User talk:RJJensen

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bugler (Talk | contribs) at 13:50, December 31, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Bugler 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to Barack Obama re: financing. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)


Welcome indeed to CP! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

hey thanks! RJJensen 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)


Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. Bugler 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
  1. the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
  2. " However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
  3. " Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
  4. "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."

RJJensen 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. Bugler 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with Nazism, and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? Bugler 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. Bugler 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.RJJensen 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
well everyone to his own warlord hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... Bugler 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. RJJensen 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


Could we please talk about it before reverting? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. RJJensen 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegalRJJensen 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. RJJensen 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)


Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -Foxtrot 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. RJJensen 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


Hi, your calculus section in the Isaac Newton article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -Foxtrot 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

very nice job--thanks! RJJensen 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

National Socialist German Workers Party

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in World War II by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. Ieuan 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)

the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. RJJensen 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.


I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --BRichtigen 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)

hey thanks! RJJensen 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)


Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own opinion into articles by censoring facts. --Wikinterpreter 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." RJJensen 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Holocaust article

The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. Karajou 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)

you're right and I will try to smooth it out. RJJensen 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Category Military history

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks Learn together 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)

thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. RJJensen 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

First Black President

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the First Black president article. -Foxtrot 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

what information was correct? it did not check out. RJJensen 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? MarkBaley 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)

well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).RJJensen 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a Liberal who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. MarkBaley 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)

well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. RJJensen 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! MarkBaley 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

English and UK categories

Question for you at Talk:William the Conqueror --Ed Poor Talk 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

  • Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

World War II fatalities

Thank for this addition. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the Kamikaze.

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --Ed Poor Talk 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. RJJensen 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Shays' Rebellion

I wander why the Block quote was deleted? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. RJJensen 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

The so-called Progressive Era?

  • Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow!  :-D --₮K/Talk 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. RJJensen 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Additional privileges

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--Aschlafly 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)

hey thanks--I appreciate that! RJJensen 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Congrats. --DinsdaleP 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! Bugler 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Oz pic

Just uploaded it for the article: [1] Karajou 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)

thanks--the visuals are great. RJJensen 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Barry Goldwater

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. Historians need to resist revisionism. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --₮K/Talk! 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.from National RreviewDec10, 2004

RJJensen 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

  • Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --₮K/Talk! 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. RJJensen 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
  • We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --₮K/Talk! 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. RJJensen 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --₮K/Talk! 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. RJJensen 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

French Revolution

Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks Bolly 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)

GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev. -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. RJJensen 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)
OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! Bolly 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Medieval Cats

As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) AlanE 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)

you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. RJJensen 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let you know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)AlanE 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
what I did was go though all the articles in and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea RJJensen 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Invitation to join Wikiproject:News

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to sign up as a member of Wikiproject:News. Review the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions here. Add wanted pages here. --DeanStalk 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)

thanks for the invite; i just signed up. RJJensen 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Dutch History

RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. Bugler 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)