User talk:Richard Jensen: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(Russian-Germans)
m (Text replacement - "Explosives" to "Explosives")
 
(156 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}


==Enquiry about Time Magazine Cover==
== American religion, again ==
Hi Richard,


Acting in the capacity of Constabulary member here.
Hey Richard-- Sorry to bother you again with a question about religion in America, but I just hacked out a stub on [[Unitarianism]], and I was wondering if you might take a look at it. I feel reasonably comfortable about the first paragraph, where I distinguish between the denomination and the theology of the godhead, but I wanted to make sure I didn't make any howlers in my discussion of early Unitarianism, particularly in America. Feel free to change anything you like, as American religion is a mere side-interest of mine. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 15:53, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
::willdo...thanks for starting important article. It looks very good! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:11, 6 May 2008 (CDT)


Have you obtained permission to use the Obama-Cinton <s>Newsweek</s> Time Cover? --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 18:39, 18 February 2008 (CST)
== I need your input ==
::It's Time, and yes they give blanket fair use approval for small copies at [http://www.pathfinder.com/help/hmember/agreement.html]. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:55, 18 February 2008 (CST)
:::I must be slow tonight, but I've read the Time website twice now and I can't see where they give blanket permission for anything at all. Quite the contrary. Could you maybe find their permission phrase and copy it into this discussion? Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:17, 18 February 2008 (CST)
:: sure: they say "Except as otherwise '''expressly permitted under copyright law,''' you may not copy, redistribute, publish, display or commercially exploit any material from the Time Inc. Sites without the express permission of Time Inc. and the copyright owner." Our fair use is expressly permitted under copyright law; see our [[Fair use]] article. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:22, 18 February 2008 (CST)


So, you have the part that says you are expressly permitted? Where is that then? Your link is to a CZ article.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 17:57, 19 February 2008 (CST)
Hi Richard, can you take a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Pedro_%C3%81lvares_Cabral this page] and give us a little direction? Thanks in advance! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:42, 8 May 2008 (CDT)


This is section 3 B from your link to [http://www.pathfinder.com/help/hmember/agreement.html] pathfinder.com:
== History Workgroup Week ==
You may not modify, '''publish, transmit, display''', participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit the content of the Time Inc. Sites or any portion of it. Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law, you may not c'''opy, redistribute, publish, display''' or commercially exploit any material from the Time Inc. Sites without the express permission of Time Inc. and the copyright owner. In the event of any permitted copying, redistribution or publication of material from the Time Inc. Sites, no changes in or deletion of author attribution, trademark, legend or copyright notice shall be made. You acknowledge that '''you do not acquire any ownership rights by downloading copyrighted material'''. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, '''you agree that any text, photo, graphic, audio, and/or video on the Time Inc.''' Sites owned by the Associated Press ("AP") '''shall not be broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any media.'''


Looks fairly clear to me. This section is saying that it can not be posted here. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 18:04, 19 February 2008 (CST)
Hey Richard-- Would you want to be the History Workgroup Week Coordinator? I can work on getting the basic page together and helping out generally, but we need an editor on-board. Are you game? Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 18:43, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
::yes[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:29, 8 May 2008 (CDT)


:No, it says it that it can not be posted here unless the fair use law allows it, which it does. How else can you read the key line "Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law"? I read it as fair use law applies. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:56, 19 February 2008 (CST)
== More input ==


Hello Richard,
Hello Dr. Jensen, could you see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Naming_Conventions#naming_is_separate_from_neutrality.2C_only_based_on_common_use.3F here] about the naming of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima article that I'm going to start? I borrowed my book on Imjin War to one of my friends so I can't work on the [[Korean War of 1592-1598]] right now. Thank you very much. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 23:54, 8 May 2008 (CDT))
::it's the author's call (Chunbum's) -- I lean to "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto"  [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/liancourt.htm see for military discussion]) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:15, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


At the moment our mutual understanding of "fair use" is vague enough that it would be prudent to abstain from using this. We do need to clarify the use here as "Fair use" in accordance with the wishes of the copyright holder. You might even drop them a note to ask specifically. The copyright box that accompanies the cover is filled in with "blah blah blah" and that is not really possible to explain as an attempt at complying with the pertinent laws either. We are concerned with being very sure that the wishes of the copyright holder are not contradicted by use here in any way.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 05:36, 21 February 2008 (CST)
:::Hello, I never considered that. I'm used to being in Wikipedia, so multiple names is not so obvious to me. Thank you, I'll suggest that in the discussion. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:35, 9 May 2008 (CDT))


::we agree CZ  needs to settle its fair use rules, for which discussion is underway. I closely followed the draft proposals at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals/Non-comprehensive_fair_use_policy] which explictly allows use of magazine covers. Under fair use the wishes of the copyright holder do NOT matter and the fair-users (CZ) do NOT ask permission for exercise of their rights. (See Chicago Manuial of Stle 15ed pp 137-8) The blah-blah actually is CZ boilerplate-to-be-added; it was generated by the CZ upload-file process, not by me.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:02, 21 February 2008 (CST)
::::Actually, I can't make it author's call - the issue's too big for me to take full responsibility. See these news articles: [http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/25/2007052500167.html Joseon Ilbo], [http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/3175559/ Livedoor], [http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=1187 Japan Probe], & [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=346023&rel_no=1 OhMyNews]. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:48, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
:::::Chunbum in fact handles big wars very well; he can name the rock! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:02, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


*POINT 1: The CZ draft proposal has no legal impact on the owners of the Time cover. In fact, nothing decided here--and nothing has been decided yet--has any legally binding impact on the owners. It is to simply guide us here at CZ and it is a draft. In other words, our fair use policy understanding does not allow us to do anything if it contradicts the meaning of fair use in the eyes of the owner. As yet no one here has asked the owners of the Time cover if we have interpreted their statement correctly.
== Archived for you ==
*POINT 2: It very much matters what they wish. They own it.
*POINT 3: The boiler plate is supposed to be filled in by the person who uploads the file at the time it is uploaded. If you up-loaded the file it is your responsibility to fill in the pertinent blanks. Blaming the 'blah blahs' on a software programme is counterproductive and just plain nonsense. The person up-loading must do it.
--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 18:04, 21 February 2008 (CST)
::point 1 is irrelevant and 2 is simply wrong regarding federal law (and contradicts what TIME says regarding fair use). Fair use means we have a right to use it. Look at [[Fair use]] and [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html]. I suggest you write TIME. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:11, 21 February 2008 (CST)


POINT 1 is hardly irrelevant. CZ does not adjudicate copyright law. Whatever the owner wishes is sufficient reason to endow them the motivation to seek legal redress if they perceive anything has been been used inappropriately. The attitude that their wishes are without relevance is quite simply irresponsible.
Hope you don't mind! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:00, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
::hey thanks--I really appreciate it. I'll pay you back--how about a bibliography on the topic of your choice :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:16, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


POINT 2 makes it clear that the meaning of fair use is hardly  iron-clad and incapable of being read more than one way. That is why there are lawsuits over the use of copyrighted materials. The fair use statement that accompanies the publication in question is NOT clear. Their purpose and their understanding are of absolute concern here.
:::Hehe! I think I still owe you for the last one! :-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:33, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


POINT 3 is strictly the responsibility of the person who uploads the file. I did not upload the file. In my capacity as constable I have drawn your attention to our concerns and obligations. What I see here now is a user telling CZ that the person who uploads a file has no obligation to provide the required information for such a file. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 18:25, 21 February 2008 (CST)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the note. I seem to have created a big mess by just jumping in without understanding the way things work. Maybe I'll wait a few days to be bold again.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 08:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::no no, be bold-please write! it's just that moving and renaming articles causes no end of technical troubles, and I've made the mistake several times. Happily our very good technical crew cleaned up the mess I made. :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:27, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


::what is your interpretation of Time's line: ''Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law'' ? I think our dispute hangs on your reading of this statment. Point 3 is a trivial matter and not a constable issue. My claim is fair use but CZ software which says so is not finished yet; I did furnish the fair use info and the CZ software is at fault, not me.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:49, 21 February 2008 (CST)
== Removing the Bruce-Lovett report ==
==You're cleaned up==
I moved everything to your Archive 2.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:42, 7 January 2008 (CST)


== "Analysis" re:John Edwards ==
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted, because it sure sounds like an extremely dubious document. (Puzzling, because Schlesinger has a good reputation, so 2+2 aren't adding up here - but that's a rathole for another day!) I just like everyone to be cheerful. (Not the world's worst character flaw, eh?) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:05, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


Richard; if it is indeed an analysis then I would recommend backing up this "analysis" with evidence that supports the conclusions rather than just blindly reinstating hyperbole. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:01, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:I really like Schlesinger -- but he handled so many tens of thousands of documents that he let this one slip through. In his defense he was not writing about 1956 but about a later period (1960-61). I think somebody made a mock "report" and Kennedy laughed about it and kept it -- and Schlesinger thought it was real. I used to be active in archival circles (I was on the FBI Archives advisory board), and know US government agencies all have multiple checklists to deal with real documents (none of which show the existence of this document). As for keeping people happy, I think Howard C. Berkowitz, who's doing terrific work, appreciates fellow experts helping him out. That is what CZ is all about: collaboration. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:17, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::Robert, please read the Talk page and the many citations given there. Do you argue that Edwards did NOT change style since 2000??? If so you are defying the experts and you need to find an expert that backs your theory. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)


== Reapproval of Nathanael Greene ==
:: Yes, that struck me as the likeliest possibility (if it's not real); that somehow this thing got into RFK's files, and Schlesinger took it for real. (The other possibility, if it's not real, being that Schlesinger faked it, which seems considerably less likely.)
:: The problem I have with that theory is 'where is it, then'? Since the RFK Archive people have looked for it, and can't find it, one now sort of has to come up with an explanation as to why (again, assuming that Schlesinger really saw such a thing). Did they just miss it somehow (perhaps because it's misfiled)? Did it somehow get lost (e.g. someone borrowed it, and didn't return it)? Did someone have it removed from the archives (to cover up the faking, perhaps)? And if that could have happened, couldn't it also have happened it if were real? Etc, etc...
:: As a side question, again assuming Schlesinger really saw such a document, one has to wonder 'why did someone go to the effort of creating this fake'? The CSI theory is that it would have wound up in RFK's files in the very early 60s, well before the CIA had a raft of people out after it. A bureacratic rival?
:: If it is real, I wonder if the reason it doesn't show up on any logs, etc is that it could have been an informal document solicited by Eisenhower from these two people in a quiet way - perhaps because he wanted them to be very frank, and be willing to break some institutional rice bowls.
:: Etc, etc. Very curious, all around. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:46, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::Yeah, it's curioser and curiouser. We knoe Ike did not see it. His staff was VERY efficient in logging in every document that went to the White House, and there is no such document, and no such log record, at the Eisenhower archives. The simplest explanation is that it was a draft that never became an official report, or that it was a a prank that Schlesinger misunderstood. I can't believe Schlesinger faked it--he knew a real document would have a long paper trail at the CIA, White House etc. and that a fake document would humiliate his reputation (as hapened to Trevor Roper who authenticated the fake Hitler diaries.)  As we know from the CBS-Dan-Rather-National Guard business, it's easy to fake a typewritten report. If we had the copy Schlesinger used  we could use standard techniques to maybe discover if it was a later fake, but his copy has vanished and so have his notes.  Maybe Schlesinger realized it was a fake and discarded it instead of returning it to the Kennedy Library?? Alas, he was quoting himself on the subject as late as 2000. so that theory is out.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:42, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::yes it's OK by me, but I don't know what the re-approval procedure is? what do we do? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:04, 8 January 2008 (CST)


