User talk:Rjensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_{Subscript text}/Archive 5

Contents 1 Blunder or Forgery 2 american conservatism 3 Chemical Industry 4 Sockpuppetry case 5 Template:Catholic-link 6 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007 7 Owsley 8 Al Smith 9 Hamilton article 10 Questia links 11 Reconstruction anger lingers 12 I've filed a Request for Comment 13 Robert P. Casey 14 WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections 15 Your edits to Henry Ford 16 Your edits to John Adams 17 History of coal mining 18 Links for American Revolution 19 Taft presidential ambitions 20 re: Democrat Party (United States) 21 Re: George III of the United Kingdom 22 US BOR 23 Lincoln intro 24 Happy Feb 12 25 WikiProject Military History elections 26 Book Reviews 27 Edit & rvv summaries 28 == Kentucky is Southern == 29 Misleading edit summary 30 Cold War Historiography 31 Confederate States of America 32 Barnstar! 33 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007 34 George Washington's Presidency 35 Annexation Bill of 1866 36 Just a quick heads-up 37 Perhaps I did not make my proposal clear on the Molly Maguires talk page 38 The Credible source of info i used for, Battle of New Orleans was My Social Studies textbook, made by Houghton Mifton, grade 7 chapter 10 about the battle 39 Two points 40 Please reconsider your revert of my edits to American Revolution 41 McCarthy, McCarthyism 42 Bimetallism globalize/USA tag 43 Primary sources: forgeries 44 Revert of edits to United States presidential election, 1856 45 George Washington 46 In regards to the reversion of text, 47 Bagdad Railway 48 Lend-lease 49 New Deal 50 True variance 51 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007 52 Women's Army Corps‎ 53 Thanks for your work on "Mugwumps" 54 Reagan Lead 55 Help needed at WP:FAC candidate Plymouth Colony 56 Wallace '44

[edit] Blunder or Forgery

In Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources you changed the phrase "OK (sometimes)!" written by Blueboar to "marginal", and the position of the change made it appear that "marginal" was written by Blueboar rather than yourself. I regard this as a confusing blunder at best, forgery at worst. --Gerry Ashton 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

well it was my blunder--sorry about that! Rjensen 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] american conservatism

If this procedure fails I suggest we take it up to Arbcom --Isolani 09:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, agreed. Rjensen 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom? They don't deal with trivial things matters like this. They'd never even consider your request. The name of this article means so little...it's really a waste of time to pursue it further. If you insist on taking further action, see WP:DR. WP:ARBCOM is the very last step. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Industry

The article is titled chemical industry, no chemical businesses. Therefore, it would seem logical that it relates to those terms and should cover such material. Oldsci 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

industry = business. there are already plenty of articles on chemistry itself. and please cite reliable sources. Rjensen 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjensen for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obow2003 and Jozil are real people and not me. They have an interest in American conservatism and I alerted them to the problems and encouraged them to join in the discussion. Rjensen 07:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Catholic-link

Given your remarks about older encyclopedias (1911 EB=Fun!), I thought you might be entertained by the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18#Template:Catholic-link. Given recent charges, I understand perfectly if you prefer not to comment, but if you think I am wrong then please do comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. CE is a good source about 80% of the time--esp for historical details. Those details are rarely changed by new research. Rjensen 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owsley

Thank you for the article on Frank L. Owsley. I have put in a few "citations needed", for quotes that I feel really should be verifiable. nut-meg 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the source requested (in both cases) is Walter Kirk Wood, "Before Republicanism: Frank Lawrence Owsley and the Search for Southern Identity, 1865-1965." Southern Studies (1995) 6(4): 65-77. ISSN 0735-8342 Rjensen 08:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Smith

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I'd added the OR tag on the Al Smith article, more because there wasn't any verification, not because I thought there was any actual OR. I just couldn't find a more appropriate tag.

Also, I changed the cite format - I find the current format saves more space, it's more organized, and it's more standard for Wikipedia articles I've worked on in the past, but I'd be happy to talk about what works better. Mosmof 14:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton article

My complements to you on your comments. I suggest you replace the reference to AH's anti-slavery position in the early paragraph discussing diffferences with T. Jefferson. If I do it, I suspect it will only be summarily removed.Shoreranger 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion, which I will follow up. Rjensen 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questia links

Hello, I've noticed you prefer direct links to works at questia.com to ISBN links. Unfortunately, such links violate Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, which state that sites requiring registration (as questia.com does) should only be linked if they are the topic of the article itself, or provide relevant information unavailable elsewhere. Moreover, as a pay site, linking directly to questia.com also runs into problems with Wikipedia's guidelines on spam.

