Open main menu

User talk:Rjensen

Active discussions

the latest archive is Archive 30 as of 24 April 2019


Recent edit to the War of 1812Edit

I can't make heads or tails of this edit. grown invasions were defeated in New York and Louisiana. You might want to take a look at it. Tirronan (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks for spotting that – I revised it to say: Although Britain had defeated the American invasions of Canada, its own invasions were defeated in Maryland, New York and Louisiana. Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

New Grant articleEdit

Hello Rjensen. I created Native American policy of the Ulysses S. Grant administration to reduce the article size of the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Any edits or improvements would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

good idea – I will take a look at it. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wilson againEdit

I'm hopeful that you can save me some time by telling me if this is known information or not. I wasn't even looking for things on Wilson:

What I am working on is User:Deisenbe/sandbox#Confederate Memorial Hall, which still needs some info I have to write up on the legal problems that led to its closure - $500,000 contempt of court fine on Hurley, though for what I haven't found. But I have the first stage of it. Hurley seems to be a nut, conspiracy theories stuff, not rational. deisenbe (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hurley was in it for the money, i think. try looking at Rjensen (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide the full text of this? I don't have access to proQuest or Lexis. deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have access either – you need a university library and to help you. University libraries will probably have a copy in the government documents collection, or can obtain one interlibrary loan. Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vietnam Syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lift and strike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Now liveEdit

I'm still adding details.

Confederate Memorial Hall

deisenbe (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

it's a hilarious story!! Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower - Semi Protected Edit RquestEdit

Ciao Dr. Jensen -Allow me to thank you for your thoughtful editorial assistance in developing articles as an Wikipedian Historian Editor. I have enjoyed your professional contributions immensely. When you have some extra, kindly examine the Request for Editorial Assistance on the Semi-Protected Page for Dwight D. Eisenhower which has been posted on the Talk Page here:Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower. The request includes a link for Eisenhower's consistent efforts during the cold war to encourage the use cultural diplomacy (through the Dept. of State) in order to stabilize and improve international relations in Europe (most notably in Germany) even as he attempted to protect American interests by threatening Communist China with nuclear war during Operation Teapot. The strategy is reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of cultural diplomacy during World War II in South America while a military confrontation was orchestrated to neutralize the Nazi occupation of Europe. Perhaps if you have time you might assist in the task of incorporating this reference to cultural diplomacy into the article about Eisenhower, or if you prefer , share your scholarly insights about Eisenhower's use of cultural diplomacy as summarized in the reference citations which have been provided. I hope you find them to be of interest. P.S. You might also enjoy reading the article about the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra which was established in Germany by one of America's leading modern composers (Samuel Adler) and was commended by Eisenhower for accelerating the establishment of peaceful German-American relations during the cold war in the 1950s. It makes fascinating reading! Enjoy! Thanks again for your thoughtful scholarly assistance and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. With best regards (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)PS

thanks for the suggestion....I will take a look. Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure Prof. Jensen: Many thanks in advance for you kind assistance! PPS. You may also enjoy reading the article about Professor Robert L. Holmes - a contemporary colleague from your era at the University of Rochester and a noted scholar of moral philosophy who has published and lectured extensively on the Philosophy of non-violence and pacifism as a moral imperative in the age of international nuclear proliferation and intercultural conflict! Enjoy! With best regards (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)PS

Copyright problem on Dayton AgreementEdit

Content you added to the above article (a summary of the terms) back on April 28 appears to have been copied/extremely closely paraphrased from, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK--thanks. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Another editor has removed similar content from Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Britain in 1864Edit

It seems to me that you are wrong. Britain in 1864 did not oppose the policy of Bismarck, his famous saying "blood and iron". Palmerston simply could not understand the new time and the historian Pemberton writes it.

the statement "Thus Britain actually approved the first step to the emergence of the Reich" is very strong indeed and contradicts what RS say. You lack a quote from a reliable secondary source. Woodward "Age of Reform" states on page 322" public opinion in England condemned, almost without exception, the action of Prussia and Austria. Palmerston had done much to stir up this opinion, but his own common sense told him the Great Britain could not go to war without allies." Woodward says that France refused to support England in this matter – when Napoleon III "refused to join in strong language to the Germanic Powers, not being prepared to go to war with them. French opinion wanted peace, and the Emperor [Napoleon III] was determined not to go to war." Rjensen (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clayborne Carson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Founder's Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Gambling in the United KingdomEdit