:::The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::: Seems like a lot of work for a prank, but I guess it's possible.
::::well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::: Here's another theory, which draws on your suggestion that it may have been a draft: perhaps it wasn't drawn up as a formal report, but rather an aide-memoire for one (or both) of them, as part of a review requested (perhaps verbally) by Eisenhoweer, and the results of that review were presented to Eisenhower verbally? I know, I know, it's a bit of a reach, but it is, I think, plausible (especially if it involved the potential breakage of rice bowls, they might want to do that quietly). Unfortunately, the only evidence for this possibility is, in the best conspiracy theory style, the lack of evidence!
:::::Hehe, the policy is the same, but obviously the procedure changes, hmmm. I'll follow up on your try and we'll write it as we go. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:28, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::: Yet another one, drawing this time on your "a fake document would humiliate his reputation": Schlesinger eventually realized it wasn't real, and he'd been had, and he didn't want the embarassment of coming out and admitting he'd been had. So he disappears the original document, and his notes, leaving fog behind... that keeps him clear, and minimizes the damage to the historical record.
::::::I think this worked [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ANathanael_Greene%2FMetadata&diff=100247432&oldid=100211124].  I just filled out the ToA section of the metadata page but make sure to keep the status at 0 so the template remains green.  I think it works.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:42, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::: And a variant on that one: he falsely comes to believe it was a fake (because nobody can find any contemporary cross-references), even though it was in fact real (but very oddball), and events ensue as in the previous one. And I'd better stop there before my fantasies become too elaborate! :-) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:26, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Richard, there have been several edits to Nathanael Greene since the approved version. Do you want me to add those edits to the approved version? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:49, 14 January 2008 (CST)
::sure go ahead. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:58, 14 January 2008 (CST)
== Civil ==


Insults or personal attacks, on talk pages or other open forums, that are relatively mild, but which are still objectionable on grounds that they aggressively impugn the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources.
::::: I lean to the aide-memoire hypothesis. There was no commission, no staff, no study, no report. But Bruce and/or Lovett exchanged private memos. How did Kennedy get a copy? One suggestion on the web is RFK headed a stury of what went wrong at CIA's Bay of Pigs. Lovett testified and was harsh on CIA, and gave Kennedy the private memo. Ok--here's another (better?) possibility. Schlesinger hismelf was involved in the investigation of the Bay of Pigs, Lovett or his aide gave SCHLESINGER the draft in 1961. In 1968 when it came time to write the book on Bobby the draft was at hand, and Schlesinger made the mistake of saying he found it in the Kenedy papers. (We know it was never logged into the Kennedy papers--the Kennedy Library has very good archivists who track these things.) This explains why the Kennedy papers lack the copy--they never had it. Likewise Eisenhower never had it.  So what did Schlesinger do with his own copy and the notes he took?? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:36, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
--[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:25, 8 January 2008 (CST)


== Party! You're invited! ==
:::::: That hypothesis (that Schlesinger misremembered where it was) is another good possibility - but as you say, it does raise the question of what happened to his copy - and we still have the question of why there's no copy in the Bruce archives. Of course, if it was an aide-memoire for ''Lovett'' (who was the one who testified, after all - our hypothetical transmission channel), it might quite reasonably not be in Bruce's files. I wonder if Lovett had archives, and if so, if people have looked there? Or perhaps there was only one typed original, and whoever (Lovett?) gave it to Schlesinger (or RFK), and it's now lost? Or maybe Schlesigner ''thought'' it was in the Kennedy, and as result never bothered to look in his own files because of that? I wonder where ''his'' papers are now, and if they've been searched?
:::::: As to the notes, Schlesinger says he gave his original notes to Grose, and didn't retain a copy (!!). (And why did he make notes if he had the original? But perhaps he was confused, even back then, as to where it was?) Again, slightly odd, but not impossible.
:::::: I have sent email to the person at Cryptome who had a copy of the CSI mention of it on his web-site, so perhaps he can provide something more recent. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 16:35, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


Hi Richard — Your neighbourhood Mistress of Ceremonies here. Don’t forget to come on over to the [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon|party]] and sign in at one of the categories!  [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 16:31, 9 January 2008 (CST) [[user_talk:Aleta Curry|say ‘hi’ to me here]].
:::::::Schlesinger's papers were recently purchased by CCNY--I suppose it will take a few years to sort them. Suppose--if-perhaps--in 1961 he saw the memo and made notes. (He could have been shown the memo by X for a few hours, made notes, then returned it to X.) Then perhaps in 1969 when he wrote his book on RFK he only used his notes. (This was not a central point and no need to track down the original when you have your own notes.) Then in writing up the appropriate footnote he got mixed up, and said the original was in the Kennedy collection when it was not.  Schlesinger does emphasize in his book that no one paid any attention to the memo in 1956. (Which I think is because no one saw it then.) As for giving the notes to Gose?? Schlesinger had a secretary and xerox machine, and so the idea he mailed off his only copy, the Gose lost them, seems odd as well. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


== Pittsburgh articles ==
:::::::: I like that one (that he was shown a copy, made notes, and got confused about where he'd seen them) too, but I wonder why he thought he'd just seen them in the RFK papers (presumably shortly after RFK died, because Schlesigner apparently said something about "before they were deposited at the JFK library"), when under this theory it was many years before. Maybe he got confused because there was an RFK connection in both cases? I see also the book was published in '68, which would have been shortly after RFK was killed - maybe he was under time pressure to get it out, and made a mistake because of that?
:::::::: I too was puzzled as to why Schlesigner didn't have a copy of his notes any more (see incredulity above), but the CSI newsletter indicates they interacted with him directly: ''Professor Schlesinger informed us .. [h]e had loaned Grose his notes and does not have a copy of these notes''. So either he's mistaken, or he did loan out his only copy... who knows? Another odd circumstance.
:::::::: I got a reply from Mr. John Young, who has [http://cryptome.org/ic-black5601.htm a copy of the CSI thing] on the Cryptome website; he suggested we contact Mr. Grose to persue this further; I asked him if he knew how to do that.
:::::::: ''Late addition'': See the Talk:CIA page - I think I have found testimony from Lovett confirming he and Bruce did an investigation. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 18:29, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


Hi Richard, we were updating the subpages on the article that were approved before subpages were developed by moving the bibliographies.  I think you like to leave some on the main article.  Would you take a look and see which ones you want to keep and which ones can be deleted?  All of them have already been moved to the bibliography page by Todd. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:21, 14 January 2008 (CST)
== reverted your edits ==
::thanks for the tip. I did as suggested and also dropped lots of red links from Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:46, 14 January 2008 (CST)
:::There are a couple of notes that seem to be missing their 'note' [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pittsburgh%2C_History_since_1800/Draft#notes].  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:59, 14 January 2008 (CST)  and here [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pittsburgh%2C_History_to_1800#notes] --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:03, 14 January 2008 (CST)
:::The notes seem to be in random order. that's crazy. How can we make them go 1-2-3-4 ??  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:06, 14 January 2008 (CST)
::::I'm not sure about the 1-2-3-4, but it looks like there was probably some text that was deleted that contained the first reference for this one <nowiki><ref name="Lorant"/></nowiki>.  Maybe that is messing them all up. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (CST)
::there are lots of problems with the footnotes. minor ones (no italics) & missing page numers. Almost all the references to popular sources like Lorant are not needed. So I will trim them down and try to leave those that might actually be useful to a person writing a paper. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)
:::Since those would only be copyedit changes, when your done, just put it up for re-approval for say one day and then we might as well get the whole thing moved to the Approved version. Just go to the metadata page and put your name under the ToA editor and that should do it... I hope :-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:30, 14 January 2008 (CST)
::::OK I will try. :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:32, 14 January 2008 (CST)
:::::Remember, just copyedits changes, otherwise we would need three editors!!! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (CST)
::::::Right, I am just doing minor changes to text (and adding a few items to bibliog). I wish you could do that approval magic for me. I keep screwing it up. :(  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:35, 14 January 2008 (CST)
:::::::Richard, I found the references for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Pittsburgh%2C_History_since_1800%2FDraft&diff=100251560&oldid=100250957 those that were missing].  When we split the article, we forgot about bringing over the first reference... I have no idea how it made it through approval.  I'll put the approval tag on the two articles for one day.  Just let me know if you need more time. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:04, 15 January 2008 (CST)
::I dropped all the unnecessary references to well-known facts that came from popular sources (like EB 1911, and Lorant pop history), and keep the more recondite ones that might prove useful.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:22, 15 January 2008 (CST)


Re-approved!  That was the long way around, but I think it was the right way to do itThanks for your help. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:22, 16 January 2008 (CST)
Hello Richard, I have reverted your edits on CIA earlier this morning that caused some upsetDo take your time and use the talk page before making such large deletions. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:22, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::Thanks again. isn't there a button we can click to automate the process? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:10, 16 January 2008 (CST)
::there are now several thousand words explaining the deletions. Is that enough? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 04:56, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
:::yup, any deletions that are made to this material now would be content issues. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:12, 17 May 2008 (CDT)


== Thanks! ==
== Approval of Cauchy ==


Thank you for the compliment on education sections. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 11:29, 21 January 2008 (CST)
Richard, could you approve [[Augustin Louis Cauchy]]? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 02:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)


== Euclid and Euclid's elements ==
: Did you see [[Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy#Approval]]? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 15:19, 23 May 2008 (CDT)


Hi Richard, I wrote about [[Euclid]] and [[Euclid's elements]]. I'm finished so far. Maybe you like to add some more historical perspective to it? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:20, 24 January 2008 (CST)
==Latinos and Hispanics==
::you know, I fell in love with Euclid in 1956. I wonder what's new. :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:02, 24 January 2008 (CST)
I was just looking at the draft of the week. I was always taught that Latinos included people from Latin America that spoke Romance languages whereas Hispanics were only those that spoke Spanish (not Brazil, Suriname, etc.). The new draft of Latino History is a little confusing in the lead. I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, but you may want to look over it.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it now.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:21, 22 May 2008 (CDT)


:::Does that mean you'll write some?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:53, 24 January 2008 (CST)
== Red herring-thanks ==
::::yes. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:37, 24 January 2008 (CST)
Thanks for the clarification on [[Red Herring]]. I have been trying to remove it from the unchecklisted list for weeks, but it sat there empty all this time.  I gave it a quick try just to clear the log.  You verbage is a definite improvement.
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:24, 25 May 2008 (CDT)
::happy to help. Harry Truman got in trouble saying the Alger Hiss case was a red herring. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:38, 25 May 2008 (CDT)


== Countries - HIstory Workgroup? ==
== Hello ==


Hi Richard-quick question - Should countries be automatically placed in the History Workgroup.  I've noticed some are, some are not.  I'll go ahead and start adding; please advise if I shouldn't. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:04, 25 January 2008 (CST)
Hello, Dr. Jenson!
:On second thought, maybe I'll just note the ones I've noticed, since that involves changing the Metadata and then changing it back again if wrong. Ireland, Pakistan, Uganda [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:18, 25 January 2008 (CST)
Thank you for your kind greeting on my talk page. If you need any help with any article in a subject area I am familiar with, I will be glad to assist. [[User:Erik M. Baker|Erik M. Baker]] 22:03, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
::yes, all counties will get a long history section (eventually...I usually start with a historical bibliography). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:12, 25 January 2008 (CST)
:::I think Aleta was asking about workgroup tags rather than article content. While country articles will have a history section, they will so have political, economical and other sections applicable to other workgroups. I don't think we need to tag countries to every possible workgroup. I would not tag country articles like [[Poland]] to the history workgroup, even though the article contains a history section (actually it doesn't have a history section). However, I would tag articles like [[Poland, history]] to the history workgroup as they are exclusively about history. If we tagged every article that contained a history section to the history workgroup then I would suspect that every article on CZ would be tagged to history.


