User talk:Rjensen

This is Rjensen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

I have added 10 points for discussion related with Franco's lead section. Perhaps you could comment a few.J Pratas (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Rjensen. If you can find the bandwidth, your input at 1 would be most welcome. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professr Jensen, here is what an archivist at Harry Truman library said:

Greetings from the Truman Library,

Thank you for your recent email. With regards to the Truman quote, I ran that quote through Google Translate, and then did a search of Mr. Truman's letters. I believe the letter that the Spanish Wikipedia page is quoting can be found here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/51458800. While it's not entirely accurate, it's not far off the mark, if Google Translate can be trusted. If you go to that page, and then click on the blue "view/add contributions" button on the lower right right, and then click on the link that says "transcribe" you can read the transcript of the letter, if you don't want to decipher Mr. Truman's handwriting.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can do for you, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Tammy K. Williams

-----------------------

Tammy K. Williams

Archivist & Social Media Coordinator

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum

500 West U.S. Highway 24

Independence, MO 64050

voice [268-8242|(816) 268-8242]

fax [268-8295|(816) 268-8295]

best regards, Rich (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the detective work! Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore unsourced content, as you did at Double Jeopardy (1999 film). Who, exactly, "noted that Jones portrayed a watered-down version of his character from The Fugitive?" This is weasel wording and is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Also, "mixed reviews" is completely unsourced. It's just your interpretation of a Rotten Tomatoes score. Someone else might say that it's negative. I've challenged your edit, so now you need to properly source it. You can't just add your own opinions to Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How were you able to revert the blanking? I tried several times and was blocked because it contained blacklisted URLs. (Very glad you fixed it, just curious as to your methods!) Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did the usual revert without getting any notice. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's weird...well, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a "rollback" after the same person made a very short edit so maybe the system missed the problem. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could take a look at the recent changes to the lead of the United States of America article as you are a reputable historian and political scientist. There was no major consensus for the changes made on the USA talk page, and the edit to me seems to be politically-charged and violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgyst390Hdf (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is the briefest possible summary of the ideology which was crucial in the presidential campaign an "opinion of an editor"? Do you even know what opinions are? Thurmond ran in the election on an overtly White supremacist and segregationist platform, his party's entire purpose was pursuing racist policies and preventing desegregation in the US. That is not anyone's opinion, but a blatant historical fact, which is highly relevant for his biographic article. Omitting in intentionally might be a matter of opinion, rather than my edit which is simply calling a spade a spade. Sideshow Bob 14:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the terminology you used dates from many decades later so it is not an obvious reading of the primary source which you can read here. It's an interpretation. Take a university lervel history course and you will learn to think like people did in 1948 when doing the history of 1948. The 1948 source clearly states that Thurmond opposed integration and tried to defeat Truman. The platform very carefully emphasized victimization of the South by Washington and avoided themes of supremacy. Rjensen (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to stop you from your edits. Now that I know you're working on the article, I can just work a section at a time... or stop entirely for the night. Right now I'm just picking away at things that jump out at me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the night--thanks for the note! Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noted your interest in the above. The claim is sourced here, Hearst Castle. I’ve been working on this for a while with a view to FA but, beyond Wehwalt who’s been exceptionally helpful, I’ve struggled to drum up much American interest. I’ve now closed the peer review but am planning to FAC it shortly. I’d be very interested in your input then if the article sparks your interest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaw anecdote is only a rumor says Murray. Rjensen (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely sorry I asked. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added the content did not provide any, but the content is no "different from the rest or Christianity". And , "again, no edit summary so I have no clue." Another editor is having issues with ServB1's edits and commented on that on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've doubled-down at the article, and templated me against WP:DTTR. I can see we are going to have a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are erasing sourced info without providing alternative reliable sources--and you are wrong in assuming all Christian formats are alike. Evangelicals are not like Catholics/ Amish/Epsicopalians etc. You are edit warring and fail to use the talk page Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's sourced does not mean that it should be in the article.

Evangelicals are not the only denomination with pastors, and some evangelicals don't have them and use lay teachers, while others call them things other than "pastor". Similarly, deacons are in almost every denomination and what in the world does [[Elder (Christianity) | old]]—which is directly from the edit YOU RESTORED includes—mean? Did you even read this "well-sourced" content? Also, some denominations call them other things yet again. Also, feel free to explain "bishops" are unique to Evangelical denominations and be prepared to wade through the child categories in Category:Lists of bishops before you do.

I also see that you're not defending your own edit warring on the article's talk page.

In short, the content will be gone in a week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you were in serious violation of multiple rules and guidelines. You know better. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use an en-rule (en-dash), not a hyphen between numbers or between spaces. It's the first mark below the editing area, under "Wiki markup". You save another editor 2 mins to correct it if you can remember. Thanks. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjensen, I saw you claim Jeff Greenfield is an expert political historian. Is that a subjective judgment? I am unable to source the claim made to anywhere else. His educational background seems to be as a lawyer, not as a historian. His Wikipedia biography states he is a television journalist and author, but not a historian. What kind of credentials as a historian does he hold? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He writes history books--eg on the 2000 US election. [Publisher Weekly: "And although the touch is light, the analysis is never lightweight. Among the many strengths of the book is the attention it devotes to the primary campaigns of both Bush and Gore, depicting in detail why the internal dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively made it impossible for either John McCain or Bill Bradley to mount successful challenges." Likewise 1980 election [The real campaign: How the media missed the story of the 1980 campaign (1982)] also media history [Television: The first fifty years] And in this case a serious study in a major political magazine: "The Ugly History of Stephen Miller's 'Cosmopolitan' Epithet" in POLITICO. His studied get full reviews in Columbia Journalism Review, Commentary etc. That is solid material for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is a journalist in the sphere of American politics, of course he would write about American elections. That does not make him a recognized expert on 1940s Soviet history. As far as the article in Politico, it's actually not a bad piece, but also doesn't support the claim made on Wiki if read carefully. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of POLITICO have validated his credentials which is good enough for Wikipedia. The article is about current 21st century usage, an area of his unquestioned expertise. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, conspiracy theories is a totally valid section that will be of interest to people. And there are a bunch of different ones to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you are a historian and a former history professor I would like to know if you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Temperance and Prohibition. You also made some edits to articles that would fall under this like the Prohibition Party. - Jon698 Talk 12:37 2 April 2020

