Talk:Rhetorical stance

Crickrhet (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izamo13, Ipannepacker, AdrielleNVA, JohnNathaniel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi, I'm going to be working on this article as much as possible, hopefully I'll get it at least past stub class. I think it's an important one and am surprised to see it hasn't been created yet. Deptstoremook 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of “Rhetorical Stance” page
This stub presents a somewhat elementary discussion based on only a couple sources. It has a couple good links but the potential for a more fully developed and cited article that can be linked to a number of other pages, such as "Rhetoric" and some of the scholars and theories that address the topic. This stub presents a somewhat elementary discussion based on only a couple sources. It has a couple good links but the potential for a more fully developed and cited article that can be linked to a number of other pages, such as "Rhetoric" and some of the scholars and theories that address the topic. This page is very closely related to other articles, but I agree with its creator that “rhetorical stance” is a nuance of rhetoric that deserves an article of its own.

Some of the changes I would make to the existing content
 * The definition needs fleshed out with multiple sources, it is based on only Dartmouth’s explanation of “What  : is an Academic Paper?”
 * The title “Subject” needs to be reconsidered
 * “Reader” is questionable—the term should be changed to something more inclusive, such as
 * “Audience,”
 * The section on rhetorical appeals needs to be developed with more background information relative to the
 * topic, and needs explanation of the roles of the appeals in rhetorical stance

Some information I would add
 * The page needs an overhaul of the organization, adding and changes names of sections
 * In the introduction, I would offer a more definitions, possible setting the article up chronologically or around
 * specific theories/ists
 * Also in the introduction, discuss additional relevant disciplines, professions, and situations
 * The article is missing a section on author/speaker, which is the major consideration of rhetorical stance
 * The “Reader” section discusses only academic audiences and needs to be developed
 * A discussion of the 5 canons as relevant
 * The section on rhetorical appeals needs to be developed with more background information relative to the
 * topic, and needs explanation of the roles of the appeals in rhetorical stance
 * There are no references cited, but the two used in the first paragraph
 * This page should have a “See also” section

If anyone has suggestions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Crickrhet (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wayne Booth
Wayne Booth's important 1963 4C's talk and article "The Rhetorical Stance," possibly the major reason the phrase "rhetorical stance" is so recognized today, might be a good starting place for this article. See it in College Composition and Communication, Vol. 14, No.3, Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 1963: Toward a New Rhetoric. (Oct., 1963), pp. 139-145. Webster Newbold (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rewritten
I have rewritten this entire page, but plan to add a little more. If anyone has comments or especially additional sources, please contribute! —Crickrhet (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! A few classmates and I are working on this Wikipedia page for a school project, we will be trying to make some changes in order to improve this article a little more. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. --Izamo13 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
My classmates and I are reviewing this page and we had a few suggestions. The tone throughout this article resembles an opinion essay. Many of the sentences sound like facts and we would like to fix this problem by adding more sources. Also, for the in academic and in non-academic communities section on this page, we would like to combine the two and explain how these different aspects utilize rhetorical stance. As for the reference list, there are many incomplete sources. We plan to clean these up and add the correct information. We plan to add these improvements shortly. If anyone has any suggestions or disagreements let me know. Thanks! Izamo13 (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Intro" section
In the "intro" section I aimed to simplify the introductory paragraph. I mostly kept the original structure, but felt it was appropriate to remove several big words such as "encompasses" and "exploitation." I also tried to condense the paragraph by using more direct and short sentences. Finally, I removed the end definition by Golden, Berquist and Coleman at the end - as I felt the term was adequately defined in the previous lines of the introduction. 05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnNathaniel (talk • contribs)

Here is my edited version of the "intro" section in the rhetorical stance wiki page

"Rhetorical stance" is the position of a speaker or writer in relation to audience, topic, and situational context. It is similar to "rhetorical situation" - which involves an author, speaker and subject, but is a more active concept. One is simply "in" a situation where; the author, audience, and subject merely exist. "Rhetorical Stance" involves taking a position, and effectively developing an argument in favor of that position, in order to persuade an audience. 18:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)18:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A few comments on word selection: the word "encompasses" seems fine, but "exploitation" seems to have an unnecessarily negative connotation. Cathygaborusf (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

I have placed "encompasses the same elements" back into the second sentence. I also changed the sentence with "exploitation of rhetorical appeals" so that it flows with the overall style of the edited intro. - "Rhetorical Stance" involves taking a position, and effectively developing an argument in favor of that position, in order to persuade an audience.

Here below is my complete new revision to the "Intro" section of the rhetorical stance wiki page.

