User talk:Richard Jensen: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(cut and paste)
m (Text replacement - "Explosives" to "Explosives")
 
(757 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ewelcome}} --[[User:Bernard Haisch|Bernard Haisch]] 18:48, 24 January 2007 (CST)
{{archive box|auto=long}}


Hi Richard! it's great to see your additions to History of Medicine (United States). I'm just sort of writing off the top of my head, and according to references as I find them, and really welcome your input. Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 12:58, 8 March 2007 (CST)
== American religion, again ==
::Hey Nancy--it's great to be aboard. I taught a lot of historical demography so it's a favorite topic. Richard[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:00, 8 March 2007 (CST)


Richard, I went back and looked at the article, and noticed that you removed almost everything I'd written, but put noything on the discussion page about why. It takes all the fun out of it to have one's work erased, [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 13:17, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Hey Richard-- Sorry to bother you again with a question about religion in America, but I just hacked out a stub on [[Unitarianism]], and I was wondering if you might take a look at it. I feel reasonably comfortable about the first paragraph, where I distinguish between the denomination and the theology of the godhead, but I wanted to make sure I didn't make any howlers in my discussion of early Unitarianism, particularly in America. Feel free to change anything you like, as American religion is a mere side-interest of mine. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 15:53, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
::I apologize but I moved some stuff around and I meant only to cut a couple sentences. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:24, 8 March 2007 (CST)
::willdo...thanks for starting important article. It looks very good! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:11, 6 May 2008 (CDT)


Richard: regarding constitution of San Marino, I took my date from the CIA Factbook, which I took as authoritative, and confirmed with the Law Library of Congress.  I just did another search and found a document that explains that the Sammaranese constitution is an ancient (a la 1600) form of what we call the US Code. Sounds like more than an urban myth to me ... but even so, I'm fine removing the bit you removed.  It was added as an afterthought any way. --[[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 14:22, 9 March 2007 (CST)
== I need your input ==
::No I checked it out. (And I've even been to San Marino!). A local duke took over in 1600 but there was no written constitution. The CIA book does not give its sources and so we don't trust it for controversy. You will note that no one ever quotes the so-called constitution or says what it contains. It's just an unwritten or traditional system and not as old as Britain. Cite: ''San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such.''' Page 211 of ''Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: Self-determination and Statehood'' (1996) by Jorri C. Duursma in books.google.com [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)


== History of Pittsburgh ==
Hi Richard, can you take a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Pedro_%C3%81lvares_Cabral this page] and give us a little direction? Thanks in advance! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:42, 8 May 2008 (CDT)


Richard, would you please look at [[History of Pittsburgh]]. Go through the history tab to see the actual article. The author is clearly getting frustrated and has made a nice start on an article. Do you think you have the expertise to give editorial guidance? I hate to see a talented contributor turned off. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:17, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
== History Workgroup Week ==
::Thanks for the heads-up. It's pretty good work (the Indian part should be spun off into a separate article) and it should be kept. I'll work on it. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:29, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks-please contact Tom Cool on his user page? [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Richard, I'm not sure you're watching my page, but there is an enthusiastic response at [[User talk:Tom Cool]].  [[User:Tom Cool|Tom Cool]] 20:31, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


== what's history? ==
Hey Richard-- Would you want to be the History Workgroup Week Coordinator? I can work on getting the basic page together and helping out generally, but we need an editor on-board. Are you game? Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 18:43, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
::yes[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:29, 8 May 2008 (CDT)


Richard, could you, perhaps after discusssion with available editors in your workgroup, clarify appropriate History Workgroup tags for me. I will relay them to other workgroups. For example, History of Medicine (United States) we agree is both Health Sciences and History- in terms of workgroup. Now, perhaps the History of Medicine would also be both- or perhaps just Health Sciences? Similarly, I have started articles on a number of individuals, such as [[William Stewart Halsted]] whose major importance is in medicine and medical education. Is the History Workgroup tag appropriate or inappropriate for such an article? Take a look also at [[Paracelsus]] please. What do you think? [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
== More input ==
::Nancy--I would say that Health Sciences group should take over most all the History of medicine topics, except demography (that can be joint). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


Good- I'll remove the history workgroup. Now when you say demography- can you be more specific? Is there any present article that should retain the history workgroup? [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:10, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Hello Dr. Jensen, could you see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Naming_Conventions#naming_is_separate_from_neutrality.2C_only_based_on_common_use.3F here] about the naming of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima article that I'm going to start? I borrowed my book on Imjin War to one of my friends so I can't work on the [[Korean War of 1592-1598]] right now. Thank you very much. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 23:54, 8 May 2008 (CDT))
::Nancy-- no demography as yet but it's a special interest of mine & there will be articles. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:41, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
::it's the author's call (Chunbum's) -- I lean to "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto"  [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/liancourt.htm see for military discussion]) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:15, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


Ok! Just to be sure- Albert Einstein? Florence Nightingale? At what point does a household name in the sciences cross over into history? Even if you can't say-should the history workgroup be removed from these two examples? [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 15:13, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Hello, I never considered that. I'm used to being in Wikipedia, so multiple names is not so obvious to me. Thank you, I'll suggest that in the discussion. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:35, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
:::History of science is a third zone, closer to history than to health sciences I think. (I did a little grad work in the area, and am a specialist in history of the social sciences.) We could use a history of science editor at some point. My wife, by the way, does history of nursing so it's a common dinner table topic.  16:30, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


