Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 26 February 2015

/Archive 23

Dispute resolution notification

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Battle of the Somme. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Thomask0 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change scope of article Americans

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#Main paragraph thingy. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Harry S. Truman

I reverted your edits to Harry S. Truman as it broke links from in-text citations (rendered in the Notes section) to the Bibliography. If you remove one you must remove the other. --  Gadget850 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors so you can see the link issues. --  Gadget850 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton lead

Hello. I saw that you recently reverted my edit to the Alexander Hamilton lead, and if you wish to see the information there, would it be okay if you could shorten it to four paragraphs? I don't want to get into any potential edit wars. I'm trying to nominate this article for GA status, and one of the requirements was to shorten the introduction of the page. Please contact me as soon as you can, and thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead has to cover the unusual variety of activities but I will try to squeeze it down into four paragraphs. Rjensen (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK--The lead is now four paragraphs long and it covers more critical information. Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope I didn't cause any trouble with the request. LeftAire (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks...i appreciated the opportunity to rethink Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to help improve other aspects of the article as well, see my comments at Talk:Alexander Hamilton/GA1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bismarck portrait

Frankly, I don't see any merit to having a modern picture of Bismarck when there are numerous portraits from life. There are a whole category of them on Commons if you feel the two articles are improved by a picture of him. Also, if you go to the uploader's Commons talk page you'll see that I have questioned whether he really has the right to upload the picture on a free licence, or if he does, whether he really intends that. I've had a Russian speaker talk to him about how to do it properly if he does in fact have the right and the desire to do so; he will need to go through ORTS. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the article is presenting a 21st century historical viewpoint on Bismarck, and therefore should be accompanied by a 21st century viewpoint on his image. The point is not what he looked like--there are many illustrations in the Bismarck article itself---but how he is perceived today. As long as the Image remains in Commons, it is available for use on Misplaced Pages. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I find that a bit of a curious viewpoint, partly because the image looks cartoonish to me and therefore not NPOV and partly because I don't see the two articles as so limited by era - again, that smacks of non-neutrality to me. But I raised it here rather than on the article talkpages because I wondered what your reasoning was, so I have my answer, thanks for responding. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

the NPOV rule Only applies to editors, not to the sources that we are using. It is very hard to find any historian who is neutral about Bismarck. The image involved indeed looks like a caricature (See the contemporary caricatures in his article)-- the goal here is not to describe exactly how he looked, but how he is viewed today as a very powerful man who insisted on getting his own way Whatever happened. I think the artist's interpretation reflects the views of many scholars. Rjensen (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen

Hi Rjensen, just wanted to let you know I was impressed by your work here on Misplaced Pages, and started a Richard J. Jensen lemma to connect the dots. Corrections, addititions or other feedback are most welcome. -- Mdd (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

hey i'm really flattered! Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Europe

File:Otto von Bismarck by N.Repik.jpg looks more like crosswiki spam. --Pnapora (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It gives a 21st century view-- I have not seen a better example Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

From this point of view you are right. --Pnapora (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Spring Offensive

Nice to see you've stuck around on the Western Front, there's plenty to get stuck into in that article. I altered some of your edit to make it fit better but feel free to change it if desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Paris

Dear Prof. Jensen, I appreciate very much your support on the matter of British vs. US spelling in the article on the History of Paris. it's very annoying that he's trying to convert every article about France into British English, but he's not the first to do that. In the process of reverting his changes, I made some changes to your edits on the 20th century and postwar period, and I apologize if I didn't do it well; i was trying to made it consistent with the other text in the section, and have it be simply declarative, with the source in the citation, rather than in the style of an academic article. Please revert it back if you don't think it's correct. I'm also starting a separate article on the history of Paris in the 18th Century, starting with the text from that section of the History of Paris and the chronology from the Timeline of Paris, which I hope will give a comprehensive picture of Paris in that period. I would welcome your comments suggestions and contributions as it comes along. Thanks for your good work and best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. Yes i agree& also want to encourage you on " history of Paris in the 18th Century," Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education:

• Czech Republic: Young Czech scientists upload pictures at Fluorescent Night
• India: 100+ Indian college students will contribute to Misplaced Pages to support national pilgrimage
• Sweden: Master students design prototypes for categorizing images on Wikimedia Commons
• Egypt: Misplaced Pages Education Program expands to new campuses in Cairo
• Syria: Pilot Misplaced Pages Education Program in Syria
• Wikimania: Get a scholarship to attend Wikimania 2015 and discuss education with the worldwide movement
• Mexico: Wiki Learning expands to three campuses at Tec de Monterrey
• Sweden: Open Badges in the Education Program in Sweden
• Czech Republic: Senior citizens learn to edit Misplaced Pages in the Czech Republic
• Media: Articles of interest in other publications: Egypt, India, Armenia, Books, Jimmy Wales, and more

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Baskervil

Hello. I am from Azerbaijan--Baskervill (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacksonian democracy

I don't really understand your edit to article Jacksonian democracy. Did Mary Beth Norton et al. in A People and a Nation, Volume I: to 1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2007) p 287 mention Jackson's adopted Indian son and cite Michael Paul Rogin (1991). Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian? If not, then quote falsification would appear to be taking place... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry --yes it was confusing. The Norton quote got cut up and garbled but i fixed it with a link to their text. I also revised the text again for clarity. the 'fellow orphan that was "so much like myself I feel an unusual sympathy for...' quote is directly from Rogin. I referenced Prucha's scholarly article & also a useful recent book by Perdue. Rjensen (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cuban Insurrection discussion

Hello Rjensen...can you help resolve a discussion in the Grant talk page concerning the inclusion of Cuban Insurrection in the Grant Foriegn Affairs section...thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant#Foreign_affairs_first_paragraph_suggestion

Liberalism

What's with the straight revert with no edit summary? That indicates you're reverting vandalism. --NeilN 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right – I should have explained myself. It was a mistake to erase "pejoratively" -- when an opponent characterizes something it is not necessarily pejorative but it was in this case. That is, "neoliberalism" is a term It is used Chiefly a) by the opponents AND b) in a pejorative sense. Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What to do when quoted work makes serious math error/typo?

I've been looking at Slavery in the United States and particularly Code Noir sections. There was a stat for free persons of color in various states that wasn't well defined and looked much too high and needed a year, so I went searching for the reference in p. 322 of Stark. Stark states "a far higher percentage of blacks in Louisiana were free (31.2 percent) than any other slave state." This is what I thought he was saying...but it is also wrong. He said this came from the 1830 census but the actual computed figure should be 13.2%. Notice the inverted digits. His values for Mississippi and Alabama are correct and agree with the census. His conclusion is still correct, it is just the magnitude of the figure that is off. It was probably a simple typo in his manuscript. I've checked some other decades (1820 and 1860) and this value is just way too high to be an error in the 1830 census data.

This figure is quoted in several places on Misplaced Pages. How do I correct it within Misplaced Pages guidelines? I didn't find an errata for the book and I don't think I can use my own calcs from the census browser to override the value. Red Harvest (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, I ran into a similar problem with the launching dates of Brazilian cruiser Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul, which were reversed in standard reference works. I explained the discrepancy with a explanatory note and linked to other sources which used the correct dates. I also confirmed the correct dates with the Times of London, although I still need to add those articles to the notes. Ed  21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done this sort of thing for some obviously erroneous cannon dimensions/stats in tables before, and I've fixed some casualty figures and dates in similar manner. But in those cases I could cite other direct sources to correct the values, as you have. There was also a recent example where the digital scan of some supplemental census data was being widely misread. The first digit was of low resolution and looked like an "8" when it should have been a "3" if I recall correctly. To determine the actual value I cross checked with sums in the table in both directions. The lower value was required in order to satisfy the rest. Since the scan was harder to read for this digit I didn't consider it OR to demonstrate how to determine the value. Red Harvest (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically you are calculating a percentage from published census data. That is perfectly legitimate use of a primary source. It is not original research. Just include a note on the talk page saying there was a typo in the Stark book, And cite the census source. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also confirmed with the author that it was indeed a typo in hardcover and that it has been corrected in the paperback edition. I'll need to ask if the page numbers are the same. Red Harvest (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd strongly push for a note in the article itself, if only to prevent readers from making a similar mistake (they don't look at talk pages!). Best, Ed  08:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done. (This is something I've done before.) Found references to it on three pages, corrected and noted all of them. Had to make about a dozen other edits on each one for case, typos, etc. Much of this had been the additions of a single French editor. Oops, looks there is at least one more out there... Red Harvest (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits on history of NYC

