User talk:Rjensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your right 2 Republicanism in Australia 3 On democracy 4 Gilded Age 5 Class and trends 6 Jan Smuts 7 Republican In Name Only 8 Republicanism and demcracy 9 WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006 10 The Byrd article. 11 3RR Rule Warning 12 Do not erase material. 13 Fuller 14 Republican Party (United States) 15 What did you mean by this edit summary? 16 us national debt 17 Rock watch 18 Benjamin Franklin's - Virtue, religion and personal beliefs 19 Third Major Theme in George Washinton's Farewell Address - Religion and Morality necessary for Political Prosperity 20 Rjensen's Attack on Religion 21 Do not vandalize talk pages 22 Questia 23 Naming the Civil War 24 Republic Compatable with Monarchy? 25 Vandalism: Naming the American Civil War 26 Image:1832bank.JPG listed for deletion 27 Request for comment 28 Social Structure ref and GA 29 Gilded age, again 30 Panic of 1837 31 IP user having a great time at American Civil War today 32 I know you've stayed out of task force stuff directly 33 Cromwell 34 DR 35 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006 36 Stop Deleting/Changing the Sherman Article Against Consensus and without Discussion 37 Fugitive Slave act 38 Mediation 39 I am disappointed 40 You don´t need revert this time 41 Your Mediation 42 User conduct rfc 43 Image tagging for Image:~aj.JPG 44 Image tagging for Image:~taylor.jpg 45 Image tagging for Image:~vb2.JPG 46 States, Colonies, and the Flag of Buffalo 47 HRC subarticle deletion 48 Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. birthplace 49 Reconstruction vandalism 50 General Smedley Darlington Butler and The Liberty League 51 republican 52 Chicago School of Economics

[edit] Your right

I couldnt resist altering the Ford article. Your right however, Ive always been a Ford fan and find whats happening here a sad state of afairs. Ill leave the article alone. Ive had my fun randazzo56 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism in Australia

Thanks for putting up the extensive bio! I would like to expand the "History" section of this article, mainly for the 20th century.

Cheers,

--Lholden 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, more history is called for on this topic...stretching back 200 years. Rjensen 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On democracy

Please continue the discussion on talk page. Otherwise I will revert to the NPOV version. Ultramarine 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Democracy article discussion page.Ultramarine 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilded Age

Could you please see my question at Talk:Gilded Age#The frontier? - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class and trends

"no -- lots of people have masters degrees -- it's education that makes them trend setters" - Ture. But wouldn't you say that trend-setting is part of being influencial. In other words being a trend-setter results in high honor which results in higher class (Douglas M. Eicher). In other words its their education that causes them to be trendsetter (as you said) and it is both their education and their role of being trend-setter which gains them higher social status, with few exceptions. You see what I mean? BTW: Less than 10% of Americans over the age of 25 have graduate degrees (1.4% have Ph.Ds), so its quite a select group. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points! I was thinking for example of 3.8 million teachers with BA or MA degrees out there in K12 world. They make $45,ooo a year.[1] Add in lots of low-pay religion ministers. Dare I mention 1.6 million college profs?--they earn average $52,000 [2] Calling them well educated is true; calling them UPPER middle class on a $45ooo to 50,ooo salary seems to be a real stretch. The point is what makes you a trend-setter? I think it's the education, not the income or job power that does the trick. So where does the "upper" come from--that is the issue. Rjensen 07:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well here are two intersting statistics on income and educational attainment by the Census Bureau: [3] (Page 2) and [4]. Here the median personal incomes according to educational attainment with Masters degree holding men, emplyed full-time having a median income of $61k, compared to the overall median income for fullt-time employed men of $33k [5]. Many college profs are UMC becuase they do have influence and certain amounts of "Social honor" as well as life chances. Besdies, many college profs get married, $52 X 2 = $104k. Meaning that throught he marriage of a professional equal most college educators join the ranks of the top 16%. So I'd say, $52 as a personal salary is quite a bit above the average and can be seen as a UMC salary (the median for a full-time emoplyed American males is $33k.) One must also consider all the profs who work part time. But I think class is more than income, its the nature of once occupation, the social honor as well as influence that are the "tell-tell signs" of class. All three are true for the vast majority of graduate degree holders. I'd say most full-time college profs are UMC and so are many ministers. Besdies there is also the concept of life-chances, even a part-time assitant prof, can move into a better occupation quicker that someone without that background. I'd say they are UMC through influence (which shows in them being trendsetters), occupation, social honor and income as the majority of graduate degree holders have household incomes of more than $80,000. (Consider that the median income for a male with a PhD employed full-time ($73k) is higher than the median income for two-income households, which is $65k. So, if one person by themselves can outearn most of America's two-income household (Or can comes close to it, for people with Master's) they are in a way UMC. Let me know what you think. Best Regardsm Signature^brendel 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "upper"?? If the middle class is 50%, upper middle class should be maybe 10% of the population?? The problem of course is that $$, honor, status, and education are all jumbled together here. We can measure $$ and education, but we do not do a very good job of measuring honor. That makes for messy data analysis. If you add in the part time adjuncts (like myself) the pay of college teachers is MUCH lower than $52,000. Say $20,ooo. Not to mention rather lower status ratings on campus. Then add in the TA's and grad students who have very high education levels, but very low pay and low status. They are adults in their late 20s and count in the social structure too--but where? Their "future" prospects used to be OK but no longer....I note the Yale English department is placing only a third of its PhD.s and they are angry and trying to unionize with the Auto Workers Union. Signs of low status? :) Rjensen 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is not clear answer. Professionals including most full-time profs are UMC according to most publications on the subject. Most holders of graduate degrees also qualify financially. The thing is that there is no percentage cut-off. But with a median household income exceeding $80,000, and a personal median income exceeding $60,000, most persons who are educated to the graduate level are above the median or average. Consider that most PhDs do outearn the vast majority of two-income households by themselves. So that is clearly not middle-middle. I'd say whether or not a college prof is really UMC depends on the closer ciscumstances. Most full-time associate and some assistant profs at 4-year institutes are, however, UMC. Life chances do depend on majory, see this study for economists: [6]. Most graduate degree holders do make twice as much as the average (median) American, so they can't be average joes ;-) Consdider the stats once more. The median personal income for fullt-time employed male, age 25+: $33k overall, $61k w/ Masters, $73k w/ PhD, $88k with Professionals degree. For households: $45k overall median, $78k w/ Masters, $96k w/ docotrate, $100k w/ professionals degree. So where are the graduate degree holders on average if not in the UMC? And in issues regarding to something so subjective as the American social structure I think we have no other choice then to make generalizations based on "The Majority" of a given group. Did that make things clearer or more complicated ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problemn is that we cannot neglect the 4-10 year training period at low wage, low-prestige positions. Many of these folks drop out before getting their advanced degree. Others are unemployed--it's notoriously bad in many fields and has been for decades. So let's average them in. "full time emplyed" data is nice but lots (one third maybe??) are not full-time employed. Rjensen 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ture, ture. But I made an error in presenting those stats. So, here they are correctly presented:

• Median for full-time employed males 25+ only:..............$33,000[7]
• Median for all holders of Masters degrees:..........$61,000 ($78,000 median household income)[8]
• Median for all holders of DonctoratesPhDs:......................$73,000 ($96,000 median household income)[9]
• Median for all holders of Professional degrees:......$88,000 ($100,000 median household income)[10]

I'm sorry for the mistake above. That said, most holders of graduate degrees qualify as UMC. As for the training period, Ehrenreich, my personal favorite, called them "An internal underclass of the professional middle class." Their life-chances are higher than that of those not undergoing the same training and their educational attainment even during training is higher. They are often UMCs in training. It also depends on birth; some are from UMC families and other's aren't. This affects pretige derived from standard of living and affects their life chances (one has more time to study than the other as his tuition is paid => more liekely to make it) certainly different socio-economic positions. They are however often all trend-setters. So that's hard one... The unemplyed are a minority depending on major. For economics majors it was 2.1% for example. Certainly the unemplyed and drop-outs do not have "social honor" nor do they posses UMC income/prestige. Again I'm sorry for misrepresenting those stats above, I hope this clears things up. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the highly educated people under age 30 or 35 are the main trend setters in society. Many of them are still "in training" and have low incomes--like MD interns and residents and graduate students and post-docs. Few make $100,000, I suggest. (No I have not looked at age/ed/income breakdowns.) They are "upper class" in terms of education and in terms of trend setting. Many of them live close to the poverty line. (Top universities offer $15ooo to $18ooo for brilliant graduate students. Lesser universities offer most of their grad students nothing at all. I think most law schools and med schools offer zip. That means they borrow very heavily and live very cheap. Rjensen 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting discussion so I copied it to the Talk:Social structure of the United States talk page. Rjensen 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Smuts

As one who has previously contributed to the above article, you might be interested to know that the Early life of Jan Smuts (childhood and early adulthood, 1870-1895) is up for FA nomination at the moment. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated. The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FAs - this is the first to be completed and to go forward for nomination.

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Early life of Jan Smuts

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republican In Name Only

Please state why you believe all critics are right-wing. Also, these so-called right-wing groups are supporting candidates they believe best represent the conservative platform that the Republican party is known for while obviously opposing candidates they believe are not truly conservative and therefore are not an adequate representative for the Republicans.

Your statements come across as biased and based more on personal opinion rather than examination of the situations and facts.

So far all the anti-RINO folks I have seen are right wing conservatives. Did I miss one somewhere? that's certainly possible, but who did I miss? names, please. Note that the anti-RINO folks rather proudly admit that they are fighting all the leaders of the GOP nationally and in the major states. I have been looking and so far I have not found a single anti-RINO who could be called a GOP leader at the national level. Again, perhaps I missed someone--is there someone who can be named who is not right wing??? Let's name them, please.Rjensen 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By your tone, I take it that you believe anyone using the term RINO is right-wing, rather than someone that is conservative and wants the Republican party to stay that way. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage all use the term RINO. Some would argue they are right-wing, while others would argue they are only true to the conservative platform and are not extremists as the right-wing term implies. Of course you won't find a GOP leader using the term RINO as that would be a major PR blunder. I've looked over a number of your edits and they appear biased rather than entirely objective. Peer-review is a great thing as it keeps us on our toes and keeps us from slanting too far to one side or the other, perhaps your edits should be filled with more objective content rather than personal opinion.

Well I certainly consider Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage to be on the right. Now is that an oddball opinion of mine, or do most people call these folks "moderate" or something like that? The big group is the Club for Growth. Rjensen 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they're on "the right" because they're surely not on "the left," but are they "right-wing" or are they represenative of conservatives and most Republicans? I would say most Republicans, and definitely most conservatives see things the way these guys do on most issues. Note that Michael Savage dislikes both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh so it isn't as if the three most popular conservative talk radio hosts held a meeting and agreed to refer to several Republicans as RINOs to help sieze control of the Republican party as had been suggested in the RINO article.

is the word "wing" the trouble spot here? Rjensen 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that's the largest point of contention, yes.

Well if you divide the political world into right-wing, moderates, and left-wing, the anti-RINO are all right wing, I believe. Do some appear to be in the middle? Rjensen 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If there were only three divisions, but there isn't. RINOs are the left-wing of the Republican party. The other Republicans are moderates (conservatives) or right-wing (ultra conservatives). All of these terms are relative to the Republican party. DINOs are right-wing democrats, but they would not be considered right-wing in the Republican party, they would mostly be considered moderate Republicans. You can't apply the Democratic label to anti-RINOs since anti-RINOs and RINOs are both Republicans (at least in name). In the Democrats' world moderate Republicans are right-wing, whereas ultra conservatives (the right-wing of the Republican party) would be considered insane wackos. However, in the Republicans' world, moderate liberals are left-wing, whereas ultra liberals (the left-wing of the Democratic party) would be considered insane wackos. A RINO is a RINO by Republican standards, not Democratic standards, likewise a DINO is a DINO by Democratic standards not Republican standards.

a liberal is a person who votes liberal most of the time. As the table shows, (and the ACU table shows) there are no such Republicans in the House and only one (Chaffee) in the Senate. That is, there are practically no liberal Republicans. As for "Republian standards" -- surely those are set by the Republican leaders and voters--who supported Chaffee-- not by outside groups who are nonpartisan (like Dobson, Club for Growth, Hannity). Rjensen 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism and demcracy

Please see my questions on the talk page of the democracy article and give a response. Ultramarine 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's paradoxical to deal with an editor who are arrogant and despotic in efforts to control an article on democracy! Rjensen 08:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please follow wikipedia policies. Again, please continue discussion on the talk page of the democracy article. If you again make a personal attack, I will report you. Read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Consider yourself warned. Only those without factual arguments use ad hominem.Ultramarine 08:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack to me.--Getaway 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy #1 is reliable sources--a dramatic failure in the democracy article. Rjensen 09:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Byrd article.

