User talk:Rjensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

Minneapolis RfC[edit]

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

Harry S. Truman, a letter to Bess about wanting to cut off hands & feet of Germans[edit]

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

Greetings from the Truman Library,

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

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


Tammy K. Williams


Tammy K. Williams

Archivist & Social Media Coordinator

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum

500 West U.S. Highway 24

Independence, MO 64050

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

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

best regards, Rich (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thanks for the detective work! Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy (1999 film)[edit]

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

United States[edit]

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

I did the usual revert without getting any notice. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Now that's weird...well, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I did a "rollback" after the same person made a very short edit so maybe the system missed the problem. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Strom Thurmond[edit]

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

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

Abolitionism in the United States[edit]

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

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

William Randolph Hearst and St Donat’s Castle[edit]

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

The Shaw anecdote is only a rumor says Murray. Rjensen (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Genuinely sorry I asked. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you missed my edit summary[edit]

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

I see you've doubled-down at the article, and templated me against WP:DTTR. I can see we are going to have a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
you are erasing sourced info without providing alternative reliable sources--and you are wrong in assuming all Christian formats are alike. Evangelicals are not like Catholics/ Amish/Epsicopalians etc. You are edit warring and fail to use the talk page Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Just because it's sourced does not mean that it should be in the article.
Evangelicals are not the only denomination with pastors, and some evangelicals don't have them and use lay teachers, while others call them things other than "pastor". Similarly, deacons are in almost every denomination and what in the world does [[Elder (Christianity) | old]]—which is directly from the edit YOU RESTORED includes—mean? Did you even read this "well-sourced" content? Also, some denominations call them other things yet again. Also, feel free to explain "bishops" are unique to Evangelical denominations and be prepared to wade through the child categories in Category:Lists of bishops before you do.
I also see that you're not defending your own edit warring on the article's talk page.
In short, the content will be gone in a week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
you were in serious violation of multiple rules and guidelines. You know better. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

en rule v. hyphen[edit]

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

Jeff Greenfield[edit]

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

He writes history books--eg on the 2000 US election. [Publisher Weekly: "And although the touch is light, the analysis is never lightweight. Among the many strengths of the book is the attention it devotes to the primary campaigns of both Bush and Gore, depicting in detail why the internal dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively made it impossible for either John McCain or Bill Bradley to mount successful challenges." Likewise 1980 election [The real campaign: How the media missed the story of the 1980 campaign (1982)] also media history [Television: The first fifty years] And in this case a serious study in a major political magazine: "The Ugly History of Stephen Miller's 'Cosmopolitan' Epithet" in POLITICO. His studied get full reviews in Columbia Journalism Review, Commentary etc. That is solid material for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
He is a journalist in the sphere of American politics, of course he would write about American elections. That does not make him a recognized expert on 1940s Soviet history. As far as the article in Politico, it's actually not a bad piece, but also doesn't support the claim made on Wiki if read carefully. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The editors of POLITICO have validated his credentials which is good enough for Wikipedia. The article is about current 21st century usage, an area of his unquestioned expertise. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Lenin - conspiracy theories[edit]

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

Temperance and Prohibition[edit]

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

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

Joseph Pulitzer[edit]

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

the Hungarian part is misleading -- he had more in the way of Jewish and German background. But his role was political --his was the #1 Democratic newspaper voice in USA for many years and that is what readers need to know. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but doesn't explain why you reintroduced cite errors, inconsistent date formats etc. --John B123 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Am Rev[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dueling in the Southern United States[edit]

You may be interested in Dueling in the Southern United States. It has problems with a lack of inline citations. I do not know enough about the topic and the literature to fix it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh[edit]

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

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

"Take major changes to talk pages"?[edit]

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

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

War of 1812[edit]

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

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

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

Lack of section edit links[edit]

Hi, Rjensen,

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

Feedback requested at Draft talk:Liberation of France[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Here's why your page had no section edit links[edit]

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

War guilt question[edit]

Once again, you'd think with 6,231,745 articles, everything worth doing has been done. I'm finding more and more, that this is far from true. Some really basic, important historical articles do not exist on en-wiki, which is kind of amazing. Anyway, I've started Draft:War guilt question, and I invite your participation, if you wish.

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

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

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

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

Your edit on History of the Southern United States[edit]

Hi. On 23 Feb you made this edit: [[1]], and I don't understand the quote you introduced:

When a significant change finally occurred, its impetus came from outside the South. Depression-bread New Deal reforms, war-induced demand for labor in the North, perfection of cotton-picking machinery, and civil rights was just Laois and in court decisions finally... Destroy the plantation system, undermined landlord or merchant hegemony, diversified agriculture and transformed it from a labor to a capital-intensive industry, and ended the legal and at still legal support for racism.

