User talk:Richard Jensen

Richard Jensen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

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 nomonate 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)