While I tend to agree with you on alot about the Robert Byrd article, there is one point in which I have to disagree. There were not really any "liberal" Southern Democrats in the Senate in the 1960s. Even after most of them began to speak of having more enlightened views on race realtions, they were still "conservative" on most other issues. Cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks... Lister Hill of Alabama was pretty liberal, I think. Add Gore of Tennessee. Yarborbough of Texas. Rjensen 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Touche on Gore. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can they just delete the early Republican articles like that or is there a case to put them back in? I'm minded to begin changinge the first paragraph of Democratic-Republicans endlessly. Skyemoor 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Rule Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. · ·--Getaway 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More false charges. Rjensen 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not engage in personal attacks. You have personally attacked me two times now. You have attacked me on this last posting in the edit summary. You can review that personal attack here: Another False charge from highly partisan editor. Also, you can review the other personal attack here: Personal Attacks on Byrd Violate Wiki Policy. You stated and the edit history has recorded: "My personal opinions are not involved here at all. Wiki has strong rules against unsourced negative statements about living people. (statlments like Byrd was a floor leader of segregationists.) Getaway keeps inserting false statements, and has been repeatedly told they are false. He refuses to document them. Wiki has had real trouble recently about politicians changing their Wiki pages and we have to keep alert to signs like this one. One notes that Getaway is actively editing the article on the Maryland Senate race, as well as the one on the highly political issue of Stem cell research, which is also an election issue. (Need I mention his editing on a highly controversial race in Texas as well, and one in kansas.) The bottom line is that the pattern of edits may resemble a highly partisan POV editor trying to impact the November election--maybe not, maybe it's just a coincidence; maybe Getaway he will deny that he is POV." These are all personal attacks. Please stop engaging in behavior that violates Wikipedia policy.--Getaway 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My criticism is that partisan political editing is a violation of Wiki rules. I will criticize anyone who does it, so it is not personal at all. I hope you will deny it, or at least stop it. Rjensen 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any examples. I have asked for them and you refuse to provide examples.--Getaway 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

for example: 1) calling Byrd a segregationist 2) floor leader of segregationists 3) in league with Stevens to grab $$$ for West Va. Rjensen 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not erase material.

Do not erase material in the Hispanic article. If you want to discuss it do it in the discussion page. It is more than relevant, i fact it its a milestone in the understanding of both concepts, Hispanic/Spanish and Anglo. etc. Veritas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.140.143 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2006.

irrelevent claims about people who are not Hispanic and have no connection does not belong Rjensen 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuller

Thanks for the additional info. Are you aware of any gaffes he made on principles? Or are they factual errors? Trekphiler 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Fuller gets a lot of the big picture right--he's just unreliable on details because he did not do the detailed research needed. Rjensen 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Party (United States)

Rjensen, normally I respect your edits to this and other articles, but you're crossing the line into POVland with your edits regarding stem-cell research, as your latest edit summary makes painfully clear. Argyriou 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry you feel that way. I suggest the opponents of stem cell research do NOT support modern biological research--don't you agree these folks wants creationism taught? The point however is that their position is to be AGAINST something, and they do not propose massive new funding for the research they will tolerate. Rjensen 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing which really bothered me about some of your edits was that they were sloppy (for example), which indicated to me that you weren't really thinking through your edits.

I'm too lazy to go find the references to find Republicans who support teaching creationism or ID/IOT in schools and have also supported biomedical research, though I will point out that Reagan made noises about creationism, and also (eventually) supported lots more AIDS research. (Sure, it took until his friends in Hollywood started dying, but he did come around.) I'm not going to bother trying to restore that bit so long as the reason for conservative opposition to embryonic stem-cell research stays in.

Meanwhile, User:Nikpapag has gotten awfully obnoxious; I've put a warning on his Talk page about WP:3RR. If he reverts again, I'll list him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Argyriou 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What did you mean by this edit summary?

this diff

I don't see them mentioned elsewhere in the references section, so what do you mean by deleting the later book? TransUtopian 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

the Bailyn books deal with an entirely different issue (the constitution in 1787), not the Declaration. Rjensen 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! TransUtopian 23:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] us national debt

We seem to be on opposite sides of the Professor Kotlikoff paper. I thought we might come to some understanding. I simply can not understand why you would think it not worth mention. Can you explain?

sure. I read the Kotlikoff paper. first it's not about bankruptcy, which is mentioned in passing. It's more about taxes needed if federal spending gets too high. And it's polemical--denouncing Clinton for example. So it's a POV source and not a "reliable" source on bankruptcy. A serious article will get debated by serious economists in refereed journals. Rjensen 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock watch

Thanks for renewing my faith in Wikipedia. I hadn't been here in a while, and was quite disappointed in what I saw in the Rockefeller intro just before your changes. I left it alone, wondering if it was even worth it for me to bother since some clown could just come back and add more nonsense. Nevertheless, I came back today to try to clean it up, and was happy to see that you had already done so, and quite nicely.--DocGov 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin's - Virtue, religion and personal beliefs

I have posted something similar to this on the Benjamin Franklin Talk page:

Rjensen, I have revised this section especially for you. Please don't blatantly remove my citations just because they don't line up to your political/philosophical agenda. Franklin was not a Deist (nor a Christian), but he was definitely a God-fearing man who realized the importance of morality in society. While many of the Founding Fathers were not specifically attached to a particular religion, they were all aware of the importance of religious precepts to the young country. With organized religion in their day so full of pointless dogma and dictator-like leaders, it is reasonable that Franklin and many of his contemporaries were staunchly against the ORGANIZED religions of the day. But this does not mean they were Athiests; they were actually very far from that as is clearly shown through Franklin's own words on religion (which I have added to the Franklin Wiki article).

Last time I edited this piece, I inserted Franklin's famous plea for daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention. You obviously did not appreciate this historical fact and promptly removed it. This is the icing on the cake that proves that while Franklin may have been a Deist as a youth he eventually became a very God-fearing man who sincerely believed in the power of prayer and respected all religions equally; again, this does not mean he was an Atheist. The critical point in his life that changed his view seems to have come about during the period where he realized that his "Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity" was erroneous. Soon after he wrote "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" which clearly demonstrate his sincere respect and love of God.

