User talk:Rjensen/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rjensen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

see previous talk at Archive 19

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I just watched your fantastic 7/13/12 Wikimania talk, and you've inspired me to contribute. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Scewing (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

If you would like to bring an article on a physicist to featured, have a go at Arthur Compton. Thanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you 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 do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Conservatism in the United State". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

recent edit

Sorry, your edit was right, the Colonial era section was miscategorized. The book by Jane Porter was mentioned in the Pula article as part of the positive depictions of Polish Americans. I understand she was Scottish, not American, but the positive reflection of Poland that came from Kosciuszko's role in the war was notable - and was demonstrated in the book. I am still working on the section on the 1960s and 70s, so please check in and we can talk about it if you like.Pola.mola (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should say that Kosciuszko's role was honored --as in the statue at west point. That he is a character in a Scottish novel seems besides the point. (I think Pula assumed that Jane Porter was an American.) But the fact that a foreign author made Kosciuszko a character does not tell us anything about what American authors thought. In any case your edits are good, so and don't be annoyed if I pick a few small details. :) Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, thank you. Please let me know what details may need changing. I just want to place this fact in here because it is notable that Kosciuszko's contemporaries found him such a profound individual that they praised him and his Polish background. Don't forget how many Polish Americans have been noted scientists, generals, etc. but their Polish background was downplayed by history. A person could easily have written a book about him as a heroic American. Here we have a clear interest and love of Polish culture/history demonstrated in the English-speaking world as a result of Kosciuszko's heroism and brilliance during the War. Essentially, the image of Polish people was elevated by their work in America, and that's my point here. My feeling is there may be other praise and positive images of Poland that resulted from Kosciuszko, so don't be surprised if we have a similar discussion soon. :)Pola.mola (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aroostook War

Hi, why did you revert my edit? References to “Britain”, ”Great Britain”, etc., after the Acts of Union 1800 are anachronistic, as Great Britain had been united with Ireland to form the United Kingdom. During the 1830s and 1840s, the period covered in this article, “Great Britain” was not a political entity; the United Kingdom was; the diplomats and officials represented the United Kingdom and not Great Britain. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki rules: follow the Reliable Secondary Sources. Historians use the term Britain and Great Britain--this includes all the sources cited in this article. They seldom use UK which was never an official name. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was the official name and it is seldom used except when quoting legal documents. Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that some historians insist on using anachronistic names. It seems like an odd convention to follow. But I guess if those are the rules, who am I to question it? Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

History of the immigration to the United States

Hello, I read this Wikipedia page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-21 and I wonder if it is you who wrote the table named "U.S. historical populations". In the row regarding Sweden I read that there were 2000 Swedes in the USA in 1790. I tried to find the same data on the ICPSR page but I can't. The only thing I know is that in the 1790 census there wasn't any question about place of birth or ancestry. How did you find that number? Can you help me? I am writing a dissertation and I need reliable sources. Thanks. Stefania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.157.26 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your 1812 presentation was very interesting

First to understand a little more the perspective of those Canadians. Now I understand why they get so fired up. But also things like the comment about 6 year old research work. Nice insights and well presented.TCO (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration

Bad timing, I guess, but just a couple minutes ago, I went and looked at the Declaration article. Was unhappy to see Kevin turned off of it. He is a top notch historian and I felt I had gotten him a little re-interested in the Wiki, when I pushed it to GA (not doing any work, just tossing it in there). Maybe that he would FA the article eventually. Unless you are going to brush that article up (basically own it), I wonder if there might be some way, you can disengage and give it back to him. I don't think him walking away from it is the best thing for the readers. And I'm just a civilian, not a historian, but I find the prominent use of "nation" creation for the 1776 work to be jarring. Heck, the Articles and even the experience of the War (most of it) had not happened yet in 1776. Let alone the Constitution, which created the actual legal structure for the nation.TCO (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin has made many useful edits and that's great. He sometimes needs to step back and look at the big picture of why the Declaration is so important for American nationhood. "Four score and seven years ago [1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation....". As John Adams later noted, the Revolution took place in the minds of the people before 1776. Most historians are pretty well agreed it was July 1776 more than 1789 that really mattered and deserves the birthday honors. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, reasonable point. Still a little bummed about him being turned off as well as the article being defaced with a tag--whatever side I'm on, I HATE that method of bypassing talkpage discussion and degrading content for the reader because of the desire for edit warring.TCO (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

well i'm sorry about people being turned off but he was pushing a fringe view (he thinks the USA was not founded in 1776 and had no RS to support that notion). And I agree 100% with you about the tag wars.Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Shake your manly hand.TCO (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Shake :) Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer

it was nazi germany's motto but dianna wrongfully removed, what is your opinion need a third party view in the Talk:Nazi_Germany#Motto Peterzor (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi Rjensen. I indirectly mentioned you at WP:ANI, as I posted a diff from your talk page in a discussion thread there. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attack by Peterzor. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you 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 do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Nazi Germany". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Information about sources

