Talk:Arming America

message: :Image:Bellesiles2.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bellesiles2.jpg

message: :Image:Arming America.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arming America.jpg

message: See Talk:Clayton Cramer. THF (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I would like to know more about the author (eg. what has he done since AA). I see that he had an article but that it was recently deleted - why was this done? Drutt (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page still exists here.  I think the redirect was a mistake, but I lost that argument. (Contributions of a sock puppeteer certainly didn't help the cause.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For archival searches on articles that have been reduced to a re-direct: Type in the name "old article name" which will redirect to "new article" with the caption "redirected from old article name"; then click on the old name to go to the file for the redirect. Click on "View History": all the history is archived with access to previous article versions. Clicking on the date will take you to the archived version of that article.--76.7.120.42 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting that.  Perhaps not too far down the line Bellesiles will once again become Wikipedia notable.--John Foxe (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael A. Bellesiles 

message: "Controversial" is too weak for the lede. I would suggest "discredited". Sources agree on this. Even his responses are criticized. J8079s (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and changed "controversial" (a weasel word) to "largely discredited."  We'll see how that flies.--John Foxe (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy ... as you see, I am the same IP Address who changed "largely" to "entirely". I gently ask, by way of comment here: are Saddam Hussein, or Rasputin, largely dead?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.221.130 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we drop the "entirely" just to be quasi-polite.--John Foxe (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Might I suggest we reinstate "Controversial" rather than "discredited". Contrary to what has been previously stated sources do not necessarily agree on this. Jon Weiner's 2002 scholarly review of the book under the journal Nation takes into account most if not all of the books criticisms while still viewing it with favor. This review also calls into question the integrity of James Lindgren who is cited twice within the wiki page's sources and is the figure toward which all the statistics of Bellesiles "false reports" are contributed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonmasterj (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it is worth, first: Jon Weiner was mentor to Bellesiles when Weiner was his professor at University of California at Irvine: his article is a defense of a former student. (17 Oct 2002 Weiner in The Nation. 25 Oct 2002 Emory announces Bellisilles' resignation and releases their report. 13 Dec 2002 Columbia announces retraction of Bellesiles' Bancroft prize.) I followed this at History News Network and Lindgren was not the only critic. Gary Wills praised AA in NYT Book Review and was later asked to defend Bellesiles. Wills answered: "nobody defends him." He later replied to a colleague: "I was took. The book is a fraud."--Naaman Brown (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

text: No, this section Arming_America#Emory_investigation_and_resignation and this section Arming_America#Aftermath_of_the_scandal cover "discredited" . It is not his critics rather his peers and former supporters that discredit his book. The book was initially controversial if you want to add a section on current supporters (if any) we could look at it. J8079s (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited 

message: When Emory University faculty published scholarly studies in 2000-2003, were they published via university presses under peer review, or were they published without fact-checking scholarly referees via commercial presses (like Alfred A Knopf) and partisan presses (like Soft Skull Press)? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  question