP:RS] and thus we accept them unless some other RS contradicts them. The talk page isn't where we can decide if the claims are reliable or not. Springee (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In the Irish section half the footnotes 20 (twice) & 23 are from blogs and are not RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn Search

I have deleted the sentence: "Despite Professor Jensen's conclusions, critics of his work observed that single search from the Brooklyn Public Library's newspaper archive returns over 23,000 hits for the terms No Irish Need Apply. [14]" Ref: http://bklyn.newspapers.com/search/#query=no+irish+need+apply Because firstly it is original research, and secondly because the search is badly formed, and brings up false positives, eg: "Only American or Irish need apply" http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/55551677/?terms=no%2Birish%2Bneed%2Bapply --Technolalia (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But atleast a hand-verification of the hits there proves there is hundreds or more true positives... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.167.100 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, read article here: http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/60761647/ - top left, Mrs Hyatt and her Y.M.C.A. - and hate for the Irish. It became a big thing in the paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.167.100 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mrs Hyatt really did not like the Irish. There were a few people like that but they were not tolerated for long in Brooklyn. She was forced to resign a week later and the YMCA published a statement that they gave relief "without distinction of color, nationality or religious creed." see 16 Feb 1874 notice of her resignation Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a LOT of 'no irish need apply' in the job-ads in the paper cited above - and that was just one paper. To proclaim that the signs virtually didn't exist or the sentiment didn't exist (in job-ads) is dishonest. And as proven, even if Mrs Hyatt was asked to resign over her more vicious racial attacks, in the article and paper above, there existed enough racially charged anti-Irish sentiment to be more than a few crack-pots. Or are you saying that as long as the majority wasn't Pro-'bash an Irish' no problems existed? The fact that the majority was against slavery in the North doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.167.100 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero NINA window signs have been found for any US business in the 19th century--and lots of people were on lookout for them (such as Irish & Democratic newspapers). Zero. The false myth is that these signs were everywhere. The other issue is NINA ads for MEN. and more generally NINA ads posted by business. NINA ads for girls and women are more common as I pointed out in 2002. However they are still rare: NY Times and Chicago Tribune averaged 5 to 20 NINA-women ads per DECADE. Was there significant anti-Irish sentiment to hurt the men in the job market. That would require thousands of NINA hiring decisions a year in a big city. As for Irish women, they dominated the job market. Rjensen (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly that argument is utter bollocks. Are there today many jobadds saying "black people and Muslims need not apply". No. Does that mean they are not at a disadvantage on the jobmarket. No. Also here you would have to look for adds saying "Protestants only", or "No catholics" etc - since of course this kind of discrimination can be coded in different ways. And finally how many window job signs from the late 19th century do we have in all? Any archeologist knows that not finding something is NOT evidence that it didnt exist since different objects preserve differently. Window job signs are of course not usually permanent objects since they perform an ad hoc function, they would be made from perishable materials and discraded once the position is filled. Your claim in the 2002 article was clearly an ideologically motivated claim based on no serious research, and it has been debunked based on actual empirical data. At this point defending it with this kind of weak argumentation simply makes you look silly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is this debate of wide interest? Does Maunus think that NINA signs were common in American stores & factories??? That is the NINA myth. Here's proof the signs were believed in the 1990s; 1. Massie 1999: "Signs reading, "No Irish Need Apply," were posted in shop windows everywhere," 2. Frank McCourt 1999: "her Yankee ancestors had nothing to be proud of the way they treated the Irish with those signs everywhere that said, No Irish Need Apply." 3) Perlmutter 1996: "signs in every window in the city read 'No Irish Need Apply'; 4) President Clinton 2000: "across the United States in our cities, signs that read, 'No Irish need apply'". The signs 1) Humiliated the Irish because everybody passing by the window could see the sign that demeaned the Irish; 2) the no-hiring-Irish rule restricted the upward mobility of the Irish in getting good jobs. Paper copies indeed do not survive. But people searched for them at the time, the Irish did, and Democratic newspapers too, so that's how we know about them. The problem has no historian or newspaper actually turned up evidence of one of these window signs in any American place of business. On the other hand, we do know that the Irish had a very popular song "no Irish need apply" -- they still sing it to this day. We also know that NINA signs were prevalent in England & Ireland at the time, and a lot of Englishmen & Irish Protestants immigrated to the United States and carried their anti-Irish-Catholic biases with them. (There were big Green-vs-Orange riots in New York, Philadelphia and in Canada). So we have clear evidence of the strongly held belief in the Irish community. The question for the historian is What caused that belief and what impact did it have. As for the window signs, there are millions of them in the songs but zero of them reported in old newspapers. Only since the late 1990s has been possible to search through millions of pages of newspapers to track this material down. The consensus of most historians today is that the window NINA signs were either very rare or nonexistent, and that the Irish were not held back in their upward social mobility. Going beyond window signs: Newspaper NINA ads for men did exist--but they were very rare (like one per decade in Chicago Tribune or New York Times). Newspaper NINA ads for women also existed but were uncommon, and historians agree the Irish women controlled their job market. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensden wrote "NY Times and Chicago Tribune averaged 5 to 20 NINA-women ads per DECADE". But when you write that, which may be false but I have not looked at it, it fails to even recognize that the newspaper linked above have 5-20 PER WEEK, not decade. So your allusions that the ads rarely contained it is not true, at best an extreme simplification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.167.100 (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