"Rhetorical stance" is the position of a speaker or writer in relation to audience, topic, and situational context. It encompasses the same elements as "rhetorical situation" - which involves an author, speaker and subject, but is a more active concept. One is simply "in" a situation where; the author, audience and subject merely exist. "Rhetorical Stance" involves taking a position, and effectively developing an argument in favor of that position, in order to persuade an audience. [1] [4]04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Rhetorical Stance in Non-Academic Communities" section
In the "non-academic communities" section, the first sentence is not grammatically correct. The plurality does not match throughout the sentence, and because of this I am going to pluralize “addresses” and “arguments.” Also, the journalism/media's reference takes you to a Wikipedia page on Marshall McLuhan. Although he studied media theory, I think it would be more effective to put a piece of his work, and/or an article on how rhetorical stance is utilized in media and journalism. I would like to change this reference to an article I found about teenage pregnancy and how the magazines and the media portray this issue negatively. Here is the article I would like to use, Vinson, J. (2012). Covering national concerns about teenage pregnancy: A visual rhetorical analysis of images of pregnant and mothering women. Feminist Formations, 24(2), 140-162. Also, a book called The Medium Is the Message, by Marshall McLuhan, explains how the different forms of mediums can affect how one can perceive a topic. For example, newer mediums such as television, have altered the way in which we have viewed an issue by appealing to human senses. Also, this section explains how non-academic communities utilize rhetorical stance, but based on the articles provided, I do not see the connection to how they discuss rhetorical stance. Because of this, I would like to delete the word “discuss” so the main focus is “utilize.” Izamo13 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Here I will be linking the citations Izamo13 spoke about above. Please note that the following blurb of text, save for the added citations, come from the origional wiki article. I am only adding the formal citations.


 * An author or speaker takes a rhetorical stance in all communications, not only public address, formal argument, or academic essays. Although one finds the bulk of the discussion on rhetorical stance in academia, myriad “other-than-academic communities,” such as business,[19] the law,[20] journalism/media, religious institutions,[22] and politics,[23] utilize and discuss theories of rhetorical stance.

Please advise on whether you see any errors with the above formal citations. AdrielleNVA (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The citations are screwed up again, but probably easy to fix. McLuhan and Fiore are smushed into one citation. Cathygaborusf (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf


 * Hi Cathygaborusf! Yes, this was just a formatting issue on my end. All has been corrected. Thanks again! AdrielleNVA (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lrunge1, ChloeGui. Peer reviewers: Agayheart, Kbrooks20, Bappelman3, Adamlawson13, Dylanvanetta, Bls15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for Further Review
I think adding more examples and references on how rhetorical stance is used in non-academic communities would be very beneficial. I personally did not have much luck on trying to find more resources that were not already discussed. If anyone has the time to do a more in-depth research, I think that it would be very useful. If anyone has any future suggestions please feel free to include them here! Izamo13 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Rhetorical Stance in Academic Communitities" section
For the rhetorical stance in academic communities section of this Wikipedia page, there are several things that I have decided to add and take away. In the rhetorical stance in academic communities part, we are going into more depth about how it is used in specific educational fields, such as public speaking and English. We will be discussing aspects such as implementing "anchorage" and "relay" into rhetorical stance. More edits are to come, and I will be posting a draft soon for suggestions, questions, and concerns. Ipannepacker (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have made significant edits to the rhetorical stance in academia section. Just as in the original post, I discussed how rhetorical stance is largely used in speech and writing courses. I went into more depth about this, and how exactly the students that are speaking and writing can incorporate connecting with their audience. In the new entry, I discuss tools such as anchorage and relay, along with using pronouns appropriately, all to help draw in the reader in an protagonistic manner. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns regarding these edits. Below is what I have for a new “In Academic Communities” section. Correctly formatted citations will be added later.
 * In academia, several courses offered at institutions incorporate rhetorical stance. Speech and English departments, especially, have implemented this tactic in their educational plans. In speech classes, rhetorical stance is used when the speaker, the student presenting, is addressing the audience, his/her classmates. Speakers use anchorage and relay to appeal to their audience. Anchorage uses images to assist the speaker/author get specific points across, while relay uses moving images, such as videos, comic strips, etc. to do the same. Speakers and authors adjust their rhetorical stance to accommodate a particular audience. When the speaker is talking, they alter their rhetorical stance and use various techniques for different audiences based off of the particular situation. There are several ways that a speaker or writer can make their audience feel a connection or relation to them. A particular pronoun can make the audience feel either included or excluded. If the author says, for example, “All of us Europeans are well traveled,” it implies that all of “us” Europeans agree with the fact that "we" are well traveled. However, if a non-European reads this or listens to it in a speech, they will not feel a connection to the speaker or author, making them feel very antagonistic. Ipannepacker (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that above I inserted the correct citation into Ipannepacker's revised In Academic Communities Section. Please advise on whether you see any errors with the above formal citations. AdrielleNVA (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ipannepacker! I really like the edits that you have made so far. May I suggest that you link "Anchorage" and "Relay" to their corresponding Wikipedia pages. Also, I might mention Winterowd at the beginning of where you begin citing him, so that some areas of the text pertaining to him do not seem like your own opinion. I also really enjoyed the example at the end of the piece- it's a nice way to finish off that section. AdrielleNVA (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adrielle that you might want to refer to Winterowd. I also think the anchorage and relay example would work better three or four sentences later in the paragraph. And, alas, there is not a Wikipedia page for "anchorage and relay" to link to. I also edited the pronouns in the "Europeans" example. Does it make more sense now? Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Suggestions for the "Purpose" section
The “Purpose” section of this page is not written with encyclopedic tone. Rather it is written more like an opinion essay, with the author of the "Purpose" section making opinion based claims. I have worked to change the tone so that it conforms to Wikipedia's desire for encyclopedic tone. I did this by changing the narration from the second person to the third person. I also removed words like “will” and “must”, replacing them will “can” and “may”. I also changed any authoritative statements to include preluding statements like “Aristotle argues” and “Lloyd Bitzer contends”. Please reply with any further edits that you feel would improve the edited “Purpose” section posted below. Also, please note that appropriate in-text citations will be added once I post the following onto the Wiki page itself.
 * Most scholars agree that the persona, audience, and context of a rhetorical piece are all interrelated. It is also accepted by rhetorical scholars that the use of these concepts can help an author to determine which arguments and rhetorical tropes are appropriate to use in the piece that they are composing. According to James Golden, Berquist Goodwin, and William Coleman, authors and speakers can use only the arguments and communication skills available to them to convey their purpose. [1] Aristotle argues that the arguments available for any given topic are specific to that particular rhetorical situation. [12] Lloyd Bitzer contends that the availability of arguments depends on the relationships between author, audience, context, and purpose. [14] For example, some communicators may decide to include or exclude certain points from their argument or will adjust their tone in relation to which audience they may be addressing. Many scholars agree that the utilization of rhetorical stance can help to better the argument presented, leading to a better rhetorical piece. AdrielleNVA (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Further Review
Though I have adjusted the tone and reviewed the references of this piece already, due to time constraints, there are a few things that I haven't been able to touch on which I think would be beneficial to look into should someone be so inclined to do so.
 * It would be interesting to include some more references, giving readers an even wider point of view in regards to the purpose of rhetorical stance.
 * It would also be helpful to maybe expand the purpose section and discuss what purpose rhetorical stance has in different platforms. For instance, reviewing the purpose of rhetorical stance in a persuasive essay vs. an academic research paper. Though this may be time-consuming, I believe that it would add a lot more depth to the section, and aid users who may be looking for rhetorical stance information more specific to what they might be working on.