yes. I got interested in the topic a LONG time ago (about 1963) Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious why you reverted my edits here which were fixes of MOS:DATEFORMAT inconsistencies, cite errors and harv errors? --John B123 (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Hungarian part is misleading -- he had more in the way of Jewish and German background. But his role was political --his was the #1 Democratic newspaper voice in USA for many years and that is what readers need to know. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's as maybe, but doesn't explain why you reintroduced cite errors, inconsistent date formats etc. --John B123 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you delete my edit about the abolition of slavery in Upper Canada? It is listed on the American Revolution page because it is related to the effect of the revolution on African Americans. Surely the page should aim to tell both sides of the revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqortsky909 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the deleted text was about Simcoe and attributes his antislavery actions to Loyalists--he was not a Loyalist. actually the Loyalists took their slaves with therm to Canada/New Brunswick and tried to keep them as slaves. See "ACTS OF RESISTANCE: BLACK MEN ND WOMEN ENGAGE SLAVERY IN UPPER CANADA, 1793-1803" by Afua Cooper, Ontario History Spring2007, Vol. 99 Issue 1, p5-17--stating: the 1793 "Simcoe Act," sponsored by and named for Upper Canada's antislavery lieutenant governor, John Graves Simcoe. The law, the result of a legislative compromise, forbade the importation of slaves but, to Simcoe's disappointment, did not grant freedom to adult slaves. Having not been freed by the act, many Canadian slaves fled across the border into the Old Northwest Territory, where slavery had been abolished." ie slaves fled from Canada into US to gain freedom when Simcoe was governor. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, precisely the same occurred with American slaves entering Upper Canada after the Act's passage. The Fugitive Slave Act was passed in the same year as the Act Against Slavery, and, slavery was abolished by the British years before the Americans, and without a civil war. Liberty and Justice for most... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqortsky909 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give reasons for your reversion of my changes on Napoleon before acting?- Thanks Ooh Saad (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the language was garbled [ "leader who became during the French Revolution" and changed the sense of a major article without giving a source or discussing on talk page. Rjensen (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I made a mistake in terms of grammar, sorry I'm rubbish with a keyboard.-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 08:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Professor Jensen. I have recently tried to make the article Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh more verifiable by looking up sources and trying to find out exactly which citation supports what, and where each source can be found. You are one of the major contributors to this article. In particular you added the quotation at the end of the text that says "There probably never was a statesman whose ideas were so right ..." and added the corresponding citation: <ref>Charles Webster, ''The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh'' (1931) P 231</ref>. I have looked up several editions of this work in Google Books and Internet Archive and cannot find the quoted passage. Perhaps you care and can help. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will recheck my notes--can't seem to find the source yet. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to please have a look at the history of Education in the United States (here) – I'm not quite sure that you actually investigated what the "major change" was there. A brand-new editor (part of a group of students) added a huge change involving quite a lot of original research and POV content to the article in one single edit which involved multiple sections; I removed most of it, section by section and explaining in each case exactly what the issue was, and you then reverted my entire removal in one single edit with the ES "take major changes to talk pages. Experts are unanimous that 2020 marks a major event in education". Well, the main issue was that the student editor didn't bother taking the change to the talk page (it is extremely unfortunate that that entire goup of students apparently were told to make very major changes to articles in one single edit, without any attempt at discussing them with the editing community first) – and I'm not sure you actually read through the changes. I did, and now it contains information about covid-19 in sections where it has almost no relevance, various references to "this year", crystal balling about what various schools might be doing in future, and a "history" section about a couple of months in 2020 which is about twice as long as the 19th and 20th century sections together. Among other things. But don't worry, I'll stay far away from that article now (and no response is required to this message). I simply wanted to give you a heads-up in case you hadn't checked the edit history. --bonadea contributions talk 18:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have intelligent arguments to make and a suitable forum on the article's talk page. The only argument you made in the edit summary was "current event" with the not-so-useful prediction " will not be relevant to a reader in a year's time". SO a little more tolerance is on order and erasing info on education sourced to reliable sources is a no-no. Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I somehow missed you while doing notifications. I started a question at the NPOV noticeboard a few days ago about naming for indigenous participants in the war. At the time I hadn’t yet noticed all the activity in the RFC sections, and only knew I was all alone in the edit history. I started one tonight about TFD’s fringe theory contentions. I didn’t see you in that thread but apparently the article has a long history I haven’t fully processed.

On the honour and second war of independence issue, I scanned your list and offhand they seem like very fine sources; I just do not want to validate the jingoism, is all. Feel free to do want you think should be done and we can discuss any issues that arise. Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Validate jingoism? That sounds like a POV on your part. (The citesI gave do not call it jingoism). Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rjensen,

The presence of Template:Talk archive at the top of this page, may be why no section edit links are displayed, for editing the individual sections on this page. (Other causes are possible, but that's the most likely.) Unless you placed that there in order to remove section edit links, since this is not, in fact, a Talk page archive, would you mind removing that template? It makes it much harder to add a new discussion at the bottom of the page, or for others to respond to an individual discussion without editing the entire page, and also makes edit conflicts more likely. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment at Draft talk:Liberation of France#Organizational structure feedback?

It's kind of amazing that with 6M+ articles in en-wiki, there isn't one for the Liberation of France. There are bits and pieces of the story littered all over, but no dedicated article. So, I've created Draft:Liberation of France. It's a full article skeleton, with top and bottom matter, and a complete set of body sections with {{Main}} and {{Further}} links, even images; but no body content (other than Lorem Ipsum to hold the images).

