User talk:Richard Jensen: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (yes approval for Pittsburgh parts 1 and 2) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati (Punic Wars?) |
||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
::By the way, thanks for the vote on Police History! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:18, 24 April 2007 (CDT) | ::By the way, thanks for the vote on Police History! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:18, 24 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Punic Wars? == | |||
Richard, Do you have the expertise to guide [[First_Punic_War]] to approval? It is apparently high on search lists and needs an editor. Can you either be that editor or find one? Gratefully (in advance) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 21:13, 24 April 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 20:13, 24 April 2007
Hi Richard! it's great to see your additions to History of Medicine (United States). I'm just sort of writing off the top of my head, and according to references as I find them, and really welcome your input. Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 12:58, 8 March 2007 (CST)
- Hey Nancy--it's great to be aboard. I taught a lot of historical demography so it's a favorite topic. RichardRichard Jensen 13:00, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Richard, I went back and looked at the article, and noticed that you removed almost everything I'd written, but put noything on the discussion page about why. It takes all the fun out of it to have one's work erased, Nancy Sculerati MD 13:17, 8 March 2007 (CST)
- I apologize but I moved some stuff around and I meant only to cut a couple sentences. Richard Jensen 13:24, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Richard: regarding constitution of San Marino, I took my date from the CIA Factbook, which I took as authoritative, and confirmed with the Law Library of Congress. I just did another search and found a document that explains that the Sammaranese constitution is an ancient (a la 1600) form of what we call the US Code. Sounds like more than an urban myth to me ... but even so, I'm fine removing the bit you removed. It was added as an afterthought any way. --steve802 14:22, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- No I checked it out. (And I've even been to San Marino!). A local duke took over in 1600 but there was no written constitution. The CIA book does not give its sources and so we don't trust it for controversy. You will note that no one ever quotes the so-called constitution or says what it contains. It's just an unwritten or traditional system and not as old as Britain. Cite: San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such.' Page 211 of Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: Self-determination and Statehood (1996) by Jorri C. Duursma in books.google.com Richard Jensen 14:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)
History of Pittsburgh
Richard, would you please look at History of Pittsburgh. Go through the history tab to see the actual article. The author is clearly getting frustrated and has made a nice start on an article. Do you think you have the expertise to give editorial guidance? I hate to see a talented contributor turned off. Nancy Sculerati 18:17, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks for the heads-up. It's pretty good work (the Indian part should be spun off into a separate article) and it should be kept. I'll work on it. Richard Jensen 18:29, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks-please contact Tom Cool on his user page? Nancy Sculerati 18:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
- Richard, I'm not sure you're watching my page, but there is an enthusiastic response at User talk:Tom Cool. Tom Cool 20:31, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
what's history?
Richard, could you, perhaps after discusssion with available editors in your workgroup, clarify appropriate History Workgroup tags for me. I will relay them to other workgroups. For example, History of Medicine (United States) we agree is both Health Sciences and History- in terms of workgroup. Now, perhaps the History of Medicine would also be both- or perhaps just Health Sciences? Similarly, I have started articles on a number of individuals, such as William Stewart Halsted whose major importance is in medicine and medical education. Is the History Workgroup tag appropriate or inappropriate for such an article? Take a look also at Paracelsus please. What do you think? Nancy Sculerati 13:50, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nancy--I would say that Health Sciences group should take over most all the History of medicine topics, except demography (that can be joint). Richard Jensen 14:08, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Good- I'll remove the history workgroup. Now when you say demography- can you be more specific? Is there any present article that should retain the history workgroup? Nancy Sculerati 14:10, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nancy-- no demography as yet but it's a special interest of mine & there will be articles. Richard Jensen 14:41, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Ok! Just to be sure- Albert Einstein? Florence Nightingale? At what point does a household name in the sciences cross over into history? Even if you can't say-should the history workgroup be removed from these two examples? Nancy Sculerati 15:13, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
- History of science is a third zone, closer to history than to health sciences I think. (I did a little grad work in the area, and am a specialist in history of the social sciences.) We could use a history of science editor at some point. My wife, by the way, does history of nursing so it's a common dinner table topic. 16:30, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
So-for the moment, I will remove the history workgroup from both. This is your chance to object!(but there will always be more chances) Nancy Sculerati 16:50, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Debate on naming conventions