Please do not remove sourced information. If you feel that the information of Titanic does not belong here, then please start a conversation about it. Zyon788 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a talk section if you wish to voice your opinion.Zyon788 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	its for you professor..i hope you guide me in wikipedia m,sharaf (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

how to write a good military article

I know that writing a good article about military affaires is difficult but possible. I wane to know about your experience in this sphere particularly in Misplaced Pages articles on military.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of New York City (1898–1945), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page File (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry.

I accidentally saved without an edit summary.

But I think that edit is a good compromise. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Who told you it was a traditional flag? Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific-source templates

Hi, I noticed you were adding sources and a lot of content to NYC-related articles. Keep up the good work on that. However, I just wanted to let you know that some of the sources you are adding, like the Encyclopedia of New York City, can be invoked using specific-source templates like {{cite enc-nyc}}. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks – and many thanks for your excellent work. The problem with the template is that it includes Useless information that we do not repeated Over and over: New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300055366. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All right. I will help you remove the repeated information in these citations if you need it. Epic Genius (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The solution to that is to put the citation in a "Bibliography" section directly under the notes section, and convert the notes into the form "Jackson (ed.) (2010), p.373", or similar. This avoids repeating the ancillary information unnecessarily.

Oh, and if you're using the second edition, the proper specific source template is "cite enc-nyc2". BMK (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

MAny people only read one section and I think the notes to each section should say "Ency of NYC" , Jackson ed. p 101 will puzzle these people. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Tammany Hall

Hi. If you copy text from one Misplaced Pages article to another, you should add the "copied" template to the talk pages of both particles. Best, BMK (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

yes--I use the edit summary as a signal. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But I don't see the copied template on the Tammany Hall talk page. understanding that this is required for copyright purposes. BMK (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual requirement at WP:COPY is "If you are copying text within Misplaced Pages, you must at least put a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page." and that is the rule i am following. (There is more detail at WP:CWW The template is not required. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

How to pick up more women...

Hello to the members of WikiProject Women writers! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton lead 2

There were a few errors to the lead that needed to be corrected, but I didn't want to rush and make corrections myself, since it was your writing. Just make them when you get the chance, the article status for GA has been put on hold for seven days; hopefully you'll get the chance to edit by then. If not, just let me know. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

which errors? Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing major. In retrospect, my word choice was an overstatement. From the GA review:

Lead

• Mother's heritage isn't really lead-worthy
• "Recognized for his abilities and talent" is POV
• Add a comma after "1795" in "In 1795 he returned to the practice" per MOS:DATE
• "In 1798–99" → "In 1798 and 1799"
• "Hamilton's opposition to Adams' re-election helped cause his defeat in the 1800 election"..... awkward phrasing
• In its current state, the quote "When Vice President Burr ran for governor of New York state in 1802, Hamilton crusaded against him as unworthy. Taking offense at some of Hamilton's comments, Burr challenged him to a duel and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day." seems to suggest the duel was in 1802. Probably best to clarify that the duel took place later on.

As for the Wilentz link, please send it to gtownhoyasdc@gmail.com. I'll use it and give it a proper citation when possible. Thanks for reading, and thanks for your help! LeftAire (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how is "recognized for his abilities and talent" POV? Is there a school of thought that Hamilton was not a talented and able man, and displayed these traits while young?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I felt the same way. Perhaps it is the wording that has potential issues. Maybe it is thought that it should be Due to his perceived talents and abilities or Due to local wealthy men seeing talent in Hamilton, he was able to obtain a college education (I think that it's something like the latter).LeftAire (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the RS and they are unanimous in emphasizing that his talents were recognized & rewarded by the local elite. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Serfdom and Forking