By the choice of section and subsection headers, I've implied a sense of what should be included, at what level, and how the narrative should be organized; by what's not there, I may have unduly implied lack of importance. I'd like feedback on the Draft organizational structure, and I've opened Draft talk:Liberation of France#Organizational structure feedback on the talk page to encourage it. If you can add your thoughts to that discussion it would be greatly appreciated.

P.S., it's a wiki, so if you'd rather just change the Draft structure itself, rather than talk about it on the Talk page, by all means do so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great start--I added some bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've wondered why your Talk page had no section edit links next to each header for the longest time, like it used to before. Well, here's why: back on Jan. 6 in this edit, you moved a bunch of stuff to Archive_31. Unfortunately, you also added template {{Talk archive}}, but at the top of this page. This caused your section links to disappear, because it marked this page as an archive, that's "not supposed to be edited". I presume that's not what you intended, so I've taken the liberty of removing that template, which should bring your section links back again. If that's not what you want, just revert this edit. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you'd think with 6,819,050 articles, everything worth doing has been done. I'm finding more and more, that this is far from true. Some really basic, important historical articles do not exist on en-wiki, which is kind of amazing. Anyway, I've started Draft:War guilt question, and I invite your participation, if you wish.

This is a Featured article on *both* fr-wiki, and de-wiki, and I'm gobsmacked we don't have it. For the time being, I'm working off the French article, since my French is way better than my German, so it goes much faster that way. One downside, is that the French article, at least at some point in the past, was a translation of the German one, and it would be better to go back to the original. I may go back and proofread it against the German at some point.

It turns out, there are *tons* of important articles in history that we don't have. Luckily, there's a great tool at wmflabs, and I wonder if you're familiar with it: it's called, "not-in-other-language", and it lets you look up articles that, say, fr-wiki has that we don't, in various ways: by category tree, by first word(s) of the title, or by featured article status. For example, here are the top 100 Featured Articles on fr-wiki that are not on en-wiki. Check out #77, which is how I ended up creating this Draft, because I just couldn't believe it.

Here are the top 100 Featured Articles on de-wiki not on en-wiki; #4 is the Afghan Civil War, not my top area of interest, but kind of amazing we don't have it. Mathglot (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks much--very useful info. good luck on war guilt! Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, what with everything else on my plate, it's taken me all this time to get this article ready for launch, but it's finally in Main space: War guilt question. Please have a look if you have some time. There's still some work to be done, a couple of subsections remain to be translated, but it's in decent shape, so it's worth having out there as an article. Learned a lot doing the translations; very interesting topic. Also, there's still lively debate about it, a century later. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – this is to let you know that I removed the exception for "visitors" that you added to the article on the Reconstruction Era. In case you meant the narrow exceptions relating to children of ministers, ambassadors and occupying forces, I think these should be made explicit. There is no general exception from birthright citizenship for "visitors". Joriki (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The American frontier (also known as The Wild West or The Old West) includes the geography, history, folklore, and cultural expression of life in the forward wave of American expansion that began with English colonial settlements in the early 17th century and ended with the admission of the last remaining western territories as states in 1912." The huge problem with the last sentence is that it indicated that Hawaii and Alaska were never western territories in the first place even though they were based according to geography. It also made no difference since the sentence talked about territorial acquisitions not the stories and myths of the Wild West Era that ended around 1924 (according to the main article's box description. May I suggest you revise this statement? Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors follow the reliable published secondary sources which generally do not include Hawaii and Alaska in their coverage. They are not depicted as part of the "forward wave." The term "western" is used loosely since Florida and Maine -- which were not western--are included by the reliable sources. "Western historians, with rare exceptions, resist including the nations to Western states, Alaska and Hawaii, in their region." states John Whitehead, "Hawaii: The First and Last Far West?." The Western Historical Quarterly (1992): 153-177 online. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I need help collecting info on the Farleys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B008:D4B:684C:5F95:EF03:DB0C (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to remove the sentence "In Britain, the Long Depression resulted in bankruptcies, escalating unemployment, a halt in public works, and a major slump of trade that lasted until 1897." under Europe / Britain in Panic of 1873. Reason: the citation does not substantiate it – Colony or Nation? Economic Crises in New Zealand from the 1860 to the 1960s by W. B. Sutch, ed. M. Turnbull. I have the book in hand, and the section "The Long Depression, 1865–1895" talks about the New Zealand economy, not the British economy.

I am letting you know as it was you who added the sentence (in April 2010) and the citation (in November 2010).

CitizenEd (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you have a very sharp eye--thanks for the correction. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

021120x (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The British were never "defeated" at the Siege of Boston. There were no battles; the total number of casualties that occurred after the Americans brought in the guns from Ticonderoga were a handful. Your statement that the British were "defeated" at the Siege of Boston doesn't even conform to the evaluation of the Siege in the Wikipedia article on that subject!

Even in Boston itself the annual celebration of the raising of the Siege of Boston is not called "Victory Day": it's called "Evacuation Day". When the British made the strategic choice to "evacuate" Boston they had that city entirely in their power, and Washington fully expected that they would burn the city before they left - there would have been absolutely nothing he and his army could have done to prevent them from doing so. So I don't see how anyone of sound mind can call this a "defeat" of the British! Sieges are an expensive military operation that often cause more casualties to the besiegers than to the besieged. Even though the American artillery on Dorchester Heights was unable to sink a single British ship in Boston Harbor, the British commanders decided that it would be far wiser to move to the pro-British city of New York and wide-open New York Harbor where their ships could maneuver much easier than in the treacherous island-and-shoal-ridden Boston Harbor. By doing so they effectively cut much more radical New England off from the rest of the rebellious colonies. By moving their naval operations north to Nova Scotia they could allow the sailors to disembark in a non-hostile area for training and relaxation while at the same time reducing the length and increasing the security of their supply lines. It was a wise strategic retreat and nothing more.