:::On a side point. Why [[Poland, history]] and not [[Polish history]] or [[Poland's history]]? I noticed in the [[CZ:Core_Articles/Humanities#History_-_Stage_2|core articles list for history]] that counties are all listed in a adjective form rather than using a comma. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 22:27, 25 January 2008 (CST)
== DoD (US) name ==
::::I think we should presume taht every country will have a History section as a main component and thus should be tagged. (Once the section is big enough as in Poland  it can be spun off and the tag dropped). The point of the tags is to alert history authors that the article is ready for their input. As for naming conventions, it's simpler and more elegant to use the '''Poland, history''' format for every country. People will then know immediately where to look. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:33, 25 January 2008 (CST)
:Yes, Derek is correct, I was asking about the tags, not about the content.
:Richard's executive decision is that all countries should be tagged in the History Workgroup, so I'll do that for the ones I find that don't have the History tag, and going forward.
:Here's my side point (as long as we're at it).  Why should we have [[Poland, history]] History of Poland, Polish history etc etc at all?  Why is not HISTORY a subpage of the [[Poland]] cluster?
:Since we have this beautiful system, why not use it to full advantage, and do we have to talk to [[user: Chris Day|Chris]] about setting this up?
:[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:33, 26 January 2008 (CST)
::Subpages don't work that way. They are not sudo-categories under which a range of themed articles can be kept. Subpages are for other forms of content which support or add to the article. They are  not for sections of an article.


::Richard, would you also want cities and towns tagged to the history workgroup? [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 02:28, 27 January 2008 (CST)
See [[Talk:United States Department of Defense#names]] - should I rename it to [[Department of Defense (United States)]], then? Not [[U.S. Department of Defense]] and not [[Department of Defense (U.S.)]], or anything else? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:27, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
::On cities and towns: some have a major historical importance -- especially capital cities, cultural centers and key places like New York, Florence, Montreal, Kyoto, Shanghai, etc and should get tagged. See [[Beijing]].  for most places the history should not be tagged.
== California  ==


When I was writing the education section in the California entry, I found that they have a decent amount of top colleges but ranks low in education. Can you explain the cause of this apparent contradiction? Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 12:24, 26 January 2008 (CST)
PS: I am keeping an eye on [[Elizabeth II]], will move it soon. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:37, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
::good question,. it is a notorious paradox: at the top the university of California system is by far the best in the world. In recent years they have cut back $ on K12 schools. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:27, 26 January 2008 (CST)
:::Ha!  So does that mean in ten years the California universities will no longer be the best in the world, or they'll be the best in the world but all full of foreign students? [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:36, 26 January 2008 (CST)
::::Hehe, no, they're just all from the east coast :-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:59, 26 January 2008 (CST)
:::::My niece was valedictorian at Berkeley about 7 or 8 years ago, which I thought was terrific.  Later I discovered that Berkeley has 10 or 15 valedictorians every year, spreading them out over a range of different fields. Being an old geezer, I'd never heard of that before.  Maybe most big U's do it that way these days?[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:51, 26 January 2008 (CST)
::::::California's UC system (ie the PhD schools, Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz) will remain the best in the world. 40-50% of the undergraduates are Chinese-American....they attended the mediocre California public schools but took a lot of supplementary help. (They are the offspring of recent, post 1965 immigrants from Chinese lands). The grad students come from worldwide. (My daughter just applied to the PhD program at UCLA so we do follow that story.) (Note that the California State Colleges are a different system and not nearly as good; they do not award PhDs).[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:11, 26 January 2008 (CST)


==Canada==
== New type of subpage ==
With pleasure. I certainly shall, in the evenings when I have time. And I saw the big bibliography that you had created for PEI -- great. Frankly, what got me re-interested in Citizendium was an article I had created on the [[Hochelaga Archipelago]] -- importing it from what I'd done on Wikipedia. I did a Google search for Hochelaga Archipelago and saw that it had suddenly popped up to ''4th,'' right on the first page of Google results. I was so amazed I was going to write Larry sanger about it. It showed, to me, that with enough linkage, Citizendium can start registering on Google, which I believe is vital. cheers, [[User:Shawn Goldwater|Shawn Goldwater]] 10:50, 31 January 2008 (CST)


== Election formatting ==
Officially these need to be approved before being hardwired but I have set up the subpages template such that you can start using an experimental version. My thinking is that if an experimental subpage becomes popular then this will be a strong reason to  adopt it to the official list.  The way to set up an experimental tab is to add '''"|tab1=''New Subpage name''"''' into the metadata page.  You can see an example of this type of addition at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ADamon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award%2FMetadata&diff=100325257&oldid=100282858 Damon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award] for the ''Honorees'' tab. The full proposal for adding new subpage types in this way can be read at [[CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages%3F]]. Let me know if this does not make sense. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:37, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
:thanks. I'm proposing a standard subpage for all history articles for "Primary sources"-- excerpts of original historical documents. For copyright reasons these will be old documents (or government documents), and thus seem most appropriate for History, but others can use them too. I expect several hundred history articles could use this subpage effective. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:39, 5 June 2008 (CDT)


Let me know on the election talk page if you think everything is ok. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 18:42, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::Note that Larry [[User_talk:Chris_Day#new_subpage|affirms]] it needs approval before being hardwired. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:53, 6 June 2008 (CDT)


==[[Martin Luther]]==
:::Certainly articles like [[Hippocrates]] and [[Galen]] could use a "Primary sources" subpage.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:04, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Excellent article. [[User:Jonathan Beshears|Jonathan Beshears]] 01:53, 1 February 2008 (CST)
::hey, thanks! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:31, 1 February 2008 (CST)


== Scotland bibliography ==
== Approval of [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] ==


Thanks for the kind words.  
Richard, I would like to have the subject article approved. Since you and I are the only two who worked on it, it is my understanding that we cannot nominate it for approval. Do you have any ideas as to which editors we could approach about nominating this article for approval? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:51, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
:hmm.. i'll ask. First how about changing the title to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  (It's real name is just Environmental Protection Agency., and the U.S. is an identifier versus state agencies.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:03, 7 June 2008 (CDT)


I'm trying to figure out what to do with the works of Walter Scott and especially John Prebble. I think a selection of their works belongs in the bibliography, but where to put them? A new section or two, probably, but what to call it? Scott wrote historical fiction. Prebble? Not quite in the same category as Tom Devine, but still more serious as history than Walter Scott.
::When I find the time, I will change the "United States" to "U.S." or "U.S.A." ... there is some discussion going on in the General Forums about standardizing what article name to use in just this case and I would like to wait until that shakes out. Moving the article name involves moving the entire cluster of subpages, metadata page, approval page, etc. and is quite tedious and time consuming.


[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 10:39, 5 February 2008 (CST)
::In any event, The U.S. or the U.S.A. is more than an identifier versus the state agencies ... many foreign countries also have very similar Environmental Protection names.  
::Scott belongs in a separate article on Scottish literature, as does Prebble. My wife is a Campbell and I hear about Culloden and Glencoe etc all the time but I don't think Prebble "makes the cut" as a scholar in the company of the authors who are now recommended. One solution: in the main text of the [[Scotland, history]] article mention his work in a footnote to Culloden & Glencoe. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:40, 5 February 2008 (CST)


I started a ''literature'' section in the Scotland Bibliography subpage. Sorry about that move to the Canadian Bibliography page. I was going to transfer the references from the main article to the subpage, so I created the subpage, then when I went to the main article, I saw it referred to ''Canada, History, Bibliography'' and I couldn't just move (rename) that page because the target was not empty. So I copied it over to the subpage. Problem is that doesn't transfer the edit history showing that you were the compiler. Don't know what to do about it now. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 16:04, 5 February 2008 (CST)
::Have you ever worked with the editor Anthony Argyriou? If you have, would you be so kind as to approach him about nominating the article? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 13:37, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
::Ok I just asked him at [[User talk:Anthony Argyriou]] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:05, 7 June 2008 (CDT)


==Your input is needed==
:::Richard, would you please read my comments on the Talk page of the article regarding your thoughts on changing the article name? I think we need more discussion before changing the name. Thanks in advance. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:12, 8 June 2008 (CDT)


Hi Richard,
==[[R. Eugene Pincham]]==
Do you know anything about Chicago's [[R. Eugene Pincham]]?  I can hardly imagine you were not aware of some of the publicity-oriented cases he took.  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:58, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::I would read about him in the paper or TV esp high publicity murder trials; he ran for office a few times and was known to be close to Mayor Washington, but I never had any inside info on him. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:01, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::I recommend contacting Mel Holli, retired U of Illinois-Chicago history prof and expert on Chicago politics. "Melvin Holli" <mholli -at- uic.edu> [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:06, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


You might want to pop your head into this proposal; http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals/Should_history_articles_be_named_with_general_terms_first%3F[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 08:59, 15 February 2008 (CST)
==Gettysburg==
Hey, sorry to see the dustup over Gettysburg. :-( [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 06:29, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::oh it's a striking confirmation of the old academic adage that there are no disputes on earth so trivial as academic ones. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:35, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


== [[Naval guns]] ==
Richard, maps 2 and 3 work for me and seem really helpful. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 09:37, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::thanks--must be my browser. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:33, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


Hey, great article! I did all the checklist mumbo-jumbo stuff on it for you; I also moved the bibliography to the /biblio sub-page, and since it was getting lengthy divided it up into books and articles (hope that's OK - if you don't like doing it that way, apologies). I had some editorial comments on the article - I'll post them on the Talk: page when I get a chance. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 13:01, 26 February 2008 (CST)
== On medieval referencing ==


:hey thanks! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:13, 26 February 2008 (CST)
Hi Richard--since things change over time, and it has been mumble mumble years since I was in school, can you refresh my memory?