Rjensen, if you are who I think you are, you are a highly educated man. Why then would you have deleted Franklin's factual and famous plea for daily prayer from this article? Why would you have neglected to adequately summarize Franklin's "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion"? I am sure that any history professor, especially one from a major university claiming to specialize in American History, knows that both of these pieces of history are critical pieces to the puzzle of Benjamin Fanklin's faith. You also conveneiently fail to point out that Franklin himself found his "Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity" to be fundamentally erroneous. What do you say for yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaytan (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2006.

I think this is original resaecrh of the sort Wiki does not allow. I recommend reading up on what scholars say and using that. Rjensen 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooh, Iiiiii seeeeee. So the illiterate masses out there shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of accredited scholar who acts as a political filter of a particular persuasion for any opinion on a particular matter, huh? Sounds like the tactics dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. Also reminds me of U.S. media. OK. Thanks for setting me straight on that. WE, the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources. In order to do that, WE need to have some learned person with a doctorate from some Ivy League school to help us, is that right? You "scholars" should just have all primary sources outlawed so that we can relive the days when the Church had a strangle hold on the masses by keeping the Bible in the hands of the educated priestly class. That'll be just great, right Rjensen? A dictator's dream!

If you want references from scholars, I can easily do that. But why bother when the primary sources clearly state their position? (Gaytan 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

Any response, Rjensen? (Gaytan 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Guess not. (Gaytan 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Third Major Theme in George Washinton's Farewell Address - Religion and Morality necessary for Political Prosperity

Clearly, in his Farewell Address, Washington expounds on his belief that religion and morality are important to the young country. He argues "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." What is POV about quoting this from Washington's speech, Rjensen? Again, is the primary source the problem for you, again? George Washington said it, not me. If you don't like it, take that up with him. Rjensen, I believe Washington was speaking to you and those with your similar persuasions when he said regarding religion and morality, "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity." Again, Rjensen, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle" so don't ever forget it. No matter how much you labor to abolish religion from United States History, you will never get rid of it. So quit trying to rewrite history according to your POV.

Next time you try to impose you opinions on Wiki articles at least do it tactfully. In this case you simply deleted the third major theme, as it is currently referred to in the Farewell Address article, and neglected to edit the article to reflect your intent to show that the Address only had TWO (2) major themes. Blatantly POV as demonstrated through outright neglect of the article. Didn't even bother to try to keep the article up to some kind of standards. (Gaytan 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Wiki is not the place to promote one editor's religious beliefs. Please read some of the scholarship fiorst then try to summarize it. Rjensen 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Same answer again.... So I will give you the same response I gave you regarding Benjamin Franklin's beliefs:

Oooooooh, Iiiiii seeeeee. So the illiterate masses out there shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of accredited scholar who acts as a political filter of a particular persuasion for any opinion on a particular matter, huh? Sounds like the tactics dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. Also reminds me of U.S. media. OK. Thanks for setting me straight on that. WE, the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources. In order to do that, WE need to have some learned person with a doctorate from some Ivy League school to help us, is that right? You "scholars" should just have all primary sources outlawed so that we can relive the days when the Church had a strangle hold on the masses by keeping the Bible in the hands of the educated priestly class. That'll be just great, right Rjensen? A dictator's dream!

If you want references from scholars, I can easily do that. But why bother when the primary sources clearly state their position? (Gaytan 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Please note: no response from Rjensen. (Gaytan 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Rjensen's Attack on Religion

By the way, just for anyone interested, Rjensen is infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs! Twisted and ubsurd, huh?. Last I checked, the secular humanistic beliefs pushed by Rjensen are a religion as well, just as John Dewey called it a "faith" and just as the Supreme Court defined it in the Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia case of 1957. So how is it that such a tolerant and diverse-loving secularist as yourself can behave in such an INTOLERANT manner?

Rjensen would much rather remove every "religious belief" section from the U.S. Founding Father articles because there is simply too much primary source material to demonstrate that though these men may not have been orthodox Christians, their wirtings depict men who believed religion was necessary for national morality and that some of them even prayed to a Supreme Being. Every time I quote the primary sources, completely in context, Rjensen swiftly removes them and protests with such rubbish as "original research" that he claims is unauthorized in Wiki. In other words, we, the illiterate masses, shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of political/religious filter (like an accredited scholar) for any opinion on a particular matter. Rjensen eerily promotes the tactics that the dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. In conclusion (according to Rjensen), WE the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources; only learned person with doctorates from the Ivy League schools can read primary sources. (Gaytan 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Please note: no response from Rjensen. (Gaytan 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure that if I were Dr. J that I would respond to POV pushing like this. I'll take the liberty of offering some general response to these straw-man assaults. I should state that IMHO these above comments border on personal attack. I often find myself disagreeing with Rjensen on the merits and sometimes on his methods, but I have the utmost repect for his qualifications and process. I do agree this user acts more boldly than some, but I have never doubted his motives. I would encourage User:Gaytan to assume good faith, and keep the discussion on the relevant talk pages. This sort of inflamatory neither impresses the reader, nor moves the discussion forward. BusterD 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My dispute is about the use of primary sources. I find it insulting and deceitful for anyone to argue against the use of primary source material. In the eyes of many historians, primary source material is extremely valuable in summarizing the history in general. Rjensen prefers and persuades Wikipedians to not use primary source material but recommends we use second-hand sources instead. I find this to be completely counter-productive and harmful to Wikipedia's image since it leaves history in the hands of biased POV writers. All second-hand source material is biased. While it may be used to add subtance to history, it should not be solely relied upon for historical purposes. Primary source material trumps second-hand sources. So please tell me, what encyclopedia would prefer second-hand source material over primary sources? Rjensen, BusterD? We all have POVs. Relying on second-hand sources alone is the most blatant form of POV pushing on Wikipedia today. BusterD, would you call my citing of primary source material POV as well? (Gaytan 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