Should anyone have any more suggestions for future edits to the purpose sections, please feel free to include them below, and to critique the suggestions I have made above! AdrielleNVA (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Context" section
Below I have provided an edited version of the "context" section of the Rhetorical Stance wiki page. This section was not written with encyclopedic tone, as it included a few opinionated statements and claims. In order to fix this, I have removed words and phrases such as "must," "one defines context as...", etc in order to conform more with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. I also corrected the name's as some of them were not full names when citing people. "Levinson" was changed to "Steven Levinson," for example. Please reply with any other edits or suggestions that could help improve the "Context" section. For future editors of this wikipedia page, it would be beneficial to find more works regarding Brian Street, Stephen Levinson, or any other rhetors that discuss the topic of rhetorical stance. Street and Levinson have both come up with their own respective definitions of rhetorical stance, but Levinson’s is considered a “narrower” definition compared to Street’s. Finding more details on Levinson’s definition, or another rhetor’s definition that is comparably narrow to his, would be a great addition to the “Context” section.
 * Authors position themselves in relation to their audience based on the relevant interrelational contextual elements that affect the communication situation. In the field of context, Brian Street and Stephen Levinson are examples of scholars that came up with their own respective definitions of context. Brian Street argues for a broad definition of “context” to include “conceptual systems, political structures, economic processes, and so on, rather than simply a ‘network’ or ‘interaction’”.[5] With this broad definition, he counters Stephen Levinson’s narrower definition, which limits relevant contextual elements to immediate and observable events. When the author or speaker has an understanding of the contextual situation, they can build credibility with their audience. Successful authors experience the building of credibility by having awareness of the relevant contextual circumstances that influence the delivery of the message, along with knowledge of the subject and clear perception of purpose. Ipannepacker (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ipannepacker! This looks great! I agree with all the edits that you have made to the Context Section. AdrielleNVA (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the phrase "in the field of context" - just start the sentence with "Brian Street and . . ." and plan to link to their Wikipedia pages (other than that, looks great to me!)Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Suggestions for the "Author/Speaker" section
This section of the rhetorical stance has parts that are both convoluted and misconstrued. It is also written with an underlying bias towards cognition and psychological development, but lacks sufficient sources/evidence to constitute its bold claims. My goal is to rewrite the section in a clear and concise manner that captures the true essence of what the author/speaker is in rhetorical stance. JohnNathaniel (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JohnNathaniel! I'm looking forward to reading over your edits AdrielleNVA (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Below I have provided my edited version of the "Author/Speaker" section of the rhetorical stance wiki page. I chose to simplify and shorten the intro part from Wayne Booth because I felt it was overly worded and complex. I removed the parts pertaining to conscious and unconscious awareness because they were not relevant to the section, and substituted the section with the "purposeful undertaking" with some simplified explanations of ethos, pathos and logos from the Aristotelian triad. I also decided to include evidence from Shanon Crowley's "Toward a Civil Discourse" where she discusses a transition from traditional sophistic rhetoric methods towards that of the postmodern method because I feel it is important to mention that in the modern age. But let it be noted that I have not extensively researched the historical evolution of the rhetorical triangle, and that anyone who finds more work pertaining to it should feel free to contribute. 07:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)07:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wayne Booth described rhetoric as "the art of persuasion." [2] According to Booth, an effective author or speaker achieves rhetorical stance by balancing three essential elements within their rhetoric - Speaker, Argument and Audience. A speaker accomplishes this balance by using proper voice that implies character, as well as explicitly stating all pertinent arguments about the subject matter, and by pervading the audience's distinct characteristics and personality traits.

Hi, I made one edit in the second sentence. Also, I do not think "pervading" is the best verb to use in the last sentence. What idea are you trying to get at there? Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Aristotle established the classic Aristotelian triad of ethos, pathos, logos that serve as the foundational pillars of the rhetorical triangle. [3] Shanon Crowley has argued that the "postmodern" rhetorical triangle has evolved from its original sophistic model. She suggests that the triangle now embodies aspects such as, "movement, flexibility, contingency, and difference." Crowley also argues that "the point of ethical rhetorical exchange is never to shut down argumentative possibilities but to generate all the positions that are available and articulable in a given moment and situation." [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnNathaniel (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

In this paragraph, cut the adjective "Aristotelian" (it's implied when you state that Aristotle established it) and make the verb "serves" to agree with the noun "triad" On a larger scale, you need to explicitly connect Crowley's work to the category Author/Speaker. The info you have is good, but you need to show your readers how it pertains, specifically, to the speaker. It is implied, but it should be explicit. Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Thanks for the recommendations! Cathygaborusf I have made several edits. I have placed "encompasses" back into the intro section. I also removed "Aristotelian" before triad, and fixed "serves" so that it agrees with "triad." I also revised the "has argued that the" line before Sharon Crowley and subsituted it with the word, "believes." As for connecting Crowley's work with the category of Author/Speaker - I restructured the paragraph to mention first how the rhetorical triangle has expanded, "The expanded rhetorical triangle now emphasizes context by integrating situational elements - style, tone and purpose in relation to the speaker, audience and message." I then brought in Crowley's work after as evidence of that expansion. I also tried to explicitly show how her work has influenced the role of the speaker in relation to their audience by inserting a final line at the end of the paragraph, "The modern speaker identifies contextual relationships with their target audience in order to deliver a specific message with great effect."

Here below is my most recent edit for the "Author/Speaker" section of the rhetorical stance wiki page.

Wayne Booth described rhetoric as "the art of persuasion.” According to Booth, an effective author or speaker of rhetorical stance balances three essential elements within their rhetoric - Speaker, Argument and Audience. A speaker accomplishes this balance by using proper voice that implies character, as well as explicitly stating all pertinent arguments about the subject matter, and by taking into account the audience's distinct characteristics and personality traits. [1]