:: Sure. If you don't have access to the Hodges book, let me know if I can look anything up in it for you - it's a beaut.
If I want to quote a medieval book and I have a) a 19th century complete reprint of it and b) there is a complete scanned copy of the original in the national library that I have reviewed, but c) I've never actually seen the original ''hard copy'', when I put it in my biblio, do I put the original, or because I haven't actually held the hard copy, do I reference only the reprint?
:: Also, I checklisted [[Proximity fuse]] for you too; dunno if you have any others needing doing, but unless you want specific notice, I'll just do the rest quietly. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 18:54, 26 February 2008 (CST)
:::thanks again. no need to notify me. I think we need illustrations (public domain) for guns and fuzes. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:36, 26 February 2008 (CST)


== Walter Reuther ==
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::I think either one works. The goal in a scholarly article is to prove whether you saw the original or a photocopy of it (you did), but that's not an issue here. I would cite the version that users are most likely to come across (probably the reprint, which is much cheaper and so libraries could buy it.) Be sure to mention the original date. For really expensive books the rare book library only lets most people handle the photocopy. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:20, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


Does the phrase "fellow traveller" have a specific meaning in the opening of the [[Walter Reuther]] article?  If so, maybe it should be linked.  I get the feeling that I'm just not understanding the sentence, though... --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 15:54, 1 March 2008 (CST)
== Watergate ==
::yes, a "fellow traveler" is US political history is a person who deliberately collaborated with organized Communists in support of their objectives. Thus we say, to paraphrase, At first Reuther was a fellow traveller who worked closely with the Communists in the mid 1930s, then he changed and became an opponent of the Communists.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:17, 1 March 2008 (CST)
:::Okay, thanks.  I'm going to wikilink it in order to signal to the reader that it's something particular and not just a bizarre way to phrase something else. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 13:36, 3 March 2008 (CST)


==Led Zeppelin==
Aw shucks, 'tweren't nothin'. I just made the previous statement inoperative! [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 15:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)
Richard, I just want to thank you for voting for Led Zeppelin in the Draft of the Week. I never expected anyone to vote for it but I do appreciate it :) Thanks! [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 17:07, 4 March 2008 (CST)
::just don't get on the CZ Enema List -- you'll catch shit. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:29, 19 June 2008 (CDT)
::my pleasure to support an excellent artcile. Keep up the good work. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:24, 6 March 2008 (CST)


== timeline template ==
== Luftwaffe ==


Richard-
I hadn't been planning on doing a full article, although I can contribute to some of the electronics. Interesting, though -- I just found Rudel's autobiography. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:10, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
::well I'll start on it then.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:50, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


Would you mind testing out a timeline template I've created?  It comes in two parts: {{tl|Timeline}} to establish the timeline field, and {{tl|TLevent}} to add timeline eventsYou can even change the colors and widths and stuffLet me know if you come across any issues. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
:::you may not have seen this, since it was in the radar technical article, but, while the author is a bit provocative in some statements, he's right that Germany had some more advanced radar technology, but didn't have enough system thinking around it.
:: I like timelines and will give it a try. thanks. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:09, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
<nowiki><ref name=Clark1997>{{citation
| id = ADA397960
| title = Deflating British Radar Myths of World War II
| publisher = Air Command and Staff College
| author = Clark, Gregory C.  
  | url = http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA397960  
| date = March 1997}}</ref></nowiki> [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:38, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
::I really don't know much about radar and electronic navigation so I hope you will handle those topics re Luftwaffe. You can keep all the strips of aluminium foil you find as souvenirs [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:51, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


== Cut-and-paste move? ==
:::LOL...of course. Chaff makes nice Christmas decoration. Do you have R.V. Jones' ''The Wizard War''?


Hi, it looks like you did a cut-and-paste move of [[The Crusades]] to [[Crusades]]. Was there a particular reason? (Because doing it that way divorces the content from its history, which is not good for copyright reasons... we lose track of who contributed what.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 17:36, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
:::Seriously, I'm updating and generalizing [[integrated air defense system]]. The Germans did develop some not-unreasonable IADS, but, by the time the large-scale Allied bomber forces flew against them, the Allies also knew more about electronic warfare. A number of the more effective techniques were deliberately held back until the invasion of France. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:16, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


:the people working on the article agreed that it was better as "Crusades" than "The crusades"--CZ policy is to avoice "The XYZ" in favor of "XYZ", and the history is all there at the latter article.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:54, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
::::While it was indeed Luftwaffe in WWII, the term, AFAIK, is still in use. I've seen transports in Luftwaffe markings at Dulles International Airport, over at the General Aviation terminal.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:11, 26 June 2008 (CDT)


::I don't think Noel is arguing about the rationale, rather it would be better to do a page move rather than a cut n' paste move.  I'll fix it so the history is kept intact. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 18:01, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
== Dokdo ==
::Given how few edits there are in the old history it's probably moot in this case. I'll leave everything as is. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 18:03, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


::: Yes, exactly - I agree with the name change, it was just the cut-and-paste I was questioning. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 18:07, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Thank you for your approval, Dr. Jensen! People weren't approving the article, so I planned to take the article off the list after this vote but I guess I don't have to. If you have doubts about the neutrality of the article or you are interested in the subject & would like a neutral & professional view on this issue, please take a look at this article written by a Japanese historian - Hideki Kajimura: [http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura-doc.pdf The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo]. Thank you. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT))


== Input requested re Naming Convention policy proposal ==
Actually, I'd think that you would stop reading the pdf by the 1st page or so, so here are some interesting & provocative quotes from the pdf:


There's been a significant suggestion for a change to the proposed policy.  Please look at [[CZ:Proposals/Naming Conventions for Biographies#Poll regarding suggested change]] and respond there. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 14:09, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
<blockquote>
To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted.


== Some stuff for you ==
...the Japanese government confirmed Takeshima/Ullungdo as Korean's inherent territory in 1696, and took the measure of prohibiting completely Japanese from making voyage there.


Hi, hope I didn't irritate you with my concern about the bifurcated article history at [[Crusades]]. Just one of my pet peeves, I guess.
The word "voyage" (or crossing sea) means voyage to a foreign country (since a permit is not needed for going to a domestic island), and the fact that the Japanese/government issued a permit of voyage to Matsushima means that the Japanese government did not regard it as a Japanese territory...


Anyway, by way of something to compensate, I made time to review [[Naval guns]] as I had said I would. I have produced some lengthy comments, which you can find at [[Talk:Naval guns]]; I hope they are useful (and welcome).
During the heated anti-foreign campaign between 1952 and 1954 the notion that "Takeshima ~ Tokdo is Japan's inherent territory penetrated into the Japanese for the first time. This campaign was also utilized clearly as a means to push for Japan's military rearmament.
</blockquote>
([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:26, 1 July 2008 (CDT))
::thanks for the tip. And thanks for a very good article! You have the knack for writing for the encyclopedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:55, 1 July 2008 (CDT)


Also, I have most of the books in my personal library in a database, and it's easy to cut-and-paste entries here. I have a couple of good Crusades sources which I don't think you list yet, like:
== AFL ==
Richard, could you move AFL to American Federation of Labor?  Eventually someone will write an article about the
American Football League, so we will be needing a disambiguation page. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:08, 7 July 2008 (CDT)
::OK, done. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:57, 7 July 2008 (CDT)


* Hans Eberhard Mayer, (translated John Gillingham), "The Crusades", Oxford University, 1972
::::Thanks [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 22:02, 7 July 2008 (CDT)
* Francesco Gabrieli, (translated E. J. Costello), "Arab Historians of the Crusades", Barnes and Noble, New York, 1993
* Carole Hillenbrand, "The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives", Routledge, Florence, 2000
* Bernard Hamilton, "The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kindom of Jerusalem", Cambridge University, New York, 2000
* Stanley Lane-Poole, "Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem", Khayats, Beirut, 1964


I also have a large number of others on my 'buy some day' list. Would you like me to add these to the article (most would go in the "Specialized studies" section), or should I just list them on the talk page, and you can decide what to do with them? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:36, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
== Dokdo approval ==


::Noel thanks for the Crusade bibl--why don't you add them. I'm of the opinion students will love our bibliographies! (I make a point of linking to Amazon.com when that site has the "search here" feature.) I'll look at the naval guns matgerials now.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:39, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
Hello Dr. Jensen,


Hi, finally got a chance to respond to you (I knew it was going to be at length, and I wanted a good block of time to do it justice). I'll do the Crusades books in a bit; I have done some research in the naval weapons area, and I want to jot down my research notes at [[Talk:Naval guns]] before I forget it all!
I think I finished the [[Dokdo]] article. Could you see if it can be approved? Thank you very much. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 21:45, 17 July 2008 (CDT))


Actually, like you, I'm  much better read on the 1914-1945 period (I've been an avid reader of military history since I got into WWII as a kid, and since high-school have branched out into history in general - if you count biographies as history, about 1/3 of my 20K volume personal library is history). However, as an engineer I'm also interested in technology, and I have some books that cover the weapons themselves, not just the action, and those do give me some insight into the earlier development.
:Thank you. I made a few edits afterward. They would be included in the approved version? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 00:22, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
::yes. you did a good job! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:19, 18 July 2008 (CDT)


Anyway, off to dump a load of data at T:Ng! [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 09:23, 15 March 2008 (CDT)
::: Hi Richard, I left a message ont he talk page:  ''This article is up for approval today.  I see that there are [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Dokdo&diff=100367898&oldid=100366959 several edits] since the date that Richard Jensen placed the template. If we want those included, the version date needs to reflect that change, otherwise I will use the latest version before that approval was made.'' [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:16, 21 July 2008 (CDT)


::GREAT material. please work it in. :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:51, 15 March 2008 (CDT)
::::Hello Dr. Jensen. I think here you said "yes" to the edits made after you put the approval template. Didn't you? Thank you. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 10:43, 21 July 2008 (CDT))


::: Umm, was that directed at me, or Denis? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:45, 15 March 2008 (CDT)
::::That was encouragement for Noel to blast away on those big naval guns. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:19, 15 March 2008 (CDT)


==RE: Your Bibliographies==
Approved!  Thanks for the last look ;-) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:47, 22 July 2008 (CDT)


Richard,
Dr. Jensen, are you still around? Just checking. I've seen about a page about "dead Wikipedians"... I hope we don't see something like that here for a long time. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 11:23, 29 August 2008 (CDT))
::I was forced to take a long "vacation" from CZ. :(  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:55, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
:::"forced" ??? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:48, 29 August 2008 (CDT))
::::yes--officially asked to take a long leave. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:21, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
:::::I see. How come? This must be the first case that someone's been "ousted" from Citizendium. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 16:08, 30 August 2008 (CDT))
::::::I find myself forced to correct Richard's misleading statement.  If Richard sincerely believes that he was "forced to take a long 'vacation' from CZ," he misread e-mails that were sent to him.  Without elaborating on his situation--which we may do ''if Richard wishes'' which is his right--he retains the right to contribute here.  If he did not know that, he does now.
::::::Indeed we have "ousted" several other people from CZ, but have not done so in many months now (simply because we have had fewer problems).  "Ousted" and "forced" are the incorrect descriptions, however, because they imply a raw, blind power struggle as opposed to a regular "legal" process; if someone is removed from participation in CZ, however, it is always done through due process and is subject to appeal.  Believe it or not, I and many other people in CZ care very much about such matters. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:59, 1 September 2008 (CDT)


