Talk:Norman K. Risjord

New article

New sources and content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability is based on the degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources. It's possible such sources exist but are not digitized and therefore not available on the internet. I don't think the sources are adequate. There's an entry about him from his university, a family generated obituary, a list of his books and a few passing references to them mostly in fairly old articles. Has anyone written an article about him or the significance of his work? TFD (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that historian Norman K. Risjord worked in counter-intelligence in Berlin before he obtained his Phd and pursued a career in American history?  Sources: • Norman K. Risjord: University of Wisconsin, biography;   • Memorials: Norman Risjord, Omohundro Institute

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kammermusik (Hindemith)
• Comment: Statement and sources supporting hook are found in the Early life and education section in the article.

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC).

• I am willing to review it, but first, the subject's notability is not clear. Could you elaborate here or on the article's talk how they meet WP:NPROF/WP:NBIO and ping me? The current sources for the article are low-key obituaries from his Department and funeral home, hardly independent (one presumably written by his colleagues at work, the other by his family and friends). I'll continue the review once the notability is made clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing extended discussion about the notability of the subject. The proper venue for further discussion of this matter is WP:AFD and this DYK should continue according to usual procedure. Desertarun (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: -- Risjord is noted in the academic and historical community for having authored more than twenty books on American history. That he worked for US intelligence before pursuing a career in history also makes him interesting, imo. The article is for reference, as Risjord's name occurs from time to time in other works of history. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's famous, but he is noted among historians and the like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC) [Add] Risjord's studies and writings about the birth and development of US political party system that emerged after the American Revolution were published in six separate volumes, and are considered standard works on the development of the early American party system. There is no other historian who has written in this important area of study nearly as much as Risjord has. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Gwillhickers, Hmmm, I am still seeing those assertions as made by a Wikipedian but not backed up reliable sources. I will ping User:Randykitty here for a quick sanity check. What do you think, Randy? AfD or am I missing something? If you think it is notable I'll be happy to finish reviewing this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @Piotrus and Randykitty: Thanks. We should keep in mind that 'notability' is usually based on one's accomplishments and that any notability is usually limited to those interested in the subject. For example, an article on a given video game is only notable in the eyes of video-gamers. Risjord is noted in the American history historical world for his many Works|works on history, esp where it concerns the US party system that emerged after the American Revolution - a very important component of American history, often ignored. Like other accomplished writers this is Risjord's claim to notability. Hope his many scholarly accomplishments will be notable enough. Risjord is often referenced by other writers so if need be I can add these items to the narrative. I'll continue looking for other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Actually, that is not correct. Notability is not based on accomplishments, but on being "noted" as evidenced by in-depth discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject. I see here only 2 independent sources: the Hickey book and an article from the same author. I checked the book and there a only a handful in-passing mentions, nothing coming close to the coverage needed for notability. The article is even worse, mentioning Risjord just once in a list of sources. If Risjord was indeed as valued as you claiam, then there should be sources certifying that. If this is all (Goodreads, seriously?), then this is not only unsuited for DYK but ripe for AfD. Sorry for being so harsh, I understand and appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in this... --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for being candid. Yes, we need more than one independent source that indeed says Risjord is a noted scholar in his field. Hickey maintains Risjord's works on the US party system are the standard reference on this subject. I only meant to say that accomplishments come first, and then, maybe, notability follows. Apparently it hasn't in this case, even though Risjord's name appears in the Bibliographies of many books on the history of the US government in the early days. As I said, I will look to other scholarly accounts which mention Risjord's distinguished accomplishments in the study of early US history. -- If I come up with any such independent sources I'll ping you and we can go from there. Otherwise, I'll just withdraw the nomination and hope the AfD axe doesn't come down on the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Gwillhickers, I really dislike being a party-pooper or the resident "deletionist", particularly as I believe we are suffering from systemic bias against academics (or pro-celeberities). Nonetheless, I think there is no middle ground. If he is notable, this is eligible for DYK. If he is not, this is not eligible for an article (and your effort can be at best userfied, waiting for a day sources about him appear - it is possible, some scholars are written about by their peers and students and such, but it can takes years or decades). For the record, I do believe we should have articles about such people who should be notable, but it is not up to us to say they are - his peers and colleagues and so on need to go through the effort of writing at least one (and preferably three articles about him). That is the requirement for one to have an entry in an encyclopedia. Until such sources exist, he may not be notable. (That said, see also supplementary notes at WP:PROF, maybe he can squeeze by one of the other criteria; not that long ago I AfD an Asian vice rector of a minor university with no citations / research who got kept per consensus that vice rectors of all Commonwealth countries are automatically notable due to meeting some aspect of PROF...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Book Reviews Asking for three complete articles on writers it would seem is a bit much, considering that the guideline referred to only says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, I am more concerned with 'what' an independent source says, rather than how many sentences or paragraphs, so I'm hoping we don't use a 'word count' of sorts to measure the weight a source may lend to Risjord. Having authored dozens of books, Risjord's area of expertise is distinguished and some of his works are considered the standard authority, so there's a likely chance there are others besides Hickey who definitively say so. I'll continue to search through the other sources. Risjord's names occurs in many works on American history, and in particular, Thomas Jefferson and post Revolutionary War developments, so there's still hope here that there's some ample coverage about the person himself. Will be prompt about the search. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I suggest you start looking for reviews of his books, those might be more substantial than those Hickey sources (which in one case are just a citation and in the other not even a complete sentence). In the field of history, books are the way to publish and many journals will publish reviews of books in their field of interest. If no reviews of his books can be found, then I'd say that more or less proves non-notability (insofar as a negative can be proven, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Gwillhickers, FYI, one article would make me not bother with AfD. Or even a detailed paragraph. Heck, a sentence calling him or his work significant would be of use too. Believe it or not, I do have (what I consider) relaxed standards when it comes to academics, it is just that they are still not met here - we are missing even one, independent, in-depth source about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC) I've come across these book reviews of Risjord's work so far. In terms of recognition and praise given to Risjord, these reviews don't come right out and say that Risjord's works are a standard authority, but they do support the idea that Risjord is a well recognized, accomplished and insightful writer in his field. Review: By, Cox, Richard J., Baltimore City Archives Book: Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800, by Norman K. Risjord (1978)  ISBN 9780231043281 Cox —– "Risjord's Chesapeake Politics will be the classic work on the early politics of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina for years to come, and all new work will be compared to it. Review: By Elaine G. Breslaw, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Book: Builders of Annapolis: Enterprise and Politics in a Colonial Capital, By Norman K. Risjord. (1997) ISBN 0-938420-60-7 Breslaw —– "This is good popular history. The author chronicles the development of Annapolis in the eighteenth century through the lives of nine families who contributed to the architectural and institutional development of the town. Risjord, now retired from the history department at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is best known for his description of Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800 (New York, 1978) and a series of biographical sketches of Representative Americans. Drawing on an array of secondary sources, he brings to this portrait of elite Annapolis colonials a wealth of human interest stories and insightful observations." Review: By Harry Hellenbrand, University of Minnesota, Duluth Book: Thomas Jefferson, by Norman K. Risjord (1994)  ISBN 9780945612391 Hellenbrand —– "Norman K. Risjord's brief biography of Jefferson is the work of a seasoned professional who has devoted his scholarly career to the study of the Jeffersonian period in American history. While modestly describing his book as a brief outline of Jefferson's career for a general audience, Risjord actually presents an insightful analysis of Jefferson's character and beliefs and an incisive account of his impact on his times. Risjord is especially strong in showing how Jefferson managed to combine strong elements of classical republicanism and Lockean liberalism in his political ideology and in tracing how the balance between them constantly shifted in response to changing circumstances. Firmly in command of the sources, Risjord, in slightly more than 200 pages, leads the reader authoritatively through the main stages of development in Jefferson's career and provides a convincing assessment of his place in American history." References Notes Thanks to both of you for your advice and patience. Continuing the search. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Gwillhickers, A quick tip: I found that LibGen is good at returning book reviews that GScholar missed. Anyway, while I don't think reviews of one's book lend themselves to the notability of the author directly (per WP:NOTINHERITED), we do have something to work with here: Risjord, now retired from the history department at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is best known for his description of Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800 (New York, 1978) and a series of biographical sketches of Representative Americans. and a seasoned professional who has devoted his scholarly career to the study of the Jeffersonian period in American history. That's good, and for me would be enough to compromise (leave the notability template in, but no need for AfD; the reason I see it as a constructive is that the article is tagged for improvement and hopefully will eventually attract someone who will add more sources, once they exist; that's of course is assuming you don't find anything more right now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC) I broke this subsection titled "Book reviews", as it seems to be working through the WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #1. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Prestigious academic honor At WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." - The Fulbright Scholar Program sponsored Risjord for a lectureship in American history at university in Uppsala, Sweden in 1967-1968, see that Fulbright U.S. Scholar Directory. - The Fulbright Scholar Program sponsored Risjord for a lectureship in American history at university in Singapore in 1983-1984, see that Fulbright U.S. Scholar Directory. At these two third-party reliable sources, Norman K. Risjord may be found to be WP:notable for one Criteria, #2. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Outside academia, in an academic capacity At WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #6. "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - Consistent with the "Wisconsin Idea" from a 1905 University Presidential address, "I shall never be content until the beneficent influence of the University reaches every family of the state." Risjord broadcast his university lectures in American history on NPRs Wisconsin Public Radio for twenty years 1967-1989. See the Newsletter for the Participatory Learning and Teaching Organization, PLATO Weekly Update 2/5/2019 by Michael Stevens. - Risjord's PLATO lectures were aimed first at the program's principle audience, senior Wisconsin residents nearing retirement. They began in a 25-student classroom, then expanded to the Madison Senior Center at Capitol Lakes, and finally filling the 200-seat auditorium each semester at the Oakwood Village West residence campus. see PLATO Weekly Update 2/5/2019. - Risjord he wrote a secondary schools textbook on American History, published by (1979) Pearson, and (1983) Holt, Rinehart and Winston. He followed that in 1984 with a college-level textbook, America: A History of the United States, reprinted (1988) Pearson College Division, which both reflected well on his high school textbook, which was "outside academia", but in his "academic capacity". At three reliably sourced examples, Norman K. Risjord may be found to be WP:notable for one criteria, #6. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC) I am still not convinced he is notable, but he is borderline, and I am not very motivated to take him to AfD (since I lean on the incusionist side of such borderline cases). I am however not prepared to pass this for DYK, as I believe the notability tag has to say in the article until it survives a trial by fire at AfD, and as long as it is there, this is not eligible for a DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC) @Randykitty, Piotrus, and TheVirginiaHistorian: — We should be using Subject-specific notability guidelines for notability. The notability criteria for athletes, books, music, academia, etc are different. Notability for academics is what we should have been considering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (academics) In terms of Notability in the academic world, Risjord meets at least three of the criteria for historians here at WP: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Notes Given his many years of involvement in numerous areas of the academic realm (Professorships, books, journals, etc), Risjord's notability is well established. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Sorry to disagree. Being cited does not indicate a significant impact, particularly when it has not been noted in secondary sources. Charles Beard for example had an impact because his view that economic interest was a driver of both the U.S. Revolution and the Civil War was adopted by leading historians, although he is less popular now. None of Riford's teaching positions were named chairs or distinguished professorships. His post-retirement work cannot be considered to have had a substantial impact unless it is reported extensively in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC) We've been through this. Some of Risjord's work are considered a standard, or the best, in its area of study, as noted by independent reliable sources, Hickey and Cox. He's done much more than having been cited in other works to achieve notability in the modern academic world. Risjord meets three of the criteria, esp number 5. As a writer he doesn't require a specific acclamation from a specific source to achieve notability in the realm of histiography, even though this has happened. His professorships alone, not to mention his many recognized works, give him notability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC) See Professors in the United States#Special academic ranks (tenured). A named chair appointment is an appointment that contains a name, while distinguished professor is a title awarded to particularly esteemed professors. So for example John Smith may be appointed the Charles A. Beard Professor of History or be called Distinguished Professor Smith. AFAIK neither applies. TFD (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC) In criteria 5, the phrase "distinguished professor appointment", which is not capitalized, per official titles, is one among many such titles given to the various top professors in universities. They include titles such as, "president's professor", "university professor", "distinguished professor", "distinguished research professor", "distinguished teaching professor", also listed in the article/section linked to. Risjord was a professor at several major universities, including Wisconsin State, for many years. I hope you're not expecting to find a source that spells out the phrase distinguished professor in reference to Risjord. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Risjord was Professor Emeritus at Wisconsin University, a title only given to a select few distinguished professors at retirement, which satisfies criteria 5. Risjord's lectures on history were broadcasted over public radio, a public service not connected with any university curriculum, which, along with his efforts with PLATO, should satisfy criteria 7. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Well no the term "distinguished professor" is not capitalized, but neither is the term professor. While a professor would be styled Professor John Smith, a distinguished professor would be styled Distinguished Professor John Smith or University Professor John Smith. Here's a list of distinguished professors at the University of Toronto. Notice there are fewer than 40 of them out of a total faculty of over 2,500. Also, professor emeritus is not equivalent to distinguished professor. As your link shows, the University of Wisconsin applies the term to all retired professors. If you are not willing to concede this, I will take it to a noticeboard. TFD (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Professor is a tile of rank in academic pursuits, and is always capitalized when used to refer to an individual. Also, what link/source says that Wisconsin U. gives the title Emeritus to all its retiring professors? If the title was simply given away as some bonus or gift to all retiring professors, it would make the award/title sort of meaningless. Please see Emeritus Status, Univ. of Wisconsin, requiring long time distinguished service. According to our WP Emeritus article, it says, "..it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Also, there's really no need to go to a incident noticeboard to sort this stuff out. An RfC would be more appropriate, but at this point moot, as only one criteria need be met to establish notability in the academic world. Risjord has met several, as outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC) The Wikipedia article you linked to says, "In some cases, the term is conferred automatically upon all persons who retire at a given rank, but in others, it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Madison allows retired professors with 10 years of distinguished service to apply. The history department currently has 35 professors emeriti.[2] The department of Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, which has a page for all former faculty, lists 15 retired professors, of whom 14 are professors emeriti.[3] And even though almost all retiring professors become emeriti, it's not meaningless because it allows them to use university sources and remain part of the university community. TFD (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, as the WP article says, " it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Awards are given for accomplishments, distinguished service, more than to merely offer University resources, etc. Again, Emeritus Status Wisconsin U. makes it clear as to what basis they offer a title of Emeritus Professor. Though others may have been awarded the title, it does not diminish Risjord's distinguished accomplishments, (very) often cited by others, in an area of study most often treated in a cursory fashion - pursuits which go far beyond those of average professors. It seems you're trying to suggest that Risjord is no more notable than the average professor, most of whom only publish a nominal amount of work in areas of study most often well covered by many others already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC) @Piotrus: As you well intended, this nomination was originally reviewed under the auspices of general guidelines for people, where links to Subject-specific guidelines are also listed, including those pertaining to Academics. Quoting from this page, "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements", and, "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." Using the criteria for academics, Risjord's notability as an academic is based on criteria 1, 2, 5, and 7, which has been outlined by two editors, including myself, on the Risjord Talk page, beginning here. A reviewer is needed to evaluate the nomination under notability guidelines for academics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing extended discussion. An Article for deletion debate took place that resulted in 'Keep' .

