Talk:Lawrence Sullivan Ross

message: :Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sealtexas.jpg

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**allege
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
More to follow later. — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I added the persondata and combined some of the sections to make for a slightly nicer TOC.  The weasel words are cited.  Karanacs 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick review

message: In the section titled "Legacy," one paragraph is devoted to the statue of Ross on the Texas A&M campus. The first half of that paragraph is about the statue itself. However, the second half of the paragraph is a tangent relating to the recent "tradition" of students placing pennies at the foot of the statue to ensure good luck during final exams. (I place the word "tradition" in quotes, because it is so recent that it was not observed when I was a student in the late 1960s and early 1970s.) This tangent contains three sentences. The first of these simply states what this tradition is. The second sentence attributes the tradition to a campus legend, which states that Ross, during his presidency at the college, often tutored students, "and as payment would accept only a penny for their thoughts." This makes no sense for several reasons. First, the term "a penny for your thoughts," means that the person speaking will pay "a penny for your thoughts." It does not mean that the person speaking will take "a penny for your thoughts." Second, the payment that is referenced in the campus legend is payment for tutoring, not for anyone's thoughts. This reference in the article would make more sense if it stated that Ross accepted "only a penny for tutoring." Third, if this legend were true, then the tradition would have started as soon after the statue's erection, and it would have been started by students who remembered paying Ross a penny for tutoring. But we know that the tradition did not start until sometime in the mid-1970s at the earliest, and probably after that, by students who were born sixty-plus years after Ross died. The third sentence in this tangent states that "at exam time, his statue ... is often covered in pennies." This statement is untrue on the face of it. It is a greatly exaggerated figure of speech. Finally, the source of this tangent, listed in the endnote, is an article that appeared in the campus newspaper in 2004. The source quoted in the 2004 newspaper article is a member of the Class of 2006 who does not give a source for his/her statement, but says that the tradition started during the life of Ross. For that to have been true, the statue would have to been completed before Ross died. My recommendation is that this entire three-sentence tangent, which is not about Ross, but about about a statue of him, be removed from this article on "Lawrence Sullivan Ross." PGNormand (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statue of Sully

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sullivan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105550/http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2004/11/22/Aggielife/Have-You.Seen.This.Tradition-812856-page2.shtml to http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2004/11/22/Aggielife/Have-You.Seen.This.Tradition-812856-page2.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sullivan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215211134/http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/silvertaps.shtml to http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/silvertaps.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Overall, this one is looking like it is in pretty good shape, and I've performed a bit of cleanup.  However, I do have a few notes:
*  - this is cited inline to Benner 1993 but some of this obviously comes from the 2012 source.  What is from what needs sorted out and cited directly.
* "Myth, Memory and Massacre: The Pease River Capture of Cynthia Ann Parker debunks most of the material in the apparently politically inspired 1886 book of James T. Deshields. The authors also document the primary sources who verify that Peta Nacona was not at the scene of the massacre and died around 1865, not December 1860." - it's obvious where this material is coming from, but it still ought to be cited.  I'm also not sure that the bit about Deshields is even relevant to this article.
Marking this one as satisfactory with notes at WP:URFA/2020, the ongoing FA sweeps. Hog Farm  Talk 05:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am marking this "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A, but I don't see why the duplicate citations to the Ross Family Papers were added. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: That was done here, which isn’t helpful; the article was sourced to hard print publications, not primary sources and lesser quality online sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] sweeps 

message: How was this article promoted to featured when a large majority of the citations are to a single work (Benner's 1983 biography), one that is clearly outdated and heavily slanted? Per a review by the Texas A&M University historian Robert Calvert, Benner's biography "denies" widely accepted views of Ross, is "uncritical" of him, displays "unqualified enthusiasm for Ross", and is of little interest to scholars. "Many historians of Texas will not find her thesis persuasive. Her staunch defense of Ross's every action will cause most readers to be wary of accepting her conclusions" (here's a URL to the review). Another review says "her admiration for Ross is too evident" and you'd wonder if "this hero" is "too good to be true". (see here) And yet 75% of this article is based on her conclusions! And it's a FEATURED article!! How is this acceptable? Dylanvt (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured status?