It is said in another message here that you are a "professor of history". I don't suppose you are a professor of *military* history.

IWPCHI (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)IWPCHI[reply]

Yes see Richard J. Jensen.... I was a professor at the US Military Academy West Point & have published books on Civil War & WW2. "On March 17, 1776, British forces are forced to evacuate Boston following General George Washington’s successful placement of fortifications and cannons on Dorchester Heights, which overlooks the city from the south." says History Com= the British SOLDIERS in Boston could not be protected from American artillery, so they were outgunned and retreated from a major strategic location. Joseph Ellis says the Dorchester Heights guns "placed Howe’s garrison within range of American artillery, thereby forcing Howe’s decision to evacuate or see his army slowly destroyed." [Ellis, "Washington Takes Charge:" Smithsonian (Jan 2005). James Flexner says, "Historians have praised George Washington's success in forcing the British out of Boston in March, 1776" American Heritage (Dec 1967). Here's an excerpt from Military History (Dec 2002) p 88: "Neither Howe's guns in Boston nor those on Royal Navy ships could be sufficiently elevated to threaten the new American batteries on Dorchester Heights. "The rebels have done more in one night than my whole Army would have done in a month," Howe lamented as he looked for a way out of his predicament. Like his predecessor Gage, Howe was loath to throw whole regiments away in a vain and bloody attempt to dislodge the Americans, but he thought it necessary to try. A short but violent storm subsequently intervened to halt preparations for such an assault. At that point, Howe saw no option but to begin arrangements to quit Boston. General Howe threatened to set fire to the city should American artillery harass the embarkation of troops and equipment onto British ships. The British troops' departure, however, was quite acceptable to Washington, who allowed the evacuation to proceed unmolested. Howe himself left Boston on March 17, an event still commemorated in the city. The British departed in such haste that they left 250 artillery pieces behind." 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First, you did not read or ignored that the source for so many additional details came from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library. Now, you do not even acknowledge that citations need not be for quotes? Please restore all information I added so carefully. Now. - Aboudaqn (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please use reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia. One very good source is Schwarz, Jonathan A. Liberal: Adolf A. Berle and the Vision of an American Era (1987). It is the standard scholarly biography. It is online free at https://archive.org/details/liberaladolfaber00schw Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

presidential libraries are run by archivists for the benefit of outside scholars. The distinction is important because we want to use the work of the scholars. On how they work see "Presidential libraries" online free here Rjensen (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a very good short scholarly reliable secondary source see Ellis W. Hawley, “Berle, Adolph Augustus” in John A. Garraty, ed. Encyclopedia of American Biography (2nd ed. 1996) p. 94 online Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it has been established by academic consensus that north korea is totalitarian, however recent studies contradict that and point out that north korea after the soviet collapse and their end of economic support north korea become too poor and corrupt (with a collapsed economy that has still not really recovered) to be a totalitarian state

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43908811?seq=1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26202164?seq=1

can you please give me your academic opinion on the subject? is north korea today still a totalitarian state or not? thanks Gooduserdude (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, totalitarian with a hugely powerful dictator (with a strong inherited family base) who destroys his opponents at will and has full control of society, economy, military, diplomacy and opinion. Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a tendency for editors to change content within the silos defined by an article's existing section hierarchy, as established by other editors who came before them, without thinking sufficiently about the big picture and challenging the overall structure of an article. A bad overall design can become set in stone and be resistant to efforts to rethink it and hobble efforts at future improvement, especially at a volunteer project, because it's easier to just not try to rethink the big stuff. One way to think outside of this box, is to look at how it's done in homologous articles on other Wikipedias.

Although WP is not a reliable source, nevertheless I think we can discover ways to improve our articles, especially longer ones with a complex section hierarchy, by looking how they do it on other Wikipedias. Recently, I've had occasion to look at how fr-wiki organizes their article fr:Révolution française which is quite different than our French Revolution article. As a historian, you probably read or get by in a few languages, but that may not be the case for the regular crew of editors at French Revolution. So for their benefit, as well as my own, I created a translation, not of the whole French article (too much work) but just of the section header structure (that goes very rapidly) and the lead. Comparing their section structure to ours is illuminating, and my translated sandbox version of their section structure allows anyone to do so. The sandbox is here, and I wrote an intro to it at the F.R. talk page, at Talk:French Revolution#A comparative study: How French Wikipedia structures their article.