Hello, I read this Wikipedia article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States and I would like to know if you wrote it. I am interested in the numbers of the table called "U.S. Historical Populations". I read that there were 2000 Swedes in 1790 but I know that the census did not contain any information regarding place of birth or ancestry, at that time. I see that the source is the ICPRS in Ann Arbor, but unfortunately that kind of data is not available for me (I wrote them in order to know if it was possible to consult that database). Since I am writing a dissertation about the Swedish emigration to the USA I am interested in quoting that number and I am asking you if you can help me with the original source. Do you know exactly from where that numbers come? Thanks, Stefania Stefaniaf (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some work on that article but not the table in question. It appears to come from The Source: A Guidebook of American Genealogy by Kory L. Meyerink and Loretto Dennis Szucs. Note that Beijbom (in Thernstrom) mentions a "somewhat inflated" estimate of 19,000 Swedes in the US in 1790; See Thernstrom ed Harvard Ency Am. Ethnic Groups p 971 Rjensen (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Hi, I found that pic in Wikimedia Commons, and the picture purports to be of several children standing with a Grand Dragon. The short height of the people with the Dragon lends credence to the claim that they are children. I will put the pic back, and remove the reference to children. Readers can look at the picture and judge for themselvesOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

the picture then illustrates nothing and misleads readers. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

== 1944 Education Act ==

This act did not provide free milk, the 1946 Milk Act did. The Telegraph article even states this- why did you use that as a reference? Please delete any mention of it in the article as it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.90.93 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

the act made free milk a legal requirement. actually providing it was another act as per cite. What RS are you using????

June 2013

Hello. This is Breeze009 I undid your deletion of my addition to the Indentured servant page. I added more than ample documentation as you will see by the extensive footnotes and citations. Before you delete something you might want to look something up on it. This is actually a well-studied line of scholarship, if you'd bother to check. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not correct. I was planning on adding the citations but couldn't get to it until today. Now I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

'Scholarly sources'

Hi

I see you have removed all the changes I made to the page on Andrew Bonar Law because I should "Keep details based on scholarly secondary sources; drop original research not based on secondary sources". With all due respect, surely PRIMARY source such as census returns and contemporary newspaper reports are more reliable than family gossip and legend? Printing those in a book does NOT make them true, and a book which is produced without checking the most basic and readily available genealogical sources is instantly, in my view, unworthy of the adjective 'scholarly'.

I am also extremely disappointed that you did not make those comments in the two weeks after I proposed the changes on the Talk page, so that we could have a sensible discussion. Instead, you waited until I had gone to the trouble and effort of making the changes to the main page and then, without having the courtesy to discuss with me, you simply reversed them en masse.

Are you interested in establishing the correct facts? Or merely in preserving the status quo? I would have expected better from a historian with your credentials!

Sunapics (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supportive of people who claim they have used original research to discover the truth. Instead it reports what the reliable secondary sources say. see WP:OR Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

just a question

you tried to restore the nazi motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer", can i ask you respecfully why you forgot about the issue? 95.199.24.89 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I got outvoted by other editors. Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What about filing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfC) to get more editors to participate? 95.199.19.202 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut it out

I am WORKING ON ADDING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DISCUSSION.

It is not a "BLP Violation" when there are mainstream news sources covering the issue. Please stop pretending otherwise. I also note that the article has been tainted by Conflict Of Interest issues as Schlafly's son has been editing it: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=558569883&oldid=558146339

I am the one following the rules, you are the one lying and refusing to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

India in WW2

Please add another section about "Quit India Movement", and Congress ministries resigned following out break of WW2. One of the source is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ga-pmgxsWwoC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=resignation+of+congress+ministries+in+1939&source=bl&ots=HjVsCGYcsy&sig=nhWRo6hzU8y__frWH71hOGZwTJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zR-yUZOvMMiNrQfo6oHAAQ&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=resignation%20of%20congress%20ministries%20in%201939&f=false Ovsek (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They resigned, rather, when the British refused to give India immediate independence, which given India's importance to the war effort, would have been impractical.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1940 & 1944 Presidential Elections

There is a minor controversy regarding the photos of FDR at these two pages that may be of interest to you. I welcome your input.

THD3 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The controversy is:

I put the photos in chronological order.
He thinks that FDRoosevelt1938.png is from 1944.

I think that the photo is from 1938 because the photo says it 1938, because I found a website where the photo is dated 1938 ([1]) and Roosevelt seems clearly younger (or less wrinkled) than in the 1942's photo. THD3 argues only a personal impression.--EeuHP (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In interesting problem but I don't have special info on it. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would check to make sure that the image is not in the National Archives and if that fails, contact the FDR Presidential Library in Hyde Park.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo in question was taken on August 21, 1944 at the same session as this one: [2].THD3 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that? That the two photos look like doesn't mean that both pictures are taken on the same day.--EeuHP (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1812 naval shiznet

[3]

TCO (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit on Thad Stevens Page re. Demise of Father