New reviewer requested. Desertarun (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC) This is not a review but a comment, but I would highly suggest taking the article to AFD in order to properly address the notability concerns. Once that is accomplished, this can be given a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) The obvious person to take this to AFD would be Piotrus, since it was his concerns that set this off. If not, then perhaps Narutolovehinata5 would be willing to do so. However, if neither have done so within seven days, I will restore the new reviewer request, as the notability concerns will not have been serious enough to have been acted upon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) That sounds fair enough. Just a reminder, that this article was originally reviewed under the auspices of general notability guidelines, rather than the specific and appropriate notability guidelines for academics. Since then the issue has been discussed here at DYK, and in an RfC, that has been abandoned by its initiator, and in a number of sections on the Risjord Talk page. As an accomplished award winning professor and writer for over 30 years Risjord has satisfied several of the criteria for academic notability, which was outlined and discussed at length by three editors (in the collapsed box above). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC) The article is currently at AFD; the nomination is put on hold until that is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• The result of the AfD discussion was "keep", and the discussion has been closed. A re-review is now necessary. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• New reviewer requested. Desertarun (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and appears neutral. Earwig is picking up a few matches but its mostly titles which can't be changed. I did have to tweak the wording in some places to avoid paraphrasing too closely. Sourcing in the article looks good and notability has been tirelessly debated. The only issue is that the sources have to be added to this nomination, it is not enough to point to the section of the article they are in. Once the sources get added, I will approve this nom so it can (finally) end up on the front page. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since BuySomeApples comment above indicates that the nomination is not actually approved, I've added an icon below the review template superseding the approval shown in the template display. However, if the hook facts do appear in the article and also in the sources cited at the end of the sentences where the facts appear, that should be sufficient for DYK purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for catching that @BlueMoonset: and I'll defer to your knowledge of DYK rules here. I didn't other issues with the nom, and I can verify that the info in the article is cited. Since that's sufficient this nom is good to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Recap of Risjord's monographs and historiography