(my emphasis added) Did something get lost there? Thanks for taking a look! · rodii · 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed exception to birthright citizenship[edit]

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

Hi I have a question about the American frontier article[edit]

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

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

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

Panic of 1873[edit]

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

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

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

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

Invitation to Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hello, rjensen, you are being invited to an event for dispute resolution regarding the inspiration and influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution, as has occurred on the talk page, arranged at the direction of administrator Tenryuu. Best Wishes. 021120x (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


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

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

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

Siege of Boston dispute[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Adolf A. Berle[edit]

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

please use reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia. One very good source is Schwarz, Jonathan A. Liberal: Adolf A. Berle and the Vision of an American Era (1987). It is the standard scholarly biography. It is online free at Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
presidential libraries are run by archivists for the benefit of outside scholars. The distinction is important because we want to use the work of the scholars. On how they work see "Presidential libraries" online free here Rjensen (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
For a very good short scholarly reliable secondary source see Ellis W. Hawley, “Berle, Adolph Augustus” in John A. Garraty, ed. Encyclopedia of American Biography (2nd ed. 1996) p. 94 online Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

i need your academic opinion whenever north korea today is still totalitarian or not[edit]

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

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

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

Comparing our French Revolution article with the one on fr-wiki[edit]

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

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

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

Notification of RfC[edit]

Hello, rjensen. There is currently an ongoing request for comments on an article towards which you have contributed in the past. Please find it here - Talk:French_Revolution#rfc_CF45697. It will be closed on November 27th, 2020. Best Wishes. 021120x (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Color books[edit]

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

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

Dairy industry in the United States[edit]

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

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


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

thanks for the comment-- in my opinion Wikipedia should follow the historians on history topics. There never was a country with the official name "United Kingdom" -=-That is it's a convenient shortening of the full name. Indeed likewise ""Great Britain" and "Britain." A look at the scholarly bibliographies show that for topics before 1940 most historians prefer "Great Britain" or "Britain" and seldom use "United Kingdom" ---see the titles in Hale, Matthew, Graham Raymond, and Catherine Wright. "List of publications on the economic and social history of Great Britain and Ireland published in 2019." The Economic History Review 73, no. 4 (2020): 1153-1202--(a similar bibliography appears every year in that leading journal). Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that’s an unusual interpretation on WP. This is fully discussed with sources in Terminology of the British Isles. I don’t believe it’s correct that, outside the US, “Great Britain” is typical of WP:RS (whether post or pre 1940: at least post-1801) and I think it’s just generally considered erroneous. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that citing Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As for the 1915 time period Look for example at the scholarly journal article titles at Lloyd George ministry#Further reading -- you get zero for UK but instead: (1) Fry, "Political Change in Britain"... Historical Journal; (2) McEwen, "The Struggle for Mastery in Britain..." Journal of British Studies (3) Paxman, Great Britain's Great War; (4) Simmonds, Britain and World War One....All these scholars and journal editors use what you say is "erroneous" usage--and none uses a United Kingdon variation that you think is standard. Rjensen (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I was going to leave it to agree to disagree...but... firstly, I was directing you to the sources in the Terminology article not claiming it as a source. As a secondary point I was also highlighting how your interpretation is unusual amongst WP editors. Furthermore there’s nothing wrong with using “Britain” as the name of the country - that is entirely common (and correct) albeit slightly more informal. That’s why I didn’t revert your last edit on Treaty of Darin. If you read through the Terminology and UK articles you’ll see the difference between “Britain” and “Great Britain”. I But to believe that “United Kingdom” isn’t used is or in fact isn’t the norm is really a ‘sky is blue’ discussion. Check a Google books search. By the way, no one would call Paxman a scholar or journal editor...and sloppy use of “Great Britain” by Paxo doesn’t mean much other than he was probably aiming for the US coffee table market!! Btw, just so you know Great Britain is still the island’s name - hence this article: Great Britain. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I like to rely on the published experts--professors, university press books, scholarly journals and their editors. On topics before 1940 UK variations are rare in titles and in the main text--you see it in quotations from old formal documents. Look for example at the bibliographies in Wikipedia. You have not yet said where you got your own views. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
If you’re British, it’s a little like telling an American that sources refer to “America” not “the United States” before 1940. Here’s a number of WW1 WP:RS referring to “United Kingdom”: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Let me know if that’s not enough and I’ll drop more by in batches. Some of the ones I’ve just given are even used in our article History of the United Kingdom during the First World War. (Presumably, you’ll want to pursue a name change of that article on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME?). DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You would be more convincing if you read your sources closely. I just now used your links (they allow search for SOME pages only). In the #6 for example (Beckett)-- I count 5 uses of "United Kingdom" in the book versus 19 uses of "Britain". In #5 Bowen prefers "Britain" over UK before 1940. In #4 Hamilton-Herwig the are 2 uses of UK (plus one in a quoted treaty) versus 11 of "Great Britain". #3 Holger uses UK nine times; it uses "Britain" 8 times. (You win this one.) #2 Jukes uses UK twice, and Britain 13 times. #1 Broadberry uses mostly "UK" in tables and "Britain" in the text--the authors are economists. Your favourites are prone to desert you in wartime. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. United Kingdom and Britain are interchangeable. Britain is absolutely fine although slightly more informal. that’s why I didn’t revert your Britain edit in Treaty of Darin. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with United Kingdom. As you rightly say there’s a mixture and it’s not surprising that Britain is used more than United Kingdom. It’s no different to “United States” and “America”. what is incorrect or at least sloppy is “Great Britain”. Americans (and sometimes Germans when speaking English) tend to do this. There’s specific anomalies for historic reasons: our Olympic team is called GB. Our cars abroad have too display the GB badge etc That’s because in the past Northern Ireland often had separate international representation. I don’t think I’m going to persuade so I’m going to leave it at that. But if you have a moment look over the Terminology and UK articles I previously referenced. There’s well sourced explanations there. DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Page numbers in cite[edit]

Here (in Thomas Creevey) you gave an apparently truncated page number. Can you correct the second page of the range? I did adjust the syntax too. David Brooks (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

you have a sharp eye! I fixed it = 690–697. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Thank you.

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

20th Century[edit]

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

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

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

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

Please format your citations completely[edit]

{cite book

etc. By doing this you facilitate or make poasible all sorts of bots and external partners. Thank you deisenbe (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)