I just wanted to say that your impressive Bibliography lists have been invaluable to me this year. The standard bibliography the department gives us at the start of the year always ensures those books are exhausted from the Library by the (usually late) time I get to the Library to do some work for essays and such. One good example I found is an Encyclopedia of the American West, which I've spent most of the last two weeks reading, which I found on one of your bibliographies. Just thought I'd let you know that your policy of adding big bibliographies have been unspeakably invaluable in helping me get some work done. Regards [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 18:59, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
Richard Jensen was asked to take a 'holiday' from editing here. He was humiliated before he was stood on, basically. In a purely understandable response to this, Richard told them where they could stick their wiki. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 23:03, 1 September 2008 (CDT)
:hey thanks--Howard Lamar was my teacher and I always admired his encyclopedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:06, 13 March 2008 (CDT)


::Richard, just wanted to second what Denis has said about your excellent bibliographies--I have also been going through those lists and just borrowed out some good references you recommended in the Prague article today. I think your additions to these pages are a huge help to university students and will be a good drawcard. Also, wanted to add my thanks for your stepping in with the article, I am reassured that it will be a solid guide with your input and really value your work. Many thanks. Regards, [[User:Louise Valmoria|Louise Valmoria]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
:Dr. Jensen, Dr. Sanger says you can still contribute. I think you should. I'm not sure what the problem was, but we should all be fully aware that ''Citizendium'' needs more people like you participating. We have 100s of PhD accounts registered that have no edits at all. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 15:27, 2 September 2008 (CDT))
:::Thanks-- I really enjoy doing bibliogs and learning about new  topics. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 01:23, 17 March 2008 (CDT)


==More naval research notes==
==Conservapedia==
Richard is [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:RJJensen now editing on Conservapedia]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 22:23, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


Hi, just a quick note to alert you that I added another batch of research notes at [[Talk:Naval guns‎]]. I still haven't nailed down all the issues, but I think we're getting there. I also located a number of other sources.  (Including an autobiograpy - is that a primary source, BT?)
We should wish him luck. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:27, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


Also, I added a reply suggesting a possible source of the 40 degree elevation number. I haven't added anything to the article for a number of reasons (e.g. some of my original suppositions have been shown to be wrong, once I looked carefully).
:I'll second that. Best of luck, Richard, wherever you do your work; and many thanks for your valuable contributions to Citizendium. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 23:15, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


Finally, do you think I should put in to be a history editor? I posted something on the forum about it (it turns out I do have microscopic actual credentials as a historian), after you mentioned that CZ needs history editors, but didn't hear anything. Anyway, if you think I should apply, let me know.
::I'll second that! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
:::Thanks--I'm back as well to Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 05:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
::::I hope you have an ample supply of [[Valium]]! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 10:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)


I just saw your WWII naval biblio, and have dozens and dozens of books I could list for you to add, but the sheer number is daunting. I will list a couple of my favourite overall Pacific theatre books (principally ones which given the Japanese view), but that will have to be later; it's late. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 00:00, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
:::::I don't like Wikipedia... well, good luck Dr. Jensen. I hope that soon all will be settled, you will recall the Citizendium experience, think how wonderful it was to be here, then change your mind & come back! : ) ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:39, 4 September 2008 (CDT))


: Hi, here are those two WWII Pacific books I mentioned. I mention these specifically because if you don't already have them, I'd highly recommend acquiring them. ABE has the Dull for about $8, so it's not a big hurdle; the Evans is somewhat more, alas.
::::::For what it's worth, I second that. I have no idea what happened here, I guess I missed a lot over the summer. I hope time heals the rifts. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:08, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
:* Paul S. Dull, "A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1941 - 1945)", Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1978 (ISBN: 0870210971)
:* David C. Evans (editor), "The Japanese Navy In World War Ii: In the Words of Former Japanese Naval Officers", Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1993 (ISBN: 0870213164)
: If you're not familiar with them, Dull was a Japanese language officer in WWII who was a professor of Asian history after the war. His book is based on extensive research in captured Imperial Japanes Navy records, with additional material from the official history produced by the Japanese Defense Agency. At the time it appeared, it was the only history in Western languages to be based almost entirely on Japanese sources. It also contains nice track charts for all major engagements.
: The Evans volume is, if anything, an even more interesting treatment. Japanese naval officers who were key personnel involved in major engagements (Pearl, Phillipines, Indian Ocean, Midway, Guadalcanal, Leyte, Okinawa, etc) retell the events from their perspective. The contributor of the Guadalcanal section is no less than Raizo Tanaka himself, commander of so many Tokyo Express missions down the Slot. The blunt directness of his analysis of the many Japanese errors in the Guadalcanal campaign (at the end of his section), so un-Japanese in its directness, bespeaks someone who is driven by an un-remittable debt to all his fellows who died there.
: I'm not sure which "Further Reading" sections these should be added to; I'll leave that up to you. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 23:53, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
::Thanks! I have read and used the Dull book; Evans is new to me and I appreciate it. They go in WW2 Pacific bibliog.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:06, 19 March 2008 (CDT)


== Are you back? ==


==Telescope==
I noticed a couple of edits earlier today from you.  What a surprise!  Does this mean you are back? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
:Welcome back! Let's have a party!


I noticed you added a section labled 'bibliography' to the article [[Telescope]]. I have not used these texts and they are not referred to in the section on 'tools'. Technically they do not comprise a bibliography. How shall we label them? I will pop them into one of the subsections for now.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 23:29, 22 March 2008 (CDT)
:"Chunbum Park brings 6 bottles of ^ beer and gulps one down." ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
:they comprise a working bibliography on telescopes for the reader. I will add some historical text from them. (CZ has dropped the Wikipedia rule that limits references to items used in the article.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:13, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
:::No I'm on sabbatical for the next three years. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::The further reading subsection add-on is perfect. Good idea.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:53, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
::::It's been 1 yr already in Mercurian calendar. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
:::::Hello Dr. Jenson. How are you doing? Will you come back in November 7, 2011? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


: "Bibliography" != "Sources". I've always understood "Bibliography" to mean "books about the topic area". If we want to indicate what sources we used, we should say so explicitly, using a term with no ambiguity to our readers (whose minds we do not get to reprogram to follow our rules). "Sources" is the unambiguous term. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:08, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
== Explosives approved ==


Reference, sure. But they still. need a note to show they are not Biblio since we still use APA. I gave them a header in the Biblio subsection (see tabs at top) which point out that they are not used in the article but are recommended for further reading. I see such additions as an added bonus here since they can be keep up to date and give the more serious enquirer a leg up.
Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that the subsection is largely a verbatim quote from Zik's book. I found most of the excerpt at [http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/perspectives_on_science/v009/9.3zik.html] It needs a rewrite. I will slip it back into the discussion section till you can get at it.
== Copyrighted material ==


Meanwhile I am adding some supportive sources for the section as well. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
I have [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=James_G._Blaine&action=historysubmit&diff=100831421&oldid=100639762 removed] the last paragraph of the [[James G. Blaine]] article as it appears to be copyrighted and so should not simply be uploaded there. Under our [[CZ:Moderator Group Blocking Procedures#Offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban|blocking procedures]], this attracts a warning first, then a ban. This message constitutes the warning, unless you can show evidence that the material was appropriately uploaded. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 
: RE the massive deletions and rewrite you have made to the article. Richard you do not make content decisions. I have provided noted authorities from existing sources. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:17, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
 
==More naval guns==
 
Hi, just a quick note to let you know that I'm still quietly working away at research on this. I prevailed on my wife to buy me Bastable, "Arms and the State", as an early present, and it arrived a little over a week ago, but alas it was more about the finance, politics etc than the technology. However, it did have all sorts of references to other likely-looking things, and I have placed a large number of them on order, and they are starting to trickle in. I'll add them all to the biblio in due course. I also found the name of an early (ca. 1865) book on the earliest rifled big guns which Google has online, but it's by a partisan of Whitworth, so it's not exactly even-handed coverage. I do think we'll be able to get to the bottom of the 19th-C revolution with all this in hand, though. (The earlier stuff I'm afraid I won't be too much help with.) It does look like elongated shells and rifling came in together (one is not very useful without the other). More later... [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 16:22, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
::Good news! please add the 1865 book to the bibliography; we expect primary sources to be informative but not necessarily neutral. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:47, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Question ==
 
Hey Richard--
 
Could I borrow your expertise for a bit? I was just reading over the [[Pentecostalism]] article, and was tempted to beef it up, but I ran into a quandary about the origins of the movement. My common knowledge understanding of the movement is that it got started with the Azusa street revival and William J. Seymour, but I honestly don't know whether scholars buy into that version of the history. Do you have any advice as to how we should describe the origins of the Pentecostal movement? Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 16:00, 7 April 2008 (CDT)
::Go for it! the Azusa street mission is very important, but some of the ideas date back a few years to Kansas about 1900. see [http://www.fwselijah.com/Parham.htm online]  I recommend you sign up (free) to [http://www.h-net.org/~pentcost/ H-Pentacostalism]. They have book reviews and discussion and would love to have you ask questions there. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:36, 7 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Could you please explain more fully? ==
 
I believe this is the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Uighur_captives_in_Guantanamo&diff=100305043&oldid=100296348 first time an editor has edited one of my contributions].
 
I left some questions on the talk page.
 
Richard, I am trying to figure out whether the Citizendium is going to be a welcoming place for the kind of contributions I would like to make.  And also for material I have already contributed to another large wiki.
 
I have only committed about 40 hours here so far.  I think I spent that time well.  I uploaded a bunch of
good maps and other images.  I started more than a dozen articles.  I made some other contributions.
 
But what I was really waiting for was feedback about how the editors in the field felt about the use of
the kinds of sources I used on that other wiki.  The DoD has released 2300 documents over the last two years.
It is possibly 15,000 pages.  I have read most of it.  I want to write about it.  I want to write about it
using a cool, neutral voice.  I want my readers to find that material useful, and unbiased. 
 
Over on that other wiki some of my correspondents don't challenge my neutrality.  They don't challenge
the verifiability of what I have written.  But they challenge its "notability".  That was one of the things
I initially liked about what I read about the Citizendium.  The flawed and entirely too subjective criteria
of "notability" have been replaced by maintainability.  That other wiki had a policy that starts with
'''"verifiability, not truth"''' (Same here, right?)  And I saw "maintainability, not notability", as a parallel
wise move.
 