no. If you search on [no Irish need apply] you'll get tens of thousands of citations that include every use of the word "Irish" by itself, and "apply" by itself. We are only interested in the full phrase. If you search The Brooklyn Eagle for the phrase "No Irish need apply" You will get 84 hits from 1850 to 1922. That equals about 12 per decade. Some of these were not ads at all. I looked through most of the ads, and all I saw were ads for girls and women for servant/housework/maid/cook jobs in private families-- zero examples came to my attention of an ad from a hotel, a restaurant, a factory, store or any other business. See it yourself here. So we have about 12 biased employers per decade in the big city of Brooklyn. I call that rare. Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Most likely out of doing anything for covering for your flawed assertions. I did a manual look of the paper and found more than 12 in a few newspapers, giving it way more than 12 for a full decade. I didn't merely search and count results, but go into the resulting pages and verify I wasn't merely looking at false positives, that you seem to assert. Why deal with assertions, when you actually now are able to verify each hit?

Which paper, which years are you discussing? If you mean the Brooklyn Eagle then in the 80 years 1842-1922 it published 89 NINA items or about one a year. Almost all were for women to work in private households, none was posted by a business. I did not find any ads for men. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

debate on lede

Let me weigh in: "he had claimed that there was no systematic discrimination against Irish people on the US labor market in the 19th century, was contradicted by evidence found by a high school student." I did NOT make any such claim about discrimination. I focused on what I called a myth that there were "omnipresent" NINA window signs. I said there were very few or zero NINA window signs--the signs in store windows, factories, shops were a myth. She claims she found some signs and at HNN I tried to show that each of her sign-cases was mistaken. Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The very title of your article was "No Irish Need Apply: A myth of Victimization", which can only be read as a postulate that there was no systematic "victimization" of Irish people on the US labor market in that period. In the abstract you claim that "Evidence from the job market shows no significant discrimination against the Irish--on the contrary, employers eagerly sought them out." So yes, your actual claim, both in fact and in terms of how it has been read by other scholars, is broader than the specific issue of how many NINA signs have been found.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept Prof. Jensen's concerns regarding that paper. Of greater concern is the almost total abandonment of summary style in this article, and the excessive quotations from his articles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a large published scholarly literature since 2002 that generally supports me and historians have (mostly) dropped the NINA myth. Ms Fried in fact says that herself. She writes in her article: "Jensen's view of the facts has coalesced into something like a 'consensus' view." Fried puts her attention largely on newspaper ads. I responded in print (in a note that followed her article in the Journal) that I did a new search in 2015 of 9.5 million pages of newspapers from every state from 1836 to 1922, and located 230 mentions of NINA, or one NINA per 41,000 pages of newspapers. That's approximately ONE per 10,000 issues (most papers were 4 pages long in those days). I called that very rare. So if you're going to cover mention the response to my 2002 article, then the dozens of scholarly studies in print should get priority rather than the one dissent. Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous reading of her "consensus view" statement. My reading of the same statement is not as praise for your work, but as an accusation against other academics for letting your work pass without giving it the critical attention it should have received. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC):::::::I agree as well; this is very common these days. Lazy academics logrolling a pop concept. Avocats (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Gentlemen: Please remember WP:NOR--the BLP should only summarize what has been written by third parties. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And it should do so in summary style. As a BLP, however, we need to pay attention to what subjects of articles say if they feel that the article is inaccurate or biased. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but these guys are researching and arguing the merit/veracity of Jensen's paper instead of just summarizing it and the controversy. YoPienso (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If he wishes, Prof. Jensen can provide us with independent secondary sources substantiating his position on the matter. These then can be cited in the article in summary style. While we are at it, we can reduce the size of the large quotations in the article. That would require a substantial rewrite and I would like to know if there is general agreement among uninvolved editors that it is warranted.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Figureofnine seems to demand independent sources but he seems to have overlooked WP:BLPSELFPUB the rule that states "Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SELFPUB is beside the point. We need other sourcing on this point, from people independent of the subject. If there is none, fine, but it doesn't help editors in balancing the article, assuming it needs balance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, there's a long news story by an Irish journalist at Sunday Times Sunday Times" (Dublin edition of London newspaper) [that is the preview; full text is online here Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good, that's helpful. In situations like this, the subject can help a lot in providing relevant sourcing. While you have written about it yourself, and your material can be used, since there is a dispute it helps to have other voices. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bias and notability

