User talk:Rjensen/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

see previous talk at Archive 15

Gandhi refs again

May I request that in citations, the format be "surname, firstname"? In Reftags, it is done by pressing the or button, after an author's name. This is to preserve uniformity in an article. AshLin (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I always do that in bibliographies; but in footnotes that is not customary in historiography, nor in most of Wikipedia. It makes the footnotes look strange to a user who has been reading history books and articles. for example look at example 1; example 2; example 3. Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, it is "standard" here if you use first name/last name instead of the short-cut "author". I think that GAs & FAs usually insist on it. And we are at Wikipedia rather than following the house style of, say, the OUP or SUNY. Reftags throws up several oddities like this, eg: the last time I used it the thing was still producing "pages n-" even when only one page was selected. It is a useful tool but not perfect. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"GAs & FAs usually insist on it" -- let's see the rule on this please. The great majority of Wiki history articles do not, I believe, use it. I just looked for example at Two-Nation Theory. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested enough to wade through the articles just to provide examples because ultimately this is a decision that will have to be made by consensus on the individual article talk page, where people can throw as many examples around as they wish. However, Two-Nation Theory is neither a GA nor a FA. If the plan is to take the article through to FA then those are the examples that should probably be looked at. Wherein you will most probably also find ISBNs are hypenated, publisher locations are provided etc, although I do not think that Reftags automatically deals with those issues either. At that level, people seem to be very choosy and it might be worth checking out Bios as well as History items. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

the rules on FA and GA do not have any such requirements. Indeed, at FA it explicitly says "The use of citation templates is not required." Rjensen (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that such templates were required. In fact, from my experience they are deprecated in fact even if not in the "rules". Look, I am not arguing about this. Do whatever you wish provided that there is consensus etc. The cite style can always be changed by someone when/if it is requested at FAC - it just potentially creates more work, is all. It would be great to see that article at FA, though, as it is obviously a very significant subject. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I get the impression that a great deal of latitude in interpretation of rules is given to GA/FA reviewers in terms of their insistence of asking for quality and improvement points. Consistency is a major issue and I'd just like to bring things to a common format which will make it easier for the article to get through GA & then FA. Your point about readability of citations is well taken. AshLin (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of modern American conservatism

Hello, Rjensen. Lionelt has expressed interest in getting the Timeline of modern American conservatism up to standards so it can be promoted to Featured List. As far as I know, page numbers are required in cites sourced to books. I see several references to books without page numbers. Is it possible for you to add page numbers to the cites you added? If I'm mistaken about this requirement please let me know. If it is a requirement and you are unable to add page numbers, let me know that too and I'll see what I can dig out of Google books. Thank you, and keep up the good work on the Conservatism Project! --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

page numbers are not required when the entire book is used. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right. I guess we'll find out when it runs the FL gauntlet. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

William W. Belknap

Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on an Indian Trader Post scandal article that involved the impeachment of William W. Belknap in 1876. An article was written by John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster. I wanted to know what a good title would be. One title would be Indian Trader Post Scandal (1876). Would this be appropriate or does Belknap's name need to be in the title? Do you have any suggestions for any titles? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Indian Trader Post Scandal (1876) works well. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rjensen. Sounds good. That way other issues could be involved including the Custer and Grant breakdown. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I will drop "Indian" from the title upon further information from Koster (2010) source. The traderships sold goods to both U.S. military personnel and Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

good--I'm glad you caught that. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Trader Post Scandal (1876) article work in progress in my sandbox page. If you want you could review the article. The article is not complete, however, if you have any opinions on the article that would help. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. The Trader post scandal (1876) has been completed and published. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

good job--that was a lot of work! Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. There was more then the kickback contracts or profiting from the Fort Sill. Belknap forced soldiers to buy goods at these trading posts at high prices, then he and his wives in turn would recieve the profits. Belknap also distributed faulty weapons to the soldiers according to Koster (2010), while Indians bought high quality weapons with money that was suppose to be used to buy food staples at the traderships. Then there was the Custer controversy with Grant after Custer's testimony at the Clymer Committee. The process of having to sort through all the details took me awhile to complete. From what I have gathered is the Belknap scandal may have been more detrimental to Grant then the Babcock trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have improved and expanded the William W. Belknap article. If you have time could you look at and possibly tweak and/or improve the narration in the lede section. I got the lede into three paragraphs. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been adding more to the Belknap article. The more I read concerning his position as Secretary of War, I believe historians have given him a bad reputation. The Trader Post Scandal (1876) was obviously corrupt, however, he did not profit from any of the War Department expenditures. Historian Ingersoll (1880) A history of the War department of the United States actually defends Belknap and states the Impeachment trial was done in haste. I have been trying to balance his article. Ingersoll did acknolledge that by 1880 the Belknap scandal had remained controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

message from Jlyster re Herbert Hoover edit

Re "better start with George Nash's major biography that covers all this. Please avoid original research into primary documents--rely on Nash for that. Drop patent numbers. The Lyons book is no longer a RS. Yergin and McNeill are dubious sources on Hoover. Try not to string more than 2 notes in a row. Use American spelling not British....and good luck!"

Thankyou very kindly sir for your feedback. I am new to this process and greatly appreciate your assistance. Just going through your points one at a time.............. -first of all, your overall comments appear to be regarding the citations............does this mean that, at this point, you do not feel that any re editing is required for the body of the edit? -do you suggest that the Nash reference come up first? The order was created because my first citations came from the previous paragraph, where I first mentioned "Lyster". I'll see how I go to change the order of the bibliogrpahy then. -"Please avoid original research and rely on Nash for this". I am a little confused by this............are you suggesting that I delete some other references? Which ones please. (I'm very inexperienced here) -"Drop Patent Numbers". Should I remove all reference to the USA Patents, or perhaps should I simply make a reference to US Patents in general and leave out the numbers? What should the exact reference be please? -"Lyons book is no longer a RS". Sorry, I don't know what RS means.....please explain and recommend what I should do thx. -So I taker it that I should remove the Yergin and McNeill sources? Why are they "dubious" please? -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". Does this mean somehow not lumping all the ciations in one place at the end? The way I worked was to read up my references and then write a complete paragraph, also including portions from the present paragraph......ie a rewrite. I didn't take bits of individual sources into separate sentences and then individually cite each sentence, as I see that others have done. Consequently the entire paragraph is my own rewrite, and so I felt it necessary to simply add all of the citations together at the end. Is this what you are referring to? -yes we Australians naturally use British English.............I'll have a look at this, but Iam happy for you to edit any that I miss.