Hello Rjensen, thank you for improving the articles related to Serfdom, and I'm tipping my hat to you for not letting my removal of the text detract from your dedication. I have to say that the actual guideline WP:REDUNDANTFORK only talks about forking whole articles. The reason why I opposed the forking stemmed from my own frustration with trying to merge forked articles, and, as a reader, with having to read and reread almost identical texts on Misplaced Pages. — Sebastian 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that duplication can be a nuisance to highly experienced Wikipedian-- however I think it is a godsend to the quick dipper who want some facts in a hurry, and can see both the basic facts and the links to two articles on serfdom in Russia that he otherwise would have overlooked. The Misplaced Pages rules about forking emerged from squabbles over interpretation, in which two editors went their separate ways After being unable to agree on a common theme. Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor, and I see from your edits that you know what you're doing. I'm heartened to read that you see my point, and I see yours. I agree that Russia is important in this context, and I trust that you generally do the right thing.

Our difference is a gradual one. I disagree with you that it takes a highly experienced Wikipedian to be bothered by excessive duplication. It is a nuisance to any reader. Any human being only has limited time. Let's assume that Darcy, grade 5, avid reader with a WPM of 120, has 50 minutes to read up on forests. That translates to 6000 words. She looks up the article Forest, which has 4800 words already. Let's assume the article had a subsection for "Trees" which intrigued her. It is 1200 words long. She clicks on the link for trees and finds the corresponding article with, say, 2400 words. She starts reading it and finds that it duplicates much of what she read before. Most other kids would get bored and stop reading at this time. But Darcy is an avid reader, so she plows on. Sadly, she only gets halfway through the article when her time is up, so she misses the new information in the lower half.

Of course, not all of our readers are children, but I wanted to go as far away as possible from your assumption that it only bothers "a highly experienced Wikipedian". I am grateful that you are dedicating your time to improving Misplaced Pages, so I'm not going to battle with you over this. I just ask you to please keep my words in mind and think of all the different readers we're writing for. — Sebastian 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Alexa data shows the average user on Misplaced Pages spends only about four and half minutes-- they typically want quick information. If what they need is not in the article that Google sends them to, they give up on Misplaced Pages, Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to refer to available data. This actually supports my point: In four and half minutes, the average user (let's call him "Joe") reads 1080 words. The article Serfdom already had 3600 words. If you write only for Joe, then you should reduce the article, rather than add to it! Of course, we're not only writing for Joe Average, that's why I use personas. I'm not seeing a persona you're writing for. — Sebastian 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We could reduce the size of the average article to the length of say Columbia Encyclopedia. It is better than Misplaced Pages because it is terse and only covers the important points. However Misplaced Pages is largely written for the benefit of the editors, not for the readers – we actually know extremely little about who reads or uses Misplaced Pages. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point; I'll have to think about that. What benefit do you get out of copy pasting text from one article to another? — Sebastian 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Twice as many people read it. ( in this case, by the way, I rewrote half the text on serfdom in Russia using new sources who were not in either place). Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you rewrote part of it, which is one reason why I said that you're an experienced editor.

As for your argument that "Twice as many people read it", there is something to that; that's the motivation for thousands of people every day who try to spam Misplaced Pages with advertisements for their product, or proselytizing people to their religion or fringe political opinion. But that doesn't describe you; you seem to have the same scholarly interest in a historical topic that I do. You must be aware that by stealing peoples' eyeballs for one article or section, you are taking them away from millions of other interesting articles. Who is that supposed to help? — Sebastian 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Edit War on Democratic Party

The policy of WP:BRD states that once an edit has been reverted, you need to bring it to the talk page and achieve consensus. Until consensus has been achieved, the article should stay at its last stable version. You cannot just try to force an edit through by edit-warring, or you can be sanctioned under WP:EDITWAR even without violating the bright line of WP:3RR.

You are correct that I cannot revert again within a 24 hour period without violating WP:3RR, but I am not the only editor who finds this edit unacceptable. Instead of edit-warring, please create a discussion thread on the talk page so we can find a mutually agreeable solution. I think the proposed content simply needs to come with some clarification from other sources. I don't have time at the moment, but if there is no discussion thread by tonight, I will create one. In the meantime, please leave the page at the last stable version. TBSchemer (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion thread on this on the talk page the article-- Do not miss it. Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)