::::Actually, I can't make it author's call - the issue's too big for me to take full responsibility. See these news articles: [http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/25/2007052500167.html Joseon Ilbo], [http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/3175559/ Livedoor], [http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=1187 Japan Probe], & [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=346023&rel_no=1 OhMyNews]. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:48, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
:::::Chunbum in fact handles big wars very well; he can name the rock! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:02, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


So-for the moment, I will remove the history workgroup from both. This is your chance to object!(but there will always be more chances) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 16:50, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
== Archived for you ==


== Debate on naming conventions ==
Hope you don't mind! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:00, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
::hey thanks--I really appreciate it. I'll pay you back--how about a bibliography on the topic of your choice :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:16, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


Just to let you know that you'd inadvertently left your message on Larry's user page; I've moved it to his Talk page.  I hope that that's OK. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black">&nbsp;[[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]]&nbsp;</span> 17:49, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Hehe! I think I still owe you for the last one! :-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:33, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
::thanks! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:21, 9 April 2007 (CDT)


== Bibliographies ==
==Thanks==
Thanks for the note. I seem to have created a big mess by just jumping in without understanding the way things work. Maybe I'll wait a few days to be bold again.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 08:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::no no, be bold-please write! it's just that moving and renaming articles causes no end of technical troubles, and I've made the mistake several times. Happily our very good technical crew cleaned up the mess I made. :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:27, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


Where do you get these long, detailed bibliographies from?  It's amazing to see all this content just sprout up on the wiki! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:58, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
== Removing the Bruce-Lovett report ==


::I've been a bibliographer and bookhound for 40+ years (and even spent 11 years at the Newberry Library in Chicago, a big research library). I work from home and have read the ''Harvard Guide to American History'' over and over (it's a massive bibliography, as is the AHA Guide). I have some books at home but 90%+ of the titles are from the Internet.  My best sources are: JSTOR and Project MUSE (scholarly articles with footnotes; book reviews), The ''Am Hist Review, J American History and J. Southern History'' (and a few other journals I subscribe to--they have excellent reviews), books online (from Questia, books.google, scholar.google and amazon.com--and I start first with the bibliography), abstracts from ABC-CLIO (I've been on their editorial board for years), course bibliographies online, and of course google searches and (even better) Amazon searches.  University presses send me a lot of catalogs and I go to a few history conventions a year and spend a lot of time at the book exhibits looking at the new and forthcoming items. The trick it to quickly evaluate a book or article, which presumes reading a lot of book reviews to see where a field is headed.  I reject 10 to 20 items for everyone included. (There's an online bibliography of Jefferson that runs over 10,000 titles.[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/bibliog/]) Bottom line: these are all original bibliographies I selected as useful to readers.  Wiki doesn't appreciate them at all; those kids are anti-book as well as anti-expert, which is the major reason I'm moving to Cz. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted, because it sure sounds like an extremely dubious document. (Puzzling, because Schlesinger has a good reputation, so 2+2 aren't adding up here - but that's a rathole for another day!) I just like everyone to be cheerful. (Not the world's worst character flaw, eh?) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:05, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


:::Very impressive. I fear we won't be able to do as good work in other disciplines, but--I suppose we will eventually. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:31, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
:I really like Schlesinger -- but he handled so many tens of thousands of documents that he let this one slip through. In his defense he was not writing about 1956 but about a later period (1960-61). I think somebody made a mock "report" and Kennedy laughed about it and kept it -- and Schlesinger thought it was real. I used to be active in archival circles (I was on the FBI Archives advisory board), and know US government agencies all have multiple checklists to deal with real documents (none of which show the existence of this document). As for keeping people happy, I think Howard C. Berkowitz, who's doing terrific work, appreciates fellow experts helping him out. That is what CZ is all about: collaboration. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:17, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::::Thanks. Nobody in electrical engineering wants articles from the 1960s, but we historians relish them. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:33, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


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


Richard, I sent you a private e-mail on your university url a couple of days ago-did you get it? please respond to nssanes at mac dot com. Thank you, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:08, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Yeah, it's curioser and curiouser. We knoe Ike did not see it. His staff was VERY efficient in logging in every document that went to the White House, and there is no such document, and no such log record, at the Eisenhower archives. The simplest explanation is that it was a draft that never became an official report, or that it was a a prank that Schlesinger misunderstood. I can't believe Schlesinger faked it--he knew a real document would have a long paper trail at the CIA, White House etc. and that a fake document would humiliate his reputation (as hapened to Trevor Roper who authenticated the fake Hitler diaries.)  As we know from the CBS-Dan-Rather-National Guard business, it's easy to fake a typewritten report. If we had the copy Schlesinger used  we could use standard techniques to maybe discover if it was a later fake, but his copy has vanished and so have his notes.  Maybe Schlesinger realized it was a fake and discarded it instead of returning it to the Kennedy Library?? Alas, he was quoting himself on the subject as late as 2000. so that theory is out.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:42, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