Thanks for your assistance.............I look forward to more comments regards, John Lyster (grandson of Fleury James Lyster..............however he passed away before I was born) Jlyster (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RS = reliable secondary source. That's what we rely on, and in this case Nash stands out. Cites to primary sources are problematic (they are useful chiefly for quotes) because of strong Wiki rules against WP:OR (original research) Put the notes next to the statement they refer to, not at the end. Yergin and McNeill are not RS on Hoover. Engineers apply for patents all the time, and that is rarely notable. As for the text, I suggest you base it all on Nash. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just now adjusted my edit as best as I can according to your comments......... I attempted to put the Nash reference to the top of my references, however it is still below the first two ANU references as these relate to the previous paragraph that contains my initial reference to FJ Lyster and so does not require the Nash reference. (FJ Lyster references came from the ANU sources and not from Nash) I gather that I didn't really understand what exactly you meant just here. Please re advise thx I did some other changes such as correcting British spelling of "floatation" to "flotation" and deleting the Yergin and McNeill refs. I don't know what to do about the fact I have "bulked" the notes together...........please see my previous eml to you regarding this very point. I look forward to your thoughts

Jlyster (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK I just noticed your second comments.......still learning this wiki thing. I'll delete all reference to Yergin McNeill Lyon and US Patents, and just leave Nash and ANU. The ANU (Australian National University)links to their web site includes the material related to FJ Lyster, Delprat-Potter that I mentioned. Did you have anything further to add re " -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". ??? thx JL

PS I have made my changes only the the edit on the Herbert Hoover talk page and left the version on my own talk page in its original state until it is finalised.

Jlyster (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Ok read up on primary sources and original research thx, getting the gyst of it. I have removed the three references that you indicated as being unsound and I'll see how I go about sorting the remaining references within the body of th work thx jl

good progress! The ANU cites need work: The should look like this: Fairweather, D. F., 'Lyster, Fleury James (Jim) (1872–1948)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lyster-fleury-james-jim-10883/text19323, accessed 18 February 2012.

put all that inside this footnote form: <ref> ...put stuff here...</ref> Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I'll add this last point to the Hoover Talk. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have The Timeline at Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Collaboration's talk page.

Jlyster (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I have worked on the citations for my Hoover edit thx jl

great! my final suggestion is to add page numbers for the long Nash book .Rjensen (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Quit India Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saurashtra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom

Greetings. Would you be able to check out the Pogrom page? User:Jayjg reverted my changes to this article, saying " "pogrom-like" isn't "pogrom", and the others aren't called pogroms, they're called "riots" etc..". This editor has failed to understand WP:RS policy. Sources describe the incidents as "pogroms". Thanks, Tobby72 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

you're right so I reverted his blanking based on his personal POV. Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley consequences

Hi, could you explain what's wrong with Peel's writings as a RS? I am not aware of British writers - or politicians - as being unreliable sources about Japan on principle. Peel was very well-published and I thought offered an interesting near-contemporary view on the consequences of tariffs. I have in front of me Peel's 1941 book and some of his correspondence associated with it. Peel is less well-known today than Freeman but was also a monetarist. He was a politician for about 18 months during WWI, although appears to have been more of a technocrat, working in the Treasury. Writing in mid-1941 (before Pearl Harbour & the invasion of Singapore) he describes a clear link between the suppression of Japanese exports (especially silk), the damaging effect it had on the agricultural base of Japan and their support for the building of an Imperial sphere of influence which would support agriculture and industry. (His writings suggest a more complex link towards the Axis countries.) He demonstrates a far better grasp of Japanese militarism and politics in the 1930s than WP currently holds. He also thought it a foolish path as the country was too co-dependant on the US for trade. I hope this explains my carefully-couched phrase in the tariff section - as it suggests some informed people recognised huge consequences from a simple question of trade protectionism. I would therefore be interested if you have any evidence as to why his opinions are invalid? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Peel was an elderly British politician with no knowledge of Japan. His 1941 book came many years after S-H -- it came at a time Japan was deep at war with China and about to attack the US and UK over issues having nothing to do with tariffs. The text that I dropped said he "claimed that restricting imports to the leading creditor nation, at a time when other forms of repayment were not possible, encouraged extremist and isolationist foreign governments." did not apply to Japan (which did not owe the US money). We have many solid monographs on Japanese policy in the 1930s. Jon Davidann has excellent coverage and he points out that trade between the US and Japan boomed in the 1930s --quite the opposite impression left by the text. see Davidann p 153. (Davidann and I coauthored a book together, by the way.) Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and ref to Davidann. He notes that Tsurumi said that Smoot Hawley contributed to intervention in Manchuria as well. It would seem that we have multiple sources attributing the rise of Japanese militarism on S-H.

Your interesting point about the rolling-back of US tariffs and the build up of US trade later in the 30s would appear to be too late, as by then the damage had been done. Peel also notes that the US was its primary trading partner; he quotes imports/exports of 64/53% in 1936 with US & UK. Although Peel quotes several British and Japanese specialists (and the US Institute of Pacific Relations), I see his strength as taking the world view, particularly regarding monetary policy. The historiography is valuable as he gives a contemporary insight of someone who had lived through and studied those changes; had the 1941 book been written 6 months later I am sure it would have been less measured. He did not of course refer to reparations in the context of Japan, but to tariffs, on which topic he had previously written several books (advocating Free Trade.) His argument was economic and focussed around two main points;

firstly, that of money supply, closely tied in with reparations (which would be in line with Friedman's theories) including Japan's move to restore the Gold Standard at a time when certain nations were 'sterilising' the supply by building up very large gold reserves. Secondly the global race for tariffs from 1928-1934, which S-H spurred, resulted in 40 countries raising defensive tariffs against japanese trade by 1934

The consequence of this tariff race was, amongst other items, deflation of the value of silk exports (which had been a major earner and had a bad effect on rural Japan) and the diversification into other (less-profitable) industries. He claims in response the rural classes formed a populist bedrock of support for the Army's Imperialist adventures in Manchuria (seeing new markets) and beyond, at exactly the key moment when the Army was hijacking politics. When the Finance minister tried to curb the military in 1936, he was murdered and violence became commonplace. Is there not logic in what he says? Best regards, Ephebi (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

we need to use at modern RS by economists, economic historians and historians using info & techniques unavailable to a popular writer like Peel. The Japanese farmers were mostly rice farmers, not silk growers. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The need for being encyclopaedic encourages a diversity of opinions as long as the weight is appropriate. You know that there is no such requirement for RS to be based on new books - the historigraphy can also be relevant. Nonetheless, Tsurumi is a current source and was quoted by Davidann, confirming Peel's claim. Whether we personally like their argument or not is immaterial. As you haven't made a case to dismiss the validity of either source I do see any reason to remove the text, though its worthwhile adding Davidann' Tsurumi claim to the refs. Best regards, Ephebi (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Spivak