Hello. I noticed you added the same paragraph to the article both in the lead and in the history section. It looks a bit awkward. Perhaps you accidentally copied the same bit from a text file twice, instead of two different paragraphs? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

yes awkward for a whiles. I have expanded the history section so it is more normal. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Clement AttleeEdit

Hello, and thank you very much for all your history work here. Can I respectfully request that, when you mention Clement Attlee, you ensure that he is spelt correctly, with both Ts? Thanks and best wishes (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

oops thanks for catching that. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem - you're very very welcome. Best wishes (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Reagan PageEdit

@Rjensen: We need your vote on a RFC on the Reagan talk page. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

done Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you sir!Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Trivia: Quote of Wikipedia-text I stumbled upon...Edit

Hey, I read your article about the history/editing of the 1812 War page here yesterday, and when I saw your remark that " “the cause of the Canadian fur trade and of the Indians remained the same: preserving the wilderness.” This type of commentary would not last long on Wikipedia." I had to think of this gem I'd seen just the same day: (I've not looked into it - dunno how long it lasted on the page [or whether its still on the article page even :P] )

Like I said, just trivia, but I thought you might enjoy it :P.

Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sean--thanks! Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Just checked - it's still there! (second last paragraph under the section Heinrich_Müller_(Gestapo)#Disappearance ) . "Nonetheless, the uncertainty of Müller's ultimate end and/or whereabouts has only served to nourish the "mysterious power" that the Gestapo elicits even to the present." . Guess I'll remove it :D
Sean Heron (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong informationEdit

First off, west Africans were sold by ARABS who began the Slavs trade. You saying they were sold by other “west Africans” is a watered down , disingenuous attempt at letting other non-blacks off the hook for Slavs trading FIRST. The transatlantic slave trade began during the 15th century when Portugal, and subsequently other European kingdoms, were finally able to expand overseas and reach Africa. The Portuguese first began to kidnap people from the west coast of Africa and to take those they enslaved back to Europe.Oct 5, 2012 topic/atlantic-slave-trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


I'm still actively working on him. Expect to be done today. deisenbe (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

you're doing great. I am finished for now. :) Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I corrected an error in citation form and you changed it back to the erroneous version. Spencer. deisenbe (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
sorry-- i did not realize we were overlapping. Rjensen (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:World historyEdit

Your feedback is requested at a disputed title discussion about the article currently known as "World History". Please participate at Talk:World History#Disputed title. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis Gottschalk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane YamaguchiEdit

Hello. Help copy edit.Cheung2 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I knolw zip about her. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Notre DameEdit

Hello Rjensen, I just wanted to thank you for your work for the WikiProject Notre Dame. I am currently making an effort to revamp it and improve all articles. I was wondering if you could help out, since any and all help is needed. If you want, you can check out the To Do list for the top priority, or take your own initiative and work on what's needed the most. The top priority articles in bad condition, like the colleges or the grotto, need a lot of help too. Additionally, photos or translation in other languages are also great.

Best and thank once more for your work on Wikipedia, Eccekevin (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversion on LynchingEdit

I just didn't understand why this edit has been reversed. You mentioned that is is a self published blog, while the source is The Guardian a British daily and the other reference was CNN [1]. --F4fluids (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

the source is listed as which is not a reliable secondary source -- it's a polemical blog. Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I updated the references. Please let me know if you think the part is alright now. Thanks --F4fluids (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
the article is about all the lynchings in world history. You don't provide RS that say this is as very important episode in lynching--because soldiers did it??....At most it's one sentence--eg hypthetical = in [where] [when] Israeli soldiers [why = mistook xx for an assassin]] and [what = killed him]] and [why o,portant = ?? internation condemntaion resulted"]. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

2014 Lutheran demographic figuresEdit

Disambiguation link notification for July 25Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of the Soviet Union (1982–91) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Evil Empire
Yuri Andropov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Evil Empire

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Missouri BarnstarEdit

  The Missouri Barnstar of Merit
Awarded for the creation of History of education in Missouri, among others. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2019Edit

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for you dedication. Keiiri (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation noting Washington Irving sourceEdit

Just wanted to let you know that that Irving source is not inherently incorrect because Irving’s works reflected the partisan environment of the early US, which is why someone who specializes in English (Irving was one of the first major American authors, but he didn’t exist or write in a vacuum and politics influenced his writings, one example being when he makes reference to the two parties described as “Federal” and “Democrat”) would be contextualizing terms that require clarification to modern readers.