== Recently uploaded image(s) ==
:::: Seems like a lot of work for a prank, but I guess it's possible.
Hi. Thanks for contributing to CZ!  I hate to have to tell you this but one or more images you recently uploaded are lacking clear copyright data.  Please carefully review the image(s) you uploaded while referencing [[Help:Images#Copyrights|Images Help&mdash;Copyrights]]. Please fix the problem rapidly, as the image(s) will otherwise have to be deleted.  Thanks! &mdash;  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:35, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:::: Here's another theory, which draws on your suggestion that it may have been a draft: perhaps it wasn't drawn up as a formal report, but rather an aide-memoire for one (or both) of them, as part of a review requested (perhaps verbally) by Eisenhoweer, and the results of that review were presented to Eisenhower verbally? I know, I know, it's a bit of a reach, but it is, I think, plausible (especially if it involved the potential breakage of rice bowls, they might want to do that quietly). Unfortunately, the only evidence for this possibility is, in the best conspiracy theory style, the lack of evidence!
::What copyright data do you want and where do I put it? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:::: Yet another one, drawing this time on your "a fake document would humiliate his reputation": Schlesinger eventually realized it wasn't real, and he'd been had, and he didn't want the embarassment of coming out and admitting he'd been had. So he disappears the original document, and his notes, leaving fog behind... that keeps him clear, and minimizes the damage to the historical record.
:::OK I added it. we need a fair use category. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:23, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:::: And a variant on that one: he falsely comes to believe it was a fake (because nobody can find any contemporary cross-references), even though it was in fact real (but very oddball), and events ensue as in the previous one. And I'd better stop there before my fantasies become too elaborate! :-) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:26, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


== Question about entires included in [[CZ:Media_Workgroup]] ==
::::: I lean to the aide-memoire hypothesis. There was no commission, no staff, no study, no report. But Bruce and/or Lovett exchanged private memos. How did Kennedy get a copy? One suggestion on the web is RFK headed a stury of what went wrong at CIA's Bay of Pigs. Lovett testified and was harsh on CIA, and gave Kennedy the private memo. Ok--here's another (better?) possibility. Schlesinger hismelf was involved in the investigation of the Bay of Pigs, Lovett or his aide gave SCHLESINGER the draft in 1961. In 1968 when it came time to write the book on Bobby the draft was at hand, and Schlesinger made the mistake of saying he found it in the Kenedy papers. (We know it was never logged into the Kennedy papers--the Kennedy Library has very good archivists who track these things.) This explains why the Kennedy papers lack the copy--they never had it. Likewise Eisenhower never had it.  So what did Schlesinger do with his own copy and the notes he took?? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:36, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Did you really intend for [[Fourth_Party_System]], [[Democratic-Republican_Party]] and [[Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29]] to be included in the [[CZ:Media_Workgroup]] category? I was tempted to remove them myself, but I thought I might be missing something.[[User:Thomas H. White|Thomas H. White]] 13:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
::all the articles deal with political advertising and use of newspapers  as political media. (also Mukrakers in 4th party system, together with Yellow Journalism, Hearst) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:29, 16 April 2007 (CDT)


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


I noticed the article [[American Conservatism]] is identical with the Wikipedia one, did u make a mistake to label it "CZ Live" or there are other reasons? Please clarify, thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 18:17, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::::Schlesinger's papers were recently purchased by CCNY--I suppose it will take a few years to sort them. Suppose--if-perhaps--in 1961 he saw the memo and made notes. (He could have been shown the memo by X for a few hours, made notes, then returned it to X.) Then perhaps in 1969 when he wrote his book on RFK he only used his notes. (This was not a central point and no need to track down the original when you have your own notes.) Then in writing up the appropriate footnote he got mixed up, and said the original was in the Kennedy collection when it was not. Schlesinger does emphasize in his book that no one paid any attention to the memo in 1956. (Which I think is because no one saw it then.) As for giving the notes to Gose?? Schlesinger had a secretary and xerox machine, and so the idea he mailed off his only copy, the Gose lost them, seems odd as well. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::I wrote much of that Wiki article. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:58, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Ah, so you were the "RJensen" on Wikipedia? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 20:31, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
::::yes. :)  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:54, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::Nice job, the article is very well-written. Indeed American conservatism is a complex topic. Within U.S. conservatism, libertarian conservatives and neo-conservatives disagree on everything except for low tax. Goldwater was a conservative, but definitely not today's Republican Party-line conservative. Cheers! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 21:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
::::::Thanks, I edit conservativenet blog that has a lot of experts on board and will ask their suggestions. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:23, 16 April 2007 (CDT)


Dr. Jensen, unless you wrote ''all'' of the article, not just much of it, we must give Wikipedia credit. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:02, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::::: I like that one (that he was shown a copy, made notes, and got confused about where he'd seen them) too, but I wonder why he thought he'd just seen them in the RFK papers (presumably shortly after RFK died, because Schlesigner apparently said something about "before they were deposited at the JFK library"), when under this theory it was many years before. Maybe he got confused because there was an RFK connection in both cases? I see also the book was published in '68, which would have been shortly after RFK was killed - maybe he was under time pressure to get it out, and made a mistake because of that?
:::::::: I too was puzzled as to why Schlesigner didn't have a copy of his notes any more (see incredulity above), but the CSI newsletter indicates they interacted with him directly: ''Professor Schlesinger informed us .. [h]e had loaned Grose his notes and does not have a copy of these notes''. So either he's mistaken, or he did loan out his only copy... who knows? Another odd circumstance.
:::::::: I got a reply from Mr. John Young, who has [http://cryptome.org/ic-black5601.htm a copy of the CSI thing] on the Cryptome website; he suggested we contact Mr. Grose to persue this further; I asked him if he knew how to do that.
:::::::: ''Late addition'': See the Talk:CIA page - I think I have found testimony from Lovett confirming he and Bruce did an investigation. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 18:29, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


==the "Content is from Wikipedia? tick-box==  
== reverted your edits ==


Hi, thanks for contributing to Citizendium!
Hello Richard, I have reverted your edits on CIA earlier this morning that caused some upset.  Do take your time and use the talk page before making such large deletions. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:22, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
::there are now several thousand words explaining the deletions. Is that enough? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 04:56, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
:::yup, any deletions that are made to this material now would be content issues. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:12, 17 May 2008 (CDT)