You should provide a Reliable Source that states Spivak asserted Jewish financiers were working with Nazis to create the Business Plot. There is not such a ref related to Nazi involvement now.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the talk page--it's all in Spivak's first New Masses article linked in footnote 15: first page (p 9) items 5 & 6, 2nd page (p 10) item #13 explicitly link the plot to Nazi Germany and Hitler (as well as to Wall Street Jews). New masses was a Communist magazine & Dickstein was (a few years later) a paid Soviet agent reporting on Congress to Moscow. Wiki is reporting what Spivak said--most of the plot is based on Spivak-- and it's Spivak who did the OR Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I see. He does mention Nazis, although not specifically re the Plot as far as I immediately see. Unfortunately that is a primary source. We can not use primary sources. That's considered original research I believe. We need some secondary source a Reliable Source to add that Nazi involvement in the Business Plot. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

the rule is "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." WP:PRIMARY and I think the rule allows mention of what Spivak said. A careful reading shows he repeats the Nazi theme at least three or four times in the short article about the Plot. Perhaps we can quote Spivak instead? Rjensen (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am not adverse to quoting Spivak. I think he was squirrelly as hell as relates to the whole matter. I do think he was saying in the article that American Jewish financiers were closely mixed up with Nazis, (and his connections between the nazis and jews read like insanity) I do not think he says that they (the Nazis) were involved in the Business Plot. This does seem to me to be an extremely novel view of Spivak, but give it a try. Let's see what formulation might work. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would still be a lot more comfortable with a non-primary source ref though.Capitalismojo (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I read Spivak as saying the Wall Street Jews are behind the plot and he wants to warn the people that they are teaming up with the Nazis in some way but he has not quite figured out how. the problem is that Spivak was looney (in my opinion) and serious historians don't want to get tarred by writing about him. (I used to watch Spivak on TV in the 1950s--he had calmed down and was pretty conservative then!) A quote or two from him tell the readers a lot. (He was a poor Eastern European Jew (Yiddish not German) & hated uppity rich German Jews, and Wall Street and Nazis all at the same time) Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Push and pull

Ah. I was just typing an edit summary for reverting the "more encyclopedic" edit, but I see you got there first. Wouldn't you think people might at least read the "section headers" before mucking about with the lede? And possibly, in this case, notice there was a section about push and pull? But I've noticed it many times: people read only the lede (which is of course a summary of the long boring article below): "Well, that can't be right, I'm changing that. Heck, I do it myself. Anyway, thanks for a timely revert. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

thanks for the note--we fully agree. Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Alexander Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annapolis Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for a 1920s American History article

There is an outstanding proposal to merge American gangsters during the 1920s into the Prohibition article. I don't favor that but don't really have a good solution either. The originating editor's analysis, with which I concur, is that "gangsters.." is poorly written. No one has yet commented (!) I was hoping you might suggest a more elegant solution which you would not be obliged to execute (!). Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. Bad idea, because prohibiion waas only one factor--the gangs were there before, and after, prohibition. Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikilove for you!

	FA/GA of the month - Gandhi
	Here's a glass of milk for you which will energize and motivate you in improving Gandhi further. Thank you for your contributions so far. BPositive (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

History sources

Since you wrote some advice in WP:RS about good sources for history-related articles back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks -- I made some changes. The draft seems to be by an inactive IP address who has no experience with Wikipedia history articles. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing of WP:HISTRS, it was very valuable. I had to admit to most of the flaws in HISTRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

McKinley

You are, of course, correct, but using terms like "Third Party System" (it's article says it's a term used by historians and political scientists) is too technical for the first paragraph of a lede. And there is no particular need to source them, I'm not questioning your word, merely trying to phrase things in a way which will be most effective for the lay reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

the lay reader comes here to learn things--in this case standard terminology used in the textbooks. ("realignment", "party system," "gold standard," "tariff," "free silver" etc) Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll play with it again, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole "realignment election" thing is post hoc rationalization. I understand that people who study politics talk about such things (or used to) but it seems too jargony to put Third Party System in the lede without further explanation. Some discussion at the end of the article makes sense, but just dropping it in the first paragraph will confuse more people than it educates. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"post hoc rationalization" is called scholarship and the RS are full of it. wiki privileges the RS. People come here to learn new ideas. Most of our readers are students and this material (like Party Systems) is taught in their textbooks. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I did some looking on JSTOR and found that the term Third Party System is not universally (or, actually that widely) used. Third Electoral Era, I saw, and sometimes it discussed without naming. I also fear that since the term Third Party System is not intuitive (people might think Third Party as in Dems, Reps, and xxx) I would rather not use the term, but instead have it piped. But we'll work it out. Have you any other thoughts on the article, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think piping it gets the point across that the election of 1896 represented, in retrospect, a shift in the party system. The links allow people to learn more, if they wish, without throwing the jargon in their faces. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a party system has been around for well ov er 100 years (Bryce, Ostrogorski, Ford, Merriam). The idea of numbering them came up in the 1960s. If you look at citations at google you will see that "1896" and "forth party system" show up in hundreds of books--mostly reference books and textbooks. The hundreds of thousands of students who take university and high school courses in Am. govt every year have to learn these ideas, and if they're confused by the textbook they come to Wiki for help. So it's standard fare for encyclopedias. I don't worry too much that a reader might be alarmed or damaged by a new idea. I suggest people come to Wiki to learn new ideas and it's the job of the editors to facilitate that. A new idea will be clear in 30 seconds just by clicking on the link.Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I accept that the idea is common, I just thought the jargon was confusing. No one suggested that anyone would be "damaged" by reading new words. It's not worth an edit war. I don't care any more. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. That came off as rude. And I see you've moved this discussion to the article's page, so I'll continue there. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Spiffed up one of your articles

Found a dramatic old-time graphic for your article on the United States Housing Authority. Take a look! Am discovering that the NARA photos plus a government agency infobox can really bring these articles to life. Great to know we have some actual trained historians here! It sure helps to have a sound article as a base. Djembayz (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice job--thanks! Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Economic history of the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Great Western and National Union

George Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gordon Wood

Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Bailey

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

McKinley 2

to McKinley talk page

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Talk:Home front during World War I.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of British diplomatic history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on Evangelicalism

Could you please explain the reasoning behind the content you restored there? I am still having difficulty understanding why it is relevant. Thanks! -- LWG ^talk 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

you erased sourced info -- I suppose because it wasn't too clear. I rewrote the info (on blacks) and added some 19th century history and clarified roles of some majore denominations today. cheers. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My main concern wasn't whether it was sourced, but whether it is on-topic for that article. If you see the message I posted on the article's talk page, the statistics I was able to find seemed to paint a less clear-cut picture than the article as written currently reads. I have two specific concerns:

• According to the statistics compiled by the Pew Forum, 34% of Evangelicals identify as Democrats, 33% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 26% believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. The wording "There is a small group of liberal white evangelicals" makes it seem like the number is far smaller than it actually is.
• The article makes special mention that Black Evangelicals are generally democratic and liberal. While true, this is also true of non-Evangelical Blacks, and is thus a statement about race and politics, not religion and politics.