A much better set of links all around are ISBN links, automatically generated by Wikipedia's software. Even better, individual users can make ISBN links point to whatever site they want -- Amazon, Google books, LibraryThing or Questia -- by editing their monobook.js file accordingly. You can find more information about that at WP:ISBN. Using these links makes it possible for everybody to easily get to where they want to go, without running into WP:EL or WP:SPAM problems. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Questia has two levels--one is completely free (no registration)--and is therefore not NOT forbidden by Wiki rules, the other is a pay site. The Free Questia allows several powerful features: 1) complete information on a book; 2) table of contents; 3) first page of every chapter; 4) Boolean searches in the Questia Library; 5) listings of Questia research guides to specific topics (like the American Revolution). Users doing research need this information and can get it nowhere else. This is far more free information than available anywhere else. Questia claims the largest online library (although Google may now be larger). Questia is very valuable for users. In terms of Wiki rules Questia: "provides relevant information unavailable elsewhere" and is therefore allowed by wp:el. That is Questia links to their free services do NOT violate WP:EL I have no link whatsoever to Questia and there is no question of spamming for their pay site. I am trying to provide users with valuable information they need (especially if they are trying to assemble a bibliography or getting a book through a library). Rjensen 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction anger lingers

still today....why delete that? WillC 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've filed a Request for Comment

I've filed an RfC against BenBurch here. Your experiences have been mentioned and I would appreciate your description of your experiences with BenBurch, FAAFA and Travb. Thank you. Dino 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert P. Casey

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Thanks for your hard work on improving Robert P. Casey. You deserve some tea. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

hey thatnks! I needed that. Rjensen 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Henry Ford

Greetings, it appears that you have disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point on Henry Ford. If this message is in error please accept my apologies but if not then please use an article or project's talk page to make your point. Thanks! From: --BenBurch 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to John Adams

I'm a little confused about this edit, specifically, the part where the text "In 1775 he was appointed the chief judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court." was taken out of the article text and placed inside ref tags with no other citation content. Was this intentional? --Fru1tbat 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re John Adams-- yes it was intentional. Minor items that break the flow of major items should go in footnotes so readers can see the big picture. (It's a minor item because there was no firther mention of what he did as judge). Rjensen 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of coal mining

Thanks for continuting to work on this :-)

The Rhur Basin stuff was something I was NOT aware of :-)

Keep going on it :-) ShakespeareFan00 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links for American Revolution

Great links but they came out in text instead of hotlinks...can you retry? HJ 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the head's up-- I will fix it now. Rjensen 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The other ones work 4.0 and worthy addition to any article. HJ 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taft presidential ambitions

My inclination was also to remove the sentence about Douglas MacArthur from Robert Taft's article (your edit). However, a Google search provided an apparently valid source for the info, which I instead added.

Did you check the source before your removal, and note its quote from a book by Pennsylvania State University historian Stanley Weintraub?

What associated event(s) do you believe did not happen? --Adavidb 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is threefold: 1) it mis-states what happened -- Taft asked MacArthur to be his VP, and MacArthur probably would have accepted if Taft won nomination. 2) It strongly suggests that MacArthur was a candfidate. he was not and Weintraub dioes not claim he was, which is entertaining but not enyclopedic. Rjensen 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While not a declared presidential candidate, MacArthur did receive ballots for nomination as the Republican candidate during the 1952 United States presidential election process. --Adavidb 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

delegates could vote for anyone they wanted to...but MacArthur had decided not to run. Rjensen 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I submit that Taft's promise/tentative decision to run with MacArthur is worthy of inclusion in Taft's article; it's already in MacArthur's, though it didn't 'happen'. --Adavidb 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree. Taft's promise did happen. Rjensen 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Democrat Party (United States)

Please do not remove deletion tags from pages that are listed at WP:RFD (or any other deletion process page). The tags are needed to allow people to know the pages has been nominated for deletion and allow them to comment at the debate if the so wish. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that was decided months ago. Rjensen 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Successfully making it through a deletion debate does not make an article exempt from further deletion nominations. -- JLaTondre 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point but it's a different article. The problem was the name of the article, which was changed to indicate this is an article about language not about a political party. Rjensen 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: George III of the United Kingdom

I appreciate that some of the information you have been removing is not as relevant as other parts. But it is relevant, nonetheless, and there are readers who will want to know these things. I therefore am asking you, politely, to not revert it back, or remove information from that article on that basis. This is particularly important because of the FA status - first, the article had all that information in it when it was passed as an FA (meaning that nobody saw any problem with it), and second, its FA status may be jeopardised if it is removed. I thus suggest that you formally raise the issue on the article discussion page, and go through it point by point - try to get editorial support from other contributors. This issue needs careful consideration from all concerned, rather than our unilateral decisions. I hope you will not make any such major changes to the article for the time being, and will be willing to try to get support. I don't want an edit war - I do want to prevent the article being damaged. Michaelsanders 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to talk it over. Wiki editors have to select the 1% of the information available that makes for the best article. As for FA status, that is my goal: an article deserves FA status if it covers the most important topics. It for example needs a good bibliography (which I added). So let's try this: I will add new information and not remove any. But let's think about dropping names of people that had minimal connection with George III. Rjensen 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly open to talking it over - I simply think that there should be some input from other users before making such a big change. But add information, by all means. Michaelsanders 01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US BOR

Hi! I recognized your username but for a sec there I thought it was vandalism, with so many characters cut. I agree it was wordy, but the point of that intro section was to set up the debate over having a BOR, which was in part a result of the powerful central government designed at the Philadelphia Convention. I reverted your changes, but am more than willing to hash it out at talk, so please don't be insulted by the reversion. I see where you're coming from, I just think you went farther than I would have. Thanks, Kaisershatner 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The material I dropped does not bear directly on BOR debate. For example, revenue and currency issues are totally irrelevant to BOR (though they are important and belong in other articles). Likewise NJ Plan, Va Plan, jidiciary do not bear on issue. That's what I deleted. Rjensen 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln intro

