User talk:Richard Jensen

Richard Jensen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

First Punic War

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Finals season up here (one more week!) and I'm swamped with a lot of work.

My plans on the First Punic War were that I'd get a detailed outline of the events down in the main article with sections linked on the important battles and on some of the important academic issues at hand (I.E. the validity of the Treaty of Philinus and the nature of Roman-Punic relations before the First Punic War) followed by a separate article on the Libyan War between Carthage and her Ex-Mercenaries after the end of the Punic War and then the Second Punic War.

Any help at all would be more than welcome, the only problem is (and the main reason why the article is stalled where it is) that I'm still swamped with work here and wont be finished for about another week and a half. After that, however, I'm looking forward to dedicating a lot more time to editing here and finishing the article.

--Rob Glass 06:06, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Request

Richard, I'd like to ask you, please, to stop moving moving articles to different titles according to your idiosyncratic principles. I'm comfortable with you doing this with the history articles, but not in other fields. Also, please be aware that we will discuss this issue and decide definitively about it as regards History Workgroup articles in the Editorial Council, soon after we've adopted our procedural rules. It's entirely possible--and likely, I think--that we will go back to "history of X" type titles, for the sake of general uniformity across the entirety of Citizendium. Let's not debate this now (again), I just didn't want to leave you thinking that "silence is consent," so the issue had been decided in your favor... I'll be reverting several the "list of journal" name moves. Please don't revert these back. --Larry Sanger 14:08, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I changed two titles, one in history and one in IR, after explaining the reasons and calling for comments several days ago. The IR article was poorly titled from any perspective. Bringing experts into CZ means we have to listen to their expertise and not dismiss their wisdom as "idiosyncratic". Richard Jensen 14:17, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm truly sorry. I really didn't mean to dismiss your wisdom as idiosyncratic, merely to say that the policy you're advocating is nonstandard for projects like this--for reasons we needn't revisit now.

I hope you'll bear in mind that when it comes to naming conventions on wiki encyclopedias, I'm an expert, too.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 14:20, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Larry, Appeal to long-standing tradition sits poorly in a new venture. (The IR item we're discussing is a hoary three months old.) I suggest that micromanagement by overruling your experts is an inefficient use of management skills. Richard Jensen 14:25, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

JFK

Just finished the biography of John F. Kennedy from scratch...if you would like to please take a look and improve it if possible. Thank you! Yi Zhe Wu 21:52, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I learned about him in US history class last week and I thought it would be cool to write an article about him in Citizendium. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 22:16, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

History of English -- thanks!

Hi Richard, just a quick thanks for the bibliography for the History of English entry -- good selections! I have always been a fan of Crystal (he's the author of my regular textbook, the Cambridge Companion to the English Language). A first-rate linguistic bibliography -- for a historian :-> Russell Potter 19:16, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! i've been a devoted bibliographer for 40 years and am delighted that CZ gives an opportunity to ply the trade. :) Richard Jensen 19:19, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Northwest Passage

Hi Richard. After posting it to the "request for comment" page and getting some very useful feedback, I think that Northwest Passage is just about ready for approval. At the suggestion of several readers, I have added a map at the top, and made a few other noted corrections.

If you could have a look at it, and let me know if there are any substantial concerns remaining, I'd be much indebted to you -- and, if these can be addressed, if you'd be willing to nominate it for Approval under the single-editor plan, I would be additionally grateful. This article has been written from scratch for CZ, and will I hope further showcase what we're capable of -- it puts the WP entry to shame, I think! Many thanks, Russell Potter 08:56, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Excellent article! I added a section on recent diplomacy (which I originally wrote for Wiki in February). I will nominate for Approval. Richard Jensen 11:58, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Richard, many thanks indeed -- the new section is a great addition, much more up-to-date and specific in terms of the issues involved. Russell Potter 12:33, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Wilson photos...

Hi Richard,

I removed some photos we added to the Woodrow Wilson article. I thought they looked good when I scrolled through but when I read the whole entire article I just breezed by every single photo except for NY Times election results and the Princeton photo. I removed our photos because

They didn't catch my attention when I read the article. They were a bit faded and difficult to see. They were too big. They would be better used in subpages/other related articles (with exception of the Wilson Trust photo) Wikipedia already had one. I think it would be better if we avoid the pictures wikipedia has and find others that are better.

I hope you don't mind.

Eric Pokorny 20:35, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Party Systems

At just 198 words, this article is most definitely a stub and is a very long way form reaching status 1-Developed. Additionally, if you alter the checklist, please sign you name. Your current edit makes it look like I think the article is status 1 when I do not! Derek Harkness 04:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

The article uses 200 words to define the concept and 500 words for a good bibliography which is what most users will use. Apologies for omitting signature. Richard Jensen 10:39, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

The fact that there are enough books to make a 500 word bibliography proves that the article is a stub. A bibliography cannot be considered acceptable alternative to writing an article properly. I for one have no access to the books you mentioned so the bibliography is next to useless to me. Derek Harkness 13:23, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Northwest Passage

Hi Richard, it looks like there have been three edits to Northwest Passage since you approved it. If you are still happy with it, just update the version on the ToApprove tag to the latest version. That way when I go to perform the mechanics of the approval, Nancy won't have to look for you. If you don't want them, you don't have to do anything, they will be included on the draft page but not in the article. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:39, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Slavery

There was an edit conflict over this article when I was copyediting and changing it; can you check that everything you added is still there; I think I saved your contributions but I'm not sure. Thanks. John Stephenson 22:52, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. I made some more small changes. Eventually this will be a long article.Richard Jensen 23:28, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Request for editorial intervention

Professor Jensen, recently I saw articles on Young earth creationism (which I wrote a large portion for), intelligent design, and intelligent design theory devolving into disputes and may potentially turn into WP-style war. Since you are the only active expert I can find around CZ (User:David Tribe is also an expert, but now he's not that active), can you please take a look and intervene? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 09:14, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

P.S. nice job on Hitler article! Yi Zhe Wu 15:20, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the heads up and kind words. Young earth is a religion article / religious history article so I rewrote it accordingly. likewise intelligent design which i will get to later.Richard Jensen 23:09, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, I think a consensus may reach soon. Anyways, what's "Niebuhr"? (from the edit summary on Ann Coulter) Yi Zhe Wu 15:18, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. NY Times mentioned Reinhold Niebuhr yesterday and I was thinking of him. Leading American theologian c. 1920s-1960s.[1] Richard Jensen 15:37, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Can I interest you in some collaboration?