Please justify removing my sourced edit regarding the death of Thaddeus Stevens' father, and explain what you mean by "skip the OR on the father date of death" (oral recitation???). You revert to an ambiguous sentence that offers nothing to the reader but (apparent) conjecture on the part of biographer Trefousse. Does it really make the article better to leave a 'says nothing' speculative sentence in place when there is clear citable evidence that he DID die at Oswego. Additionally, if the death of the congressman's father is "not relevant to son's bio" why leave the original passage in there at all?! (I disagree, though, that the death of one's parent is irrelevant to his basic character; and Trefousse even notes Thad's 'daddy issues' in his text.) ;) --Chachap (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see from a similar situation, above, your reference to the OR tag (it would have been helpful to reference WP:OR, as I hadn't seen it in a while): "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." So, referencing primary materials sourced from the National Archives are to be considered "original research?" I'm not sure I follow that logic. Is there a proper form to use in referencing these primary source documents? I'm going to take this up on Talk:Thaddeus Stevens when time allows. --Chachap (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

yes, citations to archival records = original research in primary sources. Definitely frowned upon at Wikipedia. And certainly not needed for this article since it does not have a major bearing on Stevens career. Instead editors are supposed to use reliable secondary sources (RS) such as the Trefouse biography. Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The date of the death of his father is uncertain at any rate. Take it to the talk page and let's talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Chinese Dream

The Party’s 18th Congress put forward eight fundamental requirements that we must persist in to seize the victory of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, they are: persist in the dominant role of the people, persist in liberating and developing social productive forces, persist in moving reform and opening up forward, persist in safeguarding social justice and fairness, persist in marching the path of common prosperity, persist in stimulating social harmony, persist in peaceful development, and persist in the leadership of the Party. These eight fundamental requirements are the most essential things of Socialism. The Chinese Dream truly is the reflection of the essence of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

(...)

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the undertaking of hundreds of millions of people themselves, the Chinese Dream, in the end, is the dream of the people. The Chinese Dream relies on the people, the Chinese Dream is for the sake of the people, the people are the subjects of the Chinese Dream. Socialism ensures that everyone jointly enjoys the opportunity for a splendid human life, jointly enjoys the opportunity to see dreams become reality, and jointly enjoys the opportunity to grow and progress together with the motherland and the times. The country doing well and the nation doing well, is for the sake of everyone doing well.

(...)

Common prosperity is the fundamental principle of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and is the most important foundation supporting the Chinese Dream. Poverty is not Socialism, the polarization between rich and poor is also not Socialism, only common prosperity is the essential characteristic and fundamental value objective of Socialism, and is a symbolic content of the Chinese Dream. Realizing the Chinese Dream requires that we persist in and perfect the basic Socialist economic system and distribution system, adjust the distribution structure of citizens’ income, strive to resolve the issue of a relatively large income disparity, and ensure that development results are extended to the whole body of the people more and more fairly, to make steady progress towards common prosperity.

This is from Qiushi... I've referenced it... Everything is China is connected to the state ideology --TIAYN (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on AIG article

Hi Rjensen, I appreciate your help with the AIG article. I will be working on grammar and punctuation clean up on the article. Did you notice http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/American_International_Group#Sponsorship is out of context and actually might be extraneous? Any thoughts on just eliminating that sections altogether? It just doesn't seem relevant. Are you open to collaborating on this article together? I like that you have a passion for history. My next interest is to improve the overall history of AIG. Feel free to post on my Talk page. Thanks.Hiland109 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the invite--I'm working on other projects myself but keep up the good work. Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Got a quick moment? The edits I made were each followed by a justifiable edit summary. After meticulously reviewing all references in the previous posting, I found many to be non-existent and others to be unverified third-party citations, corrupting the historical integrity of the article. The intent is to make sure the chronology was in order and to correct grammatical errors. In addition, distinguish the financial crisis from the repayment period history of events. Please take a look again at my precise entries and undo your revert. Thanks.Hiland109 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

United States Navy

In regards to your revert of my edit on United States Navy, The Chairman/vice-chairman while technically outranking the CNO, is not the 'senior officer' in the navy. They are the senior officer in the department of defense . . . thus placing in the article lead that the chairman/vice-chairman outranks the CNO is misleading. This *technical* detail should be somewhere in the body. The lead paragraph should accurately reflect the subject discussed, in this case the CNO being the senior officer of the navy. I would like to know what type of compromise and/or middle ground you think is appropriate in this instance please.EzPz (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the note. Back when I taught at West Point we looked at the rankings every year (looking for any generals or sometimes an admiral who had come thru our Social Sciences department) & noted that each service has its own ranking 1-2-3-etc. The 2 top officers at JCS were always ranked #1 in their service. You suggest there is some overall Dept Defense ranking that merges the three services but I have never seen or heard of one. The senior admiral is the vice chief of staff now, not the CNO who is #2 on the Navy list, and the Navy article seems ok. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the CH/VC have higher positional authority within the military. However, the CNO is the senior officer 'in the navy'. Please click [4] this to see the responsibilities of the CNO at navy.mil, which lists him as the senior officer. I think the CH/VC should be listed as higher ranking, just not in the lead section for the Navy's wikipage. The lead section for the department of defense would be appropriate, or armed forces of the US, etc. Do you see what I mean? Thank you for your time. EzPz (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

web pages are usually designed by some very junior person who is not necessarily aware of all the nuances. the JCS Chairman is in the Navy too, and he's listed #1 in the Navy's list. He outranks the CNO. It's more than a technicality of who sits where at a banquet: in terms of giving orders, the CNO takes orders from the JCS. Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus Stevens