If someone doesn't read past the intro, too bad for them. We don't have to write for the ADHD set. Gazpacho 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The people who read the introduction will learn more than those who don't read it. Keep the Wiki mission in mind: education. A sophisticated, short summary of Lincoln is needed for people to understand his major role Rjensen 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Feb 12

Happy Lincoln's birthday Dear Rjensen On this day 198 years ago, a boy was born in a log cabin to two indigent farmers. Nobody could predict one day the poor boy would become one of the greatest US President of all time, who had abolished slavery and preserved the Union during Civil War. The world may little note, nor long remember his birthday, but it can never forget what he did for the country. Thus to make February 12 not sink into the limbo, together we celebrate Lincoln's Birthday. Also, thanks for your contributions to Abraham Lincoln-related articles and I hope that you'll continue to improve them as a way to commemorate his monumental sacrifice. Best regards. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Reviews

I'm curious why you think links to book reviews should be included in external links. This seems to run contrary to both #1 of important points to remember and #15 of links normally to be avoided. I would agree on including reviews on an article about a book or an author, but not on the topic of the book. Some reviews do include a discussion of the topic, but the main focus of a review is on the book. I could see perhaps including a review on a book that was considered the authoritative source on a topic, but none of the removals you reverted seem to fall in that category. There are a significant number of books on these topics & probably a large number of reviews on each book. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the link but I did read it and found it relevant, useful and authoritative--just the sort of item we should link to. What we have is a serious, recent essay on John Brown that discusses many important issues. Rjensen 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit & rvv summaries

Just a little style/etiquette note — when you combine an edit and a revert, it'd be nice to mention that you reverted vandalism too in your edit summary. I had a brief moment of "oh no! someone vandalized, and the next editor didn't notice! I can't use my simple rollback!" before I checked your edit and saw you'd done both at one go. Thanks for cleaning up the mess, though. --John Owens | (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

yes good point and I will try to follow the advice. Rjensen 10:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Kentucky is Southern ==

Hey I was wondering if you would form a concensus with me on the Southern talk page involving Kentucky's cultural variation section. If you can remember back on the old talk page user 70-68/Gator was ingorantly arguing that Kentucky is a boarder/Midwestern state, and now he is going against the SOuthern Focus Study's findings to incorporate his opinion in the Article. Please form this concensus with me. Louisvillian 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summary

Hi Rjensen. Sorry about that dust up about the WWII industrial production table. In retrospect it all seems a little silly. I've been encountering some of your edits in other areas and usually agree with what you're trying to do and appreciate the contribution you're making.

Of course I wouldn't be writing unless I had a little problem. I'm a little concerned about this edit. You deleted a section on Ottoman treatment of POWs, but described "(small fixes; terser language)" in the edit summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I would appreciate it if you were a little more careful. WWI is one of the articles I like to watch and it makes it much easier for me to keep an eye on things if edit summaries are accurate.

Anyway good luck with your editing and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Haber 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly note. I was trying to shorten some paragraphs and somehow accidentally deleted that paragraph. My mistake and I will go back now. Rjensen 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War Historiography