Just to let you know that you'd inadvertently left your message on Larry's user page; I've moved it to his Talk page. I hope that that's OK. --Peter J. King Talk 17:49, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
- thanks! Richard Jensen 18:21, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Bibliographies
Where do you get these long, detailed bibliographies from? It's amazing to see all this content just sprout up on the wiki! --Larry Sanger 20:58, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- I've been a bibliographer and bookhound for 40+ years (and even spent 11 years at the Newberry Library in Chicago, a big research library). I work from home and have read the Harvard Guide to American History over and over (it's a massive bibliography, as is the AHA Guide). I have some books at home but 90%+ of the titles are from the Internet. My best sources are: JSTOR and Project MUSE (scholarly articles with footnotes; book reviews), The Am Hist Review, J American History and J. Southern History (and a few other journals I subscribe to--they have excellent reviews), books online (from Questia, books.google, scholar.google and amazon.com--and I start first with the bibliography), abstracts from ABC-CLIO (I've been on their editorial board for years), course bibliographies online, and of course google searches and (even better) Amazon searches. University presses send me a lot of catalogs and I go to a few history conventions a year and spend a lot of time at the book exhibits looking at the new and forthcoming items. The trick it to quickly evaluate a book or article, which presumes reading a lot of book reviews to see where a field is headed. I reject 10 to 20 items for everyone included. (There's an online bibliography of Jefferson that runs over 10,000 titles.[1]) Bottom line: these are all original bibliographies I selected as useful to readers. Wiki doesn't appreciate them at all; those kids are anti-book as well as anti-expert, which is the major reason I'm moving to Cz. Richard Jensen 21:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Very impressive. I fear we won't be able to do as good work in other disciplines, but--I suppose we will eventually. --Larry Sanger 22:31, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks. Nobody in electrical engineering wants articles from the 1960s, but we historians relish them. Richard Jensen 22:33, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Very impressive. I fear we won't be able to do as good work in other disciplines, but--I suppose we will eventually. --Larry Sanger 22:31, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
check your e-mail
Richard, I sent you a private e-mail on your university url a couple of days ago-did you get it? please respond to nssanes at mac dot com. Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 18:08, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
Recently uploaded image(s)
Hi. Thanks for contributing to CZ! I hate to have to tell you this but one or more images you recently uploaded are lacking clear copyright data. Please carefully review the image(s) you uploaded while referencing Images Help—Copyrights. Please fix the problem rapidly, as the image(s) will otherwise have to be deleted. Thanks! — Stephen Ewen 02:35, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
- What copyright data do you want and where do I put it? Richard Jensen 14:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
- OK I added it. we need a fair use category. Richard Jensen 14:23, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
- What copyright data do you want and where do I put it? Richard Jensen 14:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
Question about entires included in CZ:Media_Workgroup
Did you really intend for Fourth_Party_System, Democratic-Republican_Party and Democrat_Party_(phrase) to be included in the CZ:Media_Workgroup category? I was tempted to remove them myself, but I thought I might be missing something.Thomas H. White 13:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- all the articles deal with political advertising and use of newspapers as political media. (also Mukrakers in 4th party system, together with Yellow Journalism, Hearst) Richard Jensen 14:29, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
American Conservatism
I noticed the article American Conservatism is identical with the Wikipedia one, did u make a mistake to label it "CZ Live" or there are other reasons? Please clarify, thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 18:17, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- I wrote much of that Wiki article. Richard Jensen 18:58, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Ah, so you were the "RJensen" on Wikipedia? Yi Zhe Wu 20:31, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- yes. :) Richard Jensen 20:54, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nice job, the article is very well-written. Indeed American conservatism is a complex topic. Within U.S. conservatism, libertarian conservatives and neo-conservatives disagree on everything except for low tax. Goldwater was a conservative, but definitely not today's Republican Party-line conservative. Cheers! Yi Zhe Wu 21:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks, I edit conservativenet blog that has a lot of experts on board and will ask their suggestions. Richard Jensen 21:23, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nice job, the article is very well-written. Indeed American conservatism is a complex topic. Within U.S. conservatism, libertarian conservatives and neo-conservatives disagree on everything except for low tax. Goldwater was a conservative, but definitely not today's Republican Party-line conservative. Cheers! Yi Zhe Wu 21:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- yes. :) Richard Jensen 20:54, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Ah, so you were the "RJensen" on Wikipedia? Yi Zhe Wu 20:31, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- I wrote much of that Wiki article. Richard Jensen 18:58, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
Dr. Jensen, unless you wrote all of the article, not just much of it, we must give Wikipedia credit. --Larry Sanger 10:02, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
the "Content is from Wikipedia? tick-box
Hi, thanks for contributing to Citizendium!