You can say to me, George, in my opinion, those maps and images you uploaded are useful, but please don't try to provide detailed coverage of the war on terror, even if you think it is neutral, maintainable, and well sourced.
It just won't be welcome here. 
 
Cheers!  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 13:21, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
::George--I got involved because you requested an editor's help. To be an encyclopedia article it has to concisely summarize the major points, taking into account all positions. The original article did not explain the main issues or why they were  at all important. I don't think the original version was trying to be fair to the Chinese or US positions--that is a fatal error for a CZ contributor. It seems to be mostly based on one person's research --by a person who does not claim any expertise in international or criminal law, and who does not cite any legal opinions. That certainly violates the spirit of an authoritative, nonbiased resource that people know is based on expert research. As for the time commitment, It seems the article in question is a 1-minute exact copy from Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:47, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
:::I agree! Hello everyone. (I'm serious, I looked at the history) P.S. although he could have worked on it at Wikipedia. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 16:26, 8 April 2008 (CDT))
 
===Editor review===
 
Thanks for the review.  I'll have some further questions about it, which I will place on its talk page.  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 20:59, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 
===Complying with the Citzendium model of regular contributors and subject field experts===
 
Now I think you may have been trying to remind me, in this passage:
{{quotation|It seems to be mostly based on one person's research --by a person who does not claim any expertise in international or criminal law, and who does not cite any legal opinions.}}
...that you are a respected expert, with impressive credentials, who can claim expertise in international and criminal law?  And that I, well, am not an expert. 
 
I'll happily concede that I am not an expert.  I'll happily concede that I am aware, in principle, of the hierarchy between the Citizendium's content experts and regular contibutors.  I was curious to try to make some contributions here, to see if I preferred this model to the wikipedia's model where good content can be overwhelmed by popular misconceptions.  I've been waiting to see how this would work out in practice.
 
I read one estimate that said there were seven active authors to every editor.  I read another that said the ratio was a hunred to one.  I figure that this discrepancy is based on whether to count people who came, tried the Citizendium out, but haven't returned, and those who are unambiguously happily contributing today.
 
Correct me if I am wrong -- in the Citizendium model us regular people are still entitled to pose civil questions about content changes made by subject field experts?  A limited amount of civil questions...  It may seem like I have a lot of questions today, not a limited amount. 
If so it is because this is my first dialogue with a Citzendium editor.  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 05:13, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 
===1-minute exact copies===
 
I don't know how many articles you have ported from the wikipedia.  I checked my contribution history here.  I count fourteen others.  Like this one I ported the last version I was sole person to contribute intellectual content.  You can see the details [[User:George Swan/articles started|'''here''']].
 
I assure there wasn't one that took just one minute.  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 05:21, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
::only George Swan can tell us how long he took. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:26, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
===Extrajudicial detention===
 
The very first article I worked on here was a port of an early version of [[extrajudicial detention]].  Larry moved it from article space to the discussion page -- and I am afraid the justification was based on  a misconception.
 
He seems to think that the captives in Guantanamo are all Geneva Convention POWs.  I am pretty sure they are not.  This is your area of expertise, right?
When you feel you have more time
could you take a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AExtrajudicial_detention&diff=100195637&oldid=100195603 this discussion]?
 
Thanks!  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 05:21, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 
===Could you please clarify your use of "original research"?===
 
Could you please clarify your use of the term "[[original research]]"?
On the wikipedia searching for sources, and quoting them, is not regarded as "original research".
Neither is, generally, paraphrasing them, provided one does so fairly, and doesn't perform what the
policy there calls a "novel synthesis".
 
Could you please clarify for me whether you think I have been lapsing from compliance with the Citizendium's policy on original research?  If so could you help me understand how you think I lapsed?
 
FWIW I made a comment, back in November, on [[CZ Talk:Original Research Policy]], [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ_Talk%3AOriginal_Research_Policy&diff=100224324&oldid=100224218 here].
Another newcomer had a concern over what they saw as a contradiction, where they thought the policy allowed Citizendium editors, like yourself, to use the Citizendium to publish original material.  I wrote:
{{quotation|My interpretation of this passage does not contradict other documents, because I interpret it as '''"our editors create the sources [<small>encyclopedias like</small>] the wikipedia cites, ''when they are at work on their day jobs''."'''. I didn't interpret it as stating that our editors would publish original research here.}}
Could you clarify for me whether this matches your interpretation of policy?  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 05:56, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 
::a small amount of orginal research is allowed in CZ articles, under the supervision of expert editors who can tell junk science from the real thing. This article seems to be based entirely on browsing into original legal documents by one person who is not trained in law and does not cite law reviews or other authoritative statements, and has not published in any reputable source. CZ is based on long-term expertise of authors and editors and that criteria is not met here, and the article fails to explain the legal issues involved or the importance of the issue in the first place. For this article I strongly recommend you start reading the law reviews--some education in constitutional and criminal law, and in political science, would allow for a broad perspective on what's going on.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:32, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Just to be clear -- the "one person" here.  That would be me.  Is there any possibility you would consider simply addressing me in the first person?
 
:::So, just to be clear, are you recommending that I refrain from working on this article, altogether, until after I have "an education in constitutional and criminal law, and in political science"?  Does that recommendation hold for any article related to Guantanamo captives? 
 
:::Bearing in mind that I am not an expert, and you are, can I ask why you refer to the [[OARDEC]] documents as "legal documents"?  This confuses me because the Tribunal Presidents told every captive who asked why he wasn't allowed to call upon a lawyer that the Tribunals weren't courts of law, that they "were administrative proceedings", not legal proceedings. [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] 07:29, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
::::well yes, I recommend you start reading on international law. The reason we have rules against unlimited OR is that people have their hobby-horses and make up their own interpretations without regard to the worldwide community of experts. They don't read the law reviews or court cases. To become an authoritative reference source CZ has to depend on articles written by experts who do rely on those law reviews and court cases.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:09, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Michael Faraday ==
 
Richard I saw that you removed the editor and city from the J.H. Gladstone reference, why  did you that? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 20:23, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
::just to save space. I linked to a complete online copy that people can read (and which has all the details if anyone wants them). (My philosophy is that links to amazon.com or books.google.com provide all the useful information on a book.) I'm a fan of Faraday--and your science articles! keep them coming. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:32, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
:::This is a link to an obscure (for me, that is) site. You know that sites come and go, and if one knows the publisher, chances are greater to find the source after the site has gone. Space is not an issue (this 30 bytes, or so, completely drowns in any picture, where we are talking about order of 50 000 bytes or more). --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 21:16, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
::I'll link it to a better site (google books) instead of the private site you originally provided. Knowing the name of the publisher is irrelevant here. The usual practice in encyclopedias is to have very brief author-title-date listings. I often add the number of pages because that seems to interest students a lot! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:28, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
==Move==
[[Swedish American]] isn't an adjective here, it's a singular noun. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:25, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
:: it's ambiguous but Swedish Americans is unambiguous. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:11, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
:::Just to see what the competition is doing, I checked out the WP article. It is titled '''Swedish American''', singular, BUT then has as the opening sentence: "'''Swedish Americans''' are Americans blah blah." That, to me, is clearly the worst of all worlds.  In this particular instance, my inclination is to side with Prof. Jensen. After all, all these articles are about a *group* of hyphenated ppl (whether or not the vexatious hyphen is actually used). To me, a "Swedish American" is Paul Bunyon" or some such, not a bunch of people in Minnesota.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:30, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
 
:::: Yeah, I agree "Swedish-American" is.... overly Procustean. What's next, [[Pant]]? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 20:00, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== History Workgroup page ==
 
Hey Richard-- for some reason, you and I both decided to clean up the History Workgroup articles at the exact same time. You have at it, and then I'll swing in and add my piece. Do you have any feelings about how we should organize the articles on the workgroup page? Personally, I'm not wild about the [[Napoleon]] | [[Regency period]] thing, all across the page, but I am equally nonplussed about the Religion Workgroup's numbering system... there's got to be a better way. Best, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 20:57, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
::well I was postponing doing my taxes....maybe adding a few anti-tax people to the list? Seriously, I was trying to drop items that belong to other workgroups (archaeology), and focus on nations and big topics, dropping almost all individuals and smaller events. I'm doing taxes next 24 hours so it's all yours. :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:19, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Marconi ==
 
The article on [[Guglielmo Marconi]] looks like it is just about ready for approval.  It is currently listed under the media and engineering workgroups, but there isn't a whole lot of activity in the media workgroup and the editors from engineering are mostly focused in other areas.  Do you think it could be added to the history workgroup and approved by a history editor? --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 17:31, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
::agrees, and I started the process. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:13, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
:::Great, thanks!  I'll send a note to the engineering and media workgroup mailing lists to see if any editors from those groups want to sign on as co-approvers. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 13:34, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
::::yes and please help with the approval details, which I usually manage to botch up. :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:04, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Permanent link ==
 
Richard, they added a new gadget in the toolbox on the left; at the very bottom click on 'Permanent link' and it will give you the address of any page that you are on at the moment.  It works great for the metadata page article url.  Have fun. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:38, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
 
:PS, this page is getting long again! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:40, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
::ok -- thanks! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:04, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
 
== Russian-German Americans ==
Richard, do you know much about the Russian-Germans that came to America?  They are descendents of German farmers who were given free land in Russia, at two different times, to help feed the Russians who at that time were not very good farmers.  Many of the German-Americans who came to America are Russian-German-Americans, including my family. My Aunt is compiling quite a nice little book on the subject.  [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 08:44, 17 April 2008 (CDT)
::I was in North Dakota last month and people talked about them. But I don't know much so please add a section on them. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:07, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 09:02, 4 May 2024


American religion, again

Hey Richard-- Sorry to bother you again with a question about religion in America, but I just hacked out a stub on Unitarianism, and I was wondering if you might take a look at it. I feel reasonably comfortable about the first paragraph, where I distinguish between the denomination and the theology of the godhead, but I wanted to make sure I didn't make any howlers in my discussion of early Unitarianism, particularly in America. Feel free to change anything you like, as American religion is a mere side-interest of mine. Thanks, Brian P. Long 15:53, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

willdo...thanks for starting important article. It looks very good! Richard Jensen 16:11, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

I need your input

Hi Richard, can you take a look at this page and give us a little direction? Thanks in advance! --D. Matt Innis 17:42, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

History Workgroup Week

Hey Richard-- Would you want to be the History Workgroup Week Coordinator? I can work on getting the basic page together and helping out generally, but we need an editor on-board. Are you game? Thanks, Brian P. Long 18:43, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

yesRichard Jensen 20:29, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

More input

Hello Dr. Jensen, could you see here about the naming of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima article that I'm going to start? I borrowed my book on Imjin War to one of my friends so I can't work on the Korean War of 1592-1598 right now. Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 23:54, 8 May 2008 (CDT))

it's the author's call (Chunbum's) -- I lean to "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto" see for military discussion) Richard Jensen 00:15, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
Hello, I never considered that. I'm used to being in Wikipedia, so multiple names is not so obvious to me. Thank you, I'll suggest that in the discussion. (Chunbum Park 08:35, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
Actually, I can't make it author's call - the issue's too big for me to take full responsibility. See these news articles: Joseon Ilbo, Livedoor, Japan Probe, & OhMyNews. (Chunbum Park 08:48, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
Chunbum in fact handles big wars very well; he can name the rock! Richard Jensen 11:02, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Archived for you

