252
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + + +
Questioning citations
==WP:New Deal==
==WP:New Deal==
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
==New Cites==
The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)