I noticed that one or more articles you have uploaded appear to contain material from Wikipedia, yet the "Content is from Wikipedia? tick-box has not been checked. Please allow me to make sure the policy on that is very clear in case any error is being made.
== Approval of Cauchy ==


If any content of an article at Citizendium — even one sentence — came from Wikipedia and you aren't the 100% sole author of that content, be absolutely sure you check the tick-box. It is just above the "Save page" button. If you are the sole author, however, please make it clear on the relevant talk page and post a link to the Wikipedia article history giving evidence of such.
Richard, could you approve [[Augustin Louis Cauchy]]? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 02:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)


Please kindly review your contributions in this light. There are multifarious reasons for why we must be completely above board in this matter!
: Did you see [[Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy#Approval]]? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 15:19, 23 May 2008 (CDT)


For your future reference, this policy can be found at Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians: New and unfamiliar practices.
==Latinos and Hispanics==
I was just looking at the draft of the week. I was always taught that Latinos included people from Latin America that spoke Romance languages whereas Hispanics were only those that spoke Spanish (not Brazil, Suriname, etc.). The new draft of Latino History is a little confusing in the lead. I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, but you may want to look over it.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it now.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:21, 22 May 2008 (CDT)


Thanks again!
== Red herring-thanks ==
Thanks for the clarification on [[Red Herring]]. I have been trying to remove it from the unchecklisted list for weeks, but it sat there empty all this time.  I gave it a quick try just to clear the log.  You verbage is a definite improvement.
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:24, 25 May 2008 (CDT)
::happy to help. Harry Truman got in trouble saying the Alger Hiss case was a red herring. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:38, 25 May 2008 (CDT)


——Stephen Ewen 23:51, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
== Hello ==


:I replied on my talk. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:54, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Hello, Dr. Jenson!
Thank you for your kind greeting on my talk page. If you need any help with any article in a subject area I am familiar with, I will be glad to assist. [[User:Erik M. Baker|Erik M. Baker]] 22:03, 28 May 2008 (CDT)


::Replied again. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:31, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
== DoD (US) name ==


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


Richard, could you kindly point out, as editor, what (if anything) is lacking or requires revision at this point for the [[History of Pittsburgh]] to be nominated by you as an approved article? Thank you, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 21:28, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
PS: I am keeping an eye on [[Elizabeth II]], will move it soon. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:37, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
:there is a question whether or not to spin off the pre-1800 history into a separate articlde that can deal better w Indians, & empire; right now the tiny village overshadows steel city. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:35, 20 April 2007 (CDT)


OK- since you are splitting the article- please put your reasonbs for doing so on the talk page (discussion) of the article. If you are acting as Editor, and not as an author, you need to keep those roles distinct. Splitting the article is an editorial sort of thing, but adding text is different, unless you reword something that has been discussed with the author(s) . [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 08:53, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
== New type of subpage ==


::Nancy--we talked about splitting it on the Talk page a few days ago and no objection, so as an editor I split it (and split the bibliog, and added a few items to bibliog part 1). I think both halves will grow in size and they have little in common, Richard [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
Officially these need to be approved before being hardwired but I have set up the subpages template such that you can start using an experimental version. My thinking is that if an experimental subpage becomes popular then this will be a strong reason to  adopt it to the official list.  The way to set up an experimental tab is to add '''"|tab1=''New Subpage name''"''' into the metadata page.  You can see an example of this type of addition at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ADamon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award%2FMetadata&diff=100325257&oldid=100282858 Damon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award] for the ''Honorees'' tab. The full proposal for adding new subpage types in this way can be read at [[CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages%3F]]. Let me know if this does not make sense. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:37, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
:thanks. I'm proposing a standard subpage for all history articles for "Primary sources"-- excerpts of original historical documents. For copyright reasons these will be old documents (or government documents), and thus seem most appropriate for History, but others can use them too. I expect several hundred history articles could use this subpage effective. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:39, 5 June 2008 (CDT)


I think it's fine- I would ask that you write that on the discussion tab so that it's not a red blank. I will be mentioning both articles as developing articles moving towards approval on the Notice Boards tonight. If you think one or both are ready for nomination as approved articles- please let me know and we will ask a constable to put up the nomination templates.If you think one or both are not - please indicate on the discussion page what is lacking so that author(s) can move towards approval. Is there an area that needs more work? What is it? Not trying to push you to nominate, please understand, just pushing the process so that we don't get stalled (being part border collie :)) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 09:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
::Note that Larry [[User_talk:Chris_Day#new_subpage|affirms]] it needs approval before being hardwired. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:53, 6 June 2008 (CDT)


::we can nominate Part 1 and 2 of Pittsburgh history. They will both be expanded but are good now. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:16, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Certainly articles like [[Hippocrates]] and [[Galen]] could use a "Primary sources" subpage. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:04, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
== Titles again ==


Hello Richard, I notice that you created a redirection page from [[National Democratic Party]] to [[Gold Democrats]].  The problem is that this is not an exclusively American project; therefore, we must bear in mind that "National Democratic Party" is used for many other parties around the world, including ones in Germany and Nigeria (or so the Oracle of Google declares).
== Approval of [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] ==


I'm going to finally expand our policy about titles, just for you.  :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:08, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Richard, I would like to have the subject article approved. Since you and I are the only two who worked on it, it is my understanding that we cannot nominate it for approval. Do you have any ideas as to which editors we could approach about nominating this article for approval? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:51, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
:hmm.. i'll ask. First how about changing the title to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(It's real name is just Environmental Protection Agency., and the U.S. is an identifier versus state agencies.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:03, 7 June 2008 (CDT)


== History of the English Language ==
::When I find the time, I will change the "United States" to "U.S." or "U.S.A." ... there is some discussion going on in the General Forums about standardizing what article name to use in just this case and I would like to wait until that shakes out. Moving the article name involves moving the entire cluster of subpages, metadata page, approval page, etc. and is quite tedious and time consuming.


