Talk:Great Society/Draft

Richard, will you indicate the source of the article. I assume you wrote it, originally for here? Nancy Sculerati 02:05, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

no this is from Wiki; sorry if i didn't check that box. Richard Jensen 02:11, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Is it something that you wrote for Wikipedia? Are you expanding it here? I love all your articles and I respect you tremendously, it's really great to see the History Workgroup taken in hand, I'm just wondering where all these full blown articles are coming from, and what your plans are for approval. Nancy Sculerati 06:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT) (aka Mother Hen)

I wrote part of it for Wiki. I did LOTS of articles for them. in this case I did less than 50%. Every article I bring over gets revised by me immediately. I usually drop low quality stuff and beef up the bibliog, and do a little rewriting. I am only bringing in articles that I had a major hand in writing. Richard Jensen 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I revised and added new material, and a reading list, and dropped useless wikipedia links.Richard Jensen 13:29, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

Nominate For Approval

Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days.

Roger Lohmann 19:43, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. Hayford Peirce 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

"dust beneath the chariot wheels" is such bad writing, that I assume this is a parody. tell us what is "sloppy" and what is "badly edited" or forever hold your peace, lest a fate worse than literary death await thee. Richard Jensen 21:23, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Approval process

I see a couple of objections to approval above. I'll wait till later tonight before approving this article to give anyone a chance to handle them. D. Matt Innis 16:05, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

I added new material a week ago in response to the one objection. Richard Jensen 18:35, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

I have rewritten the unbalanced section called "Memory" and changed its title to "Assessment". If the rest of the article is as unbalanced as this one section was, then I think it merits very close attention by a historian or historians who had no hand in writing it. Hayford Peirce 11:03, 9 July 2008 (CDT)

Why isn't this approved yet? (Chunbum Park 09:48, 20 July 2008 (CDT))

Memory??

I agree with Hayford's good edits except for the term "assessment," which sounds like CZ is assessing history. We are not. All we are doing is saying that the current memory is mostly negative. "Memory" is a key theme for historians in recent years. That is, how scholars, the media, public officials, people generally "remember" past themes and leaders. Truman and John Adams, for example, have gone "up" sharply (and Jefferson has gone down), while LBJ has stayed pretty low. Richard Jensen 11:41, 9 July 2008 (CDT)

OK Hayford has it right. sorry for my slip. Richard Jensen 21:16, 10 July 2008 (CDT)

Approved Version 1

Congratulations on this Version 1 Approval. Please continue discussion below this line. D. Matt Innis 07:51, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

---