I noticed that one or more articles you have uploaded appear to contain material from Wikipedia, yet the "Content is from Wikipedia? tick-box has not been checked. Please allow me to make sure the policy on that is very clear in case any error is being made.
If any content of an article at Citizendium — even one sentence — came from Wikipedia and you aren't the 100% sole author of that content, be absolutely sure you check the tick-box. It is just above the "Save page" button. If you are the sole author, however, please make it clear on the relevant talk page and post a link to the Wikipedia article history giving evidence of such.
Please kindly review your contributions in this light. There are multifarious reasons for why we must be completely above board in this matter!
For your future reference, this policy can be found at Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians: New and unfamiliar practices.
Thanks again!
——Stephen Ewen 23:51, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- I replied on my talk. Stephen Ewen 01:54, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- Replied again. Stephen Ewen 02:31, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
History of Pittsburgh
Richard, could you kindly point out, as editor, what (if anything) is lacking or requires revision at this point for the History of Pittsburgh to be nominated by you as an approved article? Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 21:28, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
- there is a question whether or not to spin off the pre-1800 history into a separate articlde that can deal better w Indians, & empire; right now the tiny village overshadows steel city. Richard Jensen 23:35, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
OK- since you are splitting the article- please put your reasonbs for doing so on the talk page (discussion) of the article. If you are acting as Editor, and not as an author, you need to keep those roles distinct. Splitting the article is an editorial sort of thing, but adding text is different, unless you reword something that has been discussed with the author(s) . Nancy Sculerati 08:53, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nancy--we talked about splitting it on the Talk page a few days ago and no objection, so as an editor I split it (and split the bibliog, and added a few items to bibliog part 1). I think both halves will grow in size and they have little in common, Richard Richard Jensen 09:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
I think it's fine- I would ask that you write that on the discussion tab so that it's not a red blank. I will be mentioning both articles as developing articles moving towards approval on the Notice Boards tonight. If you think one or both are ready for nomination as approved articles- please let me know and we will ask a constable to put up the nomination templates.If you think one or both are not - please indicate on the discussion page what is lacking so that author(s) can move towards approval. Is there an area that needs more work? What is it? Not trying to push you to nominate, please understand, just pushing the process so that we don't get stalled (being part border collie :)) Nancy Sculerati 09:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
- we can nominate Part 1 and 2 of Pittsburgh history. They will both be expanded but are good now. Richard Jensen 09:16, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
Titles again
Hello Richard, I notice that you created a redirection page from National Democratic Party to Gold Democrats. The problem is that this is not an exclusively American project; therefore, we must bear in mind that "National Democratic Party" is used for many other parties around the world, including ones in Germany and Nigeria (or so the Oracle of Google declares).
I'm going to finally expand our policy about titles, just for you. :-) --Larry Sanger 10:08, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
History of the English Language
Hi Richard -- about History of the English Language, I'm not sure we'd want to drop the history workgroup -- even though, you are correct, the article here is written from a linguistic view, it certainly has implications for history. Language, like genetic material, is one of the best historical methodologies for pre-literate human history, and there are some vital overlaps. Why not ask on the History workgroup's forum? Cheers, Russell Potter 04:09, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
- p.s. just checked and saw your comments in the History Workgroup. Maybe we should talk to the techhies on site and see how the wiki's search engine would handle such queries -- my guess is that anyone who typed "Massachusetts" would get the entry with that name, but typing Massachusetts with "history" or "witches" or "colonial" would produce a ranked set of matches, among which would almost certainly be all the articles (when created) that you mention. It's hard to anticipate how people will type queries, but since they're not optically looking through a print index, the "order" of such entries matters only on index pages (and there we can sort using DEFAULT:SORT of the article checklist's "abc" entry. If it's for the editors that we want all History articles sorted by keyword first, you could use the article checklist to do that.
- By the way, thanks for the vote on Police History! Russell Potter 04:18, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
Punic Wars?
Richard, Do you have the expertise to guide First_Punic_War to approval? It is apparently high on search lists and needs an editor. Can you either be that editor or find one? Gratefully (in advance) Nancy Sculerati 21:13, 24 April 2007 (CDT)