I'd be grateful for any comments you might have on the article, which I've been working on. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. I made some small changes. I think the lede needs to stress his role in Reconstruction. And I suggest the Reconstruction section needs less background and more on his positions and achievements. Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks and will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pulling Down the Statue of King George III

Do you know anything about the 1859 painting, "Pulling Down the Statue of King George III"[5] or its artist, Johannes Adam Simon Oertel ? There is a discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Recent edit and it is included in the American Revolution and several other articles.[6] My guess is that it has more to do with the politics of when it was painted than with the Revolution. TFD (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

the statue was made in 1770 and really was pulled down in July 1776. There is a very useful scholarly article: Arthur S. Marks, "The Statue of King George III in New York and the Iconology of Regicide," American Art Journal (1981) vol 13, no.3 pp 61-82 you can read it free at JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. TFD (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	I see your edits flashing across my watchlist so often that I decided you deserve this Minor Barnstar in honor of the high number of small/minor fixes you make. Thank you for all your hard work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

reverts of my edits

Yes, I know that the US Military did not use the O-x labels prior to WWII. However, I was trying to separate am ambiguous link to a company grade captain vs a naval captain. I think what I did was entirely appropriate. --rogerd (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

your O-3 edits are spam (repeated edits not based on any Reliable Source or indeed and research and often inappropriate) -- and they are false-- the O-3 business is late 20th century and is anachronistic and wrong for earlier periods. Lincoln was never in the US Army...he had a state militia rank. Mahan was an admiral. We expect people to know the material better. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

SPAM?! What do you possibly mean by that? Do you know what that means? You are accusing me of some kind of advertising?? Please explain yourself. As far as my disambiguation, I was trying to identify which officers held the Navy/Coast Guard rank vs. who held the Army/MC/AF rank. Yes, I know that the O-3 designation didn't exist prior to WWII, but that is besides the point. Lincoln held the state militia rank of Captain, which is equivalent to the modern US Army O-3 rank, even if he held it for a short time during the Black Hawk war. --rogerd (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

spam = repeated thoughtless edits that are inappropriate and niot based on any research. "which is equivalent to the modern US Army O-3 rank" is OR and wildly misleading (compare what Lincoln had to do to get his rank and what one has to do today). It was more an honorific then and a career today. Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WHERE did you get that definition of Spam? I find you demeanor to be insulting. We can disagree honestly, but it is not necessary to accuse me of malicious intent. Again, I was only trying to clarify whether those people held the company grade Army/AF/MC rank or the senior Navy/CG rank. Frankly, I feel that the Captain (United States) article should be a disambiguation page that points to Captain (United States O-3) and Captain (United States O-6). --rogerd (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

the original meaning of Spam (electronic) is "used on Usenet to mean excessive multiple posting—the repeated posting of the same message." This is highly annoying especially when done without any rs. It was added without any research or any RS into the meaning of "captain" in different units over time. It's ridiculous to say that when a person is identified as an army captain that some reader will think he was a navy captain! Anyone who knows what O-3 means will know the difference between army and navy captains and if they don't know then the added material just adds confusion instead of knowledge. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here?

-- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

well not exactly "weird"-- merely a sloppy copy and paste that included some leftover text. Thanks for the repairs. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you may wish to examine your own edits for any other such sloppy copypastings, as I haven't examined anything other than these three articles. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

well such eagle eyes as yours certainly rescues readers from such monumental blunders as a double sentence. double sentence. Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Józef Beck

I've just removed two texts you added Józef Beck as it seemed a little bit of a Anna Cienciala overload. Happy to be reverted if they are worth including. Rsloch (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

let's keep material that users will find valuable and useful...and one is online free. Cienciala is one of the leading scholars and we only are giving her most important works. Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Violence during Reconstruction era

I wanted to ask you a question regarding the Reconstruction era. It is my understanding that you are a professional historian. If you don't mind helping me, I am trying to research the violence that occurred during that period in the US. However, I am unable to find a source(s) that provides statistical data, tables, atlases, chart, diagrams, etc. that provides a comprehensive overview of the violence during that period. I routinely encounter anecdotal evidence or stats in a sentence that hints at the level of violence, but never anything comprehensive. I would appreciate your help on this. Thank you.

I don't know any comprehensive statistical source. On lynchings (especially after 1880) there are good sources (see Brundage at http://www.amazon.com/Under-Sentence-Death-Lynching-South/dp/0807846368/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373570477&sr=1-2 ) On violence before 1877 see But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction by George C. Rable (2007) Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

David Hume

About a year ago, you listed some of the biases of David Hume: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=David_Hume&diff=485855543&oldid=485853739. I've read his first volume of English History, and the material you entered seemed overly generous! Anyway, I attempted to amend this recently to include other biases I perceived, not necessarily as well-cited as yours. Not only was my additions reverted, so were yours. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=David_Hume&diff=563449755&oldid=563427071. While I felt my additions were defensible, I thought yours were even more so.