That said, I removed it since you thought it could be an issue, but I the Webster and Larson citations do corroborate the usage of “Democrat” / “Democratic Party” as a name used to refer to what we call the “Democratic-Republican Party”.

Irving did NOT write that note you quote--it was added in the 1905 by a graduate student in the English dept at Columbia. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hoover InstitutionEdit

This edit you made way back in 2010, seems to introduce a copyvio. Could you fix it please?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC).

ok done. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Have moves the info to the talk page as the sourcing is horrible and in some cases doesn't even mention him. I agree it is a good points ti add but we we need some academic sources.--Moxy 🍁 22:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The solution = scholarly sources. OK I added some solid scholarship: Sam P. S. Ho; Ralph William Huenemann (1984). China's Open Door Policy: The Quest for Foreign Technology and Capital : a Study of China's Special Trade. UBC Press. p. 54. and Christopher G. Anderson (2012). Canadian Liberalism and the Politics of Border Control, 1867-1967. UBC Press. pp. 79–. The allegation is not new--I added this article ffom 1977: Donald Avery, and Peter Neary, "Laurier, Borden and a White British Columbia." Journal of Canadian Studies 12.4 (1977): 24-34. Scholars have called this racism for three decades: Vic Satzewich, "Racisms: The reactions to Chinese migrants in Canada at the turn of the century." International Sociology 4.3 (1989): 311-327. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Territorial evolution of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Adrianople (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Door (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog BanzaiEdit

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A question of hostility to Poland in WWIIEdit

There's an interesting discussion (not an Rfc) at Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) about whether or not, in one commenter's words, "Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union [were] equally hostile to Poland and the Polish people". I thought you might be well-placed to comment on this. (I believe that WP:CANVASSING does not apply to this message, because I have no stake or opinion in this discussion, and no idea what your opinion might be, which imho, makes it come under appropriate notification.) If interested, you can take part here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

Hi! Please don't edit a section when somebody places a Template:Wip tag, as you did at Bibliography of World War I: that leads to unecessary edit conflicts, especially when the edit requires some extended research (thus more time) to complete missing information. Thank you! (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Foreign relations of ChinaEdit

Hi RJensen;

Thank you for taking the initiative on the three articles in this cluster on Foreign relations of China. We need more curation of established articles, and you are setting a good example.

I agreed with you on the TalkPage here that it was time to split the article (though I suggested that 1991 was not the most useful division), and I made a few suggestions.

But it would be even more helpful if you let other editors know your plans, most usefully on the TalkPage, even more usefully on the China Project TalkPage. You decided to be bold, rather than post a notice and start a discussion, which is certainly allowed, but you would set a good precedent if you encourage teamwork.

I'm also concerned that there might be trouble with the split if we don't follow the procedures described in WP:SPLIT. The article describes templates and procedures for preserving edit history.

I don't want to interfere (and don't have time to in any case), but do want to share these concerns.

All the best! ch (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes...I did open a discussion on the talk page and did follow the main points at WP:SPLIT. I think history has ending points --and as Mao, Chou, Deng leave the scene we have their complete lives in the history article, not split. A major event was the contest with USSR, and it ended in 1991. The reform movement was crushed in 1989 and had too start over. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm still worried that you will put in a lot of work that may have to be reerted or revised, as WP:COPYWITHIN specifies that "attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page." Cheers again! ch (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2019Edit

Use of “Democrat” by Democratic-Republicans to describe themselves (and not as an epithet by opponents)Edit

In reference to that edit in the Democratic-Republican Party article, here are some primary sources where leaders and supporters of that party referred to themselves as Democrats in a neutral and/or positive manner.

This letter to Madison is from his fellow partisans referring to themselves and their party as Democrats.

Even Madison referred to his partisans as being called “republicans or democrats.”

Contemporary American biographer and friend of Jefferson, Joseph Delaplaine, even wrote to Jefferson referring to his party as Democrats. I don’t think a friend would write to him insulting his party.

Robert Gunnell, a professed supporter of Jefferson’s calls himself “a Democrat, a Republican, and a friend” of Jefferson’s administration in a letter too.

