Template:Did you know nominations/Norman K. Risjord

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template||}}
 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}} {{DYK header|Norman K. Risjord}} {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Norman K. Risjord|Norman K. Risjord}}
 * ... that historian Norman K. Risjord worked in counter-intelligence in Berlin before he obtained his Phd and pursued a career in American history? Sources:{{*}}Norman K. Risjord: University of Wisconsin, biography;  {{*}}Memorials: Norman Risjord, Omohundro Institute
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kammermusik (Hindemith)
 * Comment: Statement and sources supporting hook are found in the Early life and education section in the article.

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I am willing to review it, but first, the subject's notability is not clear. Could you elaborate here or on the article's talk how they meet WP:NPROF/WP:NBIO and ping me? The current sources for the article are low-key obituaries from his Department and funeral home, hardly independent (one presumably written by his colleagues at work, the other by his family and friends). I'll continue the review once the notability is made clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Collapsing extended discussion about the notability of the subject. The proper venue for further discussion of this matter is WP:AFD and this DYK should continue according to usual procedure. Desertarun (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)}}
 * {{ping|Piotrus}} -- Risjord is noted in the academic and historical community for having authored more than twenty books on American history. That he worked for US intelligence before pursuing a career in history also makes him interesting, imo. The article is for reference, as Risjord's name occurs from time to time in other works of history. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's famous, but he is noted among historians and the like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [Add] Risjord's studies and writings about the birth and development of US political party system that emerged after the American Revolution were published in six separate volumes, and are considered standard works on the development of the early American party system. There is no other historian who has written in this important area of study nearly as much as Risjord has.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Gwillhickers}}, Hmmm, I am still seeing those assertions as made by a Wikipedian but not backed up reliable sources. I will ping User:Randykitty here for a quick sanity check. What do you think, Randy? AfD or am I missing something? If you think it is notable I'll be happy to finish reviewing this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Piotrus|Randykitty}} Thanks. We should keep in mind that 'notability' is usually based on one's accomplishments and that any notability is usually limited to those interested in the subject. For example, an article on a given video game is only notable in the eyes of video-gamers. Risjord is noted in the American history historical world for his many Works|works on history, esp where  it concerns the US party system that emerged after the American Revolution - a very important component of American history, often ignored. Like other accomplished writers this is Risjord's claim to notability. Hope his many scholarly accomplishments will be notable enough. Risjord is often referenced by other writers so if need be I can add these items to the narrative. I'll continue looking for other sources.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not correct. Notability is not based on accomplishments, but on being "noted" as evidenced by in-depth discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject. I see here only 2 independent sources: the Hickey book and an article from the same author. I checked the book and there a only a handful in-passing mentions, nothing coming close to the coverage needed for notability. The article is even worse, mentioning Risjord just once in a list of sources. If Risjord was indeed as valued as you claiam, then there should be sources certifying that. If this is all (Goodreads, seriously?), then this is not only unsuited for DYK but ripe for AfD. Sorry for being so harsh, I understand and appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in this... --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being candid. Yes, we need more than one independent source that indeed says Risjord is a noted scholar in his field. Hickey maintains Risjord's works on the US party system are the standard reference on this subject. I only meant to say that accomplishments come first, and then, maybe, notability follows. Apparently it hasn't in this case, even though Risjord's name appears in the Bibliographies of many books on the history of the US government in the early days. As I said, I will look to other scholarly accounts which mention Risjord's distinguished accomplishments in the study of early US history. -- If I come up with any such independent sources I'll ping you and we can go from there. Otherwise, I'll just withdraw the nomination and hope the AfD axe doesn't come down on the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Gwillhickers}}, I really dislike being a party-pooper or the resident "deletionist", particularly as I believe we are suffering from systemic bias against academics (or pro-celeberities). Nonetheless, I think there is no middle ground. If he is notable, this is eligible for DYK. If he is not, this is not eligible for an article (and your effort can be at best userfied, waiting for a day sources about him appear - it is possible, some scholars are written about by their peers and students and such, but it can takes years or decades). For the record, I do believe we should have articles about such people who should be notable, but it is not up to us to say they are - his peers and colleagues and so on need to go through the effort of writing at least one (and preferably three articles about him). That is the requirement for one to have an entry in an encyclopedia. Until such sources exist, he may not be notable. (That said, see also supplementary notes at WP:PROF, maybe he can squeeze by one of the other criteria; not that long ago I AfD an Asian vice rector of a minor university with no citations / research who got kept per consensus that vice rectors of all Commonwealth countries are automatically notable due to meeting some aspect of PROF...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Book Reviews

 * Asking for three complete articles on writers it would seem is a bit much, considering that the guideline referred to only says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, I am more concerned with 'what' an independent source says, rather than how many sentences or paragraphs, so I'm hoping we don't use a 'word count' of sorts to measure the weight a source may lend to Risjord. Having authored dozens of books, Risjord's area of expertise is distinguished and some of his works are considered the standard authority, so there's a likely chance there are others besides Hickey who definitively say so. I'll continue to search through the other sources. Risjord's names occurs in many works on American history, and in particular, Thomas Jefferson and post Revolutionary War developments, so there's still hope here that there's some ample coverage about the person himself. Will be prompt about the search. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start looking for reviews of his books, those might be more substantial than those Hickey sources (which in one case are just a citation and in the other not even a complete sentence). In the field of history, books are the way to publish and many journals will publish reviews of books in their field of interest. If no reviews of his books can be found, then I'd say that more or less proves non-notability (insofar as a negative can be proven, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , FYI, one article would make me not bother with AfD. Or even a detailed paragraph. Heck, a sentence calling him or his work significant would be of use too. Believe it or not, I do have (what I consider) relaxed standards when it comes to academics, it is just that they are still not met here - we are missing even one, independent, in-depth source about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've come across these book reviews of Risjord's work so far. In terms of recognition and praise given to Risjord, these reviews don't come right out and say that Risjord's works are a standard authority, but they do support the idea that Risjord is a well recognized, accomplished and insightful writer in his field.