Hi Richard -- about History of the English Language, I'm not sure we'd want to drop the history workgroup -- even though, you are correct, the article here is written from a linguistic view, it certainly has implications for history. Language, like genetic material, is one of the best historical methodologies for pre-literate human history, and there are some vital overlaps. Why not ask on the History workgroup's forum?  Cheers, [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:09, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
::In any event, The U.S. or the U.S.A. is more than an identifier versus the state agencies ... many foreign countries also have very similar Environmental Protection names.  


::p.s. just checked and saw your comments in the History Workgroup.  Maybe we should talk to the techhies on site and see how the wiki's search engine would handle such queries -- my guess is that anyone who typed "Massachusetts" would get the entry with that name, but typing Massachusetts with "history" or "witches" or "colonial" would produce a ranked set of matches, among which would almost certainly be all the articles (when created) that you mention.  It's hard to anticipate how people will type queries, but since they're not optically looking through a print index, the "order" of such entries matters only on index pages (and there we can sort using DEFAULT:SORT of the article checklist's "abc" entry. If it's for the editors that we want all History articles sorted by keyword first, you could use the article checklist to do that.
::Have you ever worked with the editor Anthony Argyriou? If you have, would you be so kind as to approach him about nominating the article? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 13:37, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
::Ok I just asked him at [[User talk:Anthony Argyriou]] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:05, 7 June 2008 (CDT)


::By the way, thanks for the vote on Police History! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:18, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Richard, would you please read my comments on the Talk page of the article regarding your thoughts on changing the article name? I think we need more discussion before changing the name. Thanks in advance. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:12, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
::Re: History of the English Language -- I love language history but in the division of labor it doesn't fit with the expertise or time demands of the History Workgroup. The linguists should work on it. (There are other articles I want to shed, such as the series on navy ships.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)


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


Richard, Do you have the expertise to guide [[First_Punic_War]] to approval? It is apparently high on search lists and needs an editor. Can you either be that editor or find one? Gratefully (in advance) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 21:13, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
==Gettysburg==
::I can handle the article. It needs more work, but seems to be moving along ok. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:33, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Hey, sorry to see the dustup over Gettysburg. :-( [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 06:29, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::oh it's a striking confirmation of the old academic adage that there are no disputes on earth so trivial as academic ones. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:35, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


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


Richard, I am getting concerned about article redirects being made to thwart the naming conventions decision.  Please consider that page histories will be lost unless pages are moved instead of cut and pasted.  If articles get moved later, the other page history will be written over. This seems a dangerous precedent. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 21:20, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
== On medieval referencing ==
::I hope people will not rename my articles without asking me first. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:41, 24 April 2007 (CDT)


I hope that senior professionals can all be civil and an example to others as to how professional conduct on the wiki can provide a product that improves the world. Perhaps we can back off from this particular tussle, which appears to be currently a non-issue- no recent name changes in your workgroup's articles- and wage real war- as in Punic? We appear to be steadily rising in the search engines for the First Punic War- according to our tech people, and it would be great if that article was actually a good one. I don't know if it is. Do you? I'd like to showcase on the Thursday Night rundown as a developing article. Should I? [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Richard--since things change over time, and it has been mumble mumble years since I was in school, can you refresh my memory?


::I agree, let's let Dr. Jensen continue to name articles for which he's mainly (or solely) responsible as he wishes.  We'll return to the issue later; we can always rename articles en masse later, when we have more stakeholders on board to make something closer to a binding decision. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:20, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
If I want to quote a medieval book and I have a) a 19th century complete reprint of it and b) there is a complete scanned copy of the original in the national library that I have reviewed, but c) I've never actually seen the original ''hard copy'', when I put it in my biblio, do I put the original, or because I haven't actually held the hard copy, do I reference only the reprint?


Another civil Senior Professional!! Allright!!! :) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:37, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
::I think either one works. The goal in a scholarly article is to prove whether you saw the original or a photocopy of it (you did), but that's not an issue here. I would cite the version that users are most likely to come across (probably the reprint, which is much cheaper and so libraries could buy it.) Be sure to mention the original date. For really expensive books the rare book library only lets most people handle the photocopy. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:20, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


What, me, civil?  Perish the thought.  :-)  I did want to add, not necessarily in keeping with the finest standards of civility, that Dr. Jensen was, ahem, mistaken to refer to certain articles as "my articles."  We know what he means and we give him (lots of) credit, but strictly speaking, they aren't articles owned by anyone in particular. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:13, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
== Watergate ==
::Now that CZ has moved into a professional model (away from the Wiki model) then CZ has adopted professional standards of behavior which recognize and respect the "turf" that has been established. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:42, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
My belated translation,if "my" articles means History Workgroups and in that sense - and in that sense only-it  is perfectly legitimate. The professional trumps others when it comes to making calls in ''their own profession''. If there are disagreements within the profession, then that's another story. Hoping this will rest now. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 09:54, 26 April 2007 (CDT)