If you'd made that exact case originally I wouldn't have posted. I stepped in because of use of red flag words like infamous, twisted, absurd, and comparing a wiki editor's behaviors to those of people like Hitler and Pol Pot. Maybe it's just me, but IMHO that seems over the line, and intended to provoke some visceral response, not a rational one. I interpreted your message as "baiting" behavior, and a message normally beneath the dignity of ANY user to respond. On the merits, Wikipedia policy on the subject of published primary sources is clear--they are welcome and desirable with some caveats. It is in the synthesis of original assertion that primary source use proves risky for many users; undue weight might be granted a primary source if some perspective is not developed. Further, the use of non-published and harder-to-find published primaries leads to the same ivory tower dangers you describe, where the gatekeepers prevent public viewing of knowledge. In most circumstances, secondary sources from recognized authorities might or might not prove better considered, but are invaluable nonetheless. Having a widely read expert on bibliography and historiography available in this community is just too valuable a resource to dismiss without due consideration. So while I sometimes share your deep frustration with Dr. Jensen's manner, tone, and gritty persistence I take this opportunity to ask you to re-read what you've written above, and consider that your manner and tone doesn't reflect so well on this discussion either. My apologies to Dr. Jensen if I'm being seen speaking for you in any way. I intended to speak for the pedia. BusterD 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not vandalize talk pages

Wiki policy states, "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." You deleted my comment. Don't do it again. -Psychohistorian 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with what I have to say in the Discussion-Section, please disagree openly, and do not simply erase my opinion. Jinmex 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not erase your opinions on the talk page. Rjensen 16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is at it again, huh? (Gaytan 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Questia

Regarding Questia, it appears to require a fee to subscribe. WP:EL states, under the heading "Links normally to be avoided":

• Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

So it was incorrect to say that user:Markles invents his own rules, or that he was engaged in vandalism. If you'd like to make a case for overriding the EL guideline in this matter then the article talk page would be an apporpriate place. -Will Beback 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FALSE: there is no fee to read the basic highly useful info, It is open to everyone. Qustia gives away free a great deal of highly useful information--esp tables of contents and searches in texts--that are available nowhere else. That is what the users need and get free, until an obtrussive editor blocks their access. Rjensen 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Free? Perhaps we're looking at different websites. The Questia website that I see costs $100 a year to subscribe [11]. Perhaps you have a free subscription? Please explain how this website is free. -Will Beback 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Our own article on Questia says that it charges:

• It charges a subscription for users to access the online books and reference materials.

Is our article wrong? -Will Beback 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has a free part and a charge part. If the charge part did not exist there would be no controversy about our links to the valuable free part. Penalizing our users because Questia also has an optional premium $$ service seems unfair to them. Rjensen 11:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the free part? Everytime I look at something still in copyright, such as the links you made in Reconstruction, it soon pops up and tells me to register. -Will Beback 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, not linking to a subscription service isn't the same as blocking access to it. -Will Beback 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

well they do have a lot of popups! if anyone goes to questia.com and enters say Arkansas reconstruction, you get 5700 books and 430 journal articles, sortred in order of usefulness; with full biblio information and a couple lines of text. Click on one of the books (like #2, the WPA Guide to Arkansas) and the click on the table of contents. You get the complete table of contents and the first page of each chapter. Try it, it works--all free. If a person is trying to decide what books to order interlibrary loan, it's invaluable. Rjensen 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So there are free teasers. To actually read the books you need to pay, so it's a pay site. We have a guideline that says not avoid linking to pay sites. It is clear that a user who removes links to a pay site is not committing vandalism or making up his own rules. You are well-aware that your linking to Questia is controversial. I suggest that you should not edit war over a situation where it is up to you to justify an exemption to a long-standing guideline. Since you are a big fan of the site you might start a discussion at WP:EL over treating Questia specially. Until that happens, users are acting properly by removing links to it. -Will Beback 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NO. To read the essential information our users need is free. All I am doing is linking to the free information our users need. That part is not controversial. I take it there would be no objection at all if Questia did not offer its $ premium service. That extra offer makes it fatally flawed? I think not--many sites have ads and opportunities tyo buy premium services. That is how google works for example. Rjensen 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are linking to one commericial website in favor of others. Amazon and Google provide simialr services. Yes, if the website offered it's service for free there'd be less controversy. But we still don't link directly to Amazon. Perhaps you can have Questia added to the list of booksellers, so that users have the option of going there when they click on the ISBN of a book, just as they have the option of going to Amazon, etc. -Will Beback 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do like linking to books.google--is there an objection to that? Amazon.com is a bookseller. Questia does not sell books so the ISBN routine does not work. Amazon titles are all recent ones, and Questia has all these old titles that historians rely upon. The bottom line is helping or hurting Wiki users. Blanking information they need and can use--free--is a disservice. Rjensen 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take your arguments to WP:EL. In the meantime we have a guideline which tells editors to avoid linking to sites which charge a fee. Editors who enforce that guideline are not vandalizing articles. You are in the wrong for accusing them of doing so and for edit-warring over these commercial links. Editors may be blocked for repeatedly inserted links to commercial sites, and I would hate to see that happen to you. -Will Beback 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming the Civil War

You have worked on Naming the American Civil War within the last few months. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic Compatable with Monarchy?

Hello. In Britain a republic is regarded as in opposition to a monarchy. Can you provide sources for your claim otherwise?

Efforts to establish an Australian (or British) republic involve replacing the Queen as head of state.

Can you provide evidence of any monarchy that considers itself a republic?

Are you sure you are not confusing a republic with a democracy?

I was writing about republicanISM which is a combination of values that do not depend on the nominal head of government. Rjensen 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism: Naming the American Civil War

I consider what you just did to constitute vandalsim. Please do not attempt to blank referenced sources, for which there is support by more than a few editors.--Fix Bayonets! 14:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's deception to leave out key words. Thus Lewis apologized for his poor history: It is with many misgivings that I offer to you this hurriedly written sketch, as I am not a writer, historian, nor even a paragrapher, and have given you, from memory alone, my military experience during the War for States Rights in South Carolina from 1861 to 1865. Please do not trick readers by leaving out key words. very baughty. What is the quote from Faust that I dropped--I did not see any quote at all. Rjensen 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1832bank.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1832bank.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - 68.39.174.238 05:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would "weigh-in" on the current discussion at Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard; it could use some objective, outside feedback. Regards, Lord Kinbote 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It definitely helped bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion.--Lord Kinbote 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

glad to help out. Rjensen 07:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Structure ref and GA

Hi, I just saw you made several improvements to the Middle class squeeze section. As of now, however, we only have one, single reference for the entire section. I really would like to get this article up to GA in the near future, but first we need to take care of all that unreferenced content. So to the point- do you happen to have the references for the "Education," "Cost of living," and "Class ascendency" sub-sections? If so (and if you have the time) could you put in the in-line citations. I'm just asking becuase I thought you might be able to help get that text referenced. Best Regards and Happy Editing! Signature^brendel 06:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilded age, again

