This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
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 was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
The page as it is now shows everything that's wrong with Wikipedia articles with text dumped from outside sources. In this case, the text is dumped from two outside sources, with different perpsectives, different tone, and different content. Much of the article right now is simply irrelevant to the article itself. The point of an encyclopedia article, a tertiary source, is to clarify, encompass, and explain the secondary sources, at which this article right now utterly fails. It is outdated, unfocused, untidy, and rambling. My version isn't perfect, but it's a start. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
welcome to Wikipedia. About half the historical articles have serious problems. Look at those worked over by 25 different people! :) Rjensen 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this is no reason not to improve it... zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you can rewrite information but please do not remove it. Rjensen 01:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the problem is... I did rewrite some of it, I made it easier to read, and the "removed" information, which doesn't have to do with the article's topic, is in a more appropriate place — and this article links to the other information. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the removed information was about Bowles editorials and policies and procedures and does belong here. Rjensen 02:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reworking this article. It still included complete sentences copied from its sources. Yes, these source are out of copywrite, but that does not mean plagiarism is a good thing. Also, those sources are from the 19th and early 20th century. The prose style is stilted and overly generous in biographic narratives. They are good sources, just need work. Hopefully, I am getting there.Rublamb (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