I'm feeling a little miffed about your removal of my edit to the Cold War page. I posted a suggestion about what I was about to do on the Talk page and received no comments for 5 months. I went ahead and added Shapiro's theories with the appropriate citation. You may not agree with Shapiro (and, I admit, his theories aren't popular or common). However, his book is masterly in its scope and directly cites numerous historians (e.g., Ambrose, Gaddis, Paterson) and politicians (Harriman, Stalin and Truman themselves) for the source of 80-90% of his material. In addition, this book is cited by Gore Vidal as a critical source of 20th century history. I strongly recommend that you find or offer some way to edit or improve this material rather than unilaterally removing it. 99th Percentile 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the Shapiro book sooner or i would have protested sooner. Wiki is only allowed to present reliable secondary sources and is explicitly not allowed to give play to offbeat theories. Shapiro has to be accepted by scholars BEFORE he can be accepted by Wiki. Has that happened? Gore Vidal is a very small step in that direction. The burden is on an editor to prove it is accepted mainstream history. Rjensen 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise a more valid point here then your more insipid comment on the Cold War page. However, Wikipedia is much more than Encyclopedia Britannica don't you think? If all we're doing is copying World Book then why bother? The point here is to (a) make this a community resource/project, and (b) make something that is ultimately better than existing references by incorporating more and more valid points of view. American history is already so massively whitewashed in textbooks that it's almost an imperative to fix it in online sources such as this one. Keep in mind that I don't care if Shapiro is right or wrong or if any of the other sources on the Cold War page are. I don't agree with many of them but don't feel the need to reject their inclusion. Remember also that Shapiro is only a glorified editor and adds content to the massive citations he presents, which are all from A-1 sources. Can you please reconsider this, especially considering that I already watered down Shapiro's viewpoints considerably. Thanks!. 99th Percentile 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked Shapiro yesterday. He died in 2002 and was known as a left-wing political activist and was not a specialist in the Cold War -- the book rambles over 200 years of history. As far as I can tell not a single scholarly article (in JSTOR) cites his book. In fact I could only find mention of one review in the history journals, so the editors as well as the scholars have not considered his book important. Why should Wiki consider him important? There are hundreds of off-beat polemics out there and they simply don't pass muster as reliable sources. Rjensen 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a more reasoned response, but your arrogance is still counterproductive. This isn't Encyclopedia Britannica and relying on JSTOR as the de facto litmus test for citations is unbelievable. First of all, I'm not a fan of Shapiro, so saying he's "left-wing" illuminates your biases more than mine. Second, where does Wikipedia say that you have to be a "specialist" to either write or be cited here? Obviously, we don't want to cite crap, but nobody here is doing that. Third, I'm sure that one of the driving forces for Wikipedia, whether intentional or not, is to capture important information outside of the mainstream. For "ivory tower" academic subjects, this seems even more crucial; thus, the importance of including contrary opinions AND voices. Lastly, you're right, there are countless polemics out there. However, isn't it important to include those that offer merit, and, even more importantly, for us to trust others' opinions about posting them just as much as they implicitly trust us? I disagree with megabytes of information on Wiki, but I don't feel the need to jump in unless its demonstrably false or wrong. I warned the community on this page that my edit was coming for 5 months; the sources in Shapiro are top-notch; Shapiro adds a relatively small percentage of editorializing to the sources he cites; for the most part; I did not include Shapiro's thoughts, just a high-level summary of the concepts he introduces; I have not read anything on the Internet or elsewhere that refutes Shapiro; Gore Vidal, one of the most competent writers (and writer/historians) of the 20th century (whether you like him or not is irrelevant) believes this is a vital resource. Again, I don't think you have justified anything, and have only demonstrated your personal biases against Shapiro, Vidal, left-wing(ers), and non-academic journals. Please try harder or I will re-post. 99th Percentile 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: Wiki should start from the top and work down. It should rely on experts (in this case not Shapiro). He proudly claimed to be a left wing intellectual but did not claim any expertise on the Cold War. So why use him and his book that was (I think) self-published? JSTOR includes thousands of experts in peer-reviewed journals. It represents known quality. Rjensen 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confederate States of America

I noticed you have removed Lincoln's actions in Maryland from the Confederate States of America article, the reason being "Maryland traitors can thank Lincoln for not being hung". This is blatantly POV and please refrain from doing so. Thanks! Wooyi 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

what I removed was blatant POV and cannot be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Rjensen 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln indeed stripped habeas corpus in Maryland, and also his practice being unconstitutional is also true, see Ex parte Milligan, Supreme Court's ruling. Wooyi 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the Confederacy. if the folks involved were loyal to the USA then they should not be mentioned in this article. If they were loyal to the CSA (which historians believe) they were traitors. Which was it? Rjensen 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The "traitor" label may be plausible, but not confirmed. The head of CSA Jefferson Davis was in fact never convicted of treason (we assume innocence before proven guilty), and those ones who fought for CSA were later mostly cleared their name. Davis, Robert Lee, among others who were loyal to CSA, were all given back their USA citizenship postumously in 1970s. These are historical facts. In my opinion, although I'm not a fan of slavery, CSA legitimately seceded from USA and USA annexed it again, the situation kinda resembled Ireland, East Timor, or Tibet. Wooyi 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes but the issue of the edit is Maryland -- it did NOT secede and anyone in the state who supported the CSA should have been arrested immediately--and was in fact arrested. Rjensen 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would have arrested them on mere suspecion, before they committed any overt acts? And would the hanging come before or after the trial? Nicholas F 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes arrest immediately. That's called war. That's what Lincoln (ie Ben Butler) did and in fact what Jefferson Davis did -- only in Texas they hung them without any trial, and in Maryland Lincoln locked them up for weeks then released them. Rjensen 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		WikiProject Illinois Barnstar
		For your work on Illinois related articles, especially the help you gave me on the Illinois article last year, your work on Lincoln's article and other Illinois articles. Keep up the good work! --Dual Freq 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington's Presidency

Thanks for removing the link to the Paris treaty from George Washington's Presidency. It was obviously put there in good faith, and I'm too much of a newbie to trust my judgment to simply remove it (I raise the question in the talk page). Fordsfords 00:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annexation Bill of 1866

Hi Rjensen. I have some questions about your edits (from last year) to this article; see Talk:Annexation Bill of 1866. Regards, --Saforrest 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just answered them! The offical congressional record shows the bill went to a House committee and never came to a vote in House or Senate. All bills that come to a final vote get listed and linked to the debates....there were no debates either. Rjensen 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick heads-up

Your reversion to William Howard Taft re-inserted some vandalism! I've tidied up after you, for no extra charge! Best wishes, Bencherlite 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps I did not make my proposal clear on the Molly Maguires talk page

Hello Professor Jensen,

It is not my personal intention to modify the Rhodes quote. My intention is to mark it clearly and distinctly as a quote from Rhodes, both as a service to Rhodes and to incautious readers.