I strongly suspect that the editor deleting the material was a) annoyed at me personally, and b) has never read Hume. Since you probably have read his material, I thought I would call this to your attention. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up--I added some material from Roth. Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested to read the history of these reversions of Student7's changes to Hume on the Hume Talk pages [7], as well as Student7's [8] talk page. The article, as amended by this editor said: "Hume's was indeed considered a Tory history, and emphasized religious differences more than constitutional issues. He was anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, anti-Presbyterian, anti-Puritan, anti-Whig, and pro-monarchy." This had no citations at all and Student7 had added the words "anti-clerical, anti-Catholic" without citation. I first reverted his insertion and then looked for citations about the topic. I came across Okie and used him to say some similar things. Your Roth addition is therefore welcome. You will see from the talk pages that Student7 had some nasty things to say about Hume, and was asked by another editor to retract them - he did not. I think this section of the article is better now. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

Greetings! Your recent edits to the Jefferson Davis article have been very good. One small issue that you might be able to help with: this edit restored some text that may well be accurate, but I have yet to find a reference for the part about printing more paper money, so I had reworded that part to omit it. Would you have any works that you could cite for this? The current citation, which I found and added recently, doesn't cover that aspect. It may not be a big deal, but I thought I would ask about it. Hopefully someone will review the article for GA soon; it's in the queue. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Davis as president was responsible for finances, and Cooper p 378 says "The printing presses ran faster and faster, eventually pouring out a paper money avalanche of $1.5 billion." & "Davis never comprehended the dimensions of the disaster." Cooper (2010). Jefferson Davis. p. 378. Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found the equivalent reference in the 2000 edition of the book (already used for many other references in the article) and applied it; thanks for providing that. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lutheran Churches Map

Dear Sir,

I came across the below image via a Google search and traced it to an upload to Wikipedia from your good self. I am a student at The University of Glasgow and have been preparing a paper for publication a paper on the religious influences of Goethe's Das Märchen. Your map would make a very useful appendix to show the extend of German immigration and influence in the early US.

I would be most grateful if you could let me know the source of the map so I can include it in my paper with a proper citation or find it myself to make a better quality scan.

Thank you for your help in this matter. I can be contacted on 1106784r[at]student.gla.ac.uk

Kind regards, Joseph Russo

File:Https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22731809/US census map of Lutheran churches - 1850.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.16.106 (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

it's from Edwin Scott Gaustad, Historical atlas of religion in America (1962) p 73 Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

standard oil revenue graph

Your graph does not explain the gap in asset & earnings from 1897-1999. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.255.4 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The date is missing from the annual reports, but it should not be controversial to interpolate since total assets changed in steady fashion.. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard Tack and Coffee

I recommend Hard Tack and Coffee: soldier's life in the Civil War. by John D. Billings, of the Army of the Potomac, originally 1888. Liberally illustrated many aspects of camp life, raw recruits, veterans, clothing, food, tents, unit patches, wagons and mules, signaling, music notation of bugle calls. Henry Steele Commager's blurb called it "One of the most entertaining of all Civil War books." The Konecky & Konecky edition in print has a cover reproduction of Winslow Homer's "Rainy Day in Camp". It is a memoir, social history of the camps mostly. He mentioned that veterans often sported mustaches over the lips in the after-war decades. I wondered about the attraction. In the heat of a march, perspiration drips onto the lips so as to prevent parched cracking, and though saline, it is a salve to the discomfort of thirst. Still have to watch for heat exhaustion on the march. Deep background only, but I thought it worth passing on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the good tip! Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Puerto Rico

I have nominated History of Puerto Rico 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. --Philpill691 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

Just because I'm removing most of the brackets you added to the Diplomatic history of World War II article doesn't mean you don't deserve this,

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for all your work on numerous articles Rsloch (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Revolutions of 1848

Rather than instantly removing this edit, it would have been nice to work with me in finding more references for the section - since i am quite sure they exist. When i have time i will look them up. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

the Economist is very good on 2013 events but the reporter was not there in 1848 and is a poor source. the telegraph & RR were used to crush the rebellions. Dowe, Europe in 1848: Revolution and Reform Page 37 emphasizes the value in suppression by "the government's use of the electric telegraph and railway to improve the transmission of information, and the control and movement of troops." Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand and appreciate your statements that technology was used to crush these revolutions, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was also used to spread the revolutions. This is similar to modern examples where protests have been spurred by tech (eg. Iran, Turkry, Arab world), as well as contained by regimes using those same technologies. If i can find more references for the my 1848 edit perhaps you can also include in the section the fact that tech was also used to suppress the revolutions. What do you think?Fotoriety (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

. the Economist is a poor source--better look at some of the many scholarly studies. Newspapers did play a major role once censorship was lifted they indeed intensified the revolution--but they were over 100 years old and not a new technology. the few illustrated newspapers (maybe 4 in Europe says Martin, Images at war p 13) did not play a special role. As for RR & telegraph they were far more help to the armies that suppressed the revolt. Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic history of World War II

Hi, the 'Forced Labour' section seems to be about German labour policy not diplomacy. Also can we really say that it was German policy not to use factories in the territory they occupied when they clearly did? Rsloch (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

. good points. "diplomacy" is used in a broad sense = foreign policy. it was part of its diplomacy for countries it recognised like France, Italy, Croatia, Hungary etc. Germany did use some foreign factories but most of the historians emphasize they often ripped out machinery & rail gear & shipped to germany. Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced about its relevance to the article topic. Perhaps it could focus on demands for labour rather than the labour itself. Something to ponder.Rsloch (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

German foreign policy was focused on extracting money, food and workers (& sometimes soldiers) from the rest of Europe. Rjensen (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

apparently you don't know what BLP violation is ....