Richard, I have been exploring some pediatric topics , and keep brushing up against the concept of infant mortality. Never a party subject, certainly, but obviously important not only in clinical considerations of infant health, but also in analysis of societies, history etc, etc. Anyway- you had mentioned that you are interested in Demographics. I have not had formal training in epidemiology, except for an NIH traing grant fellowship where I did some research, and have had none in demographics, but am open to learning. Are there any articles that you might be interested in starting together? Nancy Sculerati 19:09, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Good. I have already started Infant mortality. Please start Life expectancy and I will join you. This is not something I know about, so I will be looking it up as we go. I need you to act as a guide, please. Nancy Sculerati 21:35, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Demography workgroup v the subject

Richard, I am so pleased to read these new artices on demography you have added, and -before I get to why I just took an action that I'm sure did not please you (removing Demogrphy workgroup as a category) I'd like to gush on a little more. :-) I have ordered some current texts on Demogrphics and Epidemiology, and I am very excited intellectually about the chance to tune my understanding of these subjects while applying that knowlege to the health science articles in CZ. I am even more excited about the chance to collaborate with you and Martin, since I think that the three of us, with our different backgrounds, could really do some work to be proud of- also, on a selfish level, it is a great opprtunity for me to have such teachers in the areas of subjects that I approach as a physician and biologist who arrive there from a learned position in the humanities and social sciences. So-now, the workgroup. When the workgroups were set up here they were made broad. I really didn't get involved in that, except fopr proposing the healing arts and health sciences workgroup as separate entities. That was for practical reasons of being able to have groups that could approve articles without inherent conflict or paradox - and to allow editorship to be had by alternative medicine experts as well as health science experts. Now, to invent a new workgroup like Demographics is a hard sell, not the least because I would not have the qualifications to be an editor in it. There are other reasons as well but I would fight for this workgroup if I thought that it would be the pragmatic means to produce great approvable articles in that subject. It seems to me that the preferred means to that goal-which I hope we share- is to class articles honestly according to existing workgroups. If an article that focuses on a demographic approach is fairly in the health sciences workgroup, the history workgroup, and the sociology workgroup (and it is a very few articvles that I can think of that would not clearly qualify for all 3), then we have three editors between us that can nominate right now. I am trying very hard to be fair and just as approvals editor and so it has to be that if I write something in one of those articles that is "pure health science" then I think another health science editor is going to have to nominate it for approval and not me, in other words, it is not a good thing to bypass another person who is an expert checking the work of an author, but under our present system there is so much overlap in demographics that, just like Biology was written by a bunch of Biology editors who constantly argued and refined until they agreed, I think we can do that here and end up with approved articles. I am really looking forward to it. I hope that you are. Nancy Sculerati 08:59, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard, I would also like to congratulate you on your hard work on these demographic articles. Like Nancy, I am wondering whether there is a real need for a demography workgroup or if the goal is better achieved by collaboration across History, Biology and social sciences [we should really have a sociologist here, as well as me]. I have a few comments on organizational issues, which I will put on the relevant pages later today. Again, these are excellent contributions -- especially your account of the demographic transition -- and I hope that we will end up with really high-quality articles, each of us having contributed his/her own expertise. I will try to add some sections over the next week, although I am currently caught up in my own publication schedule and student work to be marked. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:33, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

OK. let's do without a demography workgroup for the good reasons explained here. :) Richard Jensen 19:31, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Redirects?

Hey Richard, What's up with the sudden bunch of redirects? It seems like all the things you are redirecting from should have their own articles, not just funnels to related articles. -- Sarah Tuttle 21:16, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

yes they should have their own articles, but until then the redirects seem a useful way to help readers find info. Richard Jensen 21:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

No offense, I hope, but I've deleted the redirects. The implicit policy you suggest is not our policy--and never was for Wikipedia, which is perfectly reasonable on this point--because doing so will discourage people from writing articles about the topics in question, as well as misleading readers into thinking that all that CZ intends to say about a subject can be found at an article about what is only a related topic. I hope this makes sense. --Larry Sanger 22:38, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Crystal palace

I noticed your comment on Russel's talk page, are you willing to nominate?Nancy Sculerati 16:30, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

yes--let's nominate it (I'd have bees in my bonnet not to) Richard Jensen 18:02, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Richard, I placed the tag on the article for you with a date of June 10 for approval. You have the option of changing the date if you like. If you decide to make changes to the article, just make sure Russell agrees with you and I think we can work it like last time. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:30, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

It's a very good article and ready for approval. Richard Jensen 20:34, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

By the way, Richard, when changes are made, make sure to update the version number on the template so that we don't have to hunt you down when approval time comes! Thanks, --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:34, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard, and thanks for the nomination. The entry has had some very careful copyediting since nomination, from several persons, and Chris Day was kind enough to add a paragraph near the end on the association of sport with the Crystal Palace. I have just given it another careful once over, and I think the needed work is complete. If you could have a look, and if you agree, change the version number (not sure how to do that myself!) to the Current revision as of (02:14, 6 June 2007), I would be grateful as ever! Russell Potter 22:41, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

p.s. , while the East Coast slept, numerous a few new copyedits were made, and some accidentally deleted external links restored. I think (!) it's as strong as can be. The current version is now that of (12:00, 6 June 2007) Russell Potter 07:04, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard, as you are the nominating editor on Crystal Palace, could you stop and give an opinion on the edit disagreements that seem to be brewing over there. Also note that you have total control over the version that is approved according to which version you identify on the ToApprove template. Thanks. Matt Innis (Talk) 12:36, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Redirect

Allow me to say I think redirecting Xenophobia to Nativism is a poor decision. Nativism is a set of policy choices. Xenophobia is attitudinal. People groups can be xenophobic but not nativistic--I've lived such places! I hope you will remove the redirect. Stephen Ewen 22:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

interesting point but the Nativist article is also mostly attitudinal (Webster's 3rd says it's an "attitude or policy". Is there a difference in attitudes? Who is xenophobic but not nativistic--I can't think of anyone. American Heritage dictionary: Xenophobe = "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." Richard Jensen 23:06, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I could tick off a list of places/peoples who are one and not the other. Fiji is a great example, with a diverse population but supported by policy but whose people are are often xenophobic. One place I lived for two years, Saipan, has xenophobic natives but those same natives by policy encourage "foreigners" to enter the island for economic and other reasons (even genetic). South Africa is a historical example. Whites by policy depended on Blacks and Coloreds, including immigrants, but were xenophobic toward them, living segregated. I could go on. Basically, nativism is about policies at the governmental level, and also in anthropology and sociology is about a "back to roots" movement, e.g., the Negritude Movement in Haiti that stemmed up prior the Duvalier regime. Xenophobia can and does operate independently. Thus they cannot be equated. True, they can both occur in a place, e.g., Japan. But the deal breaker of equating the two is they are not treated as synonyms in available literature. I'd give the benefit of any doubt you have to leaving them separate and letting a sociology editor (when we get one) make any decision to treat them as one. Stephen Ewen 02:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I checked--historians, sociologists and activists are using the terms as synonymous:

• "Xenophobia, nativism and anti-Semitism lay behind a wide range of quotas..." Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 2000
• [2]
• "The continuing national discourse on immigration frequently evokes charges of "nativism, xenophobia, racism...." [3]
• "Sure, there has been xenophobia, nativism, racism; but across American time..." JA Morone in PS: Political Science and Politics 1996
• "the persistence of xenophobia, nativism, and racial..." Teacher's College Record
• "NATIVISM by segments of the dominant population, characterized by (more or less overt) expressions of anti-Catholicism, xenophobia, and racism" Phylon (1967)
• "These tensions came to the surface in the post-World War I wave of xenophobia and nativism that swept much of the nation" Law and History Review, 1997. Richard Jensen 03:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

So can we also redirect racism into nativism? Obviously not. Stephen Ewen 14:07, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace edit conflict

Hi Richard, just a brief note to alert you to my comments at the bottom of the Talk page for Talk:Crystal Palace. There, I have identified the specific version of the entry which I feel is the strongest, and truest to the subject, with all the changes that have strengthened the entry included. Russell Potter 12:57, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi again, Richard. Your latest post to Talk:Crystal Palace made me smile (albeit somewhat ironically). Have a look at the most recent version(s); whichever you decide is the one that should be approved, we'll all move along to the /Draft page and keep things lively (but civilized)! Cheers, Russell Potter 22:59, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

GO! freeze it now!  :) Richard Jensen 23:57, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll go ahead and update the version to approve to todays version to avoid confusion later. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:15, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace

Hi Richard, I am not sure if you saw my earlier edit concerning Crystal Palace. If you did, just ignore this one, otherwise, your guidence would be appreciated as the only editor on the article. Matt Innis (Talk) 21:54, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Lincoln picture

[4] You may enjoy this article, but I am asking you to look at the great picture of Lincoln (Photo: Alexander Gardner, Library of Congress). This is an open copyright journal. Can we use that picture? Nancy Sculerati 16:02, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Shirley Chisholm

I wrote most of Shirley Chisholm (with some modification of others), just want to see how far it is from a complete article that would have a chance of approval. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 22:06, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

First glance looks good! Suggestions: edit the photo so you can see her features; in bibliog, add date of publication and drop isbn (which is not very helpful); don't cite Crystal Reference Encyclopedia (it does not even give her name). Keep up good work!

Richard, the isbn leads to a pge where users can see the books,and in some cases, search through them, by clicking on either Barnes and Noble and Amazon. If the user buys the book from either site through that page, CZ gets referral fees. I don't want to push books on people, (and I get no money from CZ, just the opposite) but I am loathe to discourage putting ISBN on-please do so. Click a blue number and you'll see what I mean. Nancy Sculerati 22:32, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I just modified the photo to increase brightness, don't know if it's enough yet. Also I agree that Crystal Reference can be dropped---and I just did that, plus all facts there used in the article can be found elsewhere. I did remove ISBN first, but after Nancy's message above I reinstated them. I'm still undecided on this, because ISBN does help people find the books on Amazon, should we have a rule/policy on it? Yi Zhe Wu 22:43, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I think ISBN's are a royal waste of time (important books have many isbn numbers, one for each edition; old books have none) but was unaware of the $$ factor. My experience with H-Net is they got very little $ from the Amazon direct connection they used. (How would Amazon know someone reached their website from CZ??) Richard Jensen 00:27, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

It works, Richard-we just started and few are buying anything -but we are already earning hundred plus dollars a month.We've done that for May and June and haven't even had a full 4 week month yet. Those ISBN seem to work whether you put the 10 digit or the 13 digit ones in, meaning if you actually put them in from the book you are using, it should work. I like it, frankly, because I like to look at the covers and often -at least for the newer books, I can go to Amazon and open the book and read an excerpt and get an idea of its level and quality. Whatever ISBN you put in for a book, the other editions can be easily found in those sites. I often look at books in bibliographies that way whether or not I am on CZ and whether or not I buy them. Anyway- look at the main page. see there is some text that tells about the associates programs. If you click the links there, or through that page you get on the ISBN, when you go to the stores there is a code that identifies you as having come through a CZ link. If a purchase is made within a certain length of time- a few hours I think, then CZ get between 6-8%. No charge to the user (you). Same for you, in cost, as if you went there directly. I helped set it up and I promise you, it works. I think it is morally fine, as long as we don't turn our interface into a commercial billboard, and as long as we don't push sales or list books (or anything else) just to make money. We pick the books because they are good, or useful. But I personally love books and do buy them, and having experts come up with bibliographies is a help for readers, nothing to be ashamed of - I hope. What do you think? I respect your opinion. Nancy Sculerati 02:09, 10 June 2007 (CDT) (if there is no ISBN, just don't worry about it, list the book as is)

Nancy--thanks for the highly informative update. Speaking of usage, do we know how many clicks each CZ page is getting (not talking Amazon here, just ordinary page look-ats)? that would be useful info for the editors.Richard Jensen 02:22, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't. Alexdander Stos may know. Nancy Sculerati 03:41, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Image:1944barkley.jpg

No source. Kindly add. Stephen Ewen 04:43, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Fleming...

Why is he not a serious scholar? His book is well researched and to my knowledge he is a respected historian. I am also not trying to smear FDR. I tried to add more info about Churchill and the Balkins but I had an edit conflict. I thought it was interesting info and he provides sources.

Eric Pokorny 00:41, 13 June 2007 (CDT) Fleming is not a serious scholar (he writes children's books on the one hand and, as here, polemics), He looks for snide remarks --a few words given without context--in the hope that readers will get the a negative impression of FDR. This quote for example, does not explain what FDR's policy actually was and does not tell readers that FDR was saying that he will abide the results of free elections in Poland and accept it if the Communists win. Richard Jensen 01:10, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Fleming wasn't talking about Poland specifically but FDR’s policy towards Soviet expansion in East Europe, in particular the Balkins. FDR was repeatedly advised about Stalin’s intentions but didn’t want to open up another front. There are several reasons for this that are covered by Flemming. Flemming dedicates three pages covering FDR’s attitudes at Tehran and putting it in context but I am just unfamiliar with writing for encyclopedias. I want to put more detailed info about FDR’s attitudes but I just don’t know if the most important facts should be summarized and the more detailed info should be put on a separate Tehran Conference page. I can’t just put the context in the article without lengthening the section considerably. Either way I definitely would like to add more detail about the contrasting opinions of Churchill and FDR. However, the quote definitely appeared as a snide remark but I didn’t finish adding more info to balance it out.