You seem to be one of very few non-IPs who have been active lately at Gilded Age, so perhaps you will have some insight into my question at Talk:Gilded Age#Massive deletions: why?. If you don't have insight either, a remark from you to that effect would be useful, because it would tend to indicate that these deletions were probably vandalistic. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--I reverted most of the blanking. Rjensen 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panic of 1837

I don't know if you were aware, but text dumps of the sort you made there in June are frowned upon. While the information presented there is interesting, it would greatly help if you could incorporate it into the rest of the article, create proper sections, wikify, remove POV, update to 21st century usage, etc. Biruitorul 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

actually it's standard Wiki practice to use long text excerpts from EB1911. Rjensen 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if they're properly wikified, verified, etc. They need to be integrated with the rest of the article. See here for details. Phrases like "We were a chosen people delighting in reminders from our rulers of our prosperity" or "the country had cried itself, if not to sleep, at least to seeming quiet" sound nice, but clearly do not belong, unmodified, or Wikipedia. I'm not saying you personally need to be concerned with this, but you did, after all, insert that text in there, and eventually someone will have to clean it up or maybe even cut it. Biruitorul 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP user having a great time at American Civil War today

Just a heads up, I had to restore a change of yours made after the user had knocked off the bottom half of the article. They're pesky. Best regards. BusterD 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I will stand watch too. Rjensen 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know you've stayed out of task force stuff directly

But I'm wondering if you wouldn't be interested in this. If we didn't have someone tough and deeply knowledgeable it would be a waste of time. You could marshal lots of allies if you were to consider running #3, including me. You have the gravitas. Might be too much like the day job, but you could do it with one eye closed. BusterD 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just volunteered for historiography. (It's as prestigious and dangerous as digging up land mines.) Rjensen 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell

Thanks for trimming the family section down, it looks good. I notice you've been doing a lot of work on the article alongside me - I do think it's looking a great deal better. Are you interested in trying to get it to GA status? I've been planning to go through and tidy up things like references, ISBN numbers and so on. Greycap 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

yes I'd be glad to help. I can add some inline refs. Rjensen 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DR

Pmanderson is encouraging others to join in on his DR crusade, just so you know. Skyemoor 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Deleting/Changing the Sherman Article Against Consensus and without Discussion

Rjensen I have asked you as nicely as I could to work within the wikipedia system of consensus and discussion before changes. Last night you again altered the Sherman article in violation of consensus. If you continue, I will ask the other military coordinators to see if we can suspend any work you do in the military task force. I am sorry it has come to this, but you cannot simply suspend the rules. old windy bear 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did reach a consensus before editing--see the talk page where I explained in detail with citations what was involved. Rjensen 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen You do NOT have a consensus, which is a majority of the involved editors. It does not matter if you explain, with citations, if the majority, also with counter citations, votes another way. If you continue I will ask that you be suspended from any activity with the military project. I cannot stress to you enough that right or wrong, you simply cannot delete material, or put in your "false camp rumor" claim when the majority has sourced material against it, and you are outvoted. You can ask for a peer review, but if you attempt one more time to revise this against consensus, I will ask the military project coordinator to get an admin to suspend you from any work on the project. I personally will edit out your changes every time you put them in. You cannot be allowed to openly defy wikipedia policy at your whim. If this continues, you need to be off wikipedia. That would be unfortunate - you are a bright and talented editor. Please accept, as I and every other editor have had too, that every vote does not go your way, and go work on something else. You are forcing people to ask for your suspension. old windy bear 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the majority has not said a peep....what sources are they depending upon one wonders? and please stop threatening. Try to be collegial here. Rjensen 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen I apologize if anything I said seems threatening - my intent is quite the contrary! I want to avoid what we presently have, an edit war, and avoid possibly losing a very talented editor, yourself. I honestly have no dog in this fight - I have begun to read up on Sherman; like most historians I knew of him, but not to the detail necessary to be involved extensively in this dispute. What we cannot have, must not have, is what we currently are having - you post the fact the alleged attempt to pass the bill was a rumour, they edit it back, you edit it back to your position - whoever is right, this is not the way to handle it. You are a very talented and knowledgable writer. I am trying to urge you to put it to a vote on the talk page, once all sources are listed, and abide by the result, or, ask for a peer review, and let us settle this issue by referring to the best available historical sources. Or, let me try to resolve it. I am catching up on this as swiftly as I can - what I am urging you to do, again, is stop the edit war which has you adding it, others deleting - that is totally against policy and must stop. I humbly ask you to give me 72 hours to research the topic, and I promise to take my findings - which you will certainly have - to Kirill, who as head of the military history project can at least make a recommendation. Please give me 72 hours without editing back and forth, and I promise to extensively read all the sources, and attempt to get Kirill to resolve this without what we presently have, one editor editing it one way, and several reverting him immediately. Give me just a little time to read the sources, and I will try to get this resolved to everyone's satisfaction. old windy bear 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

yes lets lower the rhetoric. I gave a series of sources and showed that somebody misread the document (there never was a bill--it was a rumor Sherman heard and he got very upset). The point of the story is NOT that Congress planned to replace Grant but that Grant and Sherman profoundly trusted each other and that Sherman did NOT want a top job. (If nominated I will not serve---my adding that was reverted too) No one else seems to have offered any evidence at all in the matter, so there's not really a "dispute" -- it's a matter of correcting errors. My other point is that the article has too much trivia that has to go (the baprism story for example--and when I tried to say that the whole point was Sherman needed a Christian name people reverted that!) At a deeper level we can see some editors have an intense proprietary interest in the article. Rjensen 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen I deeply appreciate your working with me to give me some time to go through the sources you have listed, and famliarize myself with the issues in debate, before taking this to Kirill and his other assistant military coordinators, and seeing if we can find a way to resolve this without anyone being allowed to have a proprietary interest in the article. I don't have to tell you this type of thing has happened before! I am going to the library, and on to a used book store with Basil L. Hart's works, and will have a much better grip on this shortly. (I have "Memoirs of General William T. Sherman" and I need to reread that also). I ordered "The Destructive War: William Tecumseh, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans" by Charles Royster, which should be here tomorrow, I hope. I am doing my best to really research this, so we can get a fair resolution. Again, I appreciate your working with me, and ending the edit war - I need to really research this, and then take it up with Kirill, and then sit everyone down, and make changes as appropriate. Thanks for understanding, and working with me to get this resolved in a positive way. Please believe me, I am going to do my best to address every issue you have raised. old windy bear 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

hey, thanks! Rjensen 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fugitive Slave act

I saw that you removed a good deal of text from Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, particularly the section that the law's historical context. I have re-added it, and do not believe that it should be removed without justification. Thank you. --Zantastik talk 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted material about a DIFFERENT law. If it's important it goes to a separate article. And I corrected false info about Methodists. Unsourced info is highly suspect and will get deleted. Rjensen 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I am sorry for the immense delay involved in beginning your mediation about Richard Nixon. The Mediation Committee has been under some disarray recently, and we are trying to get the ball rolling again. Provided this conflict still needs mediation, I am more than happy to help with your dispute. Please respond on the talk page for the mediation if you are ready and willing to begin.