To me, it seems that the information in that paragraph is rather misleading and dubiously relevant to the article as a whole. I guess my question is, what information is this article intended to communicate, why is that information important, and how can we ensure that it is not easily misinterpreted by the average reader? -- LWG ^talk 03:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

the solution is to specify how many liberal white evangelicals there are. Black politics is dominated by evangelical preachers (Adam Clayton Powell, ML King, Jesse Jackson, etc etc) so the religious theme is central. As for "non-evangelical blacks" --there are not a lot of them. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be better to move the mention of Balcks to "demographics", then, as it was not immediately clear to me that the article was trying to say that most Blacks are evangelicals. What do you think about the first point? It seems to me that the numbers essentially boil down to "while Evangelicals have many different political viewpoints, they are significantly more likely than the general population to be conservative."

but it's much more than " significantly more likely". It's an energized, activist powerful force that you see in the 2012 Santorum vote...the liberal evangelicals exist in surveys bit they are not organized, & not a force to be noticed. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

They aren't organized, by they are nonetheless not a "small group", since they evidently represent nearly a third or evangelicals. The subject of the organized right is addressed in the paragraph above. Having addressed the presence of that movement, the rest of the demographics are not that different from those of the nation as a whole. -- LWG ^talk 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page in hopes of including more editors in the discussion. We should probably continue it there. -- LWG ^talk 15:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

George S. Boutwell

Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the George S. Boutwell article. Please feel free to evaluate if you have time. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the note--I will look at it. Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:1832bank.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:1832bank.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"History" section in CSA

I did a copy edit on the "died of states rights" section, restating the theme national v. local "states rights" in the paragraph from Potter, making it the conclusion, which then serves as a transition into "died of Davis" subsection. Then moved solders paragraph up to "conscription" to make it the concluding paragraph there, since it serves as a better summing up-conclusion there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

good moves! my worry is the article is accumulating lots of minor detail (like coins) that will divert young students from the main points. Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Eden

Your recent restoration of a sentence by Thorpe makes the bit redundant. Per WP:LEAD, I was providing a summary of the full Thorpe quote in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

yes but the summary has to include both parts of the Thorpe sentence. This is not the place to save a few words. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't push the point. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR

You are at the limit of 3RR on that electoral fraud issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC) --thanks. nogte that 3R does NOT apply to BPR violations. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Modern Indo-European language

Noticed that this article was nominated for deletion partially based on the fact that the article's lead itself screamed "not notable". When examining the article's history I noticed that this edit you made to it back in December of 2010 basically "painted a target" on it. I'm not going to make a big deal about it because it's now old news but I'm curious as to why you didn't just nominate it for deletion or prod it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It was being publicized & I wanted to warn readers about it. Rjensen (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Historian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Labor history and Demographic history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An edit of yours to the East Germany article

Move to East Germany talk page

Countryside??

"YEOMAN" on WIKIPEDIA HELLO,LAST CONTRIBUTOR ON THE ARTICLE "YEOMAN"! HAVE YOU SEEN LAST REVISION , i.e., countrysides instead of country sides? Is that correct? I suppose yes...But I wonder ..what about "country sides"? How long this mistake survived? No contributor noticed that? So strange! 82.55.89.150 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

not so strange: "The Victorians, we might say, learned to recognize not a generalized countryside but a series of different countrysides" says Mingay, Victorian Countryside (2000) Page 139. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Just what is involved is the words " country sides" which were used until some days ago!

Thanks a lot! 95.246.62.120 (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Fine work on the "Women's suffrage" article, I appreciate your fixing the "India" section. Sunray (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pimp" in Sumner's speech

Hi! Please see my note on the Charles Sumner talk page. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks--I'm glad we resolved the issues. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I really appreciate the education. As you explained it with sources, it made much more sense. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

move to Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism's talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been great working with you on the timeline. I hope you'll join me for the final journey [1]. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

indeed it's been a pleasure to work with you. :) Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Supervisor of United States Military Academy

Hello Rjensen. Do you know who appointed the Supervisor of the United States Military Academy? This is in reference to the William W. Belknap and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant articles and the appointment of Thomas H. Ruger in 1871 as Supervisor. Ruger implemented a policy that successfully reduced hazing at the Academy. This was at a time when African Americans were first entering the Academy. Thanks for you time. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

well i used to teach at the Academy--in modern times the chief of staff of the army does the appointing. Then -- probably the general in chief. Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to know you, Rjensen, taught at USMA. That is impressive. I would need to know for certain in this case, since Ruger reduced hazing at the Academy. I guess that could leave either Grant, Belknap, or Sherman who appointed Ruger. Grant had received criticism for the hazing of Cadet Smith, the first African American to enroll at West Point, and I am wondering if Grant appointed Ruger to reduce the hazing. I believe the President and the Secretary of War had the power to appoint the Supervisor of West Point. The military law in 1870 gave Sec. Belknap allot of power as Secretary of War bypassing General in Chief Sherman. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

for certain? I don't know  :) Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to States' Rights

The 17th amendment and states' rights can be easily sourced on the internet. Also your removal of the following makes know sense. "Historians such as Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams[disambiguation needed ] argue that the Southern secession and the ensuing conflict was much more of a fiscal quarrel than a war over slavery. Northern-inspired tariffs benefited Northern interests but were detrimental to Southern interests and were destroying the economy in the South." That is a key argument from southerners on states' rights. Economics, such as tariffs also play a huge role in modern states' rights arguments. I plan on adding back the economic argument and will look for a source on the 17th Amendment section. --Southronite (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will ad that it should be put that the 17th Amendment argument should be added in a way that makes it clear that it is the view of some people that the Amendment is goes against States' Rights. The view from some is that the state government selects a senator that answers to the states' needs while the house answers the peoples' needs. --Southronite (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

" can be easily sourced" really? then do so. You need a "reliable secondary source" says Wikipedia. Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams are fringe elements whose ideas have been rejected by the reliable secondary sources. They are neoconfederate apologists. The 17th amendment shifts the power to elect senators away from the legislature of a state to the voters of the state. No one at the time (1913) thought that violated states rights--it's a later invention by non-reliable sources.Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of the article is to give the views of both sides. It doesn't matter whether you view them as fringe.-Southronite (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also the article is about the political philosophy of States' Rights. Many modern proponents of States' Right have proposed repealing the 17th Ammendent. --Southronite (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

fringe elements get minor mention and must be marked as such, per wiki rules. The main criterion is coverage in reliable secondary sources as major contributors. "both sides" is meaningless--there are 100 sides to these issues Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of my contribution

Hi, I'm curious why you removed my research on military law exclusions while leaving the reference to the VTVPA, which it contravenes? I will be asking this on the talk page of that topic as well, as I feel that the deletion of relevant cited facts is harmful to the purpose of wikipedia. Thanks, Mwenechanga (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you need a RS (Reliable Secondary Source) that makes the case that this is an example of indentured servant. OR (original research) is not allowed in Wikipedia Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

American Old West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Richard M. Johnson, Central Pacific, Andy Adams and Mark Hopkins

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

M.K. Gandhi GA Review

Hello Rjensen, how are you? After making changes in the article can you please update that in Review page too (I mean, write in brief that you have made change, or you have not made any change since you feel it is not needed)? It'll help in the review process! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK -- note that references to scholarly articles do not usually include information on the author's first name or status as "researcher". The article published in a RS stands on its own. We can expect readers to read the footnote if they want more detailRjensen (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Belknap and Custer