Eric Pokorny 02:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Great plan. You need to read the relevant chapters in the bibliography on foreign policy--those are sound, non-polemical books. Start with Friedel or Burns, I suggest. Richard Jensen 04:16, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Fixed Great Depression page

Should look fine now. For help creating tables using "wiki code", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table :) - Mike Mayors (Talk) 01:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

hey THANKS! That was fast  :) Richard Jensen 01:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

New articles for Approval?

Hi Richard,

Just a brief note -- I'm covering Approvals for Nancy while she takes a well-earned break -- are there any articles you know of in History, or other categories, which are nearing readiness for Approval, I'd be grateful if you could let me know. Also, I note that in Politics, where we don't have any really active editors, there has been some talk of looking for someone to nominate United States Electoral College -- if you could have a look at it, and see if it might reasonably be tagged for History, I'd value your view on whether it is indeed nomination-worthy.

Many thanks, as ever,

Russell Potter 11:21, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for your attention to United States Electoral College! It looks better already. What I'd done earlier but not mentioned was to tag the entry for History as well -- if you agree with that tag, you could already nominate it, as a History editor, whenever you feel it's ready (I can then place the Approval nomination tag for you if you like). As far as I'm personally concerned, you are eminently (over!)qualified to be a politics editor, but since I'm filling in for Nancy this week in my capacity as Assistant Approvals Management Editor, I'd rather not do it for you lest it be construed as an official deed, but you could ask the editorial staff about this, and then nominate it as a Politics editor, if you believe that to be the better course of action.

Best, Russell Potter 13:07, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Update: Richard, I just talked with Nancy and I believe she will address this; you should be all set. best, Russell Potter 14:51, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Let me know when you think the entry is ready for nomination. If you do decide to move it to the new name, best to do that beforehand, I think. Best, Russell Potter 10:27, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I will stay out of the approval process on Electoral College because I made a lot of additions. Richard Jensen 13:12, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, that's fine. Hope the dispute on citations can be resolved - it would be shame if yet another tempest in a teapot delayed growth of a good article. Are there any other entries that look ready for Approval to you? I'm anxious to have a couple of candidates in the pipeline soon.

I've just about finished my work on John Franklin; if you'd have a look at that one, I'd be grateful.

Russell Potter 15:20, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard. Could you please have a look at Terrorism and see if it's ready for approval? I've worked hard on this article, being the only currently active author in the Military Workgroup besides you. Thank you. --Charles Sandberg 14:34, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

On second thought, it might not be ready yet. But have a look anyway. --Charles Sandberg 14:37, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it's very good (I made a minor typo fix and link)....how should we get it approved? I suggest we should both be editors of the Military workgroup...there are none now. Richard Jensen 14:40, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes we should, unless a Politics editor could nominate it. (If there are any). --Charles Sandberg 14:43, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Now that your are a Military Editor, you can nominate Terrorism whenever you get the chance --Charles Sandberg 15:40, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Richard, I wanted to ask if you'd take a look at John Franklin and see if you feel it's fit to be nominated for approval. Many thanks, Russell Potter 10:40, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

John Franklin is very good and I nominated it just nowRichard Jensen 23:52, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Abortion

I have not extensively study the Bible so I'm not sure about what is the correct Christian approach to abortion (myself is not a church-goer), and even my friends who are strongly Christian are divided on the issue. My opposition to abortion is from secular reasons, that vulnerable people should be protected (American government do give aid to the people in poverty, so why not the unborn?) Yi Zhe Wu 22:10, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

The "Abortion" article in the Catholic Ency (1907) is very revealing. Western culture for 2000+ years has identified birth as the time when personhood and rights begin. The rteligious right is trying to change that. Richard Jensen 22:18, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

But I thought that before Roe was decided, abortions in U.S. are regulated in a federalist framework, which states had total control but feds had no business in it. It is within states' broad police power conferred by the Tenth Amendment, and I assumed that is the founding fathers' intent. So even a pro-choice person would lament the loss of federalism after Roe if he actually take founding fathers' vision seriously. It's just my superficial understanding of the Constitution, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!

• Also from that link you gave me, it says the Visigoths punish abortionist with death penalty. Yi Zhe Wu 22:29, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Back in 1780s abortion was not illegal. The Row v Wade said the woman has federal rights to privacy that state governments cannot infringe by their use of police power. Visigoths-- well they have a poor reputation as humanitarians. :) Richard Jensen 22:39, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Tactics

Wow, that was a balancing act. The central difficulty: In the case of lightly paraphrased material, where does the line between copyright infringement (a constabulary issue) and content (an editorial issue) lie? There's probably no definitive answer except to work in-team. See my reply at Talk:Tactics. By the way, if you are interested in nominating Onslow Beach, I would not protest. I know the gallery is particularly nice. ---Stephen Ewen 03:09, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Terrorism

I will continue to work on this article. --Charles Sandberg 19:14, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Richard, good to hear about Terrorism! What you need to do now is look at the approval process section that describes who can approve] and make sure it qualifies. Once you have done that, then I copy this entire text to the top of the talk page:

---

{{ToApprove
|url = 
|now =
|editor=
|editor2=
|editor3=
|editor4=
|group=
|group2=
|group3=
|date =
}}

To prepare the template, simply copy the above code and paste it to the top of the article's talk page. Then make the following replacements:

url = the location in the page history where the version-to-approve lives. The sysop will paste this and only this version into the main page

now = the date and time when the template is added. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to let the computer generate it automatically.

editor = the username of the person who did the approval (or who nominated the article on behalf of a group of people)

editor2 = second editor (optional but must use before editor3 if only two editors approved)

editor3 = third editor (optional but must use before editor4 if only three editors approved)

editor4 = fourth editor (optional)

group = must be an existing workgroup

group2 = second workgroup (optional but must use before group3 if only two workgroups)

group3 = third workgroup (optional)

date = format yyyymmdd

If you have made all the correct replacements, then all the links in the template should appear blue. None should appear red.