First, did Jensen himself create this article? There is clearly a bias, as I've read that his work and credibility as a scholar are controversial and in question., and it appears that this fact is not being covered in an objective fashion. I have noted that Jensen is, at the very least, a major contributor to this article, which automatically causes me to raise an eyebrow. I know that it is documented on the talk page, and that's nice, but I was appalled to find that other editors appear to be reluctant to broach this subject of his questionable integrity, as it would seem that among Wikipedians Jensen has a following (), one of whom has snapped an odd photograph of the man in person and uploaded it here. Secondly, is his notability really such that he deserves an article? I don't think so, and here's why: just because he's a so-called "historian" doesn't mean that he himself is historically relevant. None of his research or contributions to academia have been significant, much less groundbreaking. Any ideas from anyone besides Jensen and his "friends"?WikiEditorial101 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

References

I think that Jensen's notability is limited to one book that has been cited. I question whether he warrants an entry and would not be unhappy if it were deleted. As for the NINA controversy, I began to read his original journal article and find it to be an inferior piece of writing, period, much less the quality expected of a serious academic journal (thought that is becoming more common everywhere these days, sadly). Statements such as "Irish Catholics in America have a vibrant memory of humiliating job discrimination"--I can't see how all or even some Irish Catholics have a "memory" of the turn of the 19th century. "which featured omnipresent signs proclaiming "Help Wanted--No Irish Need Apply!" Omnipresent? That's not the right word, is it? "No one has ever seen one of these NINA signs because they were extremely rare or nonexistent." NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN ONE OF THESE SIGNS? How does the author purport to know this? How does he know they were "extremely rare or nonexistent"? Very disappointing quality. Avocats (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you one-hundred percent, Avocats. And though we may not be able to do much about academic fraud, we can affect the integrity of Wikipedia. Jensen has now removed valid issues tags from his article without any due process of discussion or debate. This is the very reason that WP discourages individuals from editing their own articles—the unavoidable issue of bias. I am nominating this article for deletion, and in the meantime requesting that Jensen himself be banned from editing this article.WikiEditorial101 (talk)

I support deletion of the article. Avocats (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would vote keep - but mostly because of the coverage Jensen has received in the media of his article on the Irish question. Other than that he barely passes WP:ACADEMIC. Certainly it is not unreasonable to consider the question of notability here - especially considering the degree of Jensen's own involvement in writing the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

