Talk:Albany Plan

Iroquois Influence Thesis NPOV in question
This section is quite one-sided as presented. "Professional historians," whatever that means (anyone who writes and sells a paperback?), who oppose the Influence Thesis are listed, but the reasons for their opposition are not, nor are the broad spectrum of scholars who interpret the documentary evidence in support of the Influence Thesis well represented. Evidence is lacking on both sides, but the opinion of the editor(s) is clear. An NPOV article should not reveal the personal opinions or bias of the editor. hi

There is a quote by Johanson, which represents the only pro-Influence Thesis commentary in the section, but the quote is out of context with the rest of the section. It is not referred to anywhere; it's just sitting there surrounded by sentences that decry the validity of its content without specifically referring to it.

This issue has arisen elsewhere on WP, and it is being addressed as a current controversy under discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this has been addressed and plan on removing the tag. Tooker's reasoning is now included, and there are sources for the "pro" and "con" position.  Tooker's analysis is quite important, as the chapter that is referenced was explicitly written for the purpose of investigating and debunking the idea that the Iroquois had a significant impact on the American Confederation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs more sources
Through changes, there are few sources now other than Franklin's Autobiography, which necessarily presents his point of view. Academic histories should be used to discuss the conference, the plan, context and effects.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
A number of comments on the Feedback page have questions related to the Albany Congress, as if they did not realized there is an article devoted to that, or how this fits into the other article. Perhaps the two articles should be merged.Parkwells (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about bringing up the possibility of merging the two articles as well. Albany Congress covers so much of the Albany Plan of Union, and I'm not sure why this is a separate article. I'm going to suggest the possibility of merging on the talk page of that article as well. Greengreengreenred (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)