---

Then when I have filled out the box, I delete the instructions from the bottom. You might need some help with the version, but we'll cross that bridge if we have to. If you want to go ahead and do that much, I'll stand by. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:30, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok let's go with approval

Good! The version is this one (100127060). We have to put the actual number, otherwise the pointer keeps going to the actual article even when somebody makes edits on the draft. This is where we get the version number for the "current" version. The way to find it is to click on the 'history' tab and go to the lastest diff. It should bring you here. Then you have to click on the previous version (see where it says Revision as of 21:36 -click on that). You should see something that says "newer version->" (click on that). That will bring you to the URL for the latest version.. you copy the verion URL and notice the date, too. See it? --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:55, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Drug

Though drug might be a minor issue, but Bush's admin was challenged in an important case about drug policy, so I'm wondering whether it ought to be mentioned? Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 14:14, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Bush himself had very little to do with it--a million things happened and we should focus on those central to Bush White House. Richard Jensen 14:30, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Shirley Chisholm

I guess I have done what I can on Shirley Chisholm article, how far actually is it from being approved? Or what else can be added on it? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 22:41, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

It's good and I'll start the approvals. Nice job! Richard Jensen 23:01, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank you! If approved it will first approved article started by me. History is fun, isn't it? Yi Zhe Wu 09:32, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Oriental

Hi Richard,

Agree with you wholeheartedly about Oriental -- sigh! -- somehow I can't resist a debate, even one which ends up being a distraction. My thought in re-arranging Oriental and Orient was to distinguish what seemed merely a lengthy sociolinguistic entry about the use of the term "oriental" from question of the history of Western conceptions of the "Orient" which seemed a different matter entirely. However, it is hard, when doing revisions piecemeal, to avoid the old garbage-in garbage-out problem.

Oddly enough, most of the more polemical bits in Oriental were written by the fellow who sees himself "defending" the term; he feels they show the absurdity of the claimed "PC' views. I'll let others judge that -- I've no time to carry on the debate anyway.

At any rate, perhaps what we really need most here is an entry on Orientalism, which could take benefit from Said's lifetime of work in the area, and put the historical, and political, and even the linguistic pieces of this Humpty Dumpty subject together again.

All that said, your new start is excellent -- I am cheered to think a better article will now be possible.

Cheers, Russell Potter 17:05, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Russell--we're in full agreement here. The natural place for an article is under "Orientalism." The right-wing quibbles are worth about 3 sentences. Richard Jensen 17:08, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I encourage argument by refutation or an argument of reason. I reject an argument by deletion or an argument of authority. I'm quite taken aback by the brazen PC POV this article now represents. Will Nesbitt 13:52, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Not sure what the problem is...the article was full of irrelevant stuff and was not encyclopedic. I cleaned it up by 1) dropping everything not on topic; 2) adding the latest scholarship. Richard Jensen 14:03, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

It's hard to believe that this is said in good faith when you have elected to leave in pornographic and bellydancing references, but eliminate Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment references. What you have done is represented a single POV in a multiple POV article. Eliminating references you don't agree with doesn't do anything to establish the opinion you represent as the only opinion. Edward Said has one opinion on the subject. Robert Bork and Diane Ravitch have another opinion on the subject. As with the references above, you choose to ignore those opinions which do not jive with your belief-set. What you seem to label irrelevant seems to be anything which does not support your narrow opinion. Will Nesbitt 07:54, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Classics articles ready for approval

Hi Richard, I have some articles that I think are ready to be nominated for approval. We only have one editor in the classics workgroup, and Catherine doesn't seem to be around at the moment. So if you think the articles are okay, feel free to nominate them. See the list here. Cheers, —Arne Eickenberg 17:20, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

No problem. My last Latin class was in 1955, but I guess things haven't changed much. :) Richard Jensen 17:32, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, I am very sorry, but since you are not a Classics Editor, you lack the authority to approve these particular articles. I greatly appreciate the "let's get this done" sentiment, though. --Larry Sanger 21:43, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, mea culpa. As you've probably read, I asked him to nominate the articles. —Arne Eickenberg 02:57, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Terrorism

Richard, it's terrorism approval day. I notice thatt here are a couple of edits after your pointer date. If you want them added, go ahead and update the pointer and I'll wait till later this afternoon (for me) before I perform the mechanics of approval. Let me know if you need help figuring out which version is the right one. It's tricky, but once you figure it out, you never forget. Thanks again. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait a second, fellows, please. This article is unusually important and it will be picked apart ruthlessly. If there are bad mistakes (including mistakes of omission) in it, count on those mistakes being exposed publicly. So it must be top-notch. For that reason, I want to find someone who is an actual terrorism expert to approve it, i.e., someone who has published a fair bit about terrorism per se. Just any old Politics Editor will not do, in this case. No offense, I hope; I'm sure you can understand my concern. --Larry Sanger 11:17, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think we should still follow our stated policy here on Approvals -- but perhaps we could extend the Approval date a bit and call in a second opinion? If so, might I suggest Michael Nacht at UC Berkeley? He's their Aaron Wildavsky Dean and Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, an expert on terrorism, and has served on the U.S. Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee. I don't know him personally, but have heard him speak and he would be a top-drawer person to contact; his e-mail is mnacht[at]berkeley.edu. Russell Potter 11:28, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think it's a good idea to call in a second opinion, but I want to clarify that on this topic in particular, and other especially sensitive topics, we will not approve an article unless by a bona fide expert in the subject--not just someone who has general (albeit high-level) background in an area. We can (and probably should) write this into policy: articles on sensitive topics must be approved by people who actually specialize in the topic. I'm open to debate, but I'm acting as editor-in-chief here, not as a constable.

I would hope, actually, in the interest of neutrality, that we might find at least one liberal and one conservative expert editor to review the article, but that's just a hope, not a requirement--at this stage, anyway. --Larry Sanger 11:51, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Let me add that I have published on terrorism, edited a paper encyclopedia that covered the War on Terrorism (and the Cold War), and did the CZ article on 9-11. Richard Jensen 16:06, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

This is good enough for me. Thanks for your patience. --Larry Sanger 19:00, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Hello Richard, again it is Terrorism approval date. There have been several edits since your nominated version. Please check to make sure I get the right version. Thanks. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:04, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I just updated the approval. we're go for approval. Richard Jensen 22:06, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

John Franklin

Approved! Another one for your belt buckle ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:08, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Referencing books

I notice you editing the layout of the bibliography on Coal Mining: History. It might be usefull to use the 'Cite book' template to help you do this. For example, the following code:

{{cite book
  | last = Mumford
  | first = David
  | authorlink = David Mumford
  | title = The Red Book of Varieties and Schemes
  | publisher = [[Springer-Verlag]]
  | series = Lecture notes in mathematics 1358
  | year = 1999
  | doi = 10.1007/b62130
  | isbn = 354063293X }}

Creates this: Mumford, David (1999). The Red Book of Varieties and Schemes. Springer-Verlag. DOI:10.1007/b62130. ISBN 354063293X. 