Okay, carry on. Sorry if I added fuel to a fire; I hope you realize that my intention was to extinguish one.  Once this decision is made, please feel free to ask me to help sort it out, I might be able to work through the edit histories and put them back together.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 21:28, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Aw shucks, 'tweren't nothin'. I just made the previous statement inoperative! [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 15:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)
::yes, thanks! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:43, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
::just don't get on the CZ Enema List -- you'll catch shit. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:29, 19 June 2008 (CDT)


== History workgroup for ships ==
== Luftwaffe ==


I don't know much at all about the various workgroups. I've put 100+ Navy ship articles into CZ, and they are all in the History workgroup, based on somebody's putting one of the first ones there. Every one of them also has the History workgroup listed on the checklist on the article's Discussion page. If somebody's going to take 'em out of the History workgroup, (which I know nothing about and wouldn't question), shouldn't they also update the checklist?
I hadn't been planning on doing a full article, although I can contribute to some of the electronics. Interesting, though -- I just found Rudel's autobiography. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:10, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
::well I'll start on it then.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:50, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


BTW, back in the 1960s I was in night school in Chicago. The Newberry Library was on the route from my parking area to the school. I was always intrigued by the building, and wondered what went on inside it. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:::you may not have seen this, since it was in the radar technical article, but, while the author is a bit provocative in some statements, he's right that Germany had some more advanced radar technology, but didn't have enough system thinking around it.  
::Louis, well if you stopped by the Newberry from 1971 to 1982 you would have found me working away -- in those days I was teaching computers to historians using punch cards. I remember getting our first modem--300 baud--and it cost $250 a monthAs for the ships, they belong in the military workgroup but not the history workgroup unless it was a really famous ship. We're all felling our way here. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:54, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
<nowiki><ref name=Clark1997>{{citation
:::The original stuff about the History workgroup was [[User_talk:Louis_F._Sander#Articles_on_CZ|HERE]]. Maybe you guys should feel your way together. Once again, I'll let workgroup decisions to people in those workgroups, but if somebody's going to change one, I'm thinking that it's up to them to maintain sync between the workgroups cited in the article and those cited in the checklist.
| id = ADA397960
| title = Deflating British Radar Myths of World War II
| publisher = Air Command and Staff College
| author = Clark, Gregory C.
| url = http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA397960 
| date = March 1997}}</ref></nowiki> [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:38, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
::I really don't know much about radar and electronic navigation so I hope you will handle those topics re LuftwaffeYou can keep all the strips of aluminium foil you find as souvenirs [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:51, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


:::I passed the Newberry Library between 1965 and 1967, when I was at the U. of Chicago business school, which had a building across the street from the then-under-construction John Hancock building. I, too, was involved in computer programs using punched cards. We had one or two courses that used FORTRAN in that mode. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 08:06, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:::LOL...of course. Chaff makes nice Christmas decoration. Do you have R.V. Jones' ''The Wizard War''? 


Richard - I've finished posting my articles on ships, and I will no longer put any of my old-time Navy stuff into the History Workgroup. I left the last few ships in it, because I didn't want to change my protocol before I had finished the list. Regards, [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Seriously, I'm updating and generalizing [[integrated air defense system]]. The Germans did develop some not-unreasonable IADS, but, by the time the large-scale Allied bomber forces flew against them, the Allies also knew more about electronic warfare. A number of the more effective techniques were deliberately held back until the invasion of France. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:16, 25 June 2008 (CDT)


==Recent edit==
::::While it was indeed Luftwaffe in WWII, the term, AFAIK, is still in use. I've seen transports in Luftwaffe markings at Dulles International Airport, over at the General Aviation terminal.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:11, 26 June 2008 (CDT)
Hi.  I saw that you removed History Workgroup from Tecum Umam with the reason that it is "not quite historical enough.I understand the need to depopulate the History Workgroup category somewhat, given the enormous number of articles that could conceivably fit in, but I wonder if this one in particular should stay.


There is very little that is actually known about Tecum Umam, but he is generally considered a very prominent figure in Guatemalan history.  An important part of the article concerns the historical reality of Tecum Umam as a person.  Though we can't lay out the history in solid terms, I think the debate ought to put the article in the History Workgroup.
== Dokdo ==


I'm not going to change it back yet, but I'd like to here your thoughts. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 18:15, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for your approval, Dr. Jensen! People weren't approving the article, so I planned to take the article off the list after this vote but I guess I don't have to. If you have doubts about the neutrality of the article or you are interested in the subject & would like a neutral & professional view on this issue, please take a look at this article written by a Japanese historian - Hideki Kajimura: [http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura-doc.pdf The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo]. Thank you. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT))
::It is a good article and appears to belong to the realm of folklore/anthropology. That is a large and respected field that has experts who can handle it.  It is, in my opinion, not the kind of article for which the expertise of CZ's historians can assist very much. The article indicates the historical evidence is extremely thin--one vague reference. I have been removing lots of articles from the History Workgroup which deal with the past, but that are not sufficiently historiographical in approach that we historians can assist with. The situation is fairly common in religious studies, where holy figures about whom very little is known loom quite large because of the impact of their relation to God (rather than their part in historical events.) Historians turn those topics over to Religious studies folks. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)


:::Okay. That makes sense.  Thanks for the reply. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 19:46, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I'd think that you would stop reading the pdf by the 1st page or so, so here are some interesting & provocative quotes from the pdf:


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


I noticed your recent addition the the article [[United Kingdom]] and related redirects and disambiguation pages. I'd just like to observe that the term 'Great Briton' is not synonymous with 'United Kingdom' as discussed at length on the talk page [[Talk:United_Kingdom]]. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 20:40, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
...the Japanese government confirmed Takeshima/Ullungdo as Korean's inherent territory in 1696, and took the measure of prohibiting completely Japanese from making voyage there.
::I realize the terms are not synonyms. I tried to sort out the questions of usage. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:16, 27 April 2007 (CDT)


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


Richard, I do not understand what you mean by "not historical enough." The article is still developing, and surely it's too soon to orphan it out of History (I don't think Law will know what to do with it). It's also one of a series of entries I'd written as part of  a group on Police History, which you'd said on the History Workgroup talk page was a great idea. If you could at least comment on the article's Talk page, I'd appreciate it. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 02:48, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
During the heated anti-foreign campaign between 1952 and 1954 the notion that "Takeshima ~ Tokdo is Japan's inherent territory penetrated into the Japanese for the first time. This campaign was also utilized clearly as a means to push for Japan's military rearmament.
::Russell--it can go in a police history workgroup. But CZ needs to start big, I think. An overview of Scotland Yard for example. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:46, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
</blockquote>
:::Richard, that's on its way -- I have a start at [[Scotland Yard]], with more to come; I've worked with several researchers in this area, including some retired officers of the Metropolitan Police, one of whom helped assemble the ''Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard'' published a few years ago, so my aim is for an accurate, in-depth main entry with links to sub-entries for major divisions and/or historical events, e.g. Special Branch, the Flying Squad, and the Crippen case.  The subsidiary articles will all link to the main entry, at least to that degree they won't be oprhaned. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 10:53, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:26, 1 July 2008 (CDT))
::Ok That makes sense now! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:31, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
::thanks for the tip. And thanks for a very good article! You have the knack for writing for the encyclopedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:55, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
== [[Robert A. Taft]] ==


Hey, I just added his portrait from Congress (on the [[Robert A. Taft]] article). Nice work on conservative-related articles! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 12:02, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
== AFL ==
::thanks--good photo. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:38, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Richard, could you move AFL to American Federation of Labor?  Eventually someone will write an article about the
American Football League, so we will be needing a disambiguation page. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:08, 7 July 2008 (CDT)
::OK, done. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:57, 7 July 2008 (CDT)


== History workgroup talk page ==
::::Thanks [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 22:02, 7 July 2008 (CDT)


The recent discussions about naming articles and on categorising ships took place on this page [[CZ:History_Workgroup]] but should really have been done on the talk page at [[CZ_Talk:History_Workgroup]] instead. Seems everyone got confused as to the difference between wiki pages and talk pages. I'll move the conversation over to the correct page tomorrow unless you say otherwise. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 12:18, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
== Dokdo approval ==


:Derek, fine with me.  By the by, while I have you on the line here, I have question about whether, and how, we might set up smaller working areas within certain workgroups -- could we create a subdirectory?  could the current workgroup category tags include a link to it?  The discussion on this issue took place on [[Talk:Frederick Porter Wensley]].  By the by, we do know the difference between wiki and article talk, but there is a tendency, I suppose, to contact fellow editors directly; not every question turns into a relevant policy discussion. Cheers,  [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 12:33, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Hello Dr. Jensen,


::You didn't have me online, I said 'tomorrow' cause I was just heading for bed at silly o'clock in the morning. Here in lies the problem with being on the opposite side of the world. With respect to subgroups, I think we will need them. History workgroup is just going to be unmanageably big without them. Similar things were discussed a long time ago at Biology. See the [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,260.0.html| Biology forum discussion]; though without conclusion. Larry has stated in the past that he doesn't want categories. There is an entire section in the forums devoted to this issue. I suggest you look at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,12.0.html| this forum page] to see what Larry has planed.
I think I finished the [[Dokdo]] article. Could you see if it can be approved? Thank you very much. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 21:45, 17 July 2008 (CDT))


::In the mean time, while we wait for the sub workgroup/categorization issue to be resolved, I suggest we make use of Larry's suggestion to build Catalogs. These Catalogs will help us track articles on a given subject while at the same time being a useful tool for users to read, research and navigate the site. An example of a suitable Catalog for the history workgroup could be a Royal family tree or a time line such as that see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties in Chinese history| Dynasties in Chinese history] at wikipedia. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 01:49, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
:Thank you. I made a few edits afterward. They would be included in the approved version? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 00:22, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
::yes. you did a good job! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:19, 18 July 2008 (CDT)


== Economic recovery? ==
::: Hi Richard, I left a message ont he talk page:  ''This article is up for approval today.  I see that there are [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Dokdo&diff=100367898&oldid=100366959 several edits] since the date that Richard Jensen placed the template. If we want those included, the version date needs to reflect that change, otherwise I will use the latest version before that approval was made.'' [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:16, 21 July 2008 (CDT)


During [[George W. Bush]]'s administration (right now) America is experiencing one of the worst economic downturn, how is the "economic recovery" going on? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:43, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
::::Hello Dr. Jensen. I think here you said "yes" to the edits made after you put the approval template. Didn't you? Thank you. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 10:43, 21 July 2008 (CDT))
::look at the unemployment data and GDP data. [http://www.bls.gov/] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:24, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