You’ll have to use Ctrl+F or some other page search to find it, but the examples are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on doing some good research – but please pay close attention to the dates. The text refers to the 1790s. After 1814, the Federalist party disappeared, and its intense politicking against the dominant Republican Party ended. It finally became possible to use "Democrat". As for the 1808 quote, It comes from an invalid whose views made him anathema to his family; he does not seem to be an active politician. Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The specific sentence in question states that the Democratic-Republicans “never” called themselves Democrats. It doesn’t say that they were initially called Democrats as an epithet and then embraced the Democratic label as another name for themselves which is what we’re both agreeing on here and as the historical record shows.
As for the 1808 letter, I never claimed it came from a politician, I said it came from a supporter. Are members of the party not truly legitimate members unless they are politicians? I would think not. I think both leaders and supporters who lived during the First Party System should both able to know what their party was referred to by themselves and not only by their critics. In this case, they adopted what was once an epithet and made it a label to embrace for themselves.
So I’d still argue that the sentence in question requires rewording and contextualizing because it incorrectly states that the party never referred to itself as Democrats and that that term was only ever derogatory which, as shown, isn’t true. It also seems to interrupt the flow of the introductory section. I’m fine with you rewording it. My concern is only in providing context and clarity, and as of right now, that seems to be lacking and it’s not exactly discreet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
the statement refers to the 1790s and says the PARTY never referred to itself ass the "Democratic Party" --you need an official party statements otherwise, such as a state convention. the 1816 letter from an editor says "My work is not, neither shall it be, while I am its proprietor, a party work." Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence reads, and I quote, “They called themselves Republicans after their political philosophy, republicanism, and never actually went by the name of the Democratic party, or called themselves "Democrats", a term often used as an insult." It doesn’t say, “in the 1790s” or “early in the party’s history,” but says “never,” as if this were always true, something which the historical record clearly contradicts. “Never” means “never” not “early on” and that context should be given so as to not mislead or confuse, which it currently seems to be doing right now. As for the letter, that “work” is referring to his private occupation as a biographer, not the letter itself. One’s occupation doesn’t neutralize or delegitimize one’s personal partisan politics. Anyway, the overall issue of the sentence is still a pressing matter that requires urgent correction and contextualization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
you're drawing generalizations from 0.001% of the primary sources. read up on reliable secondary works like Banning and Cunningham, Elkins-McKitrick; bios of Jefferson and Madison. or Henry Adams. what remains missing is "Democratic Party" Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Except I’m not. I’m the one asking for nuance and context, not the one saying “never”. And I’ve read plenty of sources, primary and secondary, that refer to Jefferson’s party as “Democratic”. Again, everything in context, so I’m not claiming it was only ever called that or that that was its initial or primary name. I’m merely saying that the party embraces the term to describe themselves, something contemporaries, historians, and later partisans have also attested to. Historians Larson, Ellis, and Beschloss; contemporaries Webster and Irving, even outside observers like Tocqueville refer to them as being called or calling themselves Democrats/Democratic. Madison a co-founder with Jefferson referred to their supporters as both Republicans and Democrats. I’m just arguing that to ignore just as many sources, again both primary and secondary, that use Democrats/Democratic to refer to this party is an explicit denial of historical record and leaves out so much context as to be misleading.
I’d argue that maybe the sentence should more accurately read something along the following lines, “The Republicans took their name from their fundamental political philosophy, republicanism, believing themselves to be its true advocates in the U.S., but they were often derided as Democrats, then meant as an insult, by their opponents who sought to tie them to the violence and radicalism of the French Revolution, which many Republicans, including Jefferson, supported early on. As such, the Federalists called them Democrats and some Republicans came to call themselves Democrats as well, leaving the label to embraced as a secondary name over time as it became the only viable national party, and later used by the partisan movement which coalesced around Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren to claim a direct and continuous lineage to the Jeffersonians.”
I’m just asking that the context be provided, instead of using ahistorical and absolutist language that has a subtle stench of modern partisanship risking undermining the reliability and integrity of the article as a whole. I’m not saying use what I said, you can work it yourself, I’m just saying it’s problematic as is and does not provide context for a party that functioned as it did for forty years and not simply in one decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