My motivation arises from the experiences of a first time reader of the article — coming in cold, as it were. I was struck with the queasy feeling that some middle chunk of the article came from a distinct author writing under nineteenth century conventions. Glancing up, I belatedly saw the advisory about material being drawn from James Ford Rhodes. Still, it was not clear to me where the excerpted passage began or ended. Indeed, later investigations of article histories showed me that the marker is misplaced, grouping three paragraphs composed by various contemporary editors with the material you provided from Rhodes, with no other clear dividing line. Such uncertainty is a disservice to readers, in that they are given an incorrect impression of who is writing what, and to Rhodes, in that his contribution to the article is blurred with works of others. Properly blocking the quote off in a box, as I illustrated on the talk page, puts that ambiguity to rest, both to the benefit of Rhodes and the readers. To my mind, the application of this graphic device works to the advantage of a goal you hold dear: presenting a "standard scholarly source" clearly and without ambiguity. The device sets off the passage of text as originating from a scholar in the field, and is not possibly the writing of a contemporary wikipedia editor. At present, testifying as someone who has just read the article cold, it is not abundantly clear where the Rhodes text begins and where it ends. I cannot imagine that you would find such uncertainty a source of comfort either.

You well and truly observe that the use of Rhodes in this article is akin to Wikipedia's frequent use of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica; such material lend weight in discussions where editors might otherwise quote from memory or some web blog. In granting you that, I also note certain guidelines surrounding the use of material that from that edition, documented in the Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica guideline for editors. First off, this guideline advises us to mark extensive excerpts from the 1911 EB with the {{1911}} tag. This automatically inserts

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

at the bottom of the article and places it in the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Such pain in marking work from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is precisely in the spirit of my proposal: demark the passage as coming from James Ford Rhodes, citing his name, the source of his writing, and his publisher. The reader may then disagree with Rhodes, or find his prose antique, but he or she is in no doubt from where the words are coming from.

It is possible you may have been alarmed by my closing remark about (eventually) retiring the excerpt with a paraphrase, and thought, perhaps, that I would undertake that ambition next week. I grant you, that would be a hard row to hoe, given your (very correct!) observations concerning the passions some editors bring to this article. I plan not to undertake that particular adventure even though I recommend it, for reasons stated. No, I only intend to demark Rhodes as Rhodes, and nothing further, for reasons also just stated. I do believe that someone should, however, undertake a careful paraphrase because many of the cautionaries presented in the 1911 guidelines are also true for Rhodes: old references reflect old style of wording and attitudes that are no longer current, and some readers react to that rather than to the the underlying content.

Be good, be well; reply here or on my talk page if you care to. Gosgood 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very persuasive and I now agree with your plan--with the proviso that the Rhodes article be kept permanently. The main reason is we need an anchor by a serious scholar that's heavily fact-oriented and has been vetted by professional editors of the American Historical Review, because of the intense POV that seems to surround this topic. Rjensen 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he did research. Poor choice of a word on my part ;) On to another topic, I came across minor variation between the quote as transcribed in the article and the 1919 Macmillan passage; I followed the Macmillan. Mainly variations were in punctuation, but there were word and phrase differences in the paragraph describing that young men in the order carried out murder. In the 1919 Macmillian version, that paragraph and the following one merge together, and there are differences in phrasing. It seems that your page on the University of Illinois web site are also close to the 1919 Macmillian text. I suspect the variations found in the Wikipedia transcription stem from edit wars, but I haven't, at the moment, an inclination to go trolling through article histories. Take care. Gosgood 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had OCR'd ascii version of both the book and article and do not remember now which I used. Rjensen 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Credible source of info i used for, Battle of New Orleans was My Social Studies textbook, made by Houghton Mifton, grade 7 chapter 10 about the battle

in my Social Studies textbook-a reliable source, in which-even if "Remini" is credible, that doesnt mean its right (or my textbook). by leaving it as a range of the lowest number (seven in my textbook, to twenty, you will be stating correct information (13 is in-between this range), and leaving the thought of the reader, unchanged. By using this range, a large number of historians can agree on it, rather than dispute the number they think it to be---Number2two2

P.S.: please take this into consideration.

textbooks are not very credible--the authors have to cover thousands of topics. Remini spent years researching the Battle of New Orleans. What "other historians" are we talking about?? Rjensen 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two points

1. The addition you made long ago to Panic of 1837 has finally been erased: [1]. I have mixed feelings about this: on the one hand, it had some valuable information, but on the other hand, its tone was quite inappropriate for here. Perhaps we can eventually work in some of the data it presented.
2. I recently enlarged John William McCormack from his obituary. Overall, I think the article is improved, but in some parts the tone may be a little informal. I think it would benefit from proofreading by someone else, like, if you wish, yourself. Biruitorul 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of Wiki is always a problem. My theory is give people factual information and they can handle the tone--especially if they are interested in events in the 19th century when the rhetorical styles were so different from today. Rjensen 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for McCormack, it's amazing that no one has written seriously about his career. There is one scholarly article I know and it's very recent: Green, Matthew N. "McCormack Versus Udall: Explaining Intraparty Challenges to the Speaker of the House." American Politics Research 2006 34(1): 3-21. ISSN: 1532-673X