I'm going to give you a chance to revert your blanking of my statement on a TP before reporting you to ANI, which is strictly against the rules unless a true violation occurs. My comment was directed to the anti-American/British statements of the anon IP, which broke civility rules, etc. Telling him about WP:CIVIL and to cut out the bigotry on the TP is completely "okay" - I am English (from Manchester) who is also now an American citizen, and the anon's comments are insulting.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

it's time you learned the rules at Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on a noticeboard filing

at WP:AN3 in reference to your interactions with LesLein, specifically at New Deal.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Klan was largely "defunct" in Detroit in the 1940's? What source R using to say that the Klan in Detroit was "largely defunct"? R U sure defunct is the appropriate word to use? What was the estimated Michigan membership in the 1940's? In the 1920's membership in Michigan was estimated at 80,000 I have come across sources saying that the 1943 Packard walkout was largely organized & instigated by the Klan. Also in 1942, when white racists were trying to forcibly prevent African Americans from moving into an all white neighborhood they burned a cross which is standard Klan practice. If that wasn't outright organized by the Klan, it was at the very least inspired and modeled after Klan practices. Would you have any problem with me putting the sourced sentences back in as background but specifically saying that Klan membership in michigan was estimated at 80,000 in the 1920's & that Bowles was elected in 1930 ?Lance Friedman (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

the KKK claimsare not based on any reliable source. The KKK in Michigan in 1920s was anti-Catholic more than anti-Black (see Reinhold Niebuhr), and its membership collapsed in late 1920s. see JoEllen McNergney Vinyard (2011). Right in Michigan's Grassroots: From the KKK to the Michigan Militia. University of Michigan Press. p. 86. Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. The Reinhold Niebuhr article seem more than a little misleading in its discussion of Bowles. It fails to mention that he eventually was elected mayor in 1930 and that his first mayoral campaign was a write in campaign which makes the number of votes he got quite extraordinary. Also, none of the sources seem to say that the KKK was defunct or hated catholics more than Jews and blacks. I think it is safe to say that most KKK members probably hated all three groups equally. I admit it was a mistake to not say that Klan membership in Michigan peaked in the 1920's. I saw that in the source I was using, which is a well reviewed published history of Detroit. But, I was recently criticized for not putting more things into my own words, so I attempted to do so in this instance. Since you didn't answer my question whether you had a problem with me putting the info back in the background section with added info about kkk membership peaking in the 1920's & the year Bowles was elected, I'm going to assume that you are ok or neutral on the addition with the added info.Lance Friedman (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bowles denied he was a member of the kkk, and in any case that election was over a decade earlier. That makes it irrelevant here. Detroit, by the way, was a heavily Catholic city. Vinyard wrote the scholarly history of the kkk in Michigan and she says kkk went into "tailspin" decline in late 1920s -- she sees nothing more worth saying about it after that. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Belgian MILHIST taskforce

Hello Rjensen, I just wondered, in light of your work at Belgium in World War I, if you might be interested in joining the planned Belgian-task-force at WP:MILHIST? Your attendance would be much appreciated! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, thanks. I signed up just now. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rail transportation in the United States

In this edit, you appear to be citing an opinion piece [9] as fact. The original source appears to merely be echoing a message from a freight rail lobby group opposing increased regulation and expansion of high-speed passenger service. This fails WP:RSOPINION as the opinion of one writer is being presented as that of The Economist as an organisation or as encyclopaedic fact. The statement "They also directly contribute tens of billions of dollars each year to the economy through wages, purchases, retirement benefits, and taxes" is also not helpful as it could be made of any business enterprise of comparable size. It's promotional fluff for the industry; it adds nothing to the article. Please do not add this again. K7L (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

the Economist, based in London, is one of the world's leading news magazine with a focus on economic issues which are central to this article. It has good coverage of RR issues in many countries, as typified by the cited article. Its analysis of RR issues in worldwide context is important and deserves quotation. It is the sort of "reliable source" that Wikipedia depends upon. As for the "directly contribute" statement, it indeed needs a precise $$ number to be useful. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cherry-picking just the one subheader with the opinionated "best in the world" claims is a distortion of the original source, which was actually primarily complaining that Amtrak or new high-speed passenger services were competing with freight for available rail capacity. This isn't a proper use of a source as it takes something which is already opinion (not fact) and then reshapes it by keeping just the text laudatory of the freight carriers. Wikipedia needs to be WP:NEUTRAL and factual. This use of sources looks more like the old hi-fi ads which would take a Stereo Review comment of "the bass is solid but the treble a bit weak", drop it into an ad for that stereo with just "The bass is solid! - Stereo Review" and then proceed with a sales pitch. The article shouldn't be a WP:SOAPBOX for opinions, whether they be praise for US railroads or demands that "that really cool Train à Grande Vitesse they have in Europe should be brought to America!". What's there is a mess in this regard. K7L (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I rephrased the text to say that according to the Economist, what is the consensus of industry experts. As for "opinion" that is a an issue for editors who hold poorly informed notions. It is not an issue when we are dealing with world-famous news sources that are explicit in saying they are reporting the consensus of experts. The Economist is entirely independent of the US rail industry and you are wrong in assuming this is a paid advertisement like a stereo ad. Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard J. Evans