. You do not have a counter example of a an official party sponsorship for the term. the 1808 quote is a group event but it does not call itself a party or behave like a party-sponsored event (they ridicule parties). you want nuance--that's what nuance looks like. The Dem Party of 2019 was created decades later. For the context look at for a non-party operation that uses "democrat" Rjensen (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
A letter to the leader of the Party from a local party organization (the Democratic Citizens of Talbot County, Maryland) calling itself Democratic is not an “official sponsorship”? Not to mention other local party organizations including the the Democratic Association of Gloucester County, New Jersey, the Democratic Meeting of Muskingum County, Ohio, and the Democratic Society of New York (not to be confused with the Democratic Societies of the early 1790s which, aligned with Jefferson and his party, effectively ceased operations after Washington criticized them). Not to mention, party leaders including presidents (I listed the letter from Madison, one of the literal founders of the party, who one would think should have the most authority on what his party and its members are called) and members of Congress and presidential administrations who refer to their party as both Republican and Democratic interchangeably. Whether it’s Attorney General for Presidents Jefferson and Madison, Caesar A. Rodney, or Jefferson’s appointed Director of the Mint, Robert Patterson (who writes in 1814 about the “ascendancy of the democratic party”). I would think that the literal founders, leaders, members, and general supporters of the Party on the local, state, and federal levels would not use a term if they didn’t care to refer to themselves as such, but the truth is—and the historical record shows and support it—that this party actually referred to itself as both the Republican and Democratic. It’s one of the major reasons it is, to this day referred to by both names and why modern Democrats have claimed and still claim direct lineage since its (re)organization under Jackson and Van Buren. The sentence in question, as I have said over and over again, is grossly misleading and selling half-truths and partisanship as fact when the primary source documents from leaders and members of the party clearly contradict its claim. To suggest that the only way determine that the party called itself “Democratic” is if some official statement were released when no such official party organizations would really exist until the 1840s and the modern Democratic Party itself didn’t officially adopt its name until into the 1840s (it was still going by “Democratic Republican” as late as the 1840 election). We can’t create false and flimsy standards when such standards are known to not be able to be met because our modern understanding of formal national party organization didn’t really exist and we have to rely on what leaders and members of that era said, wrote, and did more than anything else. Just as we do that with opponents of Jefferson, Madison, and their party who used Democratic as an epithet, we should also rely on the founders and other leaders and members of the party to provide the necessary context and historical support for the positive usage of the term Democrat/Democratic to refer to themselves. Otherwise, this article runs afoul of history and does a great disservice to this site’s global community and readership and for what? Petty partisan denialism? I think we can do and be better than that. If not for ourselves, for history and for the site’s guests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
take another look at he shows there are many groups that called themselves "Democratic citizens" and similar names that were NOT part of the Jeffersonian Party. You have stumbled across a handful and you assume they were part of the Jeff-Rep Party. You need a reliable secondary source because misreading a handful of primary sources is the sort of mistake people make when they do internet searches through thousands of records and are unaware of the scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It’s not “misreading”. I’m citing the literal words of the founders, leaders, and supporters of the Jeffersonian party. Pretending like they are not party of the broader partisan movement is disingenuous and deceptive. And moving the bar of what is a viable source just shows how weak the premise of the sentence in question has been from the start. Primary source after primary source, from the party’s leaders and members use “Democratic” to describe themselves positively, but suddenly primary sources are no good because they contradict one’s personal partisan revisionism. However, if “reliable secondary sources” are now the basis of references used on Wikipedia (which means your own sources become moot by your own logic, unless this really is partisan revisionism with double standards and no concern for historical fact; I would hope not).
As for secondary sources, there’s Award-winning historian, Edward Larson writes in A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign (p. 17.), “Although Jefferson did not oppose ratification, he became a leading voice within the faction that included both Anti-Federalists, who had opposed ratification, and more moderate critics of a strong national government. Collectively, its members became known as Republicans or, later, Democrats.” Larson continues on p. 22, “During the next three decades, the party’s name would evolve from Republican into Democratic, leaving the former label for a later, indirect descendant of the Federalist faction.“ Joseph J. Ellis, another acclaimed historian of the Founding Era and the Early Republic, went on to say in 1993 that “Jefferson was the head and the titular leader of what was then called the Republican Party and came to be called the Democratic Party.”
I could go on, but if this is just partisan denialism and revisionism, then I foresee that the direct words of the literal members of the party and of modern historians will continue to mean nothing, even when it is written out plainly for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way markEdit