You're not really the target of that sort of exercise, but I thought you might be interested in the technique itself of comparing articles via translated section hierarchies. You might be interested to see how it looks in practice, and if you wanted the technique for creating your own sometime, it's easy to do. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, I've spun off the earlier additions I made to Propaganda in World War I and expanded it into its own article: Color book. It's a fascinating, and new (to me) topic, which I learned a lot about while doing it. It could probably be expanded further, but I feel it stands on its own two legs, now, and I still have the much-delayed Draft:Liberation of France, and Draft:War guilt question that I need to get back to. Please have a look, and see what you think. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing wrong map of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.237.224.227 (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the Dairy industry in the United States article. I recently added a chart where the milk production of each state will go. I was shocked that the article was only made this year! Best, Thriley (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--keep up the good work. Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to comment on your curious edit summary at Treaty of Darin for your change from ‘United Kingdom’ to ‘Britain’. I’m happy to leave it as ‘Britain’, but you might want to take a look at our United Kingdom article and particularly the Etymology and terminology section. The correct and normal name is “United Kingdom” and “Britain” is a less formal but still appropriate name. It’s never wrong to use “United Kingdom”. However, “Great Britain” is a geographical expression applying to the largest island in the British Isles and not the name of the country. It was the name of a country until 1801 but ceased then when the union between Great Britain and Ireland happened. “Great Britain” continued to sometimes be used as the name of the whole country until well into the 20th century - as was “England” (Pars pro toto) but both are now very much deprecated. The usage continues in the U.S. it seems. But the main point is “United Kingdom” is never wrong and shouldn’t be really be changed. DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comment-- in my opinion Wikipedia should follow the historians on history topics. There never was a country with the official name "United Kingdom" -=-That is it's a convenient shortening of the full name. Indeed likewise ""Great Britain" and "Britain." A look at the scholarly bibliographies show that for topics before 1940 most historians prefer "Great Britain" or "Britain" and seldom use "United Kingdom" ---see the titles in Hale, Matthew, Graham Raymond, and Catherine Wright. "List of publications on the economic and social history of Great Britain and Ireland published in 2019." The Economic History Review 73, no. 4 (2020): 1153-1202--(a similar bibliography appears every year in that leading journal). Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s an unusual interpretation on WP. This is fully discussed with sources in Terminology of the British Isles. I don’t believe it’s correct that, outside the US, “Great Britain” is typical of WP:RS (whether post or pre 1940: at least post-1801) and I think it’s just generally considered erroneous. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know that citing Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As for the 1915 time period Look for example at the scholarly journal article titles at Lloyd George ministry#Further reading -- you get zero for UK but instead: (1) Fry, "Political Change in Britain"... Historical Journal; (2) McEwen, "The Struggle for Mastery in Britain..." Journal of British Studies (3) Paxman, Great Britain's Great War; (4) Simmonds, Britain and World War One....All these scholars and journal editors use what you say is "erroneous" usage--and none uses a United Kingdon variation that you think is standard. Rjensen (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave it to agree to disagree...but... firstly, I was directing you to the sources in the Terminology article not claiming it as a source. As a secondary point I was also highlighting how your interpretation is unusual amongst WP editors. Furthermore there’s nothing wrong with using “Britain” as the name of the country - that is entirely common (and correct) albeit slightly more informal. That’s why I didn’t revert your last edit on Treaty of Darin. If you read through the Terminology and UK articles you’ll see the difference between “Britain” and “Great Britain”. I But to believe that “United Kingdom” isn’t used is or in fact isn’t the norm is really a ‘sky is blue’ discussion. Check a Google books search. By the way, no one would call Paxman a scholar or journal editor...and sloppy use of “Great Britain” by Paxo doesn’t mean much other than he was probably aiming for the US coffee table market!! Btw, just so you know Great Britain is still the island’s name - hence this article: Great Britain. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to rely on the published experts--professors, university press books, scholarly journals and their editors. On topics before 1940 UK variations are rare in titles and in the main text--you see it in quotations from old formal documents. Look for example at the bibliographies in Wikipedia. You have not yet said where you got your own views. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re British, it’s a little like telling an American that sources refer to “America” not “the United States” before 1940. Here’s a number of WW1 WP:RS referring to “United Kingdom”: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Let me know if that’s not enough and I’ll drop more by in batches. Some of the ones I’ve just given are even used in our article History of the United Kingdom during the First World War. (Presumably, you’ll want to pursue a name change of that article on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME?). DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would be more convincing if you read your sources closely. I just now used your links (they allow search for SOME pages only). In the #6 for example (Beckett)-- I count 5 uses of "United Kingdom" in the book versus 19 uses of "Britain". In #5 Bowen prefers "Britain" over UK before 1940. In #4 Hamilton-Herwig the are 2 uses of UK (plus one in a quoted treaty) versus 11 of "Great Britain". #3 Holger uses UK nine times; it uses "Britain" 8 times. (You win this one.) #2 Jukes uses UK twice, and Britain 13 times. #1 Broadberry uses mostly "UK" in tables and "Britain" in the text--the authors are economists. Your favourites are prone to desert you in wartime. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand. United Kingdom and Britain are interchangeable. Britain is absolutely fine although slightly more informal. that’s why I didn’t revert your Britain edit in Treaty of Darin. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with United Kingdom. As you rightly say there’s a mixture and it’s not surprising that Britain is used more than United Kingdom. It’s no different to “United States” and “America”. what is incorrect or at least sloppy is “Great Britain”. Americans (and sometimes Germans when speaking English) tend to do this. There’s specific anomalies for historic reasons: our Olympic team is called GB. Our cars abroad have too display the GB badge etc That’s because in the past Northern Ireland often had separate international representation. I don’t think I’m going to persuade so I’m going to leave it at that. But if you have a moment look over the Terminology and UK articles I previously referenced. There’s well sourced explanations there. DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

CSmith-Brown (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you and I are going to get to decide who the important people are. I would (will) argue that Franz Ferdinand, by getting killed, was more important than his uncle Franz Joseph II, who was well past his prime and likely not making the decisions that led to WWI. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ferdinand is an important victim but he was not a "leader" or "activist". other people (the assassins & their supporters) made the decisions about his death while FF was waiting around for his turn to come. -- Franz Joseph despite his age made the key decisions -- he selected all the top officials of A- H government and approved all their actions. Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gab is not known for being an alt-right or extremist website. It is a social media platform that believes in free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.159.70 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the Wikipedia article states: Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] . Check out the citations for yourself. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a query on this edit. Is this a quotation? If so it should be in quotation marks. It does appear to be because it has [edits]. I would argue that if it is a quotation it should be paraphrased rather than a block quote. Mark83 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself partially here. You don't need to add quotation marks in this case, but you should use the <blockquote> tag or the template {{quote}}.. I do still think it would be more appropriate to paraphrase this rather than use a blockquote however. Mark83 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote--one so good that paraphrasing would reduce the impact & value to readers. The authors are experts and they worked a few hours to get it just right. This way students can use it and attribute it to the historians and not just to Wikipedia. I added the template--but the text clearly states it's the ideas of David Brandon and Alan Brooke. Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was well cited, my query was whether it was a direct quotation. On " paraphrasing would reduce the impact & value to readers", I respectfully disagree. There is nothing in that large quote that could not be distilled into a shorter, paraphrased paragraph. Policy on this:

MOS:QUOTATIONS: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate..."

