Talk:Frederick Jackson Turner

Duplication concern

Wait a minute -- four articles about the same thing? We already have Frontier, The Frontier and American frontier, and some links pointing to a not-yet-written Frontier Thesis (apart from a stub entitled American Old West aka Wild West). Is this necessary? <KF> 21:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Frontier and American frontier look like they could be merged...but the Frontier Thesis is an important historical thesis that should be separate (although I suppose it could just be a section of Frontier). Adam Bishop 21:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg

Just a piece of information copied from the Village pump:

I still can't see Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg on the Frederick Jackson Turner page. This has happened before (about a year ago or so), and back then I uploaded the image for a second time. Now the same thing has happened again.

Please don't tell me it's displayed fine on your screen. This doesn't help a lot. I'd still like to find out what is wrong here. <KF> 00:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Religion: Turner Miss something about Turner's Religion, which often influences opinions of men a lot. To judge if it did or not should be left to the reader by handing out the information.

Doesn't work on mine either, I think I caught a glimpse of it before it disappeared. I deleted it :) Hopefully that'll grab the attention of one of the mods who knows how to work the image thinger.

And after experimenting it has nothing to do with the tagging. Beats the heck out of me! <iamnafets> 11:02, Jan 31, 2005 (CST)

...we can't find a less pixelated shot of the frontier man here?

Turner's religion. None of the biographers suggest it was important. Rjensen 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Turner was exposed to Presbyterianism as a child but became a Unitarian during his studies at the University of Wisconsin. Bogue, Allan G., Frederick Jackson Turner: Strange Roads Going Down, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998, ISBN 0-08061-3039-3, pp. 22-23, 153. clariosophic (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Expand!

How is this article so small? He's a very influential historian. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

This article has possibly been the target of insidious vandalism. I've spotted, and corrected, some clearly wrong dates. Maybe someone knowledegeble in the biography of Turner could review this article for factual accuracy. Mister Flash (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

COI rules -- no problem here

Th COI rule WP:SELFCITE about citing yourself without any doubt allows this edit: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. The item is relevant and conforms to all policies & is not excessive. Kfernlund followed all the rules and should be encouraged--furthermore this is a major scholarly journal whose articles are all vetted by teams of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

FJ Turner

Hi, irrespective of whether you have a COI or not, the original person to add it had some connection with whoever wrote it. Please discuss this on the talk page before adding it again. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

he followed all the rules--it was your mistake to delete it.Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So now it's my fault that I saw a Conflict of Interest? Wow. Brilliant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

yes you falsely accused a newbie of breaking the rules and you acted rashly while he had followed the rules exactly. You should apologize for violating the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers rule. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's make up our minds.

Did Turner publish "very little" or "extensively"? Seems like we need to make up our minds about that. If the distinction is between publication in academic media versus publication in "highbrow" (is that Wikipedian tone?) media, then let's say so clearly. I don't know enough about Turner's publication history to fix it.

Poihths (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

he took tens of thousands of pages of notes that resulted in one short book and a few scholarly articles. Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Frontier Thesis

I just rendered Frontier Thesis here as frontier thesis (and removed surrounding " if any) mainly because the main article does not render this as a proper noun. To my eye it seemed slightly pretentious, but I realized I wasn't 100% certain of the rule.

On a quick search, I discover many traditional sources saying to capitalize specific (as opposed to general or common) ideas. But then I searched for "theory of evolution" and only a small number of sources (apart from title caps) bothered to render Darwin's specific theory as Theory Evolution, nor does the pertinent Wikipedia page do so. I think the preference to capitalize this kind of noun is waning in the modern tradition. I think also that maintaining a clear distinction between various spins on the theory of evolution and The Theory of Evolution is not entirely viable and that there's too much conceptual bleed and drift in general to usefully impose this discipline, making it look more like a mannerism than a useful convention. — MaxEnt 05:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)