Recap of Risjord's monographs and historiography

Let's do a quick recap of Norman K. Risjord's 'notability' by publishing houses, academic, scholarly, and popular. It's been a while since I've run the go-to Wikipedia bibliographic metric widget or app or whatever - the one that produces brilliant graphs for comparison of this scholar's citations against others who have established WP biographies . . . but I promise to ferret it out again to salvage this page from the the 'notability' critique and arbitrary deletion . . . in the meantime, please recall, by topical interest the following writing career, with monographs only listed, though there are numerous JSTOR citations for Norman K. Risjord writing in several prestigious academic journals, especially after his elevation to a professorship at University of Wisconsin-Madison, but I will save some few of them for another post, I hope to soon find that very useful Wikipedia reference-citation chart-maker . . ., so to begin: COLONIAL AND EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY 1812: Conseratives,War Hawks, and the Nation’s Honor by Norman K. Risjord, Bobbs-Merrill Publishers 1961 (reprint series) Jefferson's America, 1760–1815 Third Edition 2009. Madison House Publishers Builders of Annapolis: Enterprise and Politics in a Colonial Capital Dec 2, 1997. Maryland Historical Society Chesapeake Politics 1781-1800(1978-10-15) Jan 1, 1956. Columbia University Press EARLY AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY The Old Republicans: Southern conservatism in the age of Jefferson Jan 1, 1965. Columbia University Press Jefferson's America, 1760-1815 Oct 1, 1991,2009. Rowman & Littlefield Thomas Jefferson (American Profiles) May 1, 1994. Rowman & Littlefield Forging The American Republic, 1760-1815 - Jan 1, 1973 Addison Books The Evolution of Political Parties in Virginia, 1782-1800 - by Norman K. & Gordon Denboer Risjord Jan 1, 1974. Organization of American Historians The Early American Party System Jan 1, 1970. Harper & Row AMERICAN SOCIAL HISTORY Representative Americans Series (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers): The Colonists 2nd (second) Edition, May 30, 2002 The Revolutionary Generation May 25, 2001 The Civil War Generation Oct 23, 2002 Populists and Progressives Dec 10, 2004 The Romantics Oct 16, 2001 Representative Americans from the Jazz Age to the Cold War Nov 30, 2005 GENERAL AMERICAN HISTORY WORKS Insights on American History, vol. 1&2 by Norman K. Risjord, Jan 1, 1988. Harcourt College Publications People and Our Country by Norman K. Risjord and Terry L. Haywoode, Jan 1, 1978. Holt, Rinehart and Winston America: A History of the United States, 1988 and in multiple editions, vol.1 & 2. Pearson Press, College Division LOCAL HISTORY Wisconsin: The Story of the Badger State Oct 1, 1995. Trails Media Group A Popular History of Minnesota Oct 3, 2009. Minnesota Historical Society Press Dakota: The Story of the Northern Plains Jan 1, 2013. University of North Dakota Press We collegially expect the editor-fans of the early 1930s Beard Spouses will find objection to both Risjord and his scholarship. Not only was he actively anti-authoritarian and pro-democratic in post WWII 1950s Europe. He also wrote the (academically) searing "J'accuse" critique of then fashionable economic analytics (now replaced by parallel abstract dialectics of reification (fallacy) derived from modernist class analytics). See this from the opening of a Risjord article, published in the William and Mary Quarterly April 1961, with the same title as his recent book (Bobbs-Merrill then noted for publishing in the scholarly field of History of Philosophy), "1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation’s Honor". This, while Risjord was still an instructor at DePaw University in Greencastle, Indiana: “A generation of historians, brought up on the disillusionment that followed the failure of the attempt to “make the world safe for democracy” in 1919, has persistently searched for the hidden economic factors behind all wars. . . Yet a cursory glance at the statistics of American commerce in the first decade of the nineteenth century will show that the War of 1812 was the most uneconomic war the Unites States has ever fought. . . A casual search through the letters and speeches of contemporaries reveals that those who fought the war were primarily concerned with the honor and integrity of the nation.” Them's fighting words to any number of editor-contributors to "United States of America" history-related pages on Wikipedia. And so it seems here once again, we must talk through "significance", "relevance", and "notability" with our Wikipedia friends. Those who are of another persuasion about history and the role of 'people' in it, one that has 'evidence' of their documented intent by a scholar-researcher, are joined in a debate by those would have a history of interplay among reified categories with contending 'forces' of economic or racial 'class' (whatever the variable fashion would have it for the purpose), and ungrounded psychological speculation by the advocate-writer. Here at Wikipedia, it is a delightful and informative dialogue on historical perspective and worldview that I always enjoy. Lots of sparkling factoids tumble in from all directions, and important reliable sourcing that can be applied from both sides of an argument. Thanks to all participating in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Discussion moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Norman K. Risjord -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

General notability

Notability discussions -- resolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman K. Risjord