For more info see wikipedia Templage:Cite_book. There are other similar templates available for other media too. Derek Harkness 04:50, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

thanks for the tip. Take a look by the way at www.zotero.org which I'm thinking of switching to. Richard Jensen 04:57, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Zotero looks interesting. I'll certainly try it out once I get the net installed into my new house. I'm currently working out of an internet cafe. Derek Harkness 04:33, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Prohibition of alcohol, United States

Prohibition of alcohol, United States, just wrote the whole article, any criticisms/suggestions? Yi Zhe Wu 11:36, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Joan of Arc

I shouldn't assume that you want to update the version number.. would you do the honors. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:59, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Matt-- can you handle this. My role is nominal (ie nominating). Richard Jensen 19:42, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Approved! --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:54, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Said

You justified your deletion of my text in Orientalism with:

Said dominates all discussions; please cut out the POV

How does any one man dominate all discussions in any field of study. Freud, Einstein, Aristotle, and Jesus just a few names on a long list of giants in their respective fields, but not one of these men dominate all discussions. To claim that any of these men dominate all discussions is POV. Please stop lecturing me and start trying to figure out what I'm trying to communicate. I'm quite well acquainted with the line of thinking you are trying to push as "dominant over all". Will Nesbitt 19:47, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

please read a few of the relevant books and articles before editing an article. Richard Jensen 22:24, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

My position is that only knowledgeable people should edit on CZ, and that they should avoid POV. Richard Jensen 07:06, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Then we are in agreement on that. But I'm not sure why you only want to represent one narrow POV. Will Nesbitt 16:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Will, no one is insulting you. Richard and myself and other editors here are all committed to impartiality. There are criticisms of Said's views from both within and without the fields of history and postcolonial studies, and these are, or will be, given fair play. But the 30 years since Said's book have been, within the academy, very significant years, with hundreds of books and thousands of journal articles, and many new theorists following in the wake of Said's work. It's a significant body of work and knowledge, and within this field Said's is still the groundbreaking work, referenced by nearly everyone, both his critics and his admirers.

This is not a "narrow view," it's the view of a large and significant body of scholars and scholarship. Now, understandably, outside of academia, there are all kinds of folks who might come upon some of this work and, reading it out of context, reject it with a broad brush. That's their right. But what we want to do here at CZ is present an accurate outline of this field of study and work, so as to inform people and suggest to them the shape of current debates, so they can make up their own minds. The fact that some critics of what they see as 'political correctness' have broad feelings against not only Said, but also against other modern postcolonial critics (say, Frantz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak, Larbi Sadiki, or Chandra Mohanty) is a notable fact about the popular understanding and reception of this body of scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily make it a significant claim within the body of academic work described here. Russell Potter 17:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Vietnam War

You might want to check/update the Vietnam War link on your User Page.Will Nesbitt 19:34, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Port Arthur massacre

Post removed by author

I am sorry for the impoliteness of my message above, and I apologize if it has offended you. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 15:03, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Richard, I have temporarily moved the article to your user space. You are welcome to do with it what you like, including placing it back into mainspace. --Matt Innis (Talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Annotated bibliography of WWI is inspiring good work

Thanks very much. Very inspiring [5] Andries 23:22, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks!

) Richard Jensen 10

50, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Mayr upgraded

See the edit here Chris Day (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

thanks! Richard Jensen 23:29, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

"Supporting scientists" rephrasing

Hi Richard, I note your changes to the article heading "Supporting scientists" in the Young earth creationism which raised some issues for me:

• As a result of your change I perused the list on the website at more length and found that while some, indeed, only had technical training in some area of science, others are, or were for a significant length of time, practising professional scientists in every acceptable sense of the word. I don't see an adequate reason for eliding this fact in the article.

• The title "Supporters" on its own does not convey the original purpose of the sub-topic—which was to note persons with established scientific credentials who believe in Biblical creation—"supporters" would include everyone regardless and so adds no value to the article. I have changed it to "Notable supporters" which I believe should satisfy all shades of opinion and adds further scope to the subtopic to include notable non-scientists (e.g. public figures).

• The list in question is, in fact, not a list of people who "support Answers in Genesis' position" (which would cover numerous other topics besides Biblical creationism) but those who "support Biblical creationism" (another name for young Earth creationism); I believe this was intentional so as to acknowledge that people on the list may not necessarily support all Answers in Genesis positions but, at the very least, support some form of Biblical creationism (that may itself not necessarily coincide with Answers in Genesis on every point). I have, therefore, reverted to the original statement in the article to reflect this fact.

I admit there is a need to convey in the CZ article that not every person on the list is a scientist by profession but it is proper for this article to draw attention to those (regardless of their beliefs) on this list that are. As our purpose on Citizendium is not to advocate or denigrate a topic but remain neutral, any objections to the use of the word "scientist" simply because a person is thought to believe in an unscientific theory is not appropriate.

If, consequent to the comments above and subsequent amendments to the article, you still feel a better phrasing could be achieved, please let me know. Many thanks. Mark Jones 01:27, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I went through all the names and bios too, and the great majority gave religious and non-scientific reasons for their beliefs. Very few seem to have published scientific papers about creation. Ther promoters are implictly claiming that science supports their views, and this is an extreme interpretation that CZ should not appear to support. Richard Jensen 10:50, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I copied this section over to Talk:Young_earth_creationism for the article so others can benefit (and participate if they want to). Hope that's OK with you. Mark Jones 05:44, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Re "facts" and "opinions"

Regarding what you said on Talk:Bill Clinton, see this section of the neutrality policy. Note the specific definitions given there of "fact" and "opinion." See also the section that follows that one (titled "Expert knowledge and neutrality"). --Larry Sanger 03:34, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Dog history

Richard, I'm about to add the History Workgroup back onto famous dogs. The reasoning here seems perfectly obvious, and if you want to undo this (again), I'm going to stipulate as Editor-in-Chief that you must answer the following argument persuasively. Famous dogs include, by definition, dogs that are historically famous. Indeed, if you examine the actual list of famous dogs, you will see that currently, all of the "non-fictional dogs" have small roles in history. But that they have small roles in history does not obviate the fact that these are, still, historical topics. As such, some of the relevant experts will be historians. --Larry Sanger 03:43, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Please revert yourself. A history article on the topic would be very different indeed, and I suspect the authors would be most unhappy with it. Kepp well enough alone, please.