After reading more of the Talk page, I am disturbed that Jensen seems to have undertaken a holy war in editing his own page. I do not understand this. Avocats (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, and apparently with no oversight or intervention whatsoever. But this ends now.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No I did not create the article. I did remove a few BLP violations as every editor is encouraged to do. WP:BLPEDIT states: Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. As for the NINA signs in store windows, I claimed in 2001 that lots of newspapers at the time and lots of historians & archivists since have looked & have failed to find evidence of one. In Wikipedia terminology: no RS reports finding one, but many RS do report that the Irish believed they did exist. If you read the student's article you might be puzzled about he claim that she "found" evidence of signs at a business. Do you think she found a sign? Where and When? Recent RS have dropped the claim that they existed. As for "notability"-- well that is a personal BLP attack with no RS to support it and so I can respond. You might note the number of departments that have invited Jensen to teach and the number of scholarly journals that have put him on their board of editors. Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yo! As someone who rewrote large chunks of the article, I can confirm that I am not Jensen's "friend" nor have I ever met him or to my knowledge ever edited another Wikipedia article with him. I literally just searched for the first sources about him that came up on JSTOR or google, about him and his works. If that's led to any bias it was completely accidental. The NPOV claims seem completely unfounded. The vast majority of people commenting at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive229#Richard_J._Jensen. Brustopher (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Yo"? Really? Nice try, Mr. Jensen. Check User, anyone? You may not go down in history, but you are going down nonetheless.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

YEs and the top of this page clearly states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. ‎WikiEditorial101 is obliged to follow the BLP rules --they are a high priority at Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Jensen, but tags are not material, much less contentious material. The tags will remain, and I am requesting the assistance of an administrator concerning this matter. This has gone out of control.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Rjensen (talk · contribs) - you really need to stop editing the page entirely. You have done this in the past and it is unbecoming in the extreme for someone who knows our policies as well as you do. You cannot remove or add content to this article, regardless of whether you consider it to be personal attacks. Doubting the notability of course is not a personal attack, and even argueing that shows a complete lack of understanding for our basic policies, and for the potential consequences for wikipedia if that absurd argument were accepted. You can argue your case here, but please do not make another edit to the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Maunus is keen on the rules. I am even more keen because they say at wp:BLP a) Contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion and b) wp:BLP Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The BLP subject cannot be the arbiter of what is or issnt contentious or duly sourced. To allow you to carry on with this kind of behavior would undermine 100% wikipedias editorial process and make us vulnerable to all biographic subjects managing their own blps. That is not and cannot be in wikipedias interest. In this case you are also clearly not understanding the policy you try to enforce, as editorial tags are NOT contentious or unsourced content.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand Maunis makes up new rules all his own ["The BLP subject cannot be the arbiter..."} and on the other he disregards the rules that are written out explicitly [Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. --but apparently not acceptable for Maunis! Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Editorial tags are not content. And the COI policy clearly states that obviously the BLP subject cannot be considered the judge of what content should or shouldnt go in their own articles. To suggest otherwise is preposterous and throws doubt on whether you have any clue about how BLP and COI functions at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Jensen from Adam and I removed the tag because it's not helping improve the article. If you want to list things that need to be fixed, please do that here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The first thing that needs to be "fixed" is the subject needs to stop editing their own article. The second is @Rjensen: I see you are a long term editor but I can not find any documentation which proves you are Richard J. Jensen either herr, on your user page or in OTRS. Can you please provide a link to where your identity was verified? Since you are a long time editor you sould know that editing one's own biography is strongly discouraged. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: you have not read the rules carefully. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Which rules would those be? WP:COI ("COI editing is strongly discouraged. Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously, and may be blocked if they cause disruption.") or WP:REALNAME ("If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided.")? Jbh^Talk 00:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't overlooked this rule: Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. that is the Wiki policy I am following. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maintinance tags are not covered by that. Bluntly put if you continue to edit war over properly placed maintinance tags the matter will go to ANI and you will most likely be sanctioned.

Frankly, until I saw the ongoing discussion here I had an AfD nomination already written. The {{notability}} tag is, in my opinion, well justified.