You were quite correct to revert my unsourced edit to Richard J. Evans. I've added the information to The Third Reich Trilogy (with references), where it fits much better. I've just watched your talk at Wikimania 2012 on The War of 1812, and I agree with you about the paucity and quality of good maps and illustrations. Trying to persuade suitably qualified people to contribute better content is an uphill struggle, when they look at some of the low grade stuff and wonder why they should bother fighting to get better stuff in to replace it. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree! :) Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Rwenonah War of 1812

We have to keep an eye on this Rwenonah user... not sure if you remember but hes the guy that simply lies about sources. For a refresher see User talk:Ronald Wenonah. It is also concerning that hes been working on History of the United States and Manifest destiny -- Moxy (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

agreed. thanks for the heads-up. Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

World War II

Hi Rjensen, In case you haven't seen, I've just started a discussion of the emphasis which should be given to the Battle of Midway at Talk:World War II#What stopped the Japanese advance in 1942?. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about a source

Would you be willing to point me toward any neutral scholarly analysis of John A. Marshall's "American Bastille"? The book seems polemical, but appears to contain a fair number of accurately described cases. I noticed that Mark E. Neely, Jr. utilizes Sangston's "The Bastilles of the North" but doesn't mention Marshall's book in the same journal article. Would you weigh in? Would you offer an opinion of your own? Thank you. BusterD (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Marshall's 1869 book is a compilation of Copperhead atrocity stories of very low credibility. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Historian's Toolbox

Hi. Maybe you know that Robt. C. Williams recommends your Web Guides to students in the third edition of his historiography manual, The Historian's Toolbox, p. 188, noting it is "particularly useful for finding American history resources." Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

hey thanks--I did not know that. :) Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

Rejensen,

I noticed you made a revision in the Southern United States article and, in the "reason for edit" box, labeled it as being "back" to a version pegged as one of mine. It involved gun-death stats. Personally, I have no problem with either the original deletion or your reversal, however, I want to note for the record that the one you reverted back to was not of my coinage. Someone else must have put that in. I never contributed to that particular sub-section.

Thanks,

TexasReb (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Texasreb

ODNB refs

Good morning! At Benjamin Disraeli I have removed the ODNB ref from "the further reading" as it is already listed as a source in the references (refs 41 a to h). But I take your point about its value as a source accessible to multitudes. I'm loth to have a duplicate link (which would almost certainly be shot down at FAC) and I wonder if you have any suggestions for making it more prominent? Regards. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: we have the Disraeli article up for peer review here, and if you have time and inclination to look in and comment ad lib on how we might improve the article we shall be very glad to see you. Tim riley (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the note-- I tried to fix it simply by adding the parry article in the "Sources." Note the ODNB template is seriously misleading (it only applies to UK readers) -- scores of millions of users worldwide have direct access through school & academic libraries & many millions more through interlibrary loan. Rjensen (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Manifest destiny

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest destiny#Removal of Stanley reference. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.

What is the next and best way to connect with you?

Kevin.buecher@gmail.com

Hello!

Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.

What is the next and best way to connect with you?

Kevin.buecher@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbuecher (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

email ne:: rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Friedman revert

While I agree with this reversion [10], remarking that it was made by a 93 year old was a bit ..... – S. Rich (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

as it happens, very old people tend to forget things when they are talking. Friedman throughout his life was always VERY careful to write out his public remarks, including his speeches & TV tapes, which is what people should look to. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As I now live with a 92 year old, I cannot disagree. But I would not go and say (or imply) that we should reject or criticize Friedman's thoughts because he was any particular age. (Watch out, you might get the Gray Panthers coming down on your case!)

– S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, are you a member? If so, all is forgiven. – S. Rich (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm old enough to join the Gray Panthers myself :) My point is that we judge scholars by their scholarship, not their offhand comments. Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman Dmowski

According to [11], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

good work! I made a few small changes. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Rape of Belgium article

Hmm, Wikipedia instantly lets you know when edits are reverted. Anyway, I know that the worst atrocities ended with the start of the Belgian Congo, but that isn't relevant? The point being made is that the Western world downplayed the Congo Free State's historical atrocities after the "Rape of Belgium". I suppose I can rephrase "Belgium's own atrocities" as just "the atrocities" but I wouldn't exactly call the previous wording unfair; both states had the same King, the administrators of the Congo Free State were mostly Belgians appointed by the King, much of the production of the Congo went to Belgian ports, etc. I consider this far more relevant than the preexisting "Winder says that Britian did bad things too elsewhere" comment in the article, which is just pointless; the fact that people agreed to "forget" about the problems of the Congo Free State after 1914, regardless of who exactly ran it, is a relevant point to bring up (well, at least according to Hochschild). SnowFire (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

the scholarly literature makes pretty clear that the king ran the Congo & sponsored atrocities without the advice of the Belgian government: the gov't refused to have any responsibility for the colony when Leopold set it up--so how is it they get blamed?. the harshness & atrocities were drastically cut back by having Belgium take over the Congo in 1908. The original king tried to set up a foundation to rule HIS Congo after his death, to keep it out of the hands of the Belgium govt. (and also keep it away from his family). Anyway mentions many atrocities around the world and apart from French Africa has done no serious research on any of them. More to the point Hochschild has done little or no research on the topic of this article, and little or none on how the world reacted to 1914. He's not a RS on the Rape of Belgium. Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hochschild is an RS on the Congo Free State, and this claim doesn't require direct expertise about the Rape of Belgium, or how the world reacted to its other facets? All that matters for this claim is how the world changed with specific regard to the Congo Free State as related to the Rape of Belgium, so he's on point.