Thanks, I'll take a look. As for the Panic extract - my own view is that it should stay as is, but with a view toward weaving it into a 21st-century text. I don't expect that'll happen tomorrow, though, and 19th C English isn't (yet) a foreign language, so interested readers may still find it useful even in its current form. Biruitorul 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fulltext in SwetsWise; Abstract: Introduces a theory to explain who will most likely support a challenge to an incumbent speaker of the House of Representatives and tests this theory for one such challenge in particular, that against Speaker John McCormack in 1969, using newly obtained archival data related to the contest. The results suggest that legislators are most likely to support a challenge when it promises to satisfy one or more "multiple goals." The findings also reveal that membership in the same entering class in Congress plays an important and previously unacknowledged causal role in determining support for a challenge to the speaker. Rjensen 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider your revert of my edits to American Revolution

You know, you could actually read what I had done rather than blindly reverting to the terrible text you did. Its not what you did, it is how you did it. Please read the text of the article and see that the version you reverted to mentions the Declaratory Acts, but does so a) in a really crappy way and b) without any reference. I understand that references to primary sources are deprecated and that references to experts are preferred. I also understand the importance of this article to Wikipedia, and want to see it improved. I did the best I could by fixing some TERRIBLE text and adding a reference. If you would prefer to delete the whole section about the Declaratory Acts, I AM OK WITH THAT, so please do not misunderstand my purpose in leaving this message for you. But it is bad taste to blindly revert an edit, especially when that edit clearly improved the language of what was already in the article, and provided a reference to boot. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please consider the dif: [2] of the edit I made. You can clearly see the problem with the text I was trying to fix. If you don't like what I did, fix it how you see fit, up to and including outright removal. That is fine. But please, do not assume that every edit to this article is automatically unworthy or or in some way in bad faith. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I removed the offending text entirely. See dif: [3]. Again, please be more careful and actually read the edits people make to articles you care deeply about. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayron32 is quite right: the original text was very poor quality and needs improvement. However Wiki rules say that all edits--even improvements-- have to be based on reliable sources, not on original research, so the improvement had to go. I'll try to fix the passage.Rjensen 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, since you talk about policy, you might want to see the relevent part of WP:ATT, which says of primary sources, and I quote, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Which is what my edit did. It described the text of the declaratory acts, and the reference provided a link to the act in question. My edit was descriptive, not interpretative, and thus by wiki policies, should not have been reverted. Again, I have no problem with your removal of my text, and there can be many good reasons for the removal of it, but "not an expert historian" doesn't apply here, since the kind of edit I made did not make any claims of interpretation of the text. It only reported what the text said. Heck, it was 3/4 quotes of the text directly. My edit was not original research as defined by WP:ATT the relevent policy in question, so please do not claim it was. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

the question is whether or not the decision to include the Declaratory Act was based on reliable scholarship; none was cited. There were thousands of pages of parliamentary text available--who chose that selection and why? Rjensen 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is a quite reasonable reason to remove the text in question. Thank you for explaining that, as it was unclear from your original terse edit summary. I agree 100% with you that there was no citation to a secondary source showing the importance of said act, and yes, while it patently did refer to the American colonies, whether or not such act is significant enough historically to include in the article is not a decision you or I should make, but it should be up to published historians, whose work we should cite. Thanks again for clearing up your reasoning. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. Although you do not qualify, you have commented at McCarthyism and I have some experience with you as an editor - we haven't always agreed but I am looking for a broader commentary. IMO User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added my 2 cents worth re Kennedy connection. Rjensen 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued input. Can you look at the 1952 Senate section at talk. Is is not clear that McCarthy made a specific point of not campaigning against Kennedy?Kaisershatner 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked on it. There is no doubt that McCarthy rejected GOP please for him to campaign in Mass. in 1952. Rjensen 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bimetallism globalize/USA tag

Hi, you removed the globalize/USA tag I added to Bimetallism, saying "the debate happened inside USA" as a comment to the edit, but you didn't respond to my rationale for adding it at Talk:Bimetallism. I've added the tag back as I think there should be some time to debate this before it is removed (you removed it the day after I put it up).--Eloil 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you've removed the tag without discussion (save saying "Explain why US" in a comment). I think it's fair to leave the tag up for a while so this can be discussed. Evidently you don't think so. I've explained the rationale for my actions; why do you insist on reverting my edits without even explaining your own rationale on the article's talk page? Clearly no consensus currently exists to remove the tag. --Eloil 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

who does the tag help? put it on the talk page if you want to reach editors. Better yet do some research--as the article now explains only the US was in a position to debate the issue. Rjensen 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I am doing research on the topic, but likely won't add material until I have learned more. I added the tag to encourage others to do research of their own. Not all editors look at the talk, and I think the tag would encourage some of these editors to do their own research on bimetallism and widen the article's scope beyond US borders. In the meantime, I believe the article doesn't present a worldwide view on bimetallism, although the ample material on US bimetallism appears to be well written and researched. I also think your quick reverts of my good-faith edits can be seen as antagonistic, but I'm willing to compromise by having the tag on the talk page only as you suggested. --Eloil 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed. my problem is that the tag on the main page demeans and ridicules the article in the minds of users. Rjensen 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources: forgeries

I've made a suggestion on the primary sources talk page. Rjm at sleepers 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of edits to United States presidential election, 1856