The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see that here. Most of the material is sourced to obituaries and the university website. The works section is entirely sourced to the works themselves. Almost all academics are mentioned in their university websites and most people have obituaries. Note that notability is solely about whether or not sufficient reliable secondary sources exist to write an informative and balanced article. While Risjord wrote many papers and books, this article says nothing about how these contributed to his subjects of interest. TVH's quote showing Risjord's objection to the progressive view of history for example says something about his views. But the progressive view of history had been abandoned 25 yers before he wrote this. It's not "fighting words" to write that a long abandoned view of history was wrong. I noticed that Risjord is quoted in the War of 1812 article that GW, TVH and I edited. It's a fairly mundane comment that the war was not caused by economic motives. Since then, many prominent historians have written about the war, but none of them refer to Risjord's book about it. That indicates that it provided no original research or opinions that were worth noting. Not that it was probably a good book to read about the war when it was published in 1961, it's just that it made no lasting contribution to the scholarship. TFD (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Nuts. Not only can you not prove all those UNSOURCED negative POV assertions, I cannot prove your non-proof does not exist. Silliness. "A firehose of falsehood" is the current phrase west of the Urals, its on all the social media worldwide net. - For Criterion #1, “Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” is MET by the academic journal reviews of Risjord’s books, featured on in the article at issue. NONE are sourced to the university website, they are NOT sourced to the works themselves alone. All the TFD UNSOURCED negative POV assertions in absolute terms made to date are are easily disproven by ONE exception among the many that follow, taken from a JSTOR search session June 28, 2021. - Of course Risjord’s importance is only partially reflected in the notability displayed whenever he published a new book in his field of academic concentration. --- His 1961 publication of 1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation’s Honor was reviewed in the W&M Quarterly, and it also gave place for Risjord’s article of the same title. Later it was cited in 1979 in the Indiana Magazine of History, and again in 1985 in the Journal of the Early Republic. These are the marks of lasting scholarship from the beginning of his career - 20 and 35 years AFTER this seminal scholarship.. - Subsequent works received more notice. Builders of Annapolis:Enterprise and Politics (1969, reprinted in 1997 – a WP proof of notability) was reviewed in three (3) scholarly journals of WP notability; Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the age of Jefferson (1965) was reviewed in ten (10), and Chesapeake Politics 1781-1800 (1978) was reviewed in ten (10) including Lance Banning. Thomas Jefferson (American Profiles Series) (1994) was reviewed in at least eight (8), including by notables Lance Banning, and Willard Sterne Randall; Jefferson’s America, 1760-1815 was reviewed in the Journal of the Early Republic, and in the Journal of Southern History by notable Joseph J. Ellis. - Risjord’s academic notability is further confirmed in the scholarly journals publishing his articles, all noteworthy enough at Wikipedia to merit their own stand-alone articles: William and Mary Quarterly, 1961, 1974, 1976, 1992; Southern Historical Association, 1967; Journal of American History 1974a, 1974b; Wisconsin Magazine of History 2001, 2004, 2005a, 2005b. - Risjord’s scholarly esteem among his peers is also reflected in the list of academic journals that recognized Risjord’s notability by asking for him to review at least 46 monographs in 12 scholarly journals, including for those who have stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. William and Mary Quarterly (4), New England Quarterly (3), Mississippi Valley Historical Review (2), Journal of Southern History (13), [[Journal of American History (11), Wisconsin Magazine of History (5), Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (3), Political Science Quarterly, Reviews in American History, Arkansas Historical Quarterly, American Historical Review (4), Register of the Kentucky Historical Society s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC) WP:AUTHOR says notabilty can be established by "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." While it's possible that the book reviews could be relied on to establish notability, the fact is that almost all books published by reputable publishers are reviewed. Although you have listed book reviews, you haven't added to the article what they said. Despite this article being about someone you consider to be a prominent historian, the article tells us almost nothing about his work, other than a list of publications. TFD (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Wrong. Please read the article - starting with the lede. In several places it tells the reader what Risjord's work primarily involves, that it is highly regarded, and frequently cited by other notable contemporary sources that are covering early American government, representation, et al. The list of works alone should have told you what subjects Risjord's works focuses on. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Re: your statement, "..many prominent historians have written about the war, but none of them refer to Risjord's book".  None? No matter. You probably won't find Risjord's name cited often in books involving any number of historical subjects, so the claim is moot. As pointed out several times, Risjord's work focuses on early American government, not actual wars, so unfortunately this sort of sniping comes off unresponsive and rather incompetent. This is not helping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC) I have read the article. As I mentioned above, the biographical info is mostly taken from the Madison website and obituaries and therefore does not establish notability. Also, as I explained, citations do not establish notability, unless the person's work is discussed. TFD (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) More obfuscation: The article gives a clear idea as to the nature of Risjord's works, contrary to your claim, and in spite of the fact that you have read the article, as you say. Your responses continue to be evasive and incompetent. This needs to end so we can more forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC) The article tells us sufficiently enough about Risjord's work to establish his academic notability in Early American History, as sourced and linked above. Without any substantial rebuttal to any of the four kinds of criteria met in dozens of examples listed here at Talk, please recall that it just takes one met criterion to qualify for WP:Notability (academics). - Per the TFD penultimate post above, Risjord, the prominent historian will NOT meet the criteria of a noted WP:AUTHOR such as Ernest Hemingway, whose novel To Have and Have Not was made into a Humphrey Bogart film, To Have and Have Not (film), the creative author 'film' criterion. Please note that WP:AUTHOR redirects to WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, with only four (4) criteria. - The Criterion #5 in the previous thread adjacent above is taken from WP:Notability (academics), I am sure that your slip from one criteria set of eight (8) into another criteria set of four (4) of was NOT dissembling trolling misdirection, because I know you as an editor of WP:Good Faith. 1. The article has a C-class status, - a. It provides more than ENOUGH INFORMATION for the casual reader, but it does NOT meet WP:ASSESS B-class requirement as a professional encyclopedia article. - b. ADDITIONAL editing is needed to close gaps in content, i.e. at TFD noted: compare and contrast the historiography of the subject to other scholars before, during and after his career. @The Four Deuces: Thank you TFD, good editorial direction on your part to contributors at this article 'for the greater good'. - c. The article has RELIABLY SOURCED citations but some may require cleanup. 2. The article does NOT qualify for Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. - a. It can be fixed through normal editing, C.1 It is not a candidate for AfD. - b. It is recently created, C.2 Editors are to allow contributors time to develop the article. - c. Links in the article this week demonstrate adequate existing sources, D.3 If the main concern is notability, the fix is extended narrative with additional sources. Of special interest will be new contributions on Risjord’s work as assessed in scholarly journal reviews by scholars with WP:Notability in Risjord’s academic field: 1)Lance Banning, 2) Paul Goodman, 3) Willard Sterne Randall, and 4) Joseph J. Ellis. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC) N.K. Risjord Notability Summary We are looking for Risjord to meet ONE of the eight (8) criteria at WP:Notability (academic). FOUR (4) of the eight (8) are met: 1. For over 30 years Risjord was recognized as a notable figure in the most prestigious scholarly journals in his field. a) His primary scholarship was reviewed, b) he published scholarly articles, and c) he contributed reviews in the scholarly literature in his field. All of them qualify as WP:Notable: William and Mary Quarterly, Journal of Southern History, Journal of American History, and two dozen others as referenced in the article. 2. Risjord received a highly prestigious academic award at an international level, the Fulbiright Scholar Lectureship at to Uppsala University, and at National University of Singapore. 5. Risjord held a distinguished professor appointment through his Fulbright Scholar Lectureships at Uppsala University and at the National University of Singapore. 7. Risjord had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity according to reports in the Wisconsin State Journal, the principal newspaper in the state capital. a) He broadcast his American history lectures over PBS Wisconsin Public Radio for 28 years, b) he taught history classes to seniors about to retire for lifelong learning, and c) he lectured in a series of American history lectures each semester for ten years at a 200-seat hall in continuing education courses after his academic retirement. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Agree. Esp. with number 5. A distinguished professorship does not require that this designation be spelled out in any academic title. See my further reply below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Borderline at best. No journal recognized him by writing about him, they just published his articles, and it is unclear why you call them "the most prestigious scholarly journals in his field". If Fulbiright Scholar Lectureship was "highly prestigious" we would likely have an article about it. The impact outside academia is very tiny, few mentions in passing. He is basically your average academic, and while I am in favor of being more inclusive, if treated with the letter of our rules, he is probably not notable in light of GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC) NONE of the eight wp:notability (academic) criteria has the Piotrus-centric POV criterion: "First and foremost among the criteria, Academic journals in the scholar's field must publish biographies of an academic before they can attain Wikipedia 'notability'." There no consensus for any such innovation on Piotrus' part to be found even as much as proposed on the Project page. - There is a WP article on Risjord's Fulbright awards, comprehending both of them; Risjord was awarded them for 12 months each, the maximum length granted due to his notability as an American historian in the 1950s to Sweden and again in the 1980s to Singapore. - At Fulbright Program#Scholar grants we have Risjord's two awards described in some detail: "The [2021 title] Fulbright Distinguished Chair Awards comprise approximately forty distinguished lecturing, distinguished research and distinguished lecturing/research awards ranging from three to 12 months. Fulbright Distinguished Chair Awards are viewed as among the most prestigious appointments in the U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program. Candidates should be eminent scholars and have a significant publication and teaching record." - The "most prestigious scholarly journals in his field" for Jefferson and American political, intellectual, and social history is commonly known to be the The William and Mary Quarterly, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Journal of the Early Republic, Journal of Southern History, and the Journal of American History. - - Nothing in this 90-day discussion has been suggested by Piotrus or any other to put their academic authority in question until now, and Piotrus has no alternatives. The New Historian start-ups ALSO reviewed Risjord's monographs at the time of his monograph publications as important contributions in his field. - That is, American historiography 1750-1815, the field if scholarship in which Risjord has been a notable academic for over half a century, attested to his re-published books by scholarly publishing houses in third and fourth editions, and assigned as foundational reading to each new generation of American 'Late Colonial, 'Revolution', and 'New Nation' scholars. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Work of Risjord placed in the "New Republic Era" historiography