For the Mediation Committee, -^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am disappointed

Re: [12]

I still sing your praises, in fact I mentioned you today again.

But I am sad to see that you still delete referenced material that doesn't match your own POV.

I was just ready to go on a wikivacation. You can revert my revert and remove the quote, but I really don't want to have another edit war with you--the last time was tramatic and taxing for both of us.

Why not just delete the quote, and then not delete any other referenced material on the page? Is that okay?

I welcome your addition to this article, I wrote the entire Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#History_of_exporting_democracy section, but I don't think I wrote anything else.

I think the rest of the page needs to be cleaned up and referenced, but I worry about you doing it, how much will you delete in the process? Will this article go from one political ideology (leftist) to another (rightist) after you get done? Can both views coexist equally? I think they can, by your edit history before, and your edit today, I dont think you do.

I welcome your contributions to the section I originally wrote too. This section has a tramatic history, like most of the controversial sections I write.

I am well aware of WP:OWN but I am understandably protective of well researched material being deleted. I really hope you can understand.

I hope all is well. I haven't heard from you since our USSR work together.

I really wish you would have changed and grown from our edit wars before, but oh well. I see this heading:

• #Stop Deleting/Changing the Sherman Article Against Consensus and without Discussion
• By the way, just for anyone interested, Rjensen is infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation...

...and am disappointed. As I have argued with a user several times without avail, the article is stronger and your POV is more forcefully, with both viewpoints on a wikipage. Recently I chastized Talk:Lenin wikiusers for the same POV warrior behavior...

I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. Travb (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious reference work, not a plaything for oddball quotes that are given no context at all. We need to use solid secondary sources--that is the Wiki policy. Rjensen 10:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Rjensen, I am getting nostalgic. Who decides what is "oddball", who decides what is "solid secondary sources"? If it doesn't meet your standards, (because that is what we are really talking about, isn't it) you delete it. But as the user wrote above, you "are infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs!" Your deletions are "mainstream", and your sources are solid, but other wikiusers (who happen to have opposite viewpoints then you), are "oddball". How can you be so incredibly intellegent yet so ideologically inflexible? It just blows my mind. You are obviously making a lot of users pissed off, and your edits are less effective because you have to spend so much time defending your deletions, when you could be pushing your POV much more effectively, by allowing other peoples views to stand next to your own. So keep edit warring Rjesen. As I mentioned, I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. It appears like you are going to push it to far and get into a Afd with some of these users, then you will be forced to comprimise and allow opposing views on the pages you edit.

Please don't use wikipolicy as a weapon to push you POV, or as a shield to mask your POV, I have spent the last two months arguing with the best wikipolicy POV warrior on wikipedia. I know all of the tricks now. He was not as intellegent as you are, but he was much more tenacious and stubborn. For example: Please remember in your edits these policy pages: WP:V WP:OWN WP:OR Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or I will have to report you to ANI, and eventually Arbcom. Disclaimer and Caveat: I am only joking about all of these wikipolicy pages, I am not threating you, I am simply using it as an example of the complete and utter nonsense I have had to endure with another POV warrior, who simply uses a different tactic to push his POV. So your "wikipolicy" argument sounds rather weak in comparison. Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read some serious books. Rjensen 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again Rjensen, what is "serious". What matches your own viewpoint? Please don't talk down to me sir. I deeply respect your intellegence, please respect mine, even though we share radically different views.

Go ahead and delete portions of the page that you don't personally agree with. I am going on wikivacation for a bit, and I won't be there to stop you. But other wikiusers probably will, and you will have to get in another edit war, wasting valuable time and energy when you could be working on other articles to match your views.

It is a losing strategy. Deleting referenced material is damaging to wikipedia, and it makes your finished product look like a propaganda page, which doesn't convince most neutral users of anything, because I would like to believe that the average person can easily pick up propogranda. Again, it is a losing strategy to push you POV. Instead, why not comprimise and allow everyones views on the page, thats what I do, and I am much more effective pushing my POV....and my partisan message is actually stronger....sigh....behavioral changes happen glacially.

You are obviously dismissing every word I say, which is unfortunatly, very typical. Most recently the wikiusers on the Lenin page did the same thing.

Anyway, when you get into an AfD, and have your editing priveleges curtailed, don't shoot the messenger when I smuggly say "I told you so". Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

you can find reviews of serious books in each issue of the Journal of American History. see [13] I'm no longer on the editorial board so it does not necessarily reflect my views. Rjensen 10:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see I am not the only smug person on wikipedia. I get accused of this a lot when I throw around I am a law student, etc....I am not questioning your intellegence or knowledge, so why do you continue to belittle me Rjensen, is this your diplomatic way of saying "I don't care what you think" If so nice job. You were always a better diplomat and more civil than me, I appreciate it, but at times it was maddening, because I never seemed to make you the least bit angry. Nice. I learned a lot from you, and I still need to learn much more.

If you could learn wikipolicy like the other user I have edit warred with for the past two months, you would be unstoppable. Within 5 years the Republican National Convention would endorse wikipedia as the single best source of information in the entire universe. I am only being facious about the RNC encorsement, by the way....

• Do NOT click any links! and
• Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

My problem is that I give those who are ideologically my opposites wonderful ammunition to later use against me.

Its like playing Starcraft. Ever played Starcraft? When I was in college I played with this Chinese guy all the time. I kicked his ass every single day, but I taught him how to play. By the end of the year, i could not beat him.

What is wonderful is most wikieditors are too damn stubborn and arrogant (usually in a juvenile sort of way) to learn anything new, so they rarely listen to me.