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2019Edit


Richard J. Jensen,

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is William Farr and I am a retired herpetologist from Texas with deep roots and 60 years of life in the south. I see you are a scholar and an author. I too have authored a number of articles and book chapters on the subject of herpetology.

I don't want to be argumentative and mean no disrespect but, the introduction to the Wikipedia Redneck page contradicts its own text, is factually in error, and frankly somewhat offensive. To insist in the opening paragraph that the expression redneck is always derogative, and never positive or humors, is inconsistent with the text that follows (and with the truth and reality of life in the south). Please read the entire page carefully and thoughtfully. It identifies "redneck" both historically and currently in positive, self identifying terms throughout.

From the text of the Wikipedia article - "A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls"; "By 1910...chiefly poor white farmers—began to describe themselves proudly as "rednecks"; "American coal miner union members who wore red bandanas for solidarity" "Edward Abbey and Dave Foreman also use "redneck" as a political call to mobilize poor rural white Southerners."; "One popular early Earth First! bumper sticker was "Rednecks for Wilderness"; "However, many Southerners have proudly embraced the term as a self-identifier." "The self-described "anti-racist, pro-gun, pro-labor" group Redneck Revolt have used the term to signal its roots in the rural white working-class and celebration" "At the same time, some white Southerners have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier"

In fact, this article identifies more positive or neutral usage than negative.

I also note that in the second sentence, the term is equated to three other terms: cracker, hillbilly, and white trash. In the Wikipedia Redneck article, the three terms "cracker", "hillbilly", and "white trash" are all linked to their own Wikipedia articles. The three terms "cracker", "hillbilly", and "white trash" all have qualifying wording or explicit statements saying these terms are also not always derogative and can even be positive.

From introduction to the Wikipedia article "Cracker" [third sentence]: "It is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context or self-descriptively with pride"

From introduction to the Wikipedia article "Hillbilly" [first sentence]: "Hillbilly" is a term (often derogatory) for people of various ethnicities who dwell in rural, mountainous areas in the United States, primarily in southern Appalachia and the Ozarks.

From introduction to the Wikipedia article "White trash" [fourth sentence]: "some white entertainers self-identify as "white trash" and celebrate the stereotypes and social marginalization of lower-class whiteness."

I have always understood the term to apply to people who work in the sun and consequently get sunburned necks, specifically ranchers and farmers. All of the ranchers and farmers that I know (and I do know many) are proud people and proud of their work. It is not shameful to be a rancher, farmer, or a redneck as the Wikipedia introduction implies. This origin of the term is discussed in the article under "19th and early 20th centuries" heading. Under the "In popular culture" heading, the vast majority is humors usage in songs and comedy, including some very popular and mainstream songs and comedy generated by, and directed to, self identifying rednecks.

In some places "Yankee" or "Yank" has derogative connotations but, most Americans would not be offended by the term, even coming from a foreigner or a southerner, and I think it would be wrong and offensive to define Yankee as a pejorative and derogative term. The only thing that makes words like redneck, Yankee, gringo, gay, and a thousand others, is the context, bad intention, and tone of delivery.

Please read the entire article carefully and consider. Thank you, William WiLaFa 04:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa (talkcontribs)

thanks for the commentary. I will keep track of the article. The dictionaries and usage books seem to agree that 'redneck" is mostly used in a negative sense. People who do not some from the poor white south --in my reading--do not use the term in a friendly fashion. Dictionaries are warning them not to use the term casually. thus the entry in a recent British Dictionary: a poor white person without education, especially one living in the countryside in the southern US, who has prejudiced (= unfair and unreasonable) ideas and beliefs. This word is usually considered offensive. [Cambridge Dictionary] 100% negative. To take your concerns into account I added a new line: People from the white South sometimes jocularly call themselves "rednecks" as insider humour. John Morreall (2011). Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. John Wiley & Sons. p. 106. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is actually a lot of literature on the subject. It took me about an hour to find these citations this morning, and from the looks of things, I could double this in another hour. I would be lying to you if I said that I had read all of these titles, but, I have read all of the abstracts, introductions, and scanned through the text. Redneck is a rather complex and nuanced word that can mean different things to different people, but I think it would be safe to say it is not always derogative, and a significant number of people (historically and currently) even take some pride in the status and heritage of its impactions.

Mainstream Journalism Goeff Nunberg (2016) A Resurgence Of 'Redneck' Pride, Marked By Race, Class And Trump. NPR News, September 6, 20162:25 PM E Stephen Smith, Wilma Lee Steele and Tina Russell (2018) We are proud to be 'rednecks'. It's time to reclaim that term. The Guardian. Sat 14 Apr 2018 03.00 EDT

Popular Journalism Stacy Kranitz (2016) What It Means to Be a 'Redneck' or a 'Hillbilly'. Vice Newsletter, Apr 28 2016, 7:00pm Elizabeth Abrahamsen (2016) Do You Know the Real Meaning of the Word 'Redneck'? Wide Open Country, August 17, 2016.