Just noticed the reply. First, can we agree that the topic in question, "famous dogs," is a legitimate topic for CZ? We might now make it a subpage of dog, though. But, as long as we assume it's a legitimate topic unto itself, the topic of famous dogs necessarily includes a lot of history. So, why not make it a historical article for the most part, which, after all, it should be? I don't mean to be dogmatic (forgive the pun). We should think through what the main topics are, here, and what subpages we'd like to have: perhaps dog, dog/Catalogs/Famous dogs, and then history of dogs or dog history. If we have famous dogs at dog/Catalogs/Famous dogs, then it seems the history workgroup wouldn't be assigned since it wouldn't be assigned to dog. --Larry Sanger 18:23, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry-- history articles have to pass history standards and this one does not come close. It has the quality of a children's page in a newspaper. Fala, for example, was a major campaign issue in 1944 because the GOP said FDR accidentally left it behind in Alaska then sent a destroyer to retrieve the dog. FDR used incident to ridicule GOP. The author seems unaware of that--a level of unawareness that is crippling for a serious encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 18:51, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Here's a dilemma then. If the article is really that bad that it can't be fixed, you as history editor should recommend that it be deleted (or taken down for major revision). You can do that. But if the article can be improved, you should bear in mind that it is not "the author's article," but CZ's article. You seem to assume that you don't have the right to edit it. Well, the solution is not to say "this isn't up to par by history standards, so it shouldn't be in the history workgroup," but to step in as a history editor and say what's wrong with it, so it can be improved. Of course, if it can't be improved see dilemma horn #1. --Larry Sanger 20:23, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

All I'm asking is that it not be called History. Richard Jensen 20:30, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

But it is history. Sorry, it's a fact. We don't have a category like "popular history" or "history of the quality of a children's page in a newspaper." We just have history. -- Or, like I said, we could put it on a subpage of dog. Then it wouldn't be in the history group. Maybe we should do that anyway... --Larry Sanger 22:26, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry, please ask your historians what "history" is. The mission of CZ is to have high quality material at the college level, which excludes popular lore that does not meet the tandards. Richard Jensen 23:57, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, you failed to understand my point. Anyway, this debate is for the dogs.  :-) --Larry Sanger 15:26, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but traditionally (or at least the degree program I went through) college history classes deal with cultural/political/military history. But, obviously, everything has history to it - history of dogs, history of biology, history of pillowcases, whatever. Perhaps it would be worth considering splitting the history workgroup into a traditional workgroup and a popular workgroup? Right now, the history workgroup is the largest workgroup we have, and I think it's because you can argue that everything has a history.Todd Coles 15:07, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

History of dogs is OK with me if it is done seriously. I would expect to see coverage of:

• dog roles (work, show, pets, hunting, police, seeing-eye),
• breeding,
• vet care (& rabies),
• feeding (see the 2007 Chinese poison pet food scare),
• cruelty (see the Vick case, animal rights philosophy),
• medical and lab use (see PETA),
• shows & competition, training
• images in myth, art & literature (Jack London), & movies
• anthropology--these topics would be studied by actual research into standard secondary sources--try On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals by Stephen H. Webb; Oxford University Press, 1998; Stanley Coren, "Dogs and People: The History and Psychology of a Relationship." in Journal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis. 1996.

No, we aren't going to have "popular" versions of academic subjects. We'll still welcome "popular" information, though. The editors to whom that information is assigned will have to decide what to do with it. --Larry Sanger 15:27, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Edward I

Hi Richard, I thought since you seem to be the most active History editor you would be interested in looking into approving Edward I. I'm sure a few things needs to be done to reach approval standards but could you take a look at it please? thanks. Denis Cavanagh 10:05, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Denis--very fine work indeed! I started the approval process, to finish Friday Richard Jensen 12:31, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Nathanael Greene/Thomas Paine

Dr. Jensen, I would like to solicit your opinions on two articles I have written - Nathanael Greene and Thomas Paine. I feel like I've worked them both as far as I can without having some fresh eyes go over them, and I'd like to know what needs to be done to push these on to developed, and then approved status. Thanks! --Todd Coles 10:01, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Hope I'm not butting in here but Paine especially looks very good. Nice work! Denis Cavanagh 14:35, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for taking a look at those for me. --Todd Coles 08:35, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

happy to help--keep up the good work! Richard Jensen 08:45, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Nathanael Greene is approved. Another one for you gunbelt! --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:21, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Fair use proposal

You are perfectly free to construct an alternate fair use proposal.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:04, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

It's unclear where this proposal came from? what is the justification for restrictions on fair use? And please unblock the page so I can edit it too. Richard Jensen 04:05, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

As I stated, it is one proposal. I am fully aware you disagree with it, which is why you should feel free to make an alternate proposal rather than changing this one into a proposal other than it is.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:42, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that if you draft a proposal you should be prepared to argue for it and defend its specific parts. Start with explaining where it came from and what legal sources you used. Explain why you are hostile to fair use rights. Richard Jensen 17:37, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Franklin bibliography

Do you mind if I take the Franklin bibliography from your website and incorporate it into the article? --Todd Coles 16:24, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

yes, please do! Richard Jensen 16:28, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Edits to articles

Richard, I would like to draw your attention to two matters in your edits. Firstly, it is not necessary for you to make a statement regarding copyright status for external links, as you did for the Japan article and others. Secondly, please consider the descriptions you provide in the history logs when you edit articles. It is not appropriate to describe, for example, this (Irish War of Independence), this (Michael Collins) or this (Ireland (state)) as "tweaks" or "trim minor details"; these often involve substantial deletion, additions and reworking of the articles and their approach to the subject, which may need further discussion on the Talk pages. The danger is that you mislead others into assuming that your contribution is nothing more than a minor edit, rather than a significant contribution. John Stephenson 05:10, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I confess you're right about my "tweaks" -- I will try to be more lucid. I am always open to discussions on the talk page, and I try to provide footnotes for the more important additions. (The articles in question were very vague indeed about sources, so I have provided comprehensive bibliographies. As for the non-copyright status of the links to Country Reports, that is useful information for users (and authors). I hope our authors will materials into the article. I just looked at the Collins article and see that I did not delete anything (except a reference to de Valera's views), but instead added a great deal of new material and incorprated all of what had been there. Richard Jensen!)

Irish Free State

I"m not sure whether Collins was irrelevant to the Irish Free State article, considering his murder at Beal na Blath both intensified the Civil War as well as energised the Free State forces. Never to mention as a Free State leader, his assassination is quite relevant to an article about the Irish Free State. What do you think, room for compromise? Denis Cavanagh 06:54, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Collins is ****. I agree his assassination should be mentioned for its impact, but not the details of when and where. ok? Richard Jensen 06:57, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Collins is what sorry??? Perhaps I had overdone it with the whole 'portraying him as a hero' thing, more neutral heads must prevail! Denis Cavanagh 10:01, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

PS - should Beal na Blath be mentioned in his biographical article? Denis Cavanagh 10:03, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I meant to say Collins is very important. :) Richard Jensen 12:49, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Where do you get this stuff!