Their writing is not exemplary in my opinion. For example "Today’s global corporations originated with the great limited liability railway companies" is vague. And "scarcely ever travelled before" is redundant.

"They had a significant impact on improving diet" is also vague. Of course I can work out what it means, but it lacks specificity.

One of your changes is not grammatically correct: "[and enabled] a proportionately smaller agricultural industry was able to feed a much larger urban population"

And it is not Wikipedia's place to enable students to "use it and attribute it to the historians." It's to provide a full and accurate description of topics in summary style.

Thank for your time in replying and considering my points. Mark83 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the authors quoted did a much better and more reliable summary of a major event than any wiki editor could provide. The key point is they have credibility. You are correct that my one small edit was ungrammatical--I think that illustrated my belief that a solid quote from the actual scholars is better than a hasty paraphrase. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Billy Budd, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. For your edit here[7] It is both unreferenced and put on a already referenced section where the reference provided says no such thing. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to have a bunch of new editors interested in WW2. Have you written about Poland after the war? or are familiar with sources. recent talk is being dominated by those clearly not familiar with the time period.--Moxy- 15:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--sorry I can't help. Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjensen! Since you have been very helpful in the past and are excellent at sourcing pages, I wanted to know if you could help source some articles from the WikiProject Notre Dame that are currently under discussion for being deleted, such as the Alumni Hall and Badin Hall, both very old and storied buildings. Eccekevin (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well as an alum [class of 1962] I have fond memories and I will take a look. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The samples available for this book on google books are not terribly specific or quotable. I understand methodology is important but given that this is a summary article, do you think you could give us a short couple of sentences and a reference? I do think the article needs something about the lives of women. If not, well, one of these days when I have more time, I will subscribe to Google Books and look into it. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wish to propose a contribution to the Wikipedia article Africa-Soviet Union relations.

Scrolling down to South Africa I see "as part of the long running South African Border War (1966-1990) the Soviets supplied and trained combat units from Namibia (SWAPO) and Angola (MPLA) at the ANC military training camps in Tanzania."

My proposed contribution:

I have in my possession a Soviet issued identity booklet/document proving at least one person (Charles Bvuma) was trained to command an infantry battalion at the Odessa Combined Military School June 1979 and signed by a Major-General of the Soviet GRU. I obtained this document perhaps 40 years ago from a person who was an arms dealer to South Africa.

So my suggested contribution would be something like "trained at the ANC military training camps in Tanzania and the Soviet Union."

Do you have an email address I can sent photos to? I cannot seem to send photos as I am familiar with on regular email.

         Joseph Robert Bingham  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B42:1C00:2177:9947:92B6:D262 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]  

We can't use private documents in wikipedia--everything has to be based on PUBLISHED secondary sources (like books, magazines or scholarly journals). Photos are especially problematic (we need proof it is not copyright.) Sorry--but you might donate it to a local high school and tell the kids all about it. Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made a few useful edits in this article, which really reads like it came off a government website. I'm sure there's a valid encyclopedic article in here somewhere, lurking under the bureaucratic language verified by links to .gov PDFs... Drmies (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion! I'm working on a few other projects first. Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Jensen! It's good to see you're still actively contributing. A question based on Google Books Ngrams has been raised at Talk:Overland Campaign#Wilderness campaign? which is right in your wheelhouse. When I was young I remember the popular historians called this subject the "Wilderness Campaign", but now the majority of sources prefer to use the "Overland Campaign." As a person with vast experience with sourcing over the last 60 years, I wonder if you have some ideas you'd be willing to share. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjensen. Since you used to be an active contributor in the War of 1812 article, I was wondering if you could lend us your input on some issues that have recently surfaced, that being over the British support and supply for the Indians in the North West and lower Canada region prior to the War of 1812. Currently there is a contention that the British did not help the Indians in the years leading up to the war until after the Battle of Tippecanoe, even though their support began immediately following the Revolution. Any insights you can offer would be appreciated. Hope all is well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Rjensen. Could you help source the history section of Russia? Even though most of the entire article is unsourced, the history section is the largest. Since you are very good at sourcing, I thought you would be able to help. Best wishes. Danloud ^(talk) 12:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion--I'm on the road right now and will get to it in a week or so. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rjensen. Do you have time to review User:SusanLesch/sandbox? This text is offered to replace and better explain the two sentences recently added to the lead of Minneapolis. Do you think it looks okay? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My only suggestion is that one sentence is out of place: ”Minneapolis was fairly well…” it's out of chronological order and should appear later. Rjensen (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we need a different image here, it shows united

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

soibangla (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes that is very famous but misleading engraving--made by William Stone in 1820 long after the July 2 1776 vote. the official record made on july 2 does not have 'united'. The earlier engraving = https://www.loc.gov/item/2003576546 it was made before everyone signed. see Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjensen, I don't know if you've ever looked at the Maurice Duplessis article, but the references etc. are a mess! There's a "Bibliography" section, with each text then cited to footnotes; there's another "Sources" section, which duplicates some of the texts in the "Bibliography"; and there's a second set of footnotes, under "References". It appears that the Bibliography was copied from the French wikipedia article on Duplessis, but not combined with the "Sources" section. I'm prepared to tidy it up, but before I start, would appreciate your thoughts. My inclination is to combine the "Bibliography" and the "Sources" into one "Further reading" category; eliminate the footnotes for the works in the current "Bibliography" (but including any material from them that is not already in the "Bibliography"); and eliminate any works from the new "Further reading" section which are cited in the "References" section. Could you look at it and see if you would agree with that approach? Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I"ve looked at it in more detail, the footnotes to texts in the "Bibliography" are links to Google book entries for each text, but most ot the Google book links are empty; the text isn't there. I don't see much value-add to empty Google books links and am inclined to just delete them. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs your help in cleaning up. I suggest the bibliographic entries can focus on the English language sources, including translations like the Paullin bio. (the French edition is the place for 90% of the French titles) GOOD LUCK! Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pipsally. I noticed that you recently removed content from History of the Balkans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pipsally (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was a nonsense footnote that produced this: Cite error: The named reference EarlyMedievalBalkans was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