Discussions

The first essay into comparative analysis of Risjord’s place in the literature of American History during the period of the Early Republic can be launched with a review of the following four monographs, all reviewed by WP noteworthy scholars who were engaged by WP noteworthy journals to review the latest work by the noteworthy academic who is the subject of this WP article. Note: Risjord’s notability as an academic is established by his Jefferson's America, 1760–1815. With the publication of its Third Edition in 2009, the continuing currency of his scholarly contribution to American historiography is established over the two decades from 1991-2009 and beyond according to WP criterion on this one volume alone. The Old Republicans: Southern conservatism in the age of Jefferson (1965) Columbia University Press -- reviewed in the Journal of Southern History, Feb 1966 Vol 32, No 1. by Paul Goodman, p. 99; Chesapeake Politics 1781-1800 (1978) Columbia University Press -- reviewed in the Reviews in American History, Dec 1979 Vol 7, No 4, by Lance Banning, Jefferson's America, 1760–1815. Third Edition 2009 (1991). Madison House Publishers -- reviewed in (1) the Journal of the Early Republic, Spring 1992 Vol 18, No 2. By Steven Watts, p. 95; and (2) the Journal of Southern History, Nov 1993 Vol 59, No 4, by Joseph J. Ellis, p. 743. Thomas Jefferson (American Profiles Series) (1994) Rowman & Littlefield -- reviewed in (1) the American Historical Review, Oct 1995 Vol 103, No 4, by Lance Banning, p. 1293; (2) in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Jul 1995 Vol 119, No 3. by Eugene R. Sheridan & Willard Sterne Randall,p. 266; (3) in the Journal of American History, Winter 1994 Vol 72, No 1, by Willard Sterne Randall, p. 215. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC) note1 IOW Risjord wrote a lot of books and they all got reviewed and the reviewers said he was important. But in order to write a good article you need to explain what he wrote and how it influenced other historians. Imagine for example if the article about Karl Marx provided a list of his works and said he was very important, but told us nothing about his theories or their influence on the world. TFD (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Perhaps more clarity would help, but, once again, the article already outlines Risjord's works and the various subjects they are committed to. The article also mentions that in one one topic area, Representative America, during the Revolution, through the War of 1812, some of his work is considered a standard, as mentioned by two independent sources, Hickey and Cox. This is further evidenced by the obvious preponderance of notable sources, i.e.books, journals, that refer to him. If need be, we can cite half a dozen notable sources that refer to him. Definitive examples are not difficult to find. e.g. In John Ferling's, A leap in the Dark - The Struggle to Create the American Republic, (2003), p.269, he acknowledges and quotes a phrase coined by Risjord, i.e."Virginia's first political party" In Jon Meacham's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Thomas Jefferson, (2012), he refers to Risjord eleven times. Examples include lengthy excerpts from Risjord's work, Jefferson's America. p. 541. In a journal article, The Sectional Politics of Practical Republicanism, p. 441, by Steven Edwin Siry, (JSTOR 3123061) it refers to Risjord's work, Election of 1812, as a major study, p. 441. On P. 446 Siry notes that "...however, with publications by Bradford Perkins and Norman K. Risjord, the viewpoint changed. Advocates of the new interpretation see no significant sectionalism between a pro-war South and West and an anti-war North; rather, they emphasize the high degree of party unity in the vote for war." These are classic examples where Risjord's research has impacted much of modern academia in the area of early American government, per criteria 1. Last, along with criteria 1, 2 and 5, number 7 is also satisfied, as Risjord was twice involved in educational efforts for the general public outside of any college curriculum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Agreed, TFD above made a correct assessment as to how the article can be improved for its status-class ranking. Were the article about Karl Marx written as this one is, it would NOT be a B-Class Article, it WOULD be a C-Class Article, as this one is properly assessed now. - As TFD has demonstrated a continuous interest in American History generally and in the New Republic Era in particular continuously for two weeks (16 days), TFD is certainly here and now invited to make a SUBSTANTIVE contribution here to advance this C-class article towards a B-class assessment, in precisely the way TFD has pointed out how the article can be strengthened. - TFD should write up an balanced account of "what Risjord wrote and how it influenced other historians" from the Paul Goodman critique of Risjord's scholarship in February 1966 as found in the Journal of Southern History. TFD is welcome to make a trial draft here at Talk, were he to seek collegial feedback from those who are substantially interested in these same topics and their related scholars; those concerned with making constructive contributions here. - Though Goodman is lacking in an international scholar award, TFD should NOT here disqualify Goodman as notable because he was openly bisexual in the 1940s. It is enough that the Journal of Southern History esteemed Goodman's work as an American intellectual, that the journal would invite Goodman to write a Review touching on American political philosophy in the politics of the New Republic Era. Thanks in advance. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Yes, reliable sources do not require any international scholar award. As a once practicing professor at the University of California, Goodman is perfectly qualified to comment on Risjord's work, and indeed, on p. 90 (JSTOR 2204723 ) Goodman maintains that Risjord's work, The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson, examines the "missing link" between the Anti-federalists of 1788 and the states' rights Southerners of the Jacksonian era", which gives us yet another clear indication of Risjord's impact on "scholarly discipline", per criteria 1. Along with the examples I provided just above, there is little question that criteria 1 is more than satisfied. Unless there are specific errors in the article text that need attention, I'm hoping we can be moving forward soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Old Republicans - one of four in-depth review write-ups