Aristotle established the classic triad of ethos, pathos and logos that serves as the foundational pillars of the rhetorical triangle. [2] The expanded rhetorical triangle now emphasizes context by integrating situational elements. The modern speaker identifies contextual relationships with their target audience in order to deliver a specific message with great effect. Rhetorician Sharon Crowley believes the "postmodern" rhetorical triangle has evolved from its original sophistic model, and now embodies aspects such as, "movement, flexibility, contingency, and difference." [3] Crowley also argues that "the point of ethical rhetorical exchange is never to shut down argumentative possibilities but to generate all the positions that are available and articulable in a given moment and situation.” [3] 03:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)03:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here below is my final edit of the "Author/Speaker" section

Wayne Booth described rhetoric as "the art of persuasion.” According to Booth, an effective author or speaker of rhetorical stance balances three essential elements within their rhetoric - Speaker, Argument and Audience. A speaker accomplishes this balance by using proper voice that implies character, as well as explicitly stating all pertinent arguments about the subject matter, and by taking into account the audience's distinct characteristics and personality traits.[2]

Aristotle established the classic triad of ethos, pathos and logos that serves as the foundation of the rhetorical triangle.[3] The rhetorical triangle has evolved from its original sophistic model into what rhetorician Sharon Crowley describes as the "postmodern" rhetorical triangle.[4] The expanded rhetorical triangle now emphasizes context by integrating situational elements. It also embodies aspects such as, "movement, flexibility, contingency, and difference." The evolution of the rhetorical triangle has made speakers responsible for navigating increasingly complex rhetorical situations. The modern speaker identifies contextual relationships with their target audience in order to deliver a specific message with great effect. 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I was only able to include some work from rhetorician sharon crowley, but I believe there is further work out there that supports the claim of ancient speakers transitioning to modern speakers. I fanyone finds further information please feel free to add. 17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Audience" Section
I have made several edits for the audience section of this page. First, I noticed that it refers to “her” in two places. This does not follow an encyclopedic tone. An encyclopedic tone is one where gender-neutral pronouns are used. Because of this, I would like to change “her” to a non-specific pronoun, such as “one.” Also, instead of “(see Campbell and Hugh Blair),” that is in the middle of the entry, I think putting an actual piece of work by either of them will be more effective. I found a book George Campbell wrote called The Philosophy of Rhetoric that I would like to include. He talks about how one can appeal to an audience by using argumentative and emotional tones, which I think fits well in this paragraph since it talks about how one can gain power over their audience. Also, instead of combing Aristotle and Cicero’s knowledge of an audience, I would like to expand on this by adding more information on each of their theories. I will be adding the correct citations before posting into the actual Wikipedia page. Here are my edits:


 * Experienced rhetors, according to Aristotle as well as 20th-century rhetoricians such as Golden, Berquist, and Coleman, begin their process of adopting rhetorical stance with an analysis of the audience. Professional authors and speakers utilize their knowledge of the subject and establish credibility to help influence how well their message is received. Scottish Enlightenment rhetorician, George Campbell touches on this matter by explaining how one can gain power over and appeal to their audience by applying argumentative and emotional tones. Aristotle emphasizes the consideration of human nature and emotion in order to achieve a successful understanding of one’s audience and the establishment of the relationship necessary for achieving persuasion. [12] The author creates this impression by demonstrating an understanding of the audience’s needs and by “substantiating”,[10] according to Kenneth Burke, intellectual and empathetic relationships between oneself and the audience. Following Aristotle’s theory, Cicero explains that by adapting to the emotion’s of the audience, one can be successful in gaining their respect and attention. [13] Plato’s “noble aims”[11] of rhetoric require the author to strive for a moral elevation of both author and audience. Izamo13 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a few small changes introducing Aristotle and Golden, Berquist, and Colemen. I suggest adding a similar descriptive phrase when you first introduce George Campbell. Something like Scottish Enlightenment rhetorician George Campbell Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Note that above I inserted the correct citation into Izamo13's revised Audience Section. Please advise on whether you see any errors with the above formal citations. AdrielleNVA (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The citation above is incorrect. It should be for George Campbell, but Lloyd Bitzer's name is still in the citation. Cathygaborusf (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf


 * Hi Cathygaborusf! Thank you so much for pointing that out. I've gone ahead and made the appropriate adjustments. AdrielleNVA (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Further Review
I have changed the tone and improved this section as much to my ability, but there are multiple ways in which the speaker and/or writer can relate to their audience that I did not have time to research. I think relating this section to the modern 21st century and introducing the use of technology and social media would be very interesting. If anyone has any future suggestions please feel free to include them here! Izamo13 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by Rhetoric and Composition and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Maintenance Template
Pursuant to WP:WTRMT, I think that the criteria for removing the template at the top has been satisfied. This article clearly writes from an unbiased and verifiable viewpoint, with no subjective terms and an 'encyclopaedic tone', and am therefore satisfied with the removal of the template. GreatGambino (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)