You have been invited to take part because you are one of the top-ten contributors (according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo) to one or more of the articles in my corpus - History of Zionism, 1936 - 1939 Arab Revolt, and Israel-United States Relations. This may be a surprise to you - perhaps you do not actively edit these articles, or perhaps your main contributions were grammatical or minor. If you believe you have been invited to fill out this survey in error, my apologies and feel free to ignore this.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 19:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for the trims, mostly from Nash? Did he get those things wrong? It's a while since I read Nash and I'd have to search to find my copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes--new scholarly articles (cited) refute old gossip. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who claims to be an expert, you don't know very much about Hawaii. "Native" is reserved for Native Hawaiians, while "local" would describe someone who was born there or grew up there from a young age. You were previously corrected on this point by another editor and yet you refused to listen to them. Please do not engage in this kind of behavior again. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reserved term is "Native Hawaiian" --and the article does not call Obama that. See "Barack Obama a native son to Hawaii" Chicago Tribune which states: "HONOLULU — Locals here sometimes call Barack Obama a kamaaina, the Hawaiian word for native born or one who has lived here for some time." Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article talk page. Kama aina means people of the land. It refers to long term residents. You seem to be doing the IDHT thing again. To be clear, native means Hawaiian, local means born there (with some exceptions), while kamaaina means long term resident. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have spotted the discussion Is Max Hastings a historian?[8] This is a notifier in case you are interested and have not seen it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Presidency of Bill Clinton has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjensen, I have a question relating to this. It looks like you may have accidentally pasted in this content; could you tell me if that was the case here? Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was a careless mistake--I was editing two pages simultaneously (Clinton and also Triangulation (politics)) using several not-to-be-published work sheets, and carelessly posted the original source that I planned to paraphrase instead of the paraphrase. Sloppy work on my part and not intentional at all. My second mistake was not spotting it right away because I moved straight to the related project on Triangulation (politics) and posted the correctly paraphrased material there. Third mistake was to take a long break for TV and then go to work on a different Clinton Foreign Policy article. Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what that user is trying to do. I'm going to leave a warning for disruptive editing; these unexplained reverts are bothersome. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with you. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I was reading a newspaper article on political polarization in the United States. They used an excerpt from your book that I found enlightening. Thank you for the good work you do around here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across it back in the summer and meant to come back to work on it. Your edit reminded me that it needed some attention, as you'll see from my edits. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Lots of "trim" here! You found all of that irrelevant? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes--it tells zip about Gustavus--his life and achievements and impact on Sweden and Europe: "embalming, dressed in a beautiful gold and silver woven dress, then brought to Wolgast, where it remained until the summer of 1633. When his horse, Streiff, died in 1633, the hide was sent to Stockholm where it was mounted on a wooden model...." Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be removing a lot of funeral info? In many articles? And unusual honor done a person's animal? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historically important funerals and animals have their own articles. Unimportant ones can have excess details that detract from the usefulness of the article for readers looking for important facts. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjensen,

Hope all is well. I see that you removed all of the changes that I made yesterday on the Wikipedia page for the Committee for Economic Development. I am the organization's Communications Manager, and I have been tasked by our management team at CED to update the page with current information, new research, updated focus areas, and changes to our bi-annual policy conferences and awards celebration. All of the changes I made in the two versions from yesterday (12.1.21) were vetted by the CED team before posting.

Can we please restore the version I changed, so the organization's information is as up-to-date and accurate as possible? We realize our team has not updated this page in many years; this is our major overhaul to ensure everything matches with our current content and branding.

CommunicationsTCB (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you need to first explain your plans on the talk page and then procede in small steps. Wikipedia editors are VERY suspicious of anyone's public relations officials making edits--there is (in general) a serious question of objectivity and covering up controversies. (This discussion belings on the CED talk page. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjensen,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, [email protected] Apolo1991 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reversion. I know you've got other things on your plate, but you might know the ideal source to anchor the current version. The paragraph is unsourced. Help with cite or bare link? Thanks. Glad to know we're both still kicking. Be well and have a nice season. You are valued. BusterD (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes till kicking here! there is full coverage at Forty acres and a mule -- Congress did pass such a bill but it was vetoed and nothing like it became law. According to historian John David Smith:

"What does this history teach us? Yes, the historical record disproves assertions that the federal government reneged on promises to grant the freedpeople "forty acres and a mule." But the fact that the government never made such a promise in the first place tells us something about how black people were treated in 19th-century America. Moreover, it is important to remember that the freedpeople desperately wanted land, believed that they had been deceived, and felt betrayed. The legacy of that sense of betrayal lingers on. After 138 years, the stubborn myth of "forty acres and a mule" remains a political football and a sober reminder of the ex-slaves' broken hopes and shattered dreams." John David Smith, "The Enduring Myth of 'Forty Acres and a Mule'" Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/21/2003, Vol. 49, Issue 24. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article title couldn't be more perfect. Glad to know you're here and active. BusterD (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that your short description provides more detailed information on the topic, but "A short description is not a definition and should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead." ([WP:SDNOTDEF]]). --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated History of Minnesota for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for turning this into a message, but I’m incompetent and don’t know how to use talk pages well, so I don’t think it’s likely you’d see the message I intended as a reply to you without me messaging you directly.

I recently made an edit removing an unsourced section from the intro to the Middle class. You undid the edit, saying in the talk page “the lead does not require any cites.” However, I had read in MOS:LEAD that lead paragraphs should “contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.” (Emphasis mine.) Since you’re clearly a more experienced editor than me, I was wondering if you could explain the motivation behind undoing my edit in more detail.

