Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjensen

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC).

Rjensen (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Rjensen has repeatedly described User:Pmanderson(Septentrionalis) as a pro-slavery editor and as making pro-slavery edits to Alexander Hamilton.

The description as "pro-slavery" does not describe an ordinary political opinion, nor a scholarly one: it is an attack upon the character of the person so described. Slavery is a crime against humanity, and has been so described since shortly after World War II. It involves, of necessity, physical cruelty and the willingness to commit murder. It routinely involves rape -- under the best of circumstances coerced intercourse. It frequently involved child molestation. To describe someone as "pro-slavery" is to describe them as in favor of those things. Unfortunately, the class of persons deserving of this term is not empty, but there is no evidence in the article on on Wikipedia that the editor Pmanderson/Septentrionalis is a member of that class. This description is defamatory and must not be tolerated on Wikipedia without proof.

The content-related issues that gave rise to this personal attack may be resolvable, or not. They certainly will remain unresolvable so long as one editor insists on accusing another of moral turpitude. The statement of this RfC deliberately and specifically avoids content-related issues.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Rjensen removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, with the edit summary."del anti-abolitionist & pro-slavery POV)." He has repeated this personal attack four times.
"Nasty to have to deal with proslavery editors in 2006". Talk page comment on this.
- Rjensen's edit removed the following passage:
  "Hamilton supported Laurens' project to draft, free, and arm a body of South Carolina blacks under Laurens' command; this was while the Briitish were attacking Charleston during the Revolution. He argued that the blacks were not as stupid as generally believed (and if they were, it didn't matter: "{the Russians would make the best troops in the world", if their officers weren't Russians.) Some biographers have acclaimed the liberation of those given muskets as abolitionism; Hamilton argues for it by pointing out that the British were already offering freedom to slaves who ran away and fought for them
- I replied that these were Hamilton's views and I did not agree with them.[1], last paragraph of diff.
- Hamilton wrote:
  It appears to me, that an expedient of this kind, in the present state of Southern affairs, is the most rational, that can be adopted, and promises very important advantages. Indeed, I hardly see how a sufficient force can be collected in that quarter without it; and the enemy's operations there are growing infinitely serious and formidable. I have not the least doubt, that the negroes will make very excellent soldiers, with proper management; and I will venture to pronounce, that they cannot be put in better hands than those of Mr. Laurens. He has all the zeal, intelligence, enterprise, and every other qualification requisite to succeed in such an undertaking. It is a maxim with some great military judges, that with sensible officers soldiers can hardly be too stupid; and on this principle it is thought that the Russians would make the best troops in the world, if they were under other officers than their own. The King of Prussia is among the number who maintain this doctrine and has a very emphatical saying on the occasion, which I do not exactly recollect. I mention this, because I frequently hear it objected to the scheme of embodying negroes that they are too stupid to make soldiers. This is so far from appearing to me a valid objection that I think their want of cultivation (for their natural faculties are probably as good as ours) joined to that habit of subordination which they acquire from a life of servitude, will make them sooner bec[o]me soldiers than our White inhabitants. Let officers be men of sense and sentiment, and the nearer the soldiers approach to machines perhaps the better.

- I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from prejudice and self-interest. The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticability or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires such a sacrifice. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity and true policy equally interest me in favour of this unfortunate class of men.[2]
"Alas, it was a common tactic for proslavery spokesmen to ridicule and minimize the work of abolitionists. Pmanderson continues that unfortunate tradition."
"The POV rules mean that efforts to promote a proslavery or anti-abolitionist agenda are not allowed on Wiki. One recent editor..."
"[pro-slavery attacks.
- This edit removed a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History. For the source, see the diff or here.
"PManderson alas began by using proslavery tactics"

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Robert A West (talk · contribs · logs) protests, citing civility and NPA in edit summary[3]
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · logs) protests, as point of personal privilege. [4] bottom.
Posted to Wikiquette alerts [5]
Request for third party opinion.[6]
- Reply; "inexcusable"
Robert A West (talk · contribs · logs) request an apology for the intemperate accusation, noting that this is distinct from any content-related issue.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Ultramarine