Peer Reviewed Literature Marshall, Kelli (2015) Rednecks: A Brief History. JSTOR Daily, April 7, 2015 Hubbs, Nadine (2011). “Redneck woman” and the gendered poetics of class rebellion. Southern Cultures, University of North Carolina Press, 17(4): 44-70. O'Connell, Anne (2010) An Exploration of Redneck Whiteness in Multicultural Canada. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 17( 4): 536–563. Shirley, Carla D. (2010) “You might be a redneck if…” Boundary Work among Rural, Southern Whites. Social Forces, 89 (1): 35–61. Jarosz, Lucy and Victoria Lawson (2002) “Sophisticated People Versus Rednecks”: Economic Restructuring and Class Difference in America’s West. Antipode, 34 (1): 8-27 Patrick Huber (1995) A Short History of "Redneck": The Fashioning of a Southern White Masculine Identity. Southern Cultures, University of North Carolina Press, 1 (2): 145-166. A Short History of "Redneck": The Fashioning of a Southern White Masculine Identity

Books Jim Goad (1998) The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats. Simon & Schuster, New York, 272 pp.,+Hicks,+and+White+Trash+Became+America%27s+Scapegoats.+Simon+%26+Schuster,+New+York,+272+pp.+&ots=us-J15KqVL&sig=UbJnoL1akSxLCqpnJkmYfGQMOnw#v=onepage&q&f=false Carr, Duane (1996) A Question of Class: The Redneck Stereotype in Southern Fiction. Popular Press. 196 pp. Kirwan, Albert D. (1951) Revolt of the Rednecks: Mississippi Politics, 1876-1925. University Press of Kentucky, 328 pp. WiLaFa 20:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa (talkcontribs)

thanks for the very useful list! I got interested in the subject back in the 1960s when i read Revolt of the Rednecks: Mississippi Politics, 1876-1925. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Heads up on my blanking Qing Christian missionsEdit

Just a quick heads up that I plan to blank this section, for reasons that I will explain in detail on that Talk Page. I do not, of course, question your intentions, but respectfully request that you apply the same high standards in your editing China related articles that you have shown in your exemplary scholarly work in American history. It took me more time than I had to spare to deal with the Technology and science section, so my only course for Christian missions is to blank it.

Please wait until you see my arguments before making more edits. All the best, ch (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think its fair to discuss your radical changes before you make them I might actually have some points to make. Let's not get into an edit war regarding fully sourced scholarly material that I added. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience in not making more edits. I misled by saying that I would blank the section when I should have said that I would move and redo it. It's taken me longer than I thought, but I will, as I said, explain in detail on the Talk Page. I think you will be satisfied -- why even mention an edit war?ch (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

History of EthiopiaEdit

Please reconsider your addition of the arrival of four missionaries to an unspecified place in Ethiopia to the article on the history of Ethiopia. I am a missionary myself, I therefore believe that the contribution of missionaries can be crucial for any society. Still, I fail to see that this episode provides any relevant content to the article at hand, sandwiched between the accomplishments of Haile Selassie and the Italian occupation. Please consider the principle of Wikipedia:UNDUE. Don't you think that this content would fit better on a page dealing with the history of missions in Ethiopia, or possibly with the history of education? I really don't see its place in this article. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I used a scholarly article about education in Ethiopia from a major history journal and it is the only coverage of education (besides one unsourced sentence on a college in 1950). The neglect of social history in the article is a very serious problem. so I added some more details and cites re education.Rjensen (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - now this contribution is a big improvement to the article, giving the episode its proper context in the greater picture of modernization. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet IP vandalism on "The Establishment" articleEdit

I made large number of successive changes to The Establishment#Pakistan after researching content for several hours. An IP (, with no prior history of editing, reverted my changes. I presume you do not know him/her and have no way of kowing either. After going through your talk page, you seem an experienced editor with sufficient track record, which inspires my trust in you. I have no issues with your revert, thanks for reviewing my work. Please read my message on his talk page. Please review my changes IP has reverted. I am interested in your feedback. Also, advice me what is the best way to proceed. For now, I am thinking that I shall wait until tomorrow and then reinsert my changes he has reverted. Before doing so, I will review my work, add citations to any unsourced work, will continue to refine to add more robust citations, and will rephrase in a way to make it less subject to contentions. Also, do you think it is better to create a separate article on The Establishment in Pakistan and then pipe/link back the summary to The Establishment#Pakistan? What do you think of my edits in that context? Thanks for reading my message. (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The establishment article has to cover the entire world, and from that perspective Pakistan deserves 25 or 30 words, with a link to an entirely new article you should prepare on the establishment in Pakistan. That's my opinion .Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, got it, I agree. Thats was all I needed to know. I do not have registered account, usually I submit new article as an IP and it takes months to get reviewed/approved. Please do me a little favor, If you could just create one line article on The Establishment in Pakistan or The Establishment (Pakistan) it will be immediately created, and then I can expand it and link back to your global article, later may I request you to review my Pakistan article to ensure its robust enough (citation, phrasing, no scope of doubt or contentions). Thanks. (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
you really need to register to do serious work here. I set up a blank The Establishment (Pakistan) for you. Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about 2016 edit to The Federalist PartyEdit