Discussions

In Risjord’s article, I would suggest an expanded discussion under a “Reviews of Important Work” section with at least the four important monographs listed and referenced in the Talk section above. Here is a first [& second] pass at a first draft to explore what Risjord wrote and its place in American history literature for the Early Republic Era. Of course, some of this background information that is WP:common knowledge can be placed in article NOTES to aid in the article narrative flow, although from the example of the B-class article at Karl Marx, we can see considerable space can be dedicated to important work. In Risjord’s case I would suggest at least the four listed and referenced in the Talk section above. Re: “The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson”, reviewed by Paul Goodman. The Journal of Southern History 32, no. 1 (1966): 99-101. Accessed July 3, 2021. doi:10.2307/2204723; also referenced, Kenneth C. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (1989) MacMillan Publishing Company. - DRAFT.1 - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC) - DRAFT.2 - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC) [ edit -> join para 1 to para 2 <- ] 1. The prominent American intellectual in 1940-1960s, Paul Goodman discussed Risjord's book The Old Republicans in his 1965 Journal of Southern History review. He introduced it in the author's words, as a missing link in the conservative tradition in previous American studies. [Goodman, p. 99] [note] 1a. Note. The Age of Jefferson generally includes March 1801 to March 1825 in American history, the US presidencies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Risjord's thesis was that during the New Republic Era, between a) the Antifederalists of 1788 who opposed adopting the centralizing nationalist US Constitution were b) the Old Republicans in Congressional caucus broke away from the Jefferson, Madison and Monroe administrations the Age of Jefferson. They were an ideological link to c) the states’ rights Southerners of the Jacksonian Era whose doctrine led them to a lone-state Nullification theory roundly condemned by James Madison in public statements at the time of Calhoun’s Southern Democratic Nullification crisis}} 2. The Federalist dominance of the 1790s so traumatized the Old Republican caucus in Goodman’s recounting, that they “formulated a ‘conservative’ version of Jeffersonian ‘liberalism’ to justify their House and Senate opposition throughout the 24 years of the Jeffersonian Republican national administrations. [Goodman, p. 99] 3. In the Old Republican opposition to each administration, they produced “an inflexible conviction" in their public statements that Goodman takes to be an "ideology". He takes issue with Risjord in the review, contending that the Congressional caucus of Old Republicans were never broadly based geographically. As “a small band of ideological purists”, they bitterly opposed any compromise to accommodate Republican administrations over the years that Jefferson’s party maintained the Presidency and national majorities in the US House and Senate. [Goodman, p. 99] They remained “an annoying, persistent, and obstructionist minority until the 1820s”. This self-conscious coalition of Southern sectionalists and Northern Laissez-faire industrialists adopted the principles of physiocracy, laissez faire, pacifism, state’ rights, and strict construction in their partisan newspapers and on the campaign stump as expedient talking points. [Goodman, p. 100] 4. In Goodman's eyes, Risjord’s methodology could be seen as both a strength and a weakness. He based his research “heavily on a study of congressional debates”, reaching for an accounting of the Old Republican Congressional caucus in its origins, doctrine, and finally its extinction at the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828. “Mr. Risjord has suggestively reopened a significant area needing re-examination”, but in Goodman’s view, his scholarly effort in 1965 raised more questions than it successfully answered. As political history, it failed to explore intellectual history for the origins of the Old Republicans. [Goodman, p. 100] [ edit -> join para 5 , 6 & 7 <- ] 5. Risjord argued that “Republican conservatism” was not a sectional ideology. [Goodman, p. 100] The caucus at its greatest extent in 1823 seated members under the electioneering label “Crawford Republicans”. Goodman properly points out that the Old Republican caucus was “almost exclusively Southern in its advocates, who came largely from Virginia and North Carolina”, the most famous of whom was the sharp tongued John Randolph of Roanoke, in the wheat-growing Great Valley of Virginia, known for freeing his 400 slaves by his will at his death. However, a counter-data-point is that the speeches that were the research foundation for the book were the Old Republican Senators from 12 of the 24 states, seven from the North, and five from the slaveholding South. [Martis, p. 87] [note] 5a. Note. The Old Republican caucus at its greatest extent 1823-1825 seated members under the electioneering label “Crawford Republicans”. They had two US senators elected from Maine, New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia, and one each from Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and South Carolina (20 senators, 41.7% of the Senate). That pinnacle of Old Republican ideological power in the 18th Congress shows that of the 53 total in the House of Representatives, 19 were from Virginia, 12 from New York, 10 from North Carolina, 7 from Georgia, 2 from Ohio, and 1 from Maryland. [Martis, p. 87] }} 6. Goodman dismissed Risjord’s rejection of an economic explanation for the Republican conservative ideology. While Risjord stressed that conservativism flourished in Virginia and North Carolina in counties of declining population that grew soil-depleting tobacco, Goodman countered that there must be an economic explanation, because “the majority of planters rejected conservatism before 1820. [Goodman, p. 100] However, an inspection of an 1989 Congressional party map for the 18th Congress not available to Goodman shows that was not so.[Martis, p.87] [note] 6a. Note. After the Congressional elections in 1822 for the 18th Congress, all four US Senators in Virginia and North Carolina were conservative-ideology “Crawford Republicans” supporting William H. Crawford for president in 1824 against Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Q. Adams. Nineteen (19) of the 21 (91%) in Virginia's House delegation, and 10 of the 13 (77%) in North Carolina's were also Crawford Republicans. [Martis, p. 87] }} 7. Ideologically, Goodman noted that the Old Republicans lacked stability. Risjord is quoted in the review as political voting records “related more to the social and political views of individuals [elected] than to broad economic patterns.” The reviewer reinforced this insight by observing that while the Old Republican caucus made a tocsin of standing by “the principles of 1798”, many such Congressmen easily gave those up for "heresy" or expediently switched them on or off, depending on the issue at hand. Goodman, known as an influential non-Marxist critic of American affairs concluded that, “there are difficulties in trying to pin neat labels on public men.” He quoted Risjord that their shifting voting patterns were such that “personal politics of the early 1820s [make] it . . . quite difficult to distinguish the Old Republicans from their Radical friends,” in Congress, those opponents who likewise held themselves out to be “a nationalist or a conservative as the occasion demanded . . . “[Goodman, p. 100-101] [ edit -> join para 9 to para 10 <- ] 8. Goodman concluded his review, “The value of this [Risjord documents] study is that its rich, usefully organized data pointedly raise interesting and important questions”, and he emphasized several of Risjord's approaches to the study of political history. It is difficult to find any consistent ideological and political loyalties in the early Republic. Conventional categories such as “liberal”, “conservative,” and “Jeffersonian Democracy” have limited analytical utility. Political oratory cannot be reasonably accepted on face value. 