Unfortunately, I have a long experience with Septentrionalis and his real-world friend or relative Robert A. West. I do not know if Septentrionalis is pro-slavery, but he has a long history of trying to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages.[7] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[8]. Or this, which seems to be deliberately misleading complaints of copyright infringement in order to remove pro-democracy arguments.[9] Or this, where he even argues that Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download should not have any article about democracy.[10]

Looking at Rjensen's edits, I agree with him that Septentrionalis is trying to insert his own original research theory and is violating NPOV. Wikipedia should report the views of respected scholars, not homemade opinons and selective quotations.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ultramarine 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of SB Johnny

It's rather difficult to get a good handle on what's going on on both the article and on the talk, because of the rapid-fire edit war going on, and possibly unsigned statements on the talk. What's clear is this:

1) user:Rjensen is clearly out of line in accusing a fellow editor of being pro-slavery. While it is clear that user:Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) (and user:Robert A West [11]) consider Alexander Hamilton's stance on slavery to be a minor issue (and Rjensen considers it to be quite important), this does not excuse either these accusations or his generally uncivil approach to his fellow wikipedians. On the other hand, recent use of the term "peacockery" by Septentrionalis seems to be going in the direction of tit-for-tat insults, which isn't helping things.

2) There is a protracted edit war being carried out on this article (and possibly others), and this is a bilateral edit war. I would advise all 3 parties involved to observe a cooling off period for a while. I'm uncertain how useful this RfC will be due to the level of tension involved. I suggest you request a formal mediation and try to work this out, because the article in question is not being improved by this edit-warring.

Users who endorse this summary:

SB Johnny 10:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of --JimWae

From only a quick perusal (from the examples given this apparently this has been going on for about 3 weeks, & I am not about to examine every detail) -- both sides have a point AND both sides have committed excesses. Has there been any progress since June 24? --JimWae 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Getaway

I can only refer to my personal experience in dealing with Rjensen. He repeated reverted me over and over again concerning the Robert Byrd article. In fact he did it one time four times in one day when I was adding information about Robert Byrd, concerning Byrd's segregationist past. Rjensen was adamant that a Byrd, a former member of the KKK, should not be called a segregationist. Rjensen did not care that I had a Washington Post article that referred to Byrd as a segregationist. He did not care that I had articles on the history of the debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where Byrd and all of the southern and border state Democrats who filibustered the Act as segregationists. He did not care that Senator Strom Thurmond, who was the only Senator to filibuster longer than Byrd is called by everyone a segregationist. Rjensen was not going to allow Byrd, a former KKK member and a man who personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours a segregationist. I believe strongly that Rjensen's action in reference to that debate speak to this current Requests for comment. Also, Rjensen personally attacked me several times during the discussion, which once again was uncalled for.----Getaway 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki has very strict rules against attacking a living person--Senator Byrd is very much alive and is in fact running for reelection. The Wiki rules clearly state that poorly sourced negatives should be immediately removed (and says the 3R rule does not apply). Getaway's negative views of Byrd are pretty clear from his statement above. The standard book-length history of the 1964 bill never even mentions Byrd--he is inserted in the article only to attack him today in 2006; (no dead Senator gets attacked). Rjensen 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article now states, correctly, that Byrd is a segregationist and it will stay that way. Forever.--Getaway 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen's comments on ridicule of blacks and abolitionists