Now, please link to your proof of identity. It is doubly important that we are sure an account is the actual BLP when that account is seen to be misbehaving as the very misbehavior may reflect poorly on the article subject. This is fine if the account is the BLP subject but it is very important to verify this. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh^Talk 01:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's just step back and assess this logically. Is the whole world just picking on Jensen as part of a vast conspiracy with no determinable motivation, or are the criticisms of Jensen's edits to his own page () a reflection of the criticism of his work itself, of which the integrity is also in question? Jensen, what do you think is our motivation for opposing your questionable edits? Could it be that we actually have a vested interest in the integrity of Wikipedia? While you seem keen on blindly defending your edits to the article about you, we clearly have no selfish or questionable motivation. We want Wikipedia to be a place where people can access reliable, objective information. Your self interests are clearly in direct conflict with this noble goal. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your motivation--pretty unclear to me. As for academic notability I think you are clueless about academia and have not done the research to find out & have ignored the links provided above where notability was dealt with in 2015. Plain old edit warring = a common problem at Wiki. I also think you are defying the high priority BLP rules. Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A common rhetorical fallacy—you know very well that I didn't ask you what my motivation is, I asked what is our motivation, as I am not alone, and, as you pointed out, this began in 2015, long before I stumbled upon this absurdity. Contrary to your supposed presumptions, I have thoroughly read the enitre archive of this talk page. And what do you know about who I am or what I know of acadamia? Not to mention that, rather than a proper response, you've used this as a Red Herring to distract from the real issue (and I fell for it). What amazes me is not your (if you are, in fact, Jensen) lack of integrity, but your lack of pride—don't you realize that even your rebuttals themselves are shameful? Regardless, I was not bluffing concerning opening investigation, and nominating this article for deletion. This farce won't continue much longer. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You have shown zero familiarity with academic topics on Wikipedia. You never seem to add refs to the academic literature and spend most of your time on Lydia Canaan, an Lebanese singer-songwriter, poet. You admit you're a fledgling editor--so no one is likely to trust your judgment about professors, universities and scholarship. Asking other editors to come help you out here to attack Jensen is a no-no -- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP&diff=prev&oldid=721944218 Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

More rhetorical fallacies in order to distract from the actual issue, which is your bias towards yourself in editing an article about yourself. What I have or have not edited speaks nothing of my relationship to or understanding of academia. And I do not add content without sourcing it; the majority of my edits are copy editing, fixing the sorts of granmatical, punctuation, and formatting errors that your edits tend to be rife with; so when you say this, it is intentionally misleading. And why, pray tell, is this an issue of judgement of professors, universities, and scholarship? I have only remarked upon your sullied reputation as a point of reference when dealing with your questionable edits here on Wikipedia. Fledgling editor or not, I know that what you've been doing is wrong. And encouraging any editors who have participated in this discussion before to continue this discussion is not encouraging anyone to "attack" you. This is one of the many reasons why you editing your page is a bad idea—because of your personal vestment in this article, you percieve any attempt to assure adherence to "rules" as a personal attack.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable Folks, the founder of H-net is obviously notable - the network is heavily used by historians in many different countries and areas of study. Both the network and Jensen's role in creating it have been the subject of in-depth coverage in RS such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. The articles are unfortunately paywalled but they definitely demonstrate notability, eg:

Richard Jensen and Mark L. Kornbluh have spent four sleep-deprived years creating an international network of thousands of scholars. The network, H-NET: Humanities and Social Sciences OnLine, is widely seen as a prime example of how the Internet has helped academics. H-NET'S e-mail lists reach more than 51,000 scholars in 70 countries. More than five million pieces of e-mail go through the network each month, covering dozens of topics, as varied as film history and African affairs. This month, H-NET won an American Historical Association award for contributions to the teaching of history.

As its members prepare for a bitterly contested election later this month, a furor is sweeping through H-NET, the mailing-list network that reaches thousands of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. A mailing list started by supporters of a candidate for the network's top job has led to an atmosphere of accusations, exaggerations, and rampant confusion on the network... the tempest centers on the two candidates for the job of executive director. Richard Jensen, a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, founded H-NET four years ago and has been nominated to continue as its executive director. Mark Kornbluh, a professor of history at Michigan State University who is chairman of the organization's board, is running against him.

