Talk:Thomas J. Kirkpatrick

notability
this article seems to fail the wp:Notability test = If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. no significant coverage in a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm surprised at this tag, first because the cited bicentennial volume concerning the Virginia General Assembly is a reliable source outside the subject, and Fitzpatrick actually served in the Virginia state senate. Wikipedia has many articles about one-term elected politicians, including 19th century ones from Northern states. If you review my talk page, you can see that I and another editor are adding articles concerning Virginia politicians, including those who served at the various state constitutional conventions. FYI, the Virginia General Assembly is the country's oldest legislative body, and approaching its tricentennial. More importantly, wikipedia's "Lost Cause" article is horrible, in part because of editorial wars similar to those you oversaw concerning the "War of 1812" article. Another major factor is because the historiography is so poor--treading and retreading concerning the same Generals. IMHO, what happened after the Civil War in Virginia and the South is not simply a function of the (often false) historiography of Fitzpatrick's successor and future U.S. Senator, John Warwick Daniel (whose article I touched up, but don't have time to redo, since there's basically only one biography, a PhD thesis that may never have been published but may be available via microfiche). Also because historians outside of Virginia cannot put the lesser politicians, such as this Fitzpatrick, in context. Clearly, this article is not one of self-promotion, as appears to be the target of the WP guideline.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)