I do not accuse anyone of being pro-slavery in the sense of wanting to bring back slavery. I did complain that an editor was using the tactics we see on proslavery websites: ridicule and belittle abolitionists and blacks. Those tactics I consider POV and in very bad taste indeed. Here's an example of the demeaning material that Pmanderson added to the Hamilton entry: " He (Hamilton) argued that the blacks were not as stupid as generally believed (and if they were, it didn't matter: the Russians would make the best troops in the world, if their officers weren't Russians.)" [edit of Pmanderson on June 23]. It goes on and on: when one of the leading African American historians (Horton) praises Hamilton's efforts, Pmanderson, on the basis of his own POV, ridicules it. Not to mention a major exhibit at the NY Historical Society that emphasized Hamilton's antislavery work. When Horton shows Hamilton was the #3 name on the founding list of the Manumission Society, Pmanderson deletes references to Hamilton as a cofounder. When cited scholars say he was president of the group, Pmanderson says the evidence is not good enough to call him an officer!Rjensen

What Hamilton actually wrote is I have not the least doubt, that the negroes will make very excellent soldiers, with proper management; and I will venture to pronounce, that they cannot be put in better hands than those of Mr. Laurens. He has all the zeal, intelligence, enterprise, and every other qualification requisite to succeed in such an undertaking. It is a maxim with some great military judges, that with sensible officers soldiers can hardly be too stupid; and on this principle it is thought that the Russians would make the best troops in the world, if they were under other officers than their own. The King of Prussia is among the number who maintain this doctrine and has a very emphatical saying on the occasion, which I do not exactly recollect. I mention this, because I frequently hear it objected to the scheme of embodying negroes that they are too stupid to make soldiers. This is so far from appearing to me a valid objection that I think their want of cultivation (for their natural faculties are probably as good as ours) joined to that habit of subordination which they acquire from a life of servitude, will make them sooner become soldiers than our White inhabitants. Let officers be men of sense and sentiment, and the nearer the soldiers approach to machines perhaps the better.

Let the reader judge whether I summarized Hamilton unfairly, or Rjensen is engaged in whitewashing. Rjensen's other points are a mixture of exaggeration, misquotation, and quotation out of context; anyone curious enough will find some of them on the talk page, the rest in the archives of Talk:Alexander Hamilton, especially the second.

Rjensen's sophistry on Party Systems

There is a minority schematization of American history, which divides it into five (or six, or seven) Party systems; see {{American political eras}} for the list. It does so by taking the two great changes of 1824 and 1854, in which one of the two major parties (in 1824, arguably both) broke up and disappeared, and adding the shifts of power in 1896 and 1932, thus dividing American political history into five epochs. Why this schema omits the transfers of power in the revolution of 1800, 1884, 1920, and 1954 is unclear. The first system is a term actually used by a respectable minority, the second is less popular, the third less so, and so on. By the fifth system, we are down to a handful of papers, which do not agree on:

Whether it has ended
When it has ended
Whether, if it has ended, a sixth system has replaced it or it has dissolved into indifference.
- one author even argues for a Seventh Party System.

We have articles on all of these, as we should. Rjensen, however, has turned four of them into PoV forks of the relevant epochs of American history, and has been spreading links to them in other articles. He asserts expertise on the subjecr, and one of the handful of papers on the Fifth Party System is indeed by Richard Jensen.

Rjensen inserted the paper mentioned into article text, [here. Some would call this WP:VANITY, but this is mostly harmless.
However, Rjensen asserts that this is the standard periodization in political science (or possibly government studies).
- This does not appear to be true. For example, 408 books use Progressive Era and have Government in their titles; almost all of them are studies of government search result Most of them are indeed studies of government; almost all of them political science; and they are only some of the thousands of works on American political science. Only a quarter as many mention the Fourth Party System (which is the Progressive Era plus the Roaring Twenties) at all; and only eight of them have Government in the title. That's a proportion of 8:408, or one fifty-first.
He also asserts that it is used mainly for Presidential elections, and dismisses a pol. sci. book on Congress which asserts the three-fold division at 1824 and 1854.
- And yet that statement was made 16:08, 27 July 2007, just before reverting to include the Party Systems into History of the United States House of Representatives at 02:09, 26 July 2007 and 16:09, 27 July 2007. He should pick one claim, and stick to it.

He will, in short, be much happier on Citizendium, where they prefer credentials to evidence, sources, and argument. If they prevail over us, so be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.