You are awesome![6] You must live in a library :-) I am sooo jealous ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:28, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

well ,the MacNeil book was my very first book review, so I remember it well. :) Richard Jensen 22:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to venture that Richard has proxy access to everything the U. of Illinois library subscribes to. It's a wonderful thing to have. I have access to everything the Florida Univ. system has, and for another month or so the U. of British Columbia library. Wonderful to have indeed! I appreciate and think its great when Richard places static links to materials, even though they may be subscription only. If one is on a campus somewhere or otherwise has access to a library's usual subscriptions, more often than not the click goes right through.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:22, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I bet Richard is some kind of book pirate! Literarrrry! Just kidding, Richard. --Robert W King 01:38, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

My favorite sources are JSTOR (via google), Questia (I bought a subscription for $100), and ABC-CLIO (I'm on their editorial board). I worked at the Newberry Library in Chicago for years--back in the days when the books were chained down. I always wanted to unchain them. Richard Jensen 01:54, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I think libraries should have large areas that "feel" like a really big Starbucks, warm, relaxed, and inviting, with cushy chairs and sofas, always open till midnight, and with coffees and teas always brewing. They are just entirely too stuffy, and staffed by some awfully stuffy people sometimes.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:16, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Richard III

While I agree with you that Richard III needs a few tweaks to be CZ quality, I did google for several phrases and if it was copied form somewhere, it wasn't a web publication. The up-loader claims to be the author (see Talk:Richard_III/Permission). Applying the same rules as I did for your articles that you had in the past uploaded to wikipedia, it should be graded 1, 2 or 3. I only graded your articles as 4 if some wikipedia authored content was copied over with your article and the article has subsequently not been edited significantly. Derek Harkness 07:09, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you're right it's not copied from the web. But it's a polemic that does not reflect scholarship and violates encyclopedia standards. Maybe it should be deleted or put in storage until it gets fixed or totally redone. Not the author came from a polemical group to CZ just to insert this viewpoint. Richard Jensen 07:38, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Jane Addams

Approved! You actually got to have one approved that you weren't nominating. Good work. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:12, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

hey thanks!!! Richard Jensen 22:32, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Viva Kennedy

What's you 2 cents on this article by Burt? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:57, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Did you see this question? --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:32, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I just now cleaned it up a bit and formatted it. It's a good article on an important topic by a leading expert and is NOT self-promotion.Richard Jensen 20:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

ref your own work

Hi Richard, do you ever place your own work in a Bibliography here on Citizendium? --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:16, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

yes I do :) Richard Jensen 20:23, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Okay, just checking ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:31, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

And that is contrary to policy. But we will be clarifying policy in the future. Richard, as an editor, you really ought to set an example by asking others to add your own works into bibliographies. This is to avoid the appearance of self-promotion--if left unchecked, self-promotional bibliographic entries, by highlighting work that is in fact not the most important, threatens to make our bibliographies unreliable, in the long run, as I'm sure you could agree. Of course, I have no doubt that your own work is always worthy of inclusion. Which is why I've turned a blind eye in your case--which of course I have noticed.  :-) --Larry Sanger 20:46, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

the inadequate phrasing of the "self promotion" rule ought to be changed immediately, and editors should have the main responsibility to handle the self-promotion rule. Otherwise we will alienate what CZ needs most: experts who publish in their fields. Richard Jensen 21:03, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

You have a point (as an editorial council member myself). I would think it would be hard for you guys to write without referencing your own work. In fact it would be necessary to put it in the bibliography so others can see why your point of view is what it is, because a book has much more detail. Other editors may not be familiar with the reference, and personally it does sound a little 'self promotional' for Richard to 'ask someone else to do it'. I wouldn't ask. I doubt Anthony would ask either. It certainly needs consideration. Is this a rock solid rule, or something that we brought from wikipedia, where it might be needed more. Maybe we can tweak this rule some to fit our needs. But this is not the place to discuss it. Back to the forums.. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:14, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that it might need to be changed. This hasn't actually proven to be a problem much in the past, so I haven't regarded it as a high priority. I would welcome a proposal about a policy change, as long as it is rather more nuanced than, say, "If someone has published something using a university press or peer-reviewed journal, then he may put it in a bibliography himself." This won't do the job, because it virtually invites people to promote their own work, even when it is not very important. How can we prevent that, particularly considering that there are many fields where there aren't enough editors, yet, to watch carefully. Perhaps, anyway, we should take this to the forums. Until we change, however, this is our policy. --Larry Sanger 21:19, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

What about just putting some kind of disclaimer in the reference itself? As long as whatever it is that's being referenced is in fact relevant (and this should be verified by a second editor or whatever) source material... perhaps we need a CZ body that verifies self-referential works? --Robert W King 21:39, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Following the spirit of the rule, I think self-promotion is pretty easy to differentiate from the contributor who happens to cite themselves here and there in the course of writing about their expertise.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:17, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Thid discussion is now on the Forum at [7] Richard Jensen 23:26, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

MORE: It's about intent as evidenced through the pattern of contribs. For example, why would one contribute to an article only a link to their book? Why would one link to amazon for their own book but not the other book cited?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

actually I was the one that made the link to Amazon, not the author. Richard Jensen 00:36, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Fine and good. I added the second book. One reason why this issue should not be editor purvey is that it is possible for it to fall into an "I'll scratch your back and if you scratch mine" sort of thing. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it is certainly conceivable that it develop.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:44, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

it's also possible to have hyperactive constables who drive good authors away by not consulting first. Richard Jensen 00:50, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Washington

Of course! You found a better solution. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:08, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Categories

Richard, I noticed that you removed a number of ship articles from not only the history, but also the military workgroup. Can you please explain that? If articles about navy ships--which are maintainable, it seems--don't belong in the Military Workgroup (if not also the History Workgroup), then where do they belong?

I will hold off reverting your de-categorization until I get an answer to this question. --Larry Sanger 18:39, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

P.S. Consider this a very firm albeit general rule: you may not remove all workgroup categories from an article, unless others are watching and debating the matter. This leaves the articles "orphaned." To do so is in a way to delete the articles from all editorial consideration, and that is not something that you may do singlehandedly without proper oversight.

Not to comment on your intentions, but I do notice the checklist still has those two categories. When Jitse's subpages bot runs it will take those cats off the article page anyway. They will remain in those categories. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:10, 16 September 2007 (CDT)