Hello Rjensen. How much did the sale of breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles to hostile Indians at traderships under Sec. Belknap's authority affect the Battle of Little Big Horn? Historian John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster, on page 58 contends that breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles sold to Indians at trader posts were a factor in the defeat of Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Koster I believe had based this theory on the investigation afterwards that U.S. Military breach loaders had jammed on the third round. Sec. William W. Belknap (1874), Annual report of the Secretary of War, on pages XVII-XVIII stated he gave his troops superior top of the line Springfield breach loaders. Custer had for unclear reasons refused to take Gatling guns that could shoot 150 rounds per minute and would have strongly increased his fire power. Did U.S. troops have repeating rifles or were they only given Springfield breach-loaders? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

good questions -- i do not know the answers. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I suppose my "real" concerns are how to put any pertinent additional facts in the William W. Belknap article and how to find information on what weapons the U.S. military used at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Is Kosner's (2010) suggested theory that Belknap's trader posts selling arms to hostile Indians caused the defeat of Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn legitimate? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Custer was outnumbered 10-1 and his position was hopeless. His enemies having good rifles did not help any. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That makes sense. I suppose then Custer's defeat at the Battle of Little Big Horn can't be blamed on Belknap. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rjensen. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congrats on 100 edits in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article! Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Error

Sorry about that edit. I thought it said Dem support increased. Zach Vega (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ok--thanks for the note! :) Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

George M. Robeson

I am attempting to improve President Grant's cabinet articles. I believe possibly by understanding Grant's cabinet members one can understand Ulysses S. Grant better. I have recently improved the George M. Robeson article. Please feel free to make any improvements to or comments on the Robeson article. Robeson seems to have been a scholarly spokeperson for Grant. I am finding the Naval contract scandal is somewhat complicated, since Robeson had limited funding from Congress. Do you, Rjensen, believe what Robeson did in the Navy contracts was corruption? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look---it's been a LONG time since I looked at Robeson. :) Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and clean ups on the article, Rjensen! I have known there was profiteering in the Naval Department under Robeson, since he had $300,000 in his bank account on an $8,000 year salary. However, I never knew he was a scholar and an outspoken advocate of Radical Reconstruction. I found his developement of underwater warfare, including submarine testing, and administering the exploration into the artic interesting. I am going to try and write a section on the Virginius incident. Robeson had to make ships on limited budgets, however, that apparently in the end led to costly "rebuilding" efforts on dilapitated ships. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. In reading sources I have found that Robeson was heavily involved with the Polaris expedition, having secured funding and writing the rules for the expeditions specific protocol and hierarchy. He even led the inquiry into Hall's death. One source, Parry (2001) Trial by Ice contends the Robeson inquiry suppressed information concerning Dr. Bessel and Hall's murder by arsenic. What is the best method or way for this subject matter to be approached? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

just summarize the main facts (& don't repeat the same footnote over & over) :) Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I'll be sparing on the footnotes. From what I have read, Robeson, seems to have been a very powerful or efficient Secretary of Navy. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I added section on the Polaris expedition. I used three paragraphs and attempted to give just the basics without missing content. I did not know Robeson was active in Arctic Exploration. The expedition could be made into a movie, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited History of immigration to the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of modern American conservatism at WP:FLC

Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't work on it for the next couple weeks. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, it is most appreciated. May I add that the depth of content and quality sources you bring take the timeline to the next level.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, book publishers added so that's the last of the current outstanding issues. All that's left are 2 page needed tags. If they are your cites, perhaps you could add the nos. Thanks!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ok let the word go forth that the page are added. Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The best list in the pedia just failed FLC. Thanks for your efforts! If at first you don't succeed... – Lionel ^(talk) 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

the article is much better thanks to your work. :) Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Hi, your addition to the Historiography section of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 reads like a review of Dalrymple's book and thus seems out of place. Thoughts? Rsloch (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wagner says Dalrymple's book is by far the most important and influential recent study, so it clearly deserves a couple of sentences summarizing his interpretation. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In a bibliographical essay perhaps though you would need to list the contrary view. Opinions on an author's work are fine in their articles but if we add them to pages like that for the rebellion we end up with long discussions of the merits of certain authors not the subject at hand. How about I put this issue up for discussion on the talk page? Rsloch (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

we have two sentences on what the RS call the most important book for the historiography. That is a topic that belongs in the historiography section--the section deals with how historians have handled the topic. 2 sentences is not a "long discussion." As for contrary views, yes they should be included if they exist but I have not found that any exist. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about the David Brooks thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeedh (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok :) Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about your chart, Economic Growth in America (GROWTH1850)

Dear Dr. Jensen,

I was wondering if you could tell me about the units for the vertical axis of the chart you uploaded, "Economic Growth in America, per capita income 1700-1840". Is per capita income value exactly the number of dollars listed (as opposed to tens of dollars, or hundreds of dollars)? Does it account for inflation? Are all income values shown in-for example-year 1800 dollars?

Thanks for your help,

Tom168.7.235.165 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.235.165 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

good questions. it was an index in deflated dollars with 1700 set arbitrarily at 100 Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lot M. Morrill

Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the Lot M. Morrill article. Morrill was Grant's Secretary of Treasury during his last year in office. Morrill was also U.S. Senator for the entire Civil War and most of Reconstruction. Do you know if Morrill was considered a Radical or Moderate Republican? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

my recollection is he started a bit radical then became moderate Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Since there apparently is no biographer for Morrill, I have been putting the article together piece meal with newspaper and biographical dictionary sources. Is there any way of finding out if he voted for the Enforcement Acts while Senator? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

check out http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A good link. I looked up Senate debate on the Klu Klux Klan bill, but I could not find any mention of Sen. Morrill argueing for the bill. I have to go page by page since the site apparently does not have a search engine for the Congressional Globe. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did find a search engine, however, I could not find any Senate speeches given by Sen. Morrill. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Education Act 1902, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Acland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Atlantic Slave Trade

I'm not going to revert your edit on the Atlantic Slave Trade page, but I just wanted to let you know that it was my own material that I deleted. I had already added a lot of material to that section and I thought that that one part was a bit over the top. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate it if you took a second look- if you agree with me that it is unnecessary (given that the preceding sentence discusses the same historian and the same study by that historian), then please revert it back to my last version. Thanks. ElliotJoyce (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks for explanation. I thought your Engerman edit was fine--it is not POV to say what the RS say. Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Campaign

You are adding long unsourced segments of text, and changing other text cited to footnotes. This is not proper. Please cut it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to add all the footnotes--they come from the same standard ibids. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Reich and Realm

Since I did end up posting a more precise poll, could you kindly vote again —just below the first poll. Sorry for not being sufficiently precise the first time. Bytwerk (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding books to lists