--Captainsnacc (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the guideline is avoid redundant citations in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --J Pratas (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have challenged the closing of the RfC of Franco being a fascist. You can find my arguments here [9]J Pratas (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rjensen : FYI Historiography of Louis Riel Class C article has been created. My first article to be created from scratch. Thanks for commenting on Louis Riel talk page. I thought you might like to know about this little win for me, an engineer by profession. Cblambert (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS!! a good start on an important topic. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am undoing some of your edits here. This is a list of events. The presidency of James Buchanan was not an event, nor were several others you've added. As far as adding dates, I'm not against it, but it looks schlocky to have dates for only some. deisenbe (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you missed the explanation on the talk page. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2706 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --BusterD (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blush easy. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this addition that you made. For such a significant evaluation (i.e. that Sidney Earle Smith did a poor job) we would need a page number in the work you're citing. And I think you meant Lester B. Pearson instead of "Norman Pearson". StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I expanded in detail what historians consiuder his legacy. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! StAnselm (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjensen, thank you for helping me source the Clive addition! Wiki-Ed is back to revert our edits that are backed by many sources as well as our consensus.Foorgood (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i am inviting you to the British Empire talk page to discuss Wiki-Ed and another user now reverting our edits.Foorgood (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the article. I really appreciate it, I have neither the editing knowledge nor the will to both improve the article and revert the constant vandalism on it. I appreciate your work. Akesgeroth (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could go take a look at the article again, it would be appreciated. Several clearly agenda-driven users are attempting to vandalize it again. Akesgeroth (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for adding citations to The German Empire K1ausMouse (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff to Gyula Andrássy you added what seemed to be a malformed inline reference. I guessed at a fix, but I don't know what the source (May 1951) could be - or is it a date? Can you take a look? Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. i am writing to request some help, if possible, with a specific new article. I have initiated an article to address the concept of social crisis. this article was created because the concept "social crisis" is a significant concept in history, academia, etc. it differs notably and tangibly from narrower concepts such as "financial crisis." can I ask you to please kindly take a look, and provide some feedback? I feel it needs some work, to make it satisfactory to the editing community. another highly-respected editor has raised concerns about this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Hi there. Your most recent comment was added to a hatted discussion. If you wish for responses, you may want to consider putting it somewhere that hasn't been hatted. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your work on Cultural depictions of George Washington, I thought you might also be interested in a draft I have started at Draft:Cultural depictions of Thomas Jefferson. Cheers. BD2412 T 07:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good start--keep it up. I recommend dropping the wine bottles. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An unknown person added Cameroon very recently, which has been absent from this article for years. Cameroon is not on the UN list for subregion West Africa. That person didn't change 16 to 17, and added the line you just restored, among others. They also didn't change the statistics such as land area, highest mountain, etc., etc. The article is basically about the UN subregion. Cameroon doesn't consider itself part of West Africa. It didn't sign the treaty all of the 16 signed. (Mauritania left the treaty). Pifvyubjwm (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Rjensen. The Andrew Jackson presidentical article needs help. It has neutrality tags. I have tried to work on it but the editor environment is not condusive to change or making the article more neutral. Somehow the Neutrality tags should be removed. If you have time to help out that would be much appreciated. Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – in this edit you added a quote that read in part "But Democrats tended to oppose programs like educational reform mid the establishment of a public education system". The editions I found have "and" instead of "mid", and that seems to make more sense, so I changed it. Just wanted to let you know in case you were quoting a different edition. Joriki (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--you have a sharp eye. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you wrote "In the late 21st century ...". Did you mean late 20th century or early 21st century?

If you are able to predict the future, please let me know 'cuz I have lots of questions for you to answer! :-) Castedo (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I predict the future all the time :) --but in that case I meant late 20th century. R

During the last year, you have made suggestions to improve the Wikipedia entry on Thomas Nast. Accordingly, I want to call your attention to ThomasNast.com, a domain I have owned for 25 years and recently refreshed.

The site will give you a good overview of Nast in general and my biography in particular, America’s Most Influential Journalist: The Life, Times and Legacy of Thomas Nast. You can look at 160 Nast cartoons, each with its characters identified and its content and context explained. Categories include Christmas, Civil War, Lincoln, Tweed, Presidential Election Losers, Symbols, Shakespeare, and Inflation. The site’s purpose is to educate people about Nast and his work, as well as to preview my book.

The only previous substantive biography of Nast was published by Albert Bigelow Paine in 1902, and is frequently cited in Wikipedia. Although Paine was a good storyteller, his book has many significant errors and omissions because Nast misinformed him (eg., Nast never went to the front during the Civil War) or didn’t tell him about important events (Nast spent a year, beginning in May 1867, on his Grand Caricaturama (33 9 by 12 foot pictures in a traveling panorama which failed), Paine gave it two sentences).

There were also facts about his life that neither he nor Paine knew. Eg., Nast thought he was born on September 27, 1840, but his Landau birth certificate, issued under the auspices of the King of Bavaria, shows it was September 26. Understandable, every prior mention of his birth date is incorrect. I have made the correction to his Wikipedia entry along with a a copy of his birth certificate.

My 830-page biography contains 1,000 Nast cartoons, illustrations, sketches and paintings — 800 from Harper’s Weekly and 200 from other sources. The manually-created Index is predicated solely on Nast’s output. It includes Nast’s Life and Work; Topics/Issues and People/Characters. You can view the entire Index on ThomasNast.com. Harpweek (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added a considerable amount of material to the article on West Germany on 13 September 2019. Many citations you provided were short citations, but you failed to include the bibliographic details of the works cited. Many of those incomplete citations remain in that article. The article would be much improved if you would add the details of the cited works to the "Sources" section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided author/title/journal/volume/issue/date/pages. What additional bibliographical details do you suggest need adding? Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did for some, but the following 26 short citations do not have an entry in the list of sources:

All the best. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were copied in (by me on Sept 12 2019) from the Willy Brandt article written by various other people. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply