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)

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?