I noticed that on the page List of books about the War of 1812 someone added a book in April that will not be published until July 30 of this year. Is it acceptable to list a book that is not published yet? I suspect that the person who added it is either the author or the publisher, but I cannot prove it. Dwalrus (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's ok in this case-- publishers send out copies to reviewers months ahead of time (so that the newspaper reviews appear about the same time as the book hits the market), so the contents are not secret. In this case the author is a well established historian and business expert ("Alastair Sweeny is the author of a biography of George-Etienne Cartier, as well as two recent business books, BlackBerry Planet, on RIM's smartphone, and Black Bonanza, on Canada's oilsands.") who qualifies as a reliable source. His approach--the business side of 1812--seems to be quite original. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Thats makes a lot of sense. BTW, I came across an article that Alastair Sweeny recently wrote and his book may be highly controversial. It is located here if you are interested in reading it. Thanks again. Dwalrus (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that link to his essay. I hope the book is better than that! :) Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Virginius affair

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Virginius affair or "Virginus incident" during the Grant Administration. I have been using Bradford (1980), The Virginius Affair as source. The U.S. almost went to war with Spain over Cuba in 1873, thanks to Grant and Fish, war was averted. I believe Charles Sumner was against going to war with Spain over the incident. Any help would be appreciated in terms of narration or historical accuracy. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. I will look into it. Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Any opinion on the Virginius Affair article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been on the road with very limited internet so have not had a chance to look at it yet. Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You did a good job on the summary in the lede section in the Virginius Affair article. The article lead stresses that the ship was purchased for the Cuban insurrection. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks. you did excellent work. Rjensen (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Another perspective is always good. I appreciate your edits on the article. I believe the Virginius Affair deserves more attention. Grant and Fish made a good team in keeping the U.S. out of war. The Bradford book really helped in writing the article. Bradford presents Grant as a competant President in response to the situtation, a refreshing change. Bradford book, if not the only one, is the best so far on the Virginius Affair. My main concern was not to repeat or exclude any pertinent information. The changes in Spanish government and resignation of Sickles made the article a bit more complicated. Your edits, Rjensen, have vastly improved the article. Thanks again. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The article Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself?

You did not nominate but thanks for active contribution in GA review. Sorry for delay in reply. Was too busy in GA review and some emails. Yes, the article on M.K.Gandhi is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia. For people like Christ, Krishna, Gandhi, Mother Teresa their lives are their message , if someone studies their lives carefully, he will find out their message immediately, don't you think we should add Gandhi's famous comment "My life is my message"? (not related to GA)--Tito Dutta ^Message 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

very good idea--I added it to end the lede on a high note. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar

I am elated to see your excellent contribution and super excellent teamwork in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article, which was also the Indian Collaboration of the Month for taking upto GA/FA level under WikiProject India. Your long struggle and hard-work helped the article to achieve Good Article status. Along with you, the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar has been awarded to the– Top 7 contributors of the article. Top 3 contributors of the GA review discussion. Once again thanks for your contribution! Note: If you are seeing this barnstar in someone's user page, you can also see this barnstar in GA review page where it was actually posted.BPositive (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary

I admire your zeal, but I feel removing a link to word from dictionary is taking things a little far! ;-)

If the removal of common words is taken to that degree, then the word article will end up with zero incoming links!

The policy says:

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,

• Avoid linking plain English words.

I think in this case, words are particularly relevant to dictionaries. Hope this helps!Planetscared (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the issue is whether it helps the reader to have the link--and i think not much at all. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In very many articles I could quite agree, but not this one.Planetscared (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on another Grant Cabinet member U.S. Attorney General Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar. Hoar was well qualified for this position and did not use patronage to make any court appointments. His tenor seems to demonstrate the power of the Senate who had no issues with dispensing patronage. Apparently Grant's first Cabinet: Hoar and Cox made efforts to control the patronage system. Please feel free to make any narration or historical context edits. Do you believe patronage is a corrupt system? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

think patronage became increasingly corrupt as the century wore on and had to be reformed, as it was. Rjensen (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose my issue is that Grant put in persons who were opposed to patronage. Grant deserves credit for choosing an independant cabinet. Grant did not trust polititians, according to Hoar's biographers Storey-Emerson. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I edited Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, not James Buchanan. I do not recall ever editing James Buchanan. I am putting this under a different title. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not post the below comment on the James Buchanan article. I am not sure why the comment was put in this section. The comment was unsigned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have edited concerning Att. Gen. Hoar and the overturning of Hepburn v. Griswold; the Supreme Court case that outlawed paper money. I suppose this is Hoar's most important accomplishment as Attorney General. Do you know any information or historical context concerning this case? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not up on it--there are some cites at the Herburn article; this google search might help. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. The George Frisbie Hoar book is good. Seems like in the 1890's, prior to the turn of the 20th Century, important details inside Grant's Administration became available. Grant's Interior Secretary, Jacob D. Cox, also had written information on Att. Gen. Hoar and Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

James Buchanan

ah, and you just revealed why you wish to have such rubbish in the article - you obviously have disdain for President Buchanan, and quite unfairly I will ad. Just because he is not a favorite of yours does not give you the right to ridicule him. I would hate to see what someone such as yourself would have done when faced with the difficulties in the late 1850's & 1860. I suggest to you young man that you get over your arrogance and deal with historical truth.

the job here at Wikipedia is to summarize what the scholars say, not erase them. That is POV-based vandalism. If you have some other viewpoint you ADD it to the article, say the rules. Violators will be banned. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

UDC and Memorial Day

For what reason do you think that the UDC had anything to do with Memorial Day? Memorial Day was created by the Ladies Memorial Associations of the 1860s. The UDC did not come along until much later and had little or nothing to do with the history of this day. The material about the UDC belongs on the UDC page. If you want to substitute it with information about the Ladies Memorial Associations, that would make sense. But arguing for the importance of the UDC regarding memorial day is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Day keeps changing over the decades and the article covers that. the UDC played a major part in changing the meaning of Mem Day to make it part of Southern traditions. Rjensen (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be incredibly uninformed about this history. You would do yourself a great favor by familiarizing yourself with some scholarship: Take a look at the University of Mississippi Research on this topic: http://www.civilwarcenter.olemiss.edu/memorial_day.shtml

Perhaps read what the Veterans Administration's historians say. http://www.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/history.asp

Read Neff, Janney, Blight. Read William Blair's CITIES OF THE DEAD. You don't seem to know the difference between the Ladies Memorial Associations that emerged in the 1860s and the UDC which is largely a 20th century group. I think you might want to leave some of the editing of this article to those who are more familiar with the history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

the UDC was deeply involved: "in 1899 the UDC created the Cross of Honor. All its divisions established procedures to verify the war records of the veterans in order to determine who had served faithfully. On Memorial Day...the UDC then bestowed on each worthy a bronze badge in the shape of a cross." [Gaines Foster, Ghosts p 157]; "Most UDC members were ...wholly dedicated to the organization, raising funds, running museums, celebrating Confederate Memorial Day" [Cashin, "First lady" 293]. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your swift work to construct usable content here. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

