Talk:Republicanism, U.S.
authorship
this version is entirely by CZ editor Richard Jensen, who wrote the Wiki article under "Rjensen". Richard Jensen 15:13, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Outstanding
I am not certain what the process for this is, but this essay is a real jewel and clearly the tightly crafted product of a single author, even without the note above. It is hard for me to see how any additional contributions by others could improve it, and therefore I would like to nominate it as an authored piece (perhaps tied in someway into the more generic, multi-authored Republicanism entry.)
After making a few copy-editing changes and a couple of questions, I intend to nominate this article for approval as an authored piece.
- One question for the author is - in the historiography section, is it possible to state briefly the positions of the Cambridge School and the St. Louis School?
- My only other question is whether it would be possible for the author to write a brief concluding paragraph? Things just sort of stop currently, and while the discordant Bush-Kerry exchange is suitably and appropriately neutral, its location so near the end and the trivial partisan bickering it reminds us of sort of ends this wonderful piece on a sour note.
Roger Lohmann 21:26, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- hey thanks! I'll work of the two very good suggestions. Richard Jensen 21:57, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
I agree this article is one of a kind. Makes me want to home school my kids ;-) I'd just let them read Richards work! --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:44, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- Roger, you are meaning as a signed article, as a subpaged article, right? Assuming yes, of which article would it be subpage? You said Republicanism, but perhaps United States Government?
- Richard, for what its worth, I agree this is indeed a very interesting essay in that vein.
- —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:46, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- it's designed as an encyclopedia article, and would not work as well as a signed article--it's not structured as an essay. Richard Jensen 22:58, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Agree it is not an essay of the 'Signed article' that I envision. It is definitely an overview type article that can be linked to and expounded on just because of it's broad range, so in that vein it is more of a 'first exposure' or 'main article'. --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
Can you clarify
Richard, can you help me understand this section [1]. I am not clear whether the Federalist Noah was talking about the Federalist party becoming the Democratic-Republican party or whether the Democratic-Republican party squashed the Federalists. Or something totally different. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:56, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
- thanks for the heads-up. I tried to rephrase it more clearly. Richard Jensen 11:05, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
- That works, I also switched the "Washington's" around. When I first read it, I immediately thought Washington D.C. (duh) and had to think twice. Hopefully my change helped. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:04, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
- thanks for the heads-up. I tried to rephrase it more clearly. Richard Jensen 11:05, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
Notes for future
- "classical republicanism" should be defined.
- There's no clear example here of what civic-mindedness actually means. The example of Cincinnatus would be illustrative.
- Nor is it clear how republicanism really affected the revolution. what about Tom Paine?