Talk:What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848

Did you know 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 RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Daniel Walker Howe dedicated his 2007 history of Jacksonian America, What Hath God Wrought, to the memory of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson's rival in politics? Source: Source: Jill Lepore, "Vast Designs", The New Yorker: "Signalling his quarrel with the other recent sweeping interpretation of this period, Sean Wilentz’s pro-Jackson 'The Rise of American Democracy,' Howe dedicates his book to the memory of John Quincy Adams, Jackson’s political nemesis, and avoids using the phrase 'Jacksonian America'"
  • ALT1: ... that What Hath God Wrought, the 2007 history of Jacksonian America written by Daniel Walker Howe, is dedicated to Andrew Jackson's "political nemesis" John Quincy Adams? Source: Source: Jill Lepore, "Vast Designs", The New Yorker: "Signalling his quarrel with the other recent sweeping interpretation of this period, Sean Wilentz’s pro-Jackson 'The Rise of American Democracy,' Howe dedicates his book to the memory of John Quincy Adams, Jackson’s political nemesis, and avoids using the phrase 'Jacksonian America'"
  • Reviewed:

Expanded 5x by Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits). Self-nominated at 16:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

• @Hydrangeans: Reminding you that the bold link links to a disambiguation page instead of the book. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that catch, @Onegreatjoke:! Should be fixed now. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:17, 23 October 2022 (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: @Hydrangeans: Good expansion. Since this seems to be your first nomination no QPQ is required. Everything seems well done so I will approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Elimination of an archival link and pagination of a source with no page numbers

@Abductive: You have twice used a bot to edit a reference on this page, ignoring the reasons given in the page history for that edit's prior reversion. May I ask why you felt so strongly about this edit that you repeated it?

Before your edit, the source note for Isaac Barnes May's "When History Substitutes for Theology" had an archival URL to protect the source against link rot, as a precaution, as the source is digital-only. Since the source is published under an open-access license for which "No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article", archival is not inappropriate. You eliminated that archival URL.

After your edit, the source note for Isaac Barnes May's "When History Substitutes for Theology" bears a page number, 395. However, looking at the source, there is no page 395. The webpage has no page numbers, and if one downloads the article as a PDF, it's numbered 1 to 14. The PDF version of all articles in Religions are paginated starting at 1. In other words, this digital-only source has no page numbers. 395 is the article number, not the page number. Wikipedia does not have a parameter for article numbers, and most Wikipedia readers will not expect such a parameter anyway. Placing 395 in the page number parameter leaves readers with an impression that the information cited is on page 395, and this will not serve a reader who tries to verify the information for themselves. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That was my bad, I always click 'Expand citations' when an article makes the front page, this time I forgot I had already done so and clicked again. I have placed a nobots template in the page, please feel free to do so any time the bot edits an article in a way you don't like. Citation bot makes edits in huge batches so asking individual users to refrain from using the bot on an article won't prevent Citation bot from returning. I estimate that Citation bot makes about 1 million edits per year, but checks about 4 times as many articles. Abductive (reasoning) 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation and for adding the nobots template. Sorry for over-attributing the edit to you; I wasn't very familiar with how Citation bot works, and it's entirely natural to attempt a routine improvement to articles on the front page, so I appreciate your patience with my misunderstanding. Take care! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Jacksonian Democracy?

In the absence of a substantive explanation in favor of including this page in the category "Jacksonian Democracy", I have removed it. For explanatory purposes beyond what is possible in an edit summary, I recapitulate below some comments about this subject from another page.

It is not clear to me how "RR" (or a "double redirect") responds to the comments appended to its preceding edit.

The category page is not "the Jacksonian era," which it might be agreed Howe does analyze (even if he disagrees with the name). Instead, the category page is "Jacksonian democracy" and is explained as "a 19th century political philosophy in the United States" that "became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation". If Howe's What Hath God Wrought objects to interpreting Jacksonian Democracy as a coherent, national, unifying political philosophy which expanded suffrage and instead reads it as the partisan term for Jackson's party and, if anything, as westward white settler colonialism, then why would What Hath God Wrought be categorized under a page category about Jacksonian Democracy as a political philosophy? That seems as baffling as if one were to make a category called "Whig political thought" and add a page about Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution to said category simply because Sellers treats a coeval time period even though his interpretations and conclusions are quite different from said political thought. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)