I haven't read any reason to doubt his claims that interest in the Congo Free State's atrocities greatly dimmed after the initial uproar, and it was not until much later and the end of the Cold War that they came to light again. And tying this "forgetting" as he calls it to World War I & the Rape of Belgium certainly sounds plausible to me as a reason why, so this isn't an extraordinary claim. I mean, I can see arguing that this fact is too minor for the article - August 1914 had an indirect impact on all sorts of things, and WWI itself pushed everything out of the spotlight for the duration - but questioning it at all seems odd. Is there reason to think Hochschild is actually overstating the impact here? SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Also, as a side note that is not overly relevant. There's Belgian atrocities and then there's Belgian atrocities. If someone says "Americans overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy," they are correct in that they mean "American citizens backed by American marines" did it. But the US government was not involved, the President opposed it, etc. So America both did it and didn't do it, depending on what you mean. It's the same here: Belgians largely ran Congo, and part of the Belgian government ran it (the King) but not the rest of the government. I don't think it's unreasonable to still call it "Belgian atrocities" but it is an unclear sentence, and you are of course correct that it does not mean "the government of Belgium" in this case. But I'm fine with tamping down the wording if you'd prefer, so.) SnowFire (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My problem with Hochschild is that he did NOT do any research on how the world looked at Belgium in 1914, and only speculates in a couple sentences. He is MUCH more interested in Roger Casement in that period. As for "Belgian atrocities" that's what the Germans said in 1914, but Hochschild does not link that to Congo. Rjensen (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand you're getting at with the atrocities comment, but whatever, I already said I'm fine with rephrasing. As for Hochschild, yes it's a note in passing, yes he's more interested in Casement, but... so? As I already said, it doesn't matter if Hochschild isn't a scholar of "how the world looked at Belgium in 1914." He is a scholar of how the world looked at the Congo Free State, though, and I presume he did research that. So... I'm not seeing the complaint. Even if you think he's wrong or overstating things, the claim is still cited to him, and I don't think a blanket "he's not really a scholar" claim is correct here. SnowFire (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The notions that the Belgians deserved the horrible punishments Germany inflicted was a theme of German wartime propaganda. The article is about Belgium not about the Congo, and he does not explore what the world thought about Belgium in 1914. So he's not much help for this article. Rjensen (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in here (especially on someone else's talk page, sorry!) but this is also an area where I have an interest. Rjensen is exactly right. Comparisons to other massacres (just by dint of their having taken place) is not suitable for such an article. "Belgium", or actually many "Belgians" (many more British, Scandanavians and Americans also in the employ of the CFS), was not directly involved in the massacres in the Congo. It would be rather like blaming the Americans for the Herero genocide on the basis of an American having invented and sold the Maxim gun.

By the way (a pet hate of mine), please do not make the mistake of labeling Hochschild a "scholar". He is an excellent writer, but by profession a popular writer and journalist. Note that he's written on a variety of other topics too in just as much detail. His book is interesting and very well written, but it should not be mistaken for high-brow historical research written by those who specialize(d) on the area (Stengers, Emerson etc.) In this case, he obviously given little thought to the aftermath - since it's not within the scope of what he was writing, why should he? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Americanism (heresy)

In the article added to the lede a sentence which begins with "Bottom it was a cultural conflict, as the conservative Europeans were specs stated..." I can't find a copy of the source you used so I was wondering if you could clarify if "bottom" is a typo, and what is meant by specs? - Aoidh (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. My fault. I just now fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop violating wikipedia's WP:NPOV rule on Labor unions in the United States

Hi Rjensen, your POV pushing is harming the neutrality of the article. You have a clear anti-union POV. I've already warned you about misrepresenting a source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I am pretty neutral on union issues, no anti-union POV here. I have been writing scholarly materials on unions for 40 years and have not had any complaints about anti-unionism. If you spot some let me know specifically which sentences are involved. Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In general, the material you're choosing to include in the section can be described as "pro-business", which is not a neutral representation. You've devoted very little time/material to the strength of public sector unions (cops, firefighters, teachers, government workers) throughout this time period, nor have you mentioned anything about the role that decreased unionization in the private sector has played in increasing inequality in the U.S. over the last 30 or so years. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

the work of specific unions is not covered here (they have separate articles). As for "business vs labor" I have not made any "pro-business" edits. My goal is to cover both sides fairly. As for inequality, that has never been a theme in this article (apart from a short bit in the lede), but I did write about it in Labor history of the United States. For example I added: As Daniel Disalvo notes, "In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors." Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)