These situations are pretty demoralizing for me; articles like that one - extensively edited and important articles with foundational copyright issues that cannot be easily excised - are "my worst nightmare" territory. Thank you so much for stepping in to do something constructive and reminding me why Wikipedia works. What we achieve, we achieve because of impulses like that and people like you. We're lucky to have you. And, personally, you've made my day. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

hey--thanks. glad to help. I grew up in Tucson and can't let the article collapse. Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know when you're done poking. :) If you don't mind, I want to nominate this for DYK (assuming it meets the five-fold expansion from [2], which I figure it almost certainly will. I'm a bit intimidating by their techniques for figuring that out, but I'll manage!). The way I figure it, I can list it as late as under May 24 to meet the five day requirement. I'm currently eyeballing information from the Ranching subsection, but will see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

it's flattering to see Hist Arizona nominated for DYK. Many thanks :) Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rats. I can't list it for DYK because it falls shy of "fivefold" expansion. :( Apparently, after stripping copyvio, it had "4371 B" of readable prose. For a five-fold expansion, it would have to be 21 kB. But I'm told the article is 17 kB, which (I'm told) is a not inconsequential gap. I was soooo sure that it was five-fold, but apparently it's readable prose only that makes the difference. I'm so sorry. I should have checked before saying anything. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Butler request

Hello Rjensen. I have been looking over Benjamin Franklin Butler article. I recently updated his photo in the lede section. His article needs work or possibly an overhaul, particularly his lede section. I figure since he was prominent during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant that he is worth looking into. He does get a signifigant number of article traffic attention I believe to deserve improvement. His lede section really needs work and expansion. I do not currently have enough information on Butler to redo the lede section. If you have time or inclination to fix the lede, that would be good. This is only an optional suggested request for article improvement. I am sure you have a busy schedule. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I always thought Ben Butler was a strange character! I'll look into it. Rjensen (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Yes. Strange and politically powerful. He has an interesting face. He seemed to always walk the tight rope between corruption and legality, yet, Butler as a Radical, protected African American rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

the cartoonists loved his face (& hated his policies), especially in Puck -- I bet he made more appearances on their cover than anyone else. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think incorporating a Butler caricature into the article would be good. Puck also liked to lampoon Sec. George M. Robeson in caricatures. I think Butler is somewhat "under the radar" in terms of historical analysis. I am not sure how fairly Puck treated Butler, who wrote the Ku Klux Klan act. Was Puck anti civil rights? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Puck was Bourbon Democrat -- & cartoons were by German Protestants who did NOT like Irish Catholics (who were allies of Butler) Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if any Democrat during the 19th Century was for Civil Rights. Butler seems to be the most progressive in terms of his political views on faith and race. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

American Frontier

Hello, I just got your message. Sorry I didnt read it sooner, Ive been really busy. I would like to begin making changes, but its really late now so I'll start tomorrow. I dont really intend to do much other than rename the article though.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the renaming--a good idea in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Hi - there is a report about disputed content in the White trash article at he BLPN - Wikipedia:BLPN#White_Trash - as you are the the User replacing the disputed content please comment there - thanks - Youreallycan 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of unresolved templates

Hi - I still have issues with this article that unresolved - I dispute your removal of all the templates - please replace the COI and NPOV and the BLP better citations required - these templates should not be removed unless issues are resolved and these issues clearly are not - thanks - Youreallycan 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

it's all solved. Thanks for your trouble. You're on the thin edge of getting posted for harassment. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I await that, go for it I am proud of my contributions in this issue , you have removed without good reason redlinks that expose the low notability of your additions - I will discuss without reverting and work towards a solution - Youreallycan 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I will notify my mentor about your warning - thanks - Youreallycan 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Dennis Brown's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice regarding discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Links to digital archives at unz.org. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

New Deal

Hello, Rjensen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Pass3456 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Marshall Jewell

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on and expanding on the Marshall Jewell article, President Grant's Postmaster General. Jewell is interesting because he apparently reformed the Postal Service from the Star Route contract profiteering. In addition Jewell had helped Bristow shut down the Whiskey Ring. His life events were interesting and he was a world traveler. If you want to look at the article, that would be good. Your perspective is needed. What are your views on the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at him once, years ago: "The work has developed shrewd and successful beggars of money. As a collector of campaign funds Mr. Marshall Jewell, who was for several years chairman of the Republican National Committee, perhaps never had an equal." [Jensen, Grass Roots Politics, 1983 p 84], but don't remember a thing! :) Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is that historians have apparently forgetten Jewell was a reformer during the Grant Administration who aided Benjamin Bristow. Jewell for a while stopped the Star Route profiteering and aided Bristow in stopping the Whiskey Ring. Jewell also landed an authentic trademark treaty with Russia that protected American products while he was U.S. Minsister. I believe Jewell has been an under-rated Grant appointment. If you wanted to look at the article that is fine. I believe Jewell is worth looking into, particularly why Grant forced his resignation without any explanation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Has politics changed that much since Jewell's times? Political Action Committees and their unlimited funding of the commercial media is controlling the national political process. PAC's did not exist when Jewell was Chairman of the Republican National Committee, what else could Jewell do to fund a campaign? James A. Garfield was elected President of the United States due mostly in part to Jewell's aggressive campaigning. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewell as reformer...yes, but Grant usually fired suspecyed reformers, as he did Jewell. Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, however, why did Grant allow Jewell to reform for two years in office and then fire him? Something must have upset Grant. According to the New York Times Grant forced Jewell to resign after he had fired William L. Burt Postmaster of Boston for not paying a surety bond. Did Grant believe Jewell was "showboating" as a reformer or did Grant believe that the firing of Burt was unnecessary or both? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Burt was a friend of Grant. No matter what do not attack Grant's buddies or you are doomed! Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I suppose Grant rationalized he was protecting his friends rather then stopping corruption. Without attempting to categorize, Grant then was a reformer up until any person went after one of his friends. That could explain any inconsistencies of Grant as a reforming President. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

well said. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Grant is starting to make more sense, I suppose. Your insight has helped. Grant was at times a reformer and then if a friend was involved he would become aggressively protective, a relentless dichotomy. One issue concerning the Marshall Jewell article are the titles for each segments. I am not sure if all the titles are accurate or concise. If you could look at the segment titles for any suggested changes that would be appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1812

Implying the US was seen as "seeking to spread republican and democratic ideas" and writing off the threat of US expansionism as "propaganda" is extremely controversial and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylencrufts (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Canadian historians say that. See literature on 1837 rebellions and "militia myth" Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

George Henry Williams

Hello Rjensen. I found addresses made by George Henry Williams, President Grant's Attorney General. He gives some candid revelations of Grant as President. Here is the link: Gen. U.S. Grant August 8, 1885 Portland, Oregon. Williams stated Grant was not an emotional man and that he had a public and private personna. Williams stated that in the Cabinet meeting Grant was "frank, fluent, and exceedingly interested in conversation." Publically Grant was known to be private and an indifferent listener. I have expanded more on the William's bio article. I thought you would be interested in his comments on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks very much--I did not know about that. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. I guess another issue is that Williams was a Radical. He stated that Grant held him back as Attorney General and that Williams would have been more forceful towards the South. What is interesting to me is that the person in charge of all the federal legal aspects of Reconstruction for over three years was a Senator from Oregon. I believe Williams was an under-rated U.S. Attorney General and a good writer himself. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

