Talk:Richard Hofstadter/Draft

Version 1.0

Much of the text and all of the bibliography is by RJensen/Richard Jensen. Richard Jensen 18:34, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

His The American Political Tradition and Men Who Made It was one of the books I used for the Calhoun research paper. :-) Yi Zhe Wu 18:54, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I used to assign that book in political history courses. it isso insightful and well-written that it works very well. I met Hofstadter just before he died in 1970. On the other hand I don't much like his other books. Richard Jensen 20:26, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, that's cool. But I saw American Heritage said "Age of Reform" was his best book that won him the prize. Is that a good book? Yi Zhe Wu 20:32, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

lots of people liked it but not me. It's rarely cited anymore. I was part of the behavioral revolution that demanded much better evidence than he used. He laid out theoreies (like status revolution) without trying to find evidence. That was H's weakness. he never looked at statistics or newspapers, for example. Richard Jensen 00:03, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

This article appears to be ready for approval. Other online articles are lengthier, but this seems to cover the essentials. I'm going to nominate it. Roger Lohmann 16:17, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

Approval Version 1.0

Congratulations again Richard and Roger for Version 1.0 approval. D. Matt Innis 09:05, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

Version 1.1

A number of small changes have been made (by Russell) and a few edits are being made by me) to this article and I intend to submit the Revised version for approval very soon. E.g., It escaped my notice last time, but I am very skeptical that a work by an EX-communist using a biological metaphor popularized by, among others, Thomas Huxley and the sociologist Herbert Spencer and relatively few Marxian concepts is properly termed a "Marxist" work. ...said Roger Lohmann (talk)

I agree. Thanks for the catch and the nomination. Russell D. Jones 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, I made a redlink of "Paranoid Style", which is actually referenced by a fair number of articles and deserves its own article. I haven't read "Anti-intellectualism" recently, but I'll see if I can find an online copy. Once I get even a stub for Paranoid Style, hopefully I'll get Related Articles filled in quickly, and you may want to add more that shows Hofstadter's influence on current American politics.

I'll be happy to join in nominating. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of very small word changes, and rewrote the first and last sentences in particular. (removing what was a very short, one sentence section. I'm not quite sure how revisions work, so I'll check first with Matt, but unless there are any further revisions of my revisions, or either of you want to add/change anything further, this one may be ready for approval now. Roger Lohmann 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, started The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

Question for Roger, not so much on changes in the article but curiosity on an edit note. You said Social Darwinism was Darwinist, not Marxist, with which I agree. Darwin, though, was a biologist. Are Huxley and Spencer, then, the missing links who applied Darwinism to social systems?

Ah, nostalgia. My 9th grade Honors History teacher was a demoness for term papers, and it was always a lottery who would get "Social Darwinism in American Thought". I didn't bother, and took Alexander Kerensky. --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you include a sentence or two stating the consensus thesis, and perhaps a redlink. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The new change is fine. Does someone now need to paste a version into the ToApprove template? ...said Howard C. Berkowitz (talk)

Toward next Approval

My impression here is that we have three history editors that have been working on this article. If all three find a version on which you agree, then you have a three editor approval. All three are free to edit the araticle in any way they see fit. If Roger places his name as the primary nominator, since he was the nominator of Version 1.0, then I would call it Version 1.1. If someone else put their name as the primary nominator, I would call it Version 2.0. I am open to discussion on the Approval talk page if this is unacceptible to anyone else. D. Matt Innis 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As of 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC), we do not have enough editors signed onto the metadata template to complete the approval process. D. Matt Innis 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this as an opportunity (as I did in the forum) to remind that this is removing an item from the WP list of "approved errors". There are still some more where a History Editor (or a Biology Editor) may help. --Peter Schmitt 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've signed on this one, too. I'm getting a little confused about the approval process here. Between the time when I started serious revision of this article (February 13, 2009) and when Roger started copy editing (June 5, 2010), I expanded the article by about 30% and did many rewrites on nearly all of it. A good case could be made that I am one of the principal authors of this article (I'd share the by-line with Professor Jensen). It's a little different than Edwin E. Witte (of which I wrote about 97% of the article), but not by much. Is it solely by the fact that I am also an editor in the history work group that I get to co-nominate my own work for approval? Russell D. Jones 00:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, that is one of the reasons why I was working on this article; that and Hofstadter is one of the more important American historians of the last century. Russell D. Jones 00:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Russell, the group editor approval does not consider the quantity of content any editor added so long as they all agree to endorse a certain version. So the answer to your question is 'yes, it is because you are also a History editor.'

From CZ:Approval Process:

• Group approval. If there are three editors, all of whom are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article as authors, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two.

The reason Roger could not nominate himself is because I considered one or more of his edits as content related.

D. Matt Innis 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) OK, we have the answer. The question may be a little vague. Are we back on track? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are on track for a June 10th approval for this version. Feel free to continue to make changes and others can continue to work as well. Additional copy-edits will be included in the approval, while content edits will be added to the draft unless all three editors endorse the additional content edits by signaling here on the talk page and updating the version on the template. D. Matt Innis 14:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt and Roger for clarifying this process. Russell D. Jones 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Approved version Version 1.1

Discussion for Version 1.1 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.