I am rambling again, sorry. Another weakness of mine I need to work on to become a better editor here on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You don´t need revert this time

Look please.

[edit] Your Mediation

Well, I am sorry to say that it appears your mediation isn't going to get off the ground. I've left repeated notices to Idleguy that we wish to begin, and he has continued to edit Wikipedia without giving any response or indication of regards to them. At this point I feel that it will be best to close the mediation. I cannot force anyone into mediation, it is an entirely voluntary process, and if Idleguy is not willing to participate, then I cannot proceed. If you still have unsettled issues about this, your other course of action (seeing as mediation failed) would be to take it to the ArbCom although they would most likely refer the case back to MedCom, and we'd be back where we started. Sorry I couldn't help with your mediation, but if I can be of any other help, don't hesitate to ask. Have a great day.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct rfc

Hi Rjensen. I noted that you have had some conflict with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past. I invite you to comment on Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I did leave a comment about his bad behavior. Rjensen 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:~aj.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:~aj.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:~taylor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:~taylor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:~vb2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:~vb2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] States, Colonies, and the Flag of Buffalo

Would you mind explaining why you so strongly object to my edits, that I've done my best to support with actual published sources? Please discuss on the talk page.[14] Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• You've been making edits on numerous articles about the distinction between Colonies and States, and when the "United States" was founded. Perhaps you should discuss your views somewhere before making such changes. The DOI mentions the "the thirteen united States of America", but does not actually create a new nation or government (even though most people probably would probably say the US was founded on July 4). It says "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do."

I think you are also making a distinction between "colonies" and "states" based on the July 2nd Lee Resolution. I think you are saying that is the cut-off point between when they became "states". This is a bit pedantic I think. Since the DOI restates the Lee Resolution, and was the first public notice of independence, it is usually considered the dividing line. Of course, some individual colonies (like SC) actually declared independence before the DOI. And New York didn't even vote for the Lee Resolution.

We have to be clear the precise about things. Implying that the United States was founded on July 2, 1776 is imprecise and confusing. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

well let me ask the date when JW1805 thinks the USA was born. Lots of people say the 4th of July is the nation's birthday (and of course a case can also be made for July 2)....is there some OTHER day it happened? When exactly does JW1895 believe the 13 entities switched from colonies to states? (I think July 2 1776). Rjensen 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• That depends on what you mean by the "united states". July 2th (and July 4nd) is when the Continential Congress declared the colonies to be independent of GB. The DOI uses the term "thirteen united States", it is clear that this is an adjective and not the name of a new government. Also, there may not actually be such a fine line that you are drawing between "colony" and "state". As you well know:
  • Some colonies declared independence before July 1776.
  • The July 2nd resolution was not unaminious.
  • No foreign power recognized them as independence states until 1778.
  • From the point of view of Britain, they were still colonies right up until the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
  • Delaware calls itself the "First State" because it ratified the Constitution first in 1787, long after the DOI and the Revolution. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

try "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America" signed July 4, 1776. That country sent out ambassadors in the name of the USA -- it did not send out 13 ambassadors. It set up one army under one commander in chief (Washington). It sent a delegation to negotiate one peace treaty (not 13). Sounds like a country to me. Royal colonies: NO the British did not send in royal governors or set up a colonial administration when they took over New York City say (1776-1783 under military rule, no royal governor) All colonial rule vanished after July 1776 (except: Georgia for part of the time). The point there really was a new country whose birthday is July 4. Here in the USA we have fireworks every year on that date and people say it's the nation's birthday. even the British textbooks agree on that (Jeremy Black p 94 talks about the "new government" in 1776. see also p 114 Rjensen 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HRC subarticle deletion

As a sometime contributor to the Hillary Rodham Clinton articles, you may want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up....I made some comments. Rjensen 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. NCurse _work 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added content to the Kennedy page--there was a request for ebidence and I cited the ref, without deleting any content. Rjensen 10:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. birthplace

If you really want the category out, that's fine. It is information, and information which people disagree over, despite clear evidence. I don't see how its inclusion hurts, but as I've said, it's not that big of a deal. Rkevins82 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm a crusader against clutter. Eventually Schlesinger will get 199 categies ("presidential speechwriter" "stevenson supporter in 1952" "residents of Cambridge" "CUNY faculty" etc etc) so we should go light. Someone interested in Columbus people will not find him of interest--his FATHER fits the category as does his mother. Rjensen 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did he growup? There was some disagreement about his birthplace, but it was settled that he was born in Columbus and spent significant time in Xenia. Rkevins82 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He was in Cambridge Mass by age 6 or so. Rjensen 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction vandalism

Good hello. There has been a great deal of vandalism to Reconstruction over the past couple of days. I think I've managed to clean it out but if you have a minute or two would you be so kind as to give it a once over and see if I've missed anything? Thanks and cheers. L0b0t 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Smedley Darlington Butler and The Liberty League

Sir,

You are dead wrong.

The comments that this is anti-Nazi propaganda are complete false. General Butler was a relative. Our family has long known the Coup history directly from General Butler. He was recruited by the Morgan Bank through John Davis' office with the intent of overthrowing the Roosevelt Administration and running the country as a "french" style fascist government. General Butler was never a socialist, communist, or even a liberal. He was born a rock solid Delaware Country Republican who's personal hatred of Hoover (Hoover was a fellow officer in China in 1898) lead him to support Roosvelt in 1932. He died a rock solid Delaware Country Republican. He spoke (never paid) before many veterans groups including the bonus marchers. He had one all consuming passion - the welfare of the troops.

A 1978 Book details the Coup and the Liberty League's true purpose. The 1934 Congressional Investigating Committee record confirms that it happenned.

• • General Butler testified to COngress that he helped plan a coup to make himself dictator. He also said in public that he was a villain who overthrew several governements in Latin America. if he was a relative of yours that does not make him at all innocent. Rjensen 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] republican

You may wish to join the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States under the subsections The Democratic Party is improperly labelled "Democrat" and Color Legend. Skyemoor 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago School of Economics

Work with me on this, please. I don't know much about Friedman, the Chicago "school" or Chile - but I'd like to know more.

What I do know a lot about is the clash between advocates and opponents of free market economics. --Uncle Ed 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chicago's free market theme is quite important in macroeconomics, but there are also many micro theories involved--esp regarding human capital and use of price theory in decisions re fertility and behavior. (eg Gary Becker, Robert Fogel) Rjensen 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)