Hope you don't mind! --D. Matt Innis 08:00, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

hey thanks--I really appreciate it. I'll pay you back--how about a bibliography on the topic of your choice :) Richard Jensen 08:16, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
Hehe! I think I still owe you for the last one! :-) --D. Matt Innis 08:33, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I seem to have created a big mess by just jumping in without understanding the way things work. Maybe I'll wait a few days to be bold again.--David Boven 08:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

no no, be bold-please write! it's just that moving and renaming articles causes no end of technical troubles, and I've made the mistake several times. Happily our very good technical crew cleaned up the mess I made. :) Richard Jensen 10:27, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Removing the Bruce-Lovett report

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted, because it sure sounds like an extremely dubious document. (Puzzling, because Schlesinger has a good reputation, so 2+2 aren't adding up here - but that's a rathole for another day!) I just like everyone to be cheerful. (Not the world's worst character flaw, eh?) J. Noel Chiappa 11:05, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

I really like Schlesinger -- but he handled so many tens of thousands of documents that he let this one slip through. In his defense he was not writing about 1956 but about a later period (1960-61). I think somebody made a mock "report" and Kennedy laughed about it and kept it -- and Schlesinger thought it was real. I used to be active in archival circles (I was on the FBI Archives advisory board), and know US government agencies all have multiple checklists to deal with real documents (none of which show the existence of this document). As for keeping people happy, I think Howard C. Berkowitz, who's doing terrific work, appreciates fellow experts helping him out. That is what CZ is all about: collaboration. Richard Jensen 11:17, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Yes, that struck me as the likeliest possibility (if it's not real); that somehow this thing got into RFK's files, and Schlesinger took it for real. (The other possibility, if it's not real, being that Schlesinger faked it, which seems considerably less likely.)
The problem I have with that theory is 'where is it, then'? Since the RFK Archive people have looked for it, and can't find it, one now sort of has to come up with an explanation as to why (again, assuming that Schlesinger really saw such a thing). Did they just miss it somehow (perhaps because it's misfiled)? Did it somehow get lost (e.g. someone borrowed it, and didn't return it)? Did someone have it removed from the archives (to cover up the faking, perhaps)? And if that could have happened, couldn't it also have happened it if were real? Etc, etc...
As a side question, again assuming Schlesinger really saw such a document, one has to wonder 'why did someone go to the effort of creating this fake'? The CSI theory is that it would have wound up in RFK's files in the very early 60s, well before the CIA had a raft of people out after it. A bureacratic rival?
If it is real, I wonder if the reason it doesn't show up on any logs, etc is that it could have been an informal document solicited by Eisenhower from these two people in a quiet way - perhaps because he wanted them to be very frank, and be willing to break some institutional rice bowls.
Etc, etc. Very curious, all around. J. Noel Chiappa 11:46, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, it's curioser and curiouser. We knoe Ike did not see it. His staff was VERY efficient in logging in every document that went to the White House, and there is no such document, and no such log record, at the Eisenhower archives. The simplest explanation is that it was a draft that never became an official report, or that it was a a prank that Schlesinger misunderstood. I can't believe Schlesinger faked it--he knew a real document would have a long paper trail at the CIA, White House etc. and that a fake document would humiliate his reputation (as hapened to Trevor Roper who authenticated the fake Hitler diaries.) As we know from the CBS-Dan-Rather-National Guard business, it's easy to fake a typewritten report. If we had the copy Schlesinger used we could use standard techniques to maybe discover if it was a later fake, but his copy has vanished and so have his notes. Maybe Schlesinger realized it was a fake and discarded it instead of returning it to the Kennedy Library?? Alas, he was quoting himself on the subject as late as 2000. so that theory is out.Richard Jensen 13:42, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Seems like a lot of work for a prank, but I guess it's possible.
Here's another theory, which draws on your suggestion that it may have been a draft: perhaps it wasn't drawn up as a formal report, but rather an aide-memoire for one (or both) of them, as part of a review requested (perhaps verbally) by Eisenhoweer, and the results of that review were presented to Eisenhower verbally? I know, I know, it's a bit of a reach, but it is, I think, plausible (especially if it involved the potential breakage of rice bowls, they might want to do that quietly). Unfortunately, the only evidence for this possibility is, in the best conspiracy theory style, the lack of evidence!
Yet another one, drawing this time on your "a fake document would humiliate his reputation": Schlesinger eventually realized it wasn't real, and he'd been had, and he didn't want the embarassment of coming out and admitting he'd been had. So he disappears the original document, and his notes, leaving fog behind... that keeps him clear, and minimizes the damage to the historical record.
And a variant on that one: he falsely comes to believe it was a fake (because nobody can find any contemporary cross-references), even though it was in fact real (but very oddball), and events ensue as in the previous one. And I'd better stop there before my fantasies become too elaborate! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 14:26, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
I lean to the aide-memoire hypothesis. There was no commission, no staff, no study, no report. But Bruce and/or Lovett exchanged private memos. How did Kennedy get a copy? One suggestion on the web is RFK headed a stury of what went wrong at CIA's Bay of Pigs. Lovett testified and was harsh on CIA, and gave Kennedy the private memo. Ok--here's another (better?) possibility. Schlesinger hismelf was involved in the investigation of the Bay of Pigs, Lovett or his aide gave SCHLESINGER the draft in 1961. In 1968 when it came time to write the book on Bobby the draft was at hand, and Schlesinger made the mistake of saying he found it in the Kenedy papers. (We know it was never logged into the Kennedy papers--the Kennedy Library has very good archivists who track these things.) This explains why the Kennedy papers lack the copy--they never had it. Likewise Eisenhower never had it. So what did Schlesinger do with his own copy and the notes he took?? Richard Jensen 14:36, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
That hypothesis (that Schlesinger misremembered where it was) is another good possibility - but as you say, it does raise the question of what happened to his copy - and we still have the question of why there's no copy in the Bruce archives. Of course, if it was an aide-memoire for Lovett (who was the one who testified, after all - our hypothetical transmission channel), it might quite reasonably not be in Bruce's files. I wonder if Lovett had archives, and if so, if people have looked there? Or perhaps there was only one typed original, and whoever (Lovett?) gave it to Schlesinger (or RFK), and it's now lost? Or maybe Schlesigner thought it was in the Kennedy, and as result never bothered to look in his own files because of that? I wonder where his papers are now, and if they've been searched?
As to the notes, Schlesinger says he gave his original notes to Grose, and didn't retain a copy (!!). (And why did he make notes if he had the original? But perhaps he was confused, even back then, as to where it was?) Again, slightly odd, but not impossible.
I have sent email to the person at Cryptome who had a copy of the CSI mention of it on his web-site, so perhaps he can provide something more recent. J. Noel Chiappa 16:35, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Schlesinger's papers were recently purchased by CCNY--I suppose it will take a few years to sort them. Suppose--if-perhaps--in 1961 he saw the memo and made notes. (He could have been shown the memo by X for a few hours, made notes, then returned it to X.) Then perhaps in 1969 when he wrote his book on RFK he only used his notes. (This was not a central point and no need to track down the original when you have your own notes.) Then in writing up the appropriate footnote he got mixed up, and said the original was in the Kennedy collection when it was not. Schlesinger does emphasize in his book that no one paid any attention to the memo in 1956. (Which I think is because no one saw it then.) As for giving the notes to Gose?? Schlesinger had a secretary and xerox machine, and so the idea he mailed off his only copy, the Gose lost them, seems odd as well. Richard Jensen 17:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
I like that one (that he was shown a copy, made notes, and got confused about where he'd seen them) too, but I wonder why he thought he'd just seen them in the RFK papers (presumably shortly after RFK died, because Schlesigner apparently said something about "before they were deposited at the JFK library"), when under this theory it was many years before. Maybe he got confused because there was an RFK connection in both cases? I see also the book was published in '68, which would have been shortly after RFK was killed - maybe he was under time pressure to get it out, and made a mistake because of that?
I too was puzzled as to why Schlesigner didn't have a copy of his notes any more (see incredulity above), but the CSI newsletter indicates they interacted with him directly: Professor Schlesinger informed us .. [h]e had loaned Grose his notes and does not have a copy of these notes. So either he's mistaken, or he did loan out his only copy... who knows? Another odd circumstance.
I got a reply from Mr. John Young, who has a copy of the CSI thing on the Cryptome website; he suggested we contact Mr. Grose to persue this further; I asked him if he knew how to do that.
Late addition: See the Talk:CIA page - I think I have found testimony from Lovett confirming he and Bruce did an investigation. J. Noel Chiappa 18:29, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

reverted your edits

Hello Richard, I have reverted your edits on CIA earlier this morning that caused some upset. Do take your time and use the talk page before making such large deletions. --D. Matt Innis 21:22, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

there are now several thousand words explaining the deletions. Is that enough? Richard Jensen 04:56, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
yup, any deletions that are made to this material now would be content issues. --D. Matt Innis 13:12, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Approval of Cauchy

Richard, could you approve Augustin Louis Cauchy? --Paul Wormer 02:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Did you see Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy#Approval? J. Noel Chiappa 15:19, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

Latinos and Hispanics

I was just looking at the draft of the week. I was always taught that Latinos included people from Latin America that spoke Romance languages whereas Hispanics were only those that spoke Spanish (not Brazil, Suriname, etc.). The new draft of Latino History is a little confusing in the lead. I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, but you may want to look over it.--David Boven 11:00, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it now.Richard Jensen 11:21, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Red herring-thanks

Thanks for the clarification on Red Herring. I have been trying to remove it from the unchecklisted list for weeks, but it sat there empty all this time. I gave it a quick try just to clear the log. You verbage is a definite improvement. David E. Volk 15:24, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

happy to help. Harry Truman got in trouble saying the Alger Hiss case was a red herring. Richard Jensen 16:38, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

Hello

Hello, Dr. Jenson! Thank you for your kind greeting on my talk page. If you need any help with any article in a subject area I am familiar with, I will be glad to assist. Erik M. Baker 22:03, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

DoD (US) name

See Talk:United States Department of Defense#names - should I rename it to Department of Defense (United States), then? Not U.S. Department of Defense and not Department of Defense (U.S.), or anything else? J. Noel Chiappa 12:27, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

PS: I am keeping an eye on Elizabeth II, will move it soon. J. Noel Chiappa 12:37, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