I can and will dig up more if needed, but I suggest those of you questioning his notability drop that idea - Jenson's work on H-net means that he passes WP:NACADEMIC, no problem. The Chronicle coverage is probably even enough to pass the GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Well, Fyddlestix, if you believe that makes him notable (though you believing that doesn't make it true, nor even debatable), you should include that in the article before it is even a relevant talking point, as it is the article itself that is of concern. Once you've done that it will be relevant to the discussion, as we are discussing the contents of the article. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I can and will find more (and yes, add it to the article) when I get a chance. But I'm puzzled and concerned by the level of animosity that you and some of the other people on this page seem to be showing here. I was hoping that linking some sources on the talk page might encourage some of you to dial it back a bit. Whatever issues you might have with his editing, his notability as a subject seems obvious to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think WikiEditorial101 has a conflict of interest. We never overlapped till day before yesterday. Then I deleted a new, long 600 word essay he wrote about a Lebanese rock star as the main topic on women in the Middle East in Women's history. see [deletion here He did not try to defend his out-of-place edit--which ignored all women's history issues and all other women but the star-- but now he's simply lashing back. Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, do you intend to discredit the other editors who also think that you shouldn't be editing the article about yourself? You made my point for me when you said that I did not revert your edit. After re-reading the said Women's History article, I actually agreed that my edit was out of place. I assure you that if I didn't, I would have defended my (would be) contribution. Most editors are reasonable enough to reassess their edits in light of the imput of others. It would be nice if the same could be said for you; unfortunately you are projecting your own characteristics onto me. You are right, though, that because of your edit I found this article and this debate, which I did not begin but am merely participating in. Having said that, I've identified what I suspect to be at least four of your sock puppets. One of them has convinced me of your notability, and, on the basis of those additions to the article, I am removing the notability tag. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101: if by the above you are implying Fyddlestix is a SOCK of Rjensen you are way off. If your other "socks" are based on as poor evidence then I think you owe Rjensen an apology - in any event please do not bring up accusations of socking again without presenting evidence, preperably via WP:SPI. Please note that repeated accusations of socking without evidence are, besides being not being collegial and contributing to a bad editing environment are violations of WP:NPA. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A review of the posts on this Talk page will show that I am not the only one to strongly suspect Jensen's use of socks. The edits made by 108.56.199.37 IP strongly reflect the editing style of the account created by the person claiming to be Jensen. Brustopher appeared out of nowhere to remove the issues tags without any discussion whatsoever after I had reverted Jensen's removal of the tags, his reasoning relecting Jensen's characteristic generalizations when defending himself, and adressed the editors with an unusual "yo!", as if it were an exaggerated attempt to portray that account as being someone who is the antithesis of Jensen (i.e. a young, ethnic/urban person). There is one other, but I'll need to take a closer look before I can be sure enough to say so for sure. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I can not speak for the IP address but I am familiar with Brustopher. I would say the chance they are a Rjensen WP:SOCKing is pretty much zero. They are a prolific editor whith thousands of edits and a wide interest, see here. The tool I linked, Xtools, is very good for getting a quick overview of an account and its history. It is exceedingly unlikely that a sockmaster would put in the effort to build up accounts as active as the ones you named and vanishingly so simply to edit war on the page of a comparatively minor academic. That said I too would suspect an account behaving as Rjensen has been of being capable of using socks (I have not seen any evidence he actually is though.) but one should never make the accusation until one is sure or at least willing to go to WP:SPI and open a case. Jbh^Talk 12:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Jbh - the accusation of socking should be reserved for SPI actual charges - and, in the case at hand, I can pretty much guarantee that the persons involved are not Jensen socks. And that making such accusations here is not going to make anyone support you on other issues either. Collect (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Inline citation tag

@WikiEditorial101: can you give an example of what you think lacks an inline citation? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

They have said they have walked away from the article so this is not going to be answered. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard

All of this seems to have gotten out of hand, so I posted this. I'd encourage everyone to step away for a while and come back with cooler heads.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, it has been a sufficient amount of time that an AFD might be in order. If only to shut down the notability arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Going off the COIN posting, I went to WikiEditorial101's talk page and said that I think they violated BLPCOI and asked them to walk away from the article. They said they already had walked away.

I also asked RJensen to step away from the article while this acute issue is getting worked out, and he agreed. I also offered to work through the longer term issues with him after this acute situation calms, and he agreed to that too.

So I think independent editors can take a day or two and resolve any outstanding issues here but the acute disruption seems to be over. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)