 * Review: By, Cox, Richard J., Baltimore City  Archives Book: Chesapeake  Politics,  1781-1800, by  Norman  K.  Risjord (1978)  ISBN 9780231043281


 * Cox —– "Risjord's Chesapeake Politics  will be the classic work on the early politics of Maryland, Virginia, and North  Carolina for years to come, and all new work will be compared to it.


 * Review:  By Elaine G. Breslaw, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Book: Builders of Annapolis: Enterprise and Politics in a Colonial Capital, By Norman K. Risjord. (1997) ISBN 0-938420-60-7


 * Breslaw —– "This is good popular history. The author chronicles the development of Annapolis in the eighteenth century through the lives of nine families who contributed to the architectural and institutional development of the town. Risjord, now retired from the history department at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is best known for his description of Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800 (New York, 1978) and a series of biographical sketches of Representative Americans. Drawing on an array of secondary sources, he brings to this portrait of elite Annapolis colonials a wealth of human interest stories and insightful observations."


 * Review: By Harry Hellenbrand, University of Minnesota, Duluth Book: Thomas Jefferson, by Norman K. Risjord (1994) ISBN 9780945612391


 * Hellenbrand —– "Norman K. Risjord's brief biography of Jefferson is the work of a seasoned professional who has devoted his scholarly career to the study of the Jeffersonian period in American history. While modestly describing his book as a brief outline of Jefferson's career for a general audience, Risjord actually presents an insightful analysis of Jefferson's character and beliefs and an incisive account of his impact on his times. Risjord is especially strong in showing how Jefferson managed to combine strong elements of classical republicanism and Lockean liberalism in his political ideology and in tracing how the balance between them constantly shifted in response to changing circumstances. Firmly in command of the sources, Risjord, in slightly more than 200 pages, leads the reader authoritatively through the main stages of development in Jefferson's career and provides a convincing assessment of his place in American history."


 * Thanks to both of you for your advice and patience. Continuing the search. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , A quick tip: I found that LibGen is good at returning book reviews that GScholar missed. Anyway, while I don't think reviews of one's book lend themselves to the notability of the author directly (per WP:NOTINHERITED), we do have something to work with here: Risjord, now retired from the history department at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is best known for his description of Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800 (New York, 1978) and a series of biographical sketches of Representative Americans. and a seasoned professional who has devoted his scholarly career to the study of the Jeffersonian period in American history. That's good, and for me would be enough to compromise (leave the notability template in, but no need for AfD; the reason I see it as a constructive is that the article is tagged for improvement and hopefully will eventually attract someone who will add more sources, once they exist; that's of course is assuming you don't find anything more right now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I broke this subsection titled "Book reviews", as it seems to be working through the WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #1. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Prestigious academic honor
At WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
 * - The Fulbright Scholar Program sponsored Risjord for a lectureship in American history at university in Uppsala, Sweden in 1967-1968, see that Fulbright U.S. Scholar Directory.
 * - The Fulbright Scholar Program sponsored Risjord for a lectureship in American history at university in Singapore in 1983-1984, see that Fulbright U.S. Scholar Directory.

At these two third-party reliable sources, Norman K. Risjord may be found to be WP:notable for one Criteria, #2. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Outside academia, in an academic capacity
At WP:Notability (academics), "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria #6. "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity ."
 * - Consistent with the "Wisconsin Idea" from a 1905 University Presidential address, "I shall never be content until the beneficent influence of the University reaches every family of the state."
 * Risjord broadcast his university lectures in American history on NPRs Wisconsin Public Radio for twenty years 1967-1989. See the Newsletter for the Participatory Learning and Teaching Organization, PLATO Weekly Update 2/5/2019 by Michael Stevens.
 * - Risjord's PLATO lectures were aimed first at the program's principle audience, senior Wisconsin residents nearing retirement. They began in a 25-student classroom, then expanded to the Madison Senior Center at Capitol Lakes, and finally filling the 200-seat auditorium each semester at the Oakwood Village West residence campus. see PLATO Weekly Update 2/5/2019.
 * - Risjord he wrote a secondary schools textbook on American History, published by (1979) Pearson, and (1983) Holt, Rinehart and Winston. He followed that in 1984 with a college-level textbook, America: A History of the United States, reprinted (1988) Pearson College Division, which both reflected well on his high school textbook, which was "outside academia", but in his "academic capacity".

At three reliably sourced examples, Norman K. Risjord may be found to be WP:notable for one criteria, #6. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced he is notable, but he is borderline, and I am not very motivated to take him to AfD (since I lean on the incusionist side of such borderline cases). I am however not prepared to pass this for DYK, as I