Hello. I have a question about your "Revision as of 11:42, 23 December 2016" to the page "The Federalist Party". You appear to have overwritten an addition I had made in 2012, a quote from a book by Merrill Jensen regarding the term "Federalist". I was wondering what the reason was for making that change.

Thank you, Ron Rice (ron9000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron9000 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Merrill Jensen (no relation) was not talking about the Federalist Party that formed years later in mid 1790s/ He was talking about late 1780s. Rjensen (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Establishment (Pakistan)Edit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Establishment (Pakistan) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Smjg (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've changed it to a redirect to The Establishment. Feel free to replace this redirect with article content when you have written enough content to warrant a separate article. — Smjg (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks--that's the plan. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've since realised there's an article Establishment Division, which is about Pakistan as well - not sure if it's related. It looks like it relates to civil services, whereas The Establishment#Pakistan talks about the armed forces, so maybe they're totally different things. Or maybe not. I'm not sure. — Smjg (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Smjg (talk · contribs),

I had requested Rjensen (talk · contribs) to create a oneliner namespace so that I can build a larger Pakistan-specific article using my edits to the Global "The Establishment" article which were reverted by an IP. Rjensen was kind enough to do so. I came to his talkpage just now to work on that page and realised that namespace has been created and deleted. Please read my discussion with Rjensen above where we agreed to create a separate larger Pakistan-specific article and link it back to the global The Establishment article (which has multiple nations in it) with a short summary. Please restore the delete The Establishment (Pakistan) namespace for me to work on it. Thankyou. (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Establishment (Pakistan) has not been deleted. a) click on it; b) go to top of the page; c) click on 3rd line (the bold part): (Redirected from The Establishment (Pakistan)) OK --you can now edit the article. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Your independent view on Francisco Franco article would be appreciatedEdit

If you can spare some time please take a look at the lead section of Francisco Franco and discussion going on in the talk page and provide your independent opinion. J Pratas (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary sourcingEdit

I've explained to you why your contribution to Criticism of Wikipedia is inappropriate. You need to get consensus for adding it rather than edit-warring. I know that there are groups who may have published more recently on the current state of wp-coverage (e.g. Black Lunch Table initiative). Please do the actual work to find independent, reliable sourcing (i.e. a proper source) rather than lazy links to ad-hoc categorization pages. With a proper source, I'd be happy to see something added about the progress made on the US issue. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 04:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Take your concerns to the article talok page--Wikipedia is a reliable primary source ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. That's the official rule at WP:PRIMARY A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

my apologies -- I accidentally reverted your edit!Edit

Hi Rjensen. I reverted my edit, but I wanted to send a quick note, since you probably got a rollback notice. I had fat-fingered and made this edit. I should learn my lesson & not peruse my watchlist on my phone! = paul2520 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

OK -- no problem! Rjensen (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Paul2520, it's not your fault, it's the poor design for mobile users, imho. Consider adding Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone to your user page, and have a look at User talk:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree--I've stopped using my phone to edit. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Appeasement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrew Roberts
Causes of World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrew Roberts
European foreign policy of the Chamberlain ministry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrew Roberts
Lesson of Munich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrew Roberts

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectful pointer: Broken Link in GI Bill article.Edit

Hi RJ!

I was looking something up on behalf of my veteran husband and found the link to Title 38 is broken. Specifically:


All veteran education programs are found in law in Title 38 of the United States Code. Each specific program is found in its own Chapter in Title 38.

Cornell has it here: Thank you for helping to make Wikipedia such a wonderful resource! You are great! All the best! - Sunlit Sunlit Dreams (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Yasuhiro NakasoneEdit

 On 30 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Yasuhiro Nakasone, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for listing the Historiography works   // Timothy::talk 06:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Check the light green and dark green difference jammu and kashmir control by India way wrong information show correct informatio add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4041:268C:96D1:D024:B3FF:FEC8:1939 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Rjensen".