== Arthur S. Link ==


Just been doing a bit of the big cleanup and got allocated your article on [[Arthur S. Link]]. I noticed it's almost identical to a wikipedia article of the same name. I was about to stick a speedydelete template on it when I realised it looks like your name in the history of both wikipedia and CZ. To avoid problems, I suggest to add a comment to the discussion page at [[Talk:Arthur S. Link]] stating that you are the author of both. If there are any other pages you have authored on both sites then be sure to comment on the other talk pages too lest someone delete them in error. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 06:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Approved!  Thanks for the last look ;-) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:47, 22 July 2008 (CDT)
::Derek, yes I wrote the Wiki and will note that on Talk. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:36, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


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


Thank you for pointing that out, some of the photos are indeed too dark. However, I tried to click the "use external editor" button but it doesn't seem to work (it downloaded a blank file). Do you know how to use it? Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 11:53, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Richard Jensen was asked to take a 'holiday' from editing here. He was humiliated before he was stood on, basically. In a purely understandable response to this, Richard told them where they could stick their wiki. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 23:03, 1 September 2008 (CDT)
::That did not work for me either. I use a photoeditor--paste into it, dixup and save as JPG. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Thanks, I'll probably lighten up those images this afternoon or in these two or three days. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 12:21, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
::Hey Richard Jensen, I increased the brightness of three pictures: [[:Image:StephenDouglas.jpg]] ([[Stephen Douglas]]), [[:Image:Calvincoolidge.jpg]] ([[Calvin Coolidge]]), and [[:Image:Warrenharding.jpg]] ([[Warren G. Harding]]). Please take a look and if they are not as good as before, feel free to revert back. Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
::Great![[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


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


Hi Richard. Why are you removing <nowiki>[[Category:Military Workgroup]]</nowiki> from some of the Navy ship articles?  Is this a mistake? Or why remove ''that'' workgroup from them? That's their rightful "home", is it not?  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:38, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
==Conservapedia==
::oops that was a mistake. I am painfully erasing the ships one by one from the History workgroup. In my opinion they should NOT be in the Military workgroup either, because there is nothing to edit or improve. They are data dumps on ships that have a VERY small interested public and there is nothing really to add to their entries. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:57, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Richard is [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:RJJensen now editing on Conservapedia]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 22:23, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


Richard, there are many people interested in those ships, and-in a sense- a data dump, if its well written, is just fine for an on-line encyclopedia, when you want to know something-like that ship that your grandfather served on, it's there. Unlike  a print book, after all, its presence does not mean something else was omitted. Lets encourage our hardworking authors, ''please''.I personally enjoy those articles and am impressed at the amount of work that has gone into them. (Aunt of a navy enlisted man) If you would like help in removing the History Workgroup tags, I'll help you.  [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 07:17, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
We should wish him luck. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:27, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


::In my opinion the material does not belong in Citizendium. They do NOT mention any people--not even the skippers and EOs, nor any notable incidents. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:24, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
:I'll second that. Best of luck, Richard, wherever you do your work; and many thanks for your valuable contributions to Citizendium. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 23:15, 3 September 2008 (CDT)


:::I do not appreciate your opinion that my work does not belong in Citizendium. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 07:55, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
::I'll second that! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
:::Thanks--I'm back as well to Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 05:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
::::I hope you have an ample supply of [[Valium]]! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 10:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)


::::Sorry about that. It appears all the info was merely copied and was already easily available to anyone interested. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:32, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
:::::I don't like Wikipedia... well, good luck Dr. Jensen. I hope that soon all will be settled, you will recall the Citizendium experience, think how wonderful it was to be here, then change your mind & come back! : ) ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:39, 4 September 2008 (CDT))
==May 1 - Is it Approval time for the two Pittsburgh Articles?==


Richard. please contact a constable or myself today to initiate approval for the Pittsburgh articles. Please give them the proper links for approval. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 07:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
::::::For what it's worth, I second that.  I have no idea what happened here, I guess I missed a lot over the summer. I hope time heals the rifts. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:08, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
 
== Are you back? ==
 
I noticed a couple of edits earlier today from you.  What a surprise!  Does this mean you are back? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:Welcome back! Let's have a party!
 
:"Chunbum Park brings 6 bottles of ^ beer and gulps one down." ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
:::No I'm on  sabbatical for the next three years. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::::It's been 1 yr already in Mercurian calendar. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
:::::Hello Dr. Jenson. How are you doing? Will you come back in November 7, 2011? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
 
== Explosives approved ==
 
Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 
== Copyrighted material ==
 
I have [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=James_G._Blaine&action=historysubmit&diff=100831421&oldid=100639762 removed] the last paragraph of the [[James G. Blaine]] article as it appears to be copyrighted and so should not simply be uploaded there. Under our [[CZ:Moderator Group Blocking Procedures#Offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban|blocking procedures]], this attracts a warning first, then a ban. This message constitutes the warning, unless you can show evidence that the material was appropriately uploaded. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:02, 4 May 2024


American religion, again

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

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

I need your input

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

History Workgroup Week

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

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

More input

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

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

Archived for you

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Removing the Bruce-Lovett report

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

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

reverted your edits

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

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

Approval of Cauchy

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

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

Latinos and Hispanics

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

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

Red herring-thanks

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

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

Hello

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

DoD (US) name

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

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

New type of subpage

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

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

Approval of United States Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

R. Eugene Pincham

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

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

Gettysburg

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

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

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

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

On medieval referencing

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

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

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

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

Watergate

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

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

Luftwaffe

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

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

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

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

Dokdo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFL

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

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

Dokdo approval

Hello Dr. Jensen,

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia

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

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

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

Are you back?

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

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

Explosives approved

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

Copyrighted material

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