""I reworked the article so that the main events are only covered once, not twice. It could use more detail on his work as Atty General. Was his resignation involving a bribe or his wife? Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I believe his resignation had to do with his wife taking money from Pratt and Boyd and his wife having the most expensive carriage in Washington D.C. purchased with government money. I suppose the real question was whether Williams was using his wife to take influence money from Pratt and Boyd in order to suppress prosecution. There was also the "scandal" of his wife having an expensive carriage. I suppose William's resignation represents Washington D.C.'s apparent complete devotion to money and appearances during the Gilded Age society. I would put in the article that his wife taking money and the purchase of the expensive carriage led to William's resignation. I am not sure there really is a clear explanation why he resigned. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A third reason for his resignation possibly could be that Williams was a Radical. The South viewed him unfairly as a demon. Williams viewed that the Northern papers had Southern sympathies and did not support continued military Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleared things up. His wife's carriage cost him the Supreme Court nomination. I believe he resigned due to his wife, possibly under William's direction, unproven, taking money from Pratt and Boyd. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Williams had to rule on the legitimacy of the Louisiana Election of 1872, an election controversy that was quite complicated. That was when Louisiana was divided into two governments, however, Grant and Williams decided in favor of supporting the Kellog government over the McHenry government. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

yes that should go in the article. Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading sources and Louisiana was an extremely complicated Reconstruction state in 1872. Since there was no biographer of Williams, I have been having to piece-meal book and newspaper sources. I need to get a handle on the Louisiana political situation in 1872. My sources include: Retreat from Reconstruction Gillette (1979); The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878 Coakley (1988); William H. Emory: Soldier-Scientist, Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998); and Reconstruction in Louisiana after 1868, Lonn (1918). I am beginning to think historians have ignored the Grant Administration due to the complicated Reconstruction process in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

well if you can untangle Louisiana politics, that's an achievement!Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjesen. I added a section on the contested Louisiana Election of 1872 using the Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998) source. Please feel free to make any edits or improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Williams and Grant worked out an election dispute in Alabama in December 1872 without having to use force. Do you know anything concerning the 1872 Alabama election? My source was the New York Times: ALABAMA. The Compromise Proposed by Attorney-General Williams Accepted by the Republicans. (PDF) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Here is a good biographical article on George Henry Williams. Apparently, President Grant set up a system where Secretary of War Belknap worked under Attorney General Williams and President Grant during Reconstruction. Williams main job was to run Southern Reconstruction policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Emperor of India

Thanks for the fix; having {{or}} in such a prominent position didn't look good! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

hey thanks. it such a famous cartoon there's no way it's OR. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a sad case of ignorance on my part, but it still needed the reference you found. Thanks again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Har Dayal image

Hello, An image of Har Dayal was uploaded (I was not the uploader) in Commons which has been recently deleted. According to 1957 Indian copyright act photos ned to be published at least 60 years ago to be in public domain. The image of Har Dayal we uploaded was taken in 1908 and Har Dayal died in 1939 and since the image was taken before his death the image should be in public domain. But someone has asked us to tell in which year the image was published since it can be a "family photo" too and it was kept private and has been published recently! And here is the problem– how do we know exactly when and where the image was published! Can you give us any clue that when image was publicly used (any movement, any conference, any manifesto etc)? This is the image we uploaded and here is the detailed discussion in Commons? Or if you know Indian copyright act, do you think Indian copyright act is being misinterpreted here? --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the image was a studio shot taken when he was alive and widely circulated -- published-- at the time. So it is not under Indian copyright, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Will mention it there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's proof-- http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/item/20111127-489 Dayal was circulating printed copies of his photo to friends. Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been asked to add PD-France (70 years) there and they have doubts that the image was a different one which Lala Ji mailed in 1934! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Still need reviews for the Wikipedia Education Program research project

Hey, Richard! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.

If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi, Rjensen. Because you have been the top contributor, I thought you might wish to comment. I'd like to merge Frontier Thesis into "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (I'm open to any other suitable solution). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

CSA

Please contribute your comment and sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ . a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864, b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or c) sourced as "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Great Job on defending Lincoln as a conservative from those who would throw out paramount of evidence asided simply because of there conservative bias's that make them refuse to add Lincoln because it might make them recognize that need to think twice that there narrow view of conservatism as nothing but a racist idealogy isn't entirely correct Lincolnworshipper 2.0 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant later Reconstruction

Hello Rjensen. I expanded the Later Reconstruction section in the Ulysses S. Grant article, adding more on Grant's use of the U.S. military, the Department of War, and the Justice Department to defeat Klan violence in the South. I mentioned Amos T. Akerman, George Henry Williams and Benjamin Bristow in terms of them prosecuting and shutting down the Klan. The narration may be a bit sloppy, since I added information to existing information. Could you look at the section and possibly clean up the narration? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the road for the next 10 days with limited internet--I will get to it when I return home. Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rjensen for the information. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rings Ulysses Grant cartoon.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rings Ulysses Grant cartoon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

now ok Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Info updated..Moxy (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Annexation of Santo Domingo

Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. I believe the article will fit in well with the Ulysses S. Grant article, and possibly clean up any misunderstandings. I attempting to write the article as neutral as possible, without judging either Grant's, Babcock's, or Sumner's motivations. I am not sure there is any concrete answer why Grant did not authorize Babcock through Sec. Fish's State Department. I have rewritten the lede and first segment. Feel free to look at the article or make any improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OK-- I'm glad you are working on it. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reworked the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. The Aftermath section has not been completed. That might be the most important part with the Republican Party split and never ending hostility between Sumner and Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Here's a pie for your hard work! Thanks for updating the History of Mexico page! Keep up the good work and feel free to add more stuff. You work is greatly appreciated! ComputerJA (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I enjoy doing it. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Education in the US secion: Policy since 2000

I was reviewing your recent edits of History of education in the United States and was unable to find support for a particular phrase in the citation. The phrase in the Policy Since 2000 section indicated that NCLB state exams are on "math and language skills". While I know this to be true from my personal experience, I couldn't find it supported in Class Warfare. Since I changed it once and you changed it back, I am assuming that I was just unable to find it. If this is the case let me know, otherwise I will move things around and add the citation needed tag back to that phrase. Thanks Lexandalf (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

information known to millions of people is called "common knowledge" and does not need citations in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Columbus Delano

Hello Rjensen. I have looked at the Columbus Delano article and I believe needs extensive revision. His life is apparently interesting. More then "corruption" went on during his administration of the Interior. I do not understand why historians including McFeely and Smith dismiss Delano and other Grant appointments as corrupt without actually looking into what was done under their tenor. Delano did allot during his lengthy tenor in terms of Indian Policy. Anyways, enough of my soapbox. If you want to look at the Delano article that would be fine. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20