9. Where Goodman differed from Risjord in this 1965 review was in his belief that beyond the personal and social, the political and economic relationships that were to be found in American elections and legislatures 1800-18, there is now to be discerned or derived "ideology" as abstract forms comprised of “unarticulated major premises . . . which give ideology its power and reveal inner meaning.” [[Goodman, p. 101] s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC) s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Comments: Instead of pasting quotes from book reviews, it would be helpful to see if you can use the material for the article by adding to the article using these sources. It's one thing to say sources exist, it's another to show that they can be used. In this case also I would like to know the degree of acceptance of his linkage of Old Republicans and Southern Democrats. As you are aware and have demonstrated, Risjord has a whole opus of work. In order to write an informative article, you need sources that concentrate on the overall picture rather than isolated reviews of individual works. If you were writing an article about Stanley Kubrick for example and your only source was a one or two page review of Spartacus, you would not be able to write an article that told us much about his work. TFD (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Insert. comment incorporated in DRAFT.2 above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC) The quotes are helpful in further demonstrating the basis for Risjord's notability and serves us well here in Talk. For purposes of the article, all we need do is mention that Risjord is recognized by the academic community for his studies into an area of early American history that has been widely overlooked or treated in a cursory fashion. Once again, the list of works in the article tells us in an instant the general scope of Risjord's work. All we need do is make comments on the various points we have covered here in Talk, which the article does already in appropriate measure. However, there is always room for more coverage and any clarity that may be needed. Specific proposals would be helpful, remembering our focus is on Risjord, not so much the various views he held about specific issues. I don't think it's anyone's intention to be adding paragraphs of text about the political particulars as covered in books, journals and reviews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Insert. comment incorporated in DRAFT.2 above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC) If you don't think that any of the reliable sources you have found for the article are usable, why did you mention them? Why can't you add what they say to the article? This isn't IMDB where we can include anyone so long as we can list their credits. TFD (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Unresponsive. No one said the sources are not reliable and usable, and I've already explained why we mention them several times. Please review the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I'll put it another way. In an article about a writer, readers don't want to see just a list of their work, a list of reviews and a sourced comment that they were really important. They want to know what subjects they addressed, how they approached them, what their unique perspectives were, and their influence in their fields. Do you think at the very least you could summarize what Risjord said about old republicans and Southern conservativism in the age of Jefferson and what Goodman said about his conclusions, and put it into the article? TFD (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC) TAKEAWAYS from DRAFT.2 a) Goodman introduced Risjord’s Old Republicans in the author's words, the work is a missing link in the conservative tradition in previous American studies. --- b) Risjord’s “inflexible conviction” in their “principles of 1798” as found from studying obstructionist speeches in Congress opposing the administrations of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe is transformed into “Republican conservatism” ideology in Goodman’s hands. c) While Goodman concedes “Mr. Risjord has suggestively reopened a significant area needing re-examination”, in Goodman’s view, Risjord’s scholarly effort in 1965 raised more questions than it successfully answered. As political history, it failed to explore intellectual history for the origins of the Old Republicans. --- d) Goodman’s critique contradicting Risjord by asserting that “almost exclusively Southern” fails, in that as of 1823, Old Republican Senators were elected by the legislatures from 12 of the 24 states, seven from the North, and five from the slaveholding South. e) Goodman’s critique contradicting Risjord by asserting that there must be an economic explanation for Old Republicans, because “the majority of planters rejected conservatism before 1820". However, unavailable to Goodman was the Martis 1989 Congressional party map for the 18th Congress that shows 19 of 21 (91%) Virginia districts were conservative, and an ever larger percent for the ‘planters’ counties. East of the Blue Ridge Mountains, only the Representative from Norfolk was not a ‘Crawford [GA] Republican’. f) Goodman supported Risjord quoting his conclusion that political voting records “related more to the social and political views of individuals [elected] than to broad economic patterns.” --- g) Goodman agreed with Risjord, quoting him to the effect that Old Republican shifting voting patterns were such that “personal politics of the early 1820s [make] it . . . quite difficult to distinguish the Old Republicans from their Radical friends,” in Congress, those opponents who likewise held themselves out to be “a nationalist or a conservative as the occasion demanded . . . The Four Deuces I think the connection between Old Republicans (North and South) and Southern Democrats (and "doughface" Northern Democrats) is their adoption of an "agrarian ideal" for Protestant white men of the "yeoman farmer" (see also northern Know Nothings adopting the same premises), --- but as of now --- I regret that do not yet have a properly sourced reference immediately on hand to substantiate that assertion on my part. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) TFD, I agree that the readers want to see more than just a list of books, they want important commentary and insights into Risjord's work and the academic capacity in which he practiced, which is what the article offers. As mentioned at least twice now, we can always add more context and clarity to these ideas if it's really needed. However, at this point we should be concentrating on getting the article through the DYK nomination – its been more than two months. We have demonstrated notability on several counts. Now it seems we're off on another issue. More context on any given point can be added to the article at any time. Coverage of reviews of Risjord's work, while interesting, is not what is holding up the DYK nom'. If anyone feels we have achieved notability, please say so in the DYK template for Risjord. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Again, the article says nothing about the views expressed by Risjord. I would mention to TVH that instead of writing pages of text explaining Risjord to me, it would be more productive to add text to the article. It seems to me however that the available sources are inadequate to do that. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC) There's nothing stopping anyone from adding comments about any political views, etc, that Risjord may of had. Brief commentary to this end would of course do well in the article, especially in areas where controversy runs high, as with the War of 1812. To get a good idea of Risjord's views in such areas you would have to look into works like 1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation's Honor, Jefferson's America and Election of 1812, In his 1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation's Honor, p. 196, Risjord maintains, the declaration of War was "primarily concerned with the honor and integrity of the nation", than issues concerning economics or the Canadian border, but this view is not unusual among historians. Still it could be mentioned, so I created a sub-section, Selected commentary, for such coverage. Additional commentary on Risjord's views is welcomed, but this is not an issue that has much to do with the original contention made in DYK about Risjord's overall notability, which we have established. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability officially established

The fate of the Risjord article concerning notability has been decided by 11 editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman K. Risjord, with a large consensus to 'Keep'. Thanks to all who cooperated in that effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)