This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry but why have there been 30 plus edits to this page since the start of this year? Has scholarship on his Presidency changed so much in that time that this entire article required an almost complete rewrite (compare March to current revision)? Especially when not a single book used as a source is newer than 2005? Like do you realize how much scholarly and historical knowledge changes in 10 years? The fact that books from the 1980's and decades ago are able to be used as sources and those sources carry more weight than links do is frankly confusing. Do we consider the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1985 as a good source of information? I'm sorry but unless you are making a claim about what specific books says using a book to prop up an old idea at best and at worst a lie or extreme bias because people just see (Pruit pp.7) when they hover over the inline notation should be scandalous on this site.
Thanks for your opinion. I'll let the other editors know that a random person on the internet thinks that the article shouldn't be edited anymore. Orser67 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