New type of subpage

Officially these need to be approved before being hardwired but I have set up the subpages template such that you can start using an experimental version. My thinking is that if an experimental subpage becomes popular then this will be a strong reason to adopt it to the official list. The way to set up an experimental tab is to add "|tab1=New Subpage name" into the metadata page. You can see an example of this type of addition at Damon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award for the Honorees tab. The full proposal for adding new subpage types in this way can be read at CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages?. Let me know if this does not make sense. Chris Day 22:37, 5 June 2008 (CDT)

thanks. I'm proposing a standard subpage for all history articles for "Primary sources"-- excerpts of original historical documents. For copyright reasons these will be old documents (or government documents), and thus seem most appropriate for History, but others can use them too. I expect several hundred history articles could use this subpage effective. Richard Jensen 23:39, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
Note that Larry affirms it needs approval before being hardwired. Chris Day 09:53, 6 June 2008 (CDT)
Certainly articles like Hippocrates and Galen could use a "Primary sources" subpage. --Anthony.Sebastian 00:04, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Approval of United States Environmental Protection Agency

Richard, I would like to have the subject article approved. Since you and I are the only two who worked on it, it is my understanding that we cannot nominate it for approval. Do you have any ideas as to which editors we could approach about nominating this article for approval? - Milton Beychok 04:51, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

hmm.. i'll ask. First how about changing the title to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (It's real name is just Environmental Protection Agency., and the U.S. is an identifier versus state agencies.) Richard Jensen 06:03, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
When I find the time, I will change the "United States" to "U.S." or "U.S.A." ... there is some discussion going on in the General Forums about standardizing what article name to use in just this case and I would like to wait until that shakes out. Moving the article name involves moving the entire cluster of subpages, metadata page, approval page, etc. and is quite tedious and time consuming.
In any event, The U.S. or the U.S.A. is more than an identifier versus the state agencies ... many foreign countries also have very similar Environmental Protection names.
Have you ever worked with the editor Anthony Argyriou? If you have, would you be so kind as to approach him about nominating the article? - Milton Beychok 13:37, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Ok I just asked him at User talk:Anthony Argyriou Richard Jensen 21:05, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Richard, would you please read my comments on the Talk page of the article regarding your thoughts on changing the article name? I think we need more discussion before changing the name. Thanks in advance. Milton Beychok 16:12, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

R. Eugene Pincham

Do you know anything about Chicago's R. Eugene Pincham? I can hardly imagine you were not aware of some of the publicity-oriented cases he took. Stephen Ewen 03:58, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

I would read about him in the paper or TV esp high publicity murder trials; he ran for office a few times and was known to be close to Mayor Washington, but I never had any inside info on him. Richard Jensen 06:01, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
I recommend contacting Mel Holli, retired U of Illinois-Chicago history prof and expert on Chicago politics. "Melvin Holli" <mholli -at- uic.edu> Richard Jensen 06:06, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

Gettysburg

Hey, sorry to see the dustup over Gettysburg. :-( J. Noel Chiappa 06:29, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

oh it's a striking confirmation of the old academic adage that there are no disputes on earth so trivial as academic ones. Richard Jensen 06:35, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard, maps 2 and 3 work for me and seem really helpful. --D. Matt Innis 09:37, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

thanks--must be my browser. Richard Jensen 13:33, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

On medieval referencing

Hi Richard--since things change over time, and it has been mumble mumble years since I was in school, can you refresh my memory?

If I want to quote a medieval book and I have a) a 19th century complete reprint of it and b) there is a complete scanned copy of the original in the national library that I have reviewed, but c) I've never actually seen the original hard copy, when I put it in my biblio, do I put the original, or because I haven't actually held the hard copy, do I reference only the reprint?

Aleta Curry 18:46, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

I think either one works. The goal in a scholarly article is to prove whether you saw the original or a photocopy of it (you did), but that's not an issue here. I would cite the version that users are most likely to come across (probably the reprint, which is much cheaper and so libraries could buy it.) Be sure to mention the original date. For really expensive books the rare book library only lets most people handle the photocopy. Richard Jensen 19:20, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

Watergate

Aw shucks, 'tweren't nothin'. I just made the previous statement inoperative! Bruce M.Tindall 15:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

just don't get on the CZ Enema List -- you'll catch shit. Richard Jensen 15:29, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

Luftwaffe

I hadn't been planning on doing a full article, although I can contribute to some of the electronics. Interesting, though -- I just found Rudel's autobiography. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:10, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

well I'll start on it then.Richard Jensen 17:50, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
you may not have seen this, since it was in the radar technical article, but, while the author is a bit provocative in some statements, he's right that Germany had some more advanced radar technology, but didn't have enough system thinking around it.

<ref name=Clark1997>{{citation | id = ADA397960 | title = Deflating British Radar Myths of World War II | publisher = Air Command and Staff College | author = Clark, Gregory C. | url = http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA397960 | date = March 1997}}</ref> Howard C. Berkowitz 20:38, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

I really don't know much about radar and electronic navigation so I hope you will handle those topics re Luftwaffe. You can keep all the strips of aluminium foil you find as souvenirs Richard Jensen 20:51, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
LOL...of course. Chaff makes nice Christmas decoration. Do you have R.V. Jones' The Wizard War?
Seriously, I'm updating and generalizing integrated air defense system. The Germans did develop some not-unreasonable IADS, but, by the time the large-scale Allied bomber forces flew against them, the Allies also knew more about electronic warfare. A number of the more effective techniques were deliberately held back until the invasion of France. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:16, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
While it was indeed Luftwaffe in WWII, the term, AFAIK, is still in use. I've seen transports in Luftwaffe markings at Dulles International Airport, over at the General Aviation terminal.Howard C. Berkowitz 00:11, 26 June 2008 (CDT)

Dokdo

Thank you for your approval, Dr. Jensen! People weren't approving the article, so I planned to take the article off the list after this vote but I guess I don't have to. If you have doubts about the neutrality of the article or you are interested in the subject & would like a neutral & professional view on this issue, please take a look at this article written by a Japanese historian - Hideki Kajimura: The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 18:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT))

Actually, I'd think that you would stop reading the pdf by the 1st page or so, so here are some interesting & provocative quotes from the pdf:

To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted.

...the Japanese government confirmed Takeshima/Ullungdo as Korean's inherent territory in 1696, and took the measure of prohibiting completely Japanese from making voyage there.

The word "voyage" (or crossing sea) means voyage to a foreign country (since a permit is not needed for going to a domestic island), and the fact that the Japanese/government issued a permit of voyage to Matsushima means that the Japanese government did not regard it as a Japanese territory...

During the heated anti-foreign campaign between 1952 and 1954 the notion that "Takeshima ~ Tokdo is Japan's inherent territory penetrated into the Japanese for the first time. This campaign was also utilized clearly as a means to push for Japan's military rearmament.

(Chunbum Park 18:26, 1 July 2008 (CDT))

thanks for the tip. And thanks for a very good article! You have the knack for writing for the encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 18:55, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

AFL

Richard, could you move AFL to American Federation of Labor? Eventually someone will write an article about the American Football League, so we will be needing a disambiguation page. David E. Volk 14:08, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

OK, done. Richard Jensen 18:57, 7 July 2008 (CDT)
Thanks David E. Volk 22:02, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

Dokdo approval

Hello Dr. Jensen,

I think I finished the Dokdo article. Could you see if it can be approved? Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 21:45, 17 July 2008 (CDT))

Thank you. I made a few edits afterward. They would be included in the approved version? (Chunbum Park 00:22, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
yes. you did a good job! Richard Jensen 10:19, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
Hi Richard, I left a message ont he talk page: This article is up for approval today. I see that there are several edits since the date that Richard Jensen placed the template. If we want those included, the version date needs to reflect that change, otherwise I will use the latest version before that approval was made. D. Matt Innis 08:16, 21 July 2008 (CDT)
Hello Dr. Jensen. I think here you said "yes" to the edits made after you put the approval template. Didn't you? Thank you. (Chunbum Park 10:43, 21 July 2008 (CDT))


Approved! Thanks for the last look ;-) D. Matt Innis 14:47, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, are you still around? Just checking. I've seen about a page about "dead Wikipedians"... I hope we don't see something like that here for a long time. (Chunbum Park 11:23, 29 August 2008 (CDT))

I was forced to take a long "vacation" from CZ. :( Richard Jensen 15:55, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
"forced" ??? (Chunbum Park 18:48, 29 August 2008 (CDT))
yes--officially asked to take a long leave. Richard Jensen 21:21, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
I see. How come? This must be the first case that someone's been "ousted" from Citizendium. (Chunbum Park 16:08, 30 August 2008 (CDT))
I find myself forced to correct Richard's misleading statement. If Richard sincerely believes that he was "forced to take a long 'vacation' from CZ," he misread e-mails that were sent to him. Without elaborating on his situation--which we may do if Richard wishes which is his right--he retains the right to contribute here. If he did not know that, he does now.
Indeed we have "ousted" several other people from CZ, but have not done so in many months now (simply because we have had fewer problems). "Ousted" and "forced" are the incorrect descriptions, however, because they imply a raw, blind power struggle as opposed to a regular "legal" process; if someone is removed from participation in CZ, however, it is always done through due process and is subject to appeal. Believe it or not, I and many other people in CZ care very much about such matters. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Richard Jensen was asked to take a 'holiday' from editing here. He was humiliated before he was stood on, basically. In a purely understandable response to this, Richard told them where they could stick their wiki. Denis Cavanagh 23:03, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, Dr. Sanger says you can still contribute. I think you should. I'm not sure what the problem was, but we should all be fully aware that Citizendium needs more people like you participating. We have 100s of PhD accounts registered that have no edits at all. (Chunbum Park 15:27, 2 September 2008 (CDT))

Conservapedia

Richard is now editing on Conservapedia. John Stephenson 22:23, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

We should wish him luck. --Larry Sanger 22:27, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

I'll second that. Best of luck, Richard, wherever you do your work; and many thanks for your valuable contributions to Citizendium. Brian P. Long 23:15, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
I'll second that! Hayford Peirce 23:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
Thanks--I'm back as well to Wikipedia. Richard Jensen 05:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
I hope you have an ample supply of Valium! Hayford Peirce 10:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
I don't like Wikipedia... well, good luck Dr. Jensen. I hope that soon all will be settled, you will recall the Citizendium experience, think how wonderful it was to be here, then change your mind & come back! : ) (Chunbum Park 18:39, 4 September 2008 (CDT))
For what it's worth, I second that. I have no idea what happened here, I guess I missed a lot over the summer. I hope time heals the rifts. Chris Day 21:08, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

Are you back?

I noticed a couple of edits earlier today from you. What a surprise! Does this mean you are back? --Larry Sanger 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Let's have a party!
"Chunbum Park brings 6 bottles of ^ beer and gulps one down." (Chunbum Park 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
No I'm on sabbatical for the next three years. Richard Jensen 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been 1 yr already in Mercurian calendar. (Chunbum Park 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
Hello Dr. Jenson. How are you doing? Will you come back in November 7, 2011? (Chunbum Park 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Explosives approved

Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --Chris Key 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

I have removed the last paragraph of the James G. Blaine article as it appears to be copyrighted and so should not simply be uploaded there. Under our blocking procedures, this attracts a warning first, then a ban. This message constitutes the warning, unless you can show evidence that the material was appropriately uploaded. John Stephenson 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)