I think we had some bad timing of edits to the above article--I had reverted to a previous revision to get the format right, and then about 25 minutes later pulled back the new text Epignosis had added, keeping that format--but less then a minute later, you reverted back to before I had fixed the format. I believe my most recent edit is preferable, and more in line with Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy. Do you agree? --Cjohnsonmn 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the timing was funny--we made our edits at the same minute but mine came a few seconds later (and I did not notice your changes). Your edit is better so I replaced mine with yours. Rjensen 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington

Wikipedia recommends compromise and revision of edits, not unilateral deletion. The material is referenced (see Samuel Huntington wikipedia article). I think it's well explained and doesn't confuse the reader but I'll make it even more clear. Washington was the first president but there was also another first president, too. Dereks1x 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

washington was the ONLY first president of the united states. No reliable source claims otherwise. What we have is a simple confusion of sound-alike titles Rjensen 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit waring. I keep modifying the language as a compromise and take the other guy (johnwae or whatever the name) suggestion. Do not keep deleting it. If you have a helpful suggestion, by all means say it. I ask you then "Who was the Head of State for the US between the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and 1789?" It was the President Huntington then 10 other guys. If there's an adequate explanation, nobody is confused. Having others as the head of state before Washington does NOT make Washington an evil man!!!

I even compromised and moved it to the end under myths and misconceptions.

The Articles of Confederation is relevant because it used the term United States and the British had been effectively kicked out by then.

If you don't like it, why not suggest compromise language?Dereks1x 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

compromise? ok, How's this: "George Washington was the first President of the United States of America. Samuel Huntington was never president of the United States of America." Rjensen 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to the reversion of text,

I by no means wish to challenge the established model for Presidential Election Pages but instead would like to offer some suggestions for possible modifications to the current format up for debate amongst the contributors to Wikipedia. The easiest and hopefully the least obtrusive of these would be to include the platforms of the parties who nominated canidates in the campaign as I have tried to do in this article. I believe there inclusion within the general election section of the page, due to the platforms inclusion of major sources of debate between parties within them, is a proper location but would be willing to listen to any other suggestions for their possible location. Many of these platforms can be found posted online and can be easily linked to these articles because they were creation was for dissemination into the public domain and therefore have no copyrights to be infringed. Including the platforms written by the party at the time of the campaign will not only offer a chance to verify the information on the article but will also increase the validity ofthe article through the inclusion of a primary source. The decision is up to a vote of course but I am going to stand up and complain about the deletion of the Know-Nothing Campaign info. If a party wins a state in the electoral college or at least a significant portion of the popular vote I believe we should include the party platform to explain what these people were voting for the sake of better understanding history and the people who lived during this time period.

Respectfully Epignosis

the actual platforms are pretty long, and not usually considered important. A short summary should do the job, with a link to the online version (Sanata Barabara has the texts, I recall). Rjensen 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bagdad Railway

Please engage in discussion on the talk page if you wish to continue to place contested material such as 'historians agree' - see my comment on the talk page, regards sbandrews (t) 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

well I did put extensive comments on the talk page. I looked around and all historians seem to agree--have you found one otherwise since 1930? Rjensen 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad? I'm suspicious of the claim that "all historians agree" about anything. Historians have a notorious disposition for disagreeing. Wjhonson 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All that I found in the last 60 years. Rjensen 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lend-lease

Rather than simply deleting well-sourced text in the article, please take whatever issue you have with it to the talk page. Thanks. WLD^talk|edits 09:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did take it to talk page. we need to remove trivia (do Wiki readers need to know how many locomotives were sent, yes; what day was the cheque signed--no) and long quote from Hansard is unnecessary--try to reduce to 2 sentences. This article could be 2000 pages long if low-level details are stuffed in Rjensen 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Wiki is not paper - 'low level' details are appropriate for inclusion. If the article gets too large, we can then debate splitting it. Please continue this on the article's talk page. Thanks. WLD^talk|edits 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Deal

For your information, the Great Depression lasted 10 years. So, obviously the economy did not recover during the New Deal. You shouldn't be removing something that is sourced and replacing it with something that is unsourced. Instantiayion 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

look at the numbers and please use reliable sources, such as those in bibliog. Rjensen 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes look at the numbers. By the time the New Deal was officially over in 1938, GDP was still below 1929 level and unemployment was very high. Please don't tell me that you think the New Deal was successful. It was supposed to provide recovery and relief but what ended up happening is the depression continued until 1939/1940 and the people suffered. By what standard could it be deemed successful? Instantiayion 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Success = reverse terrible effects of 1929-33, which was done by 1936 (except unemployment, which took longer to cure. You have to realize New Deal was NOT responsible for causing collapse of 1929-33, and that it first had to repair the damage.Rjensen 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How is continued low GDP and high unemployment repairing the damage? Instantiayion 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The GDP was not low. that damage was repaired. As for unemployment, the New Deal cut it in half. The problem was that companies were not hiring people. Rjensen 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP was indeed low until 1940. Of course the problem is that companies were not hiring people but guess why? The New Deal. Increasing taxes, price-fixing, and what not, is not the way to encourage hiring and investment. Instantiayion 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

actually as soon as New Deal arrived companies started hiring people again. Should we have a chart for that? I'll look for one. The GDP data seems pretty important and NPOV. Rjensen 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The GDP chart may be NPOV but I challenge your trendline. The reason I deleted the chart is because it's POV to just put that one chart there. GDP is not the only part of the economy that is important. There should be an unemployment chart there as well. Instantiayion 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think drawing your own trendline goes into original research territory. Instantiayion 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right that GDP is only one indicator. As for unemployment I already put in an elaborate annual table-- it has 3-digit accuracy that gets obscured in a graphics chart. I'll add some more charts. Manufacturing employment (private sector) is about ready. The Excel spreadsheet adds the trendline, which is just an average over time. Rjensen 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To have a manufacturing employment chart is POV as well if you don't have a similar chart for all other types of employment. If you're going to do an employment chart it needs to be overall. Instantiayion 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a goose. Why don't you do some work and make some charts. Rjensen 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about computers. Instantiayion 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They please don't complain about informative graphs that other people work hard to create. Rjensen 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't POV push and I won't complain. You're cherry picking things because you're pro central planning. You selected manufacturing employment because that looks the best. How about all the other kinds of employment? Either put an overall unemployment chart or take that one out. Instantiayion 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

which data would you like to see graphed? Rjensen 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The overall unemployment picture. Also you're stopping at 1940 so that the recovery can't be seen. Instantiayion 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The overall unemployment data is already in a very detailed table. The war starts in 1941 and New Deal ends. Rjensen 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a long enough time horizon. You can't look at something in isolation like that. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's still POV. It's easy to lie with statistics when you don't show the bigger picture. Instantiayion 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read a book. start with Chandler. Better yet, take an economics course at a local community college Rjensen 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to you the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrel Huff, but it looks like you've already read it. Instantiayion 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huff explains that people who don't understand statistcs get befuddled easily and fall for all sorts of frauds. They can't tell truth from falsity. Rjensen 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True variance

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to True variance. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. In addition, claiming to "rv vandalism" while adding new material from a copyrighted book is, itself, vandalism.

Thank you for making a report about 24.213.182.10 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Generally, final warnings are good for 48 hours on an IP address. Otherwise, we must consider them as expired because someone else may be using that address (e.g. a dialup user or someone in a school computing lab). Jesse Viviano 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women's Army Corps‎

In reference to the Women's Army Corps‎ article, thank you for adding information and expanding the article but cite the source of your information. --Signaleer 13:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, willdo. 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your work on "Mugwumps"

This paragraph and the one that follows should both be sourced to the Blodgett book and the McFarland book of essays. I'm afraid I am miles away from a good academic library now. Since the 1970s, when I was a student, academic libraries in the USA have put armed guards and barriers around to keep the homeless out, including me (ha ha):

Several historians of the 1960s and 1970s portrayed the Mugwumps as members of an insecure elite, one that felt threatened by changes in American society. These historians often focused on the social background and status of their subjects, and the narratives they have written share a common outlook.

Seriously, I just don't have a student ID anymore that lets me in to find an older book that is not online. Looks like you probably do. --Metzenberg 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. I'll try to fix it. Rjensen 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan Lead

Hi there. I noticed you added quite a bit of info to Reagan's lead paragraph. THE LEAD SHOULD NOT BE THAT LONG. As I've stated on the talk page, please, please read WP:LEAD. There is too much info. Happyme22 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Reagan lede is too short right now, according to WP:LEAD. Remember most people only read the opening and we need to help them . Rjensen 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed at WP:FAC candidate Plymouth Colony

I noticed that you have been a frequent contributor at several articles dealing with American History. I have been a major contributor to the article Plymouth Colony which I also nominated for featured status at WP:FAC. Several reviewers have requested that I get some other editors with similar interests to look over the article, make any changes they see fit, and make any additional comments at WP:FAC. If you could look over the article, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I reduced the coverage of Indians (the article is not about them), and would strongly recommend more on the social history, as in the Demos book. Rjensen 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! It looks like you made some changes I would have never made, but that's why I asked for your help. The article seems much improved. I give a cursory introduction to the social history in various parts ("Relations with Indians", "English"). What sort of additional coverage did you have in mind? Do you think it needs more on the details of daily life? Relationship between Pilgrims and Strangers? Relationship with the Indians (probably not, since you deleted a bunch of this). Power and class? There are lots of ways that we can go on that, and I would think that we want to avoid getting TOO big here... If you have access to the Demos book currently (I'd have to go to the Library to get it), could you add any additional information, with refs, as you see fit? I will probably get the book myself in the next week or so, but don't let that stop you from further improving the article. Your fixes so far have been great, and I would appreciate any additional help. Thanks again! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace '44

Hello. I wonder if we could shed a little more light on the decision to drop Henry A. Wallace from the ticket in 1944. Was it a decision made out of purely domestic considerations, or was there also an international dimension to it - perhaps a fear he would be too accomodating toward the Soviet Union? Thanks for any help you can offer. Biruitorul 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wallace got in big trouble in 1942 when he went public denouncing Jesse Jones. FDR decided Wallace was irresponsible and incompetent and fired him from non-VP roles as head of Bureau Economic Warfare. ideology played a minor role. So Wallace was hopeless in 1944. Rjensen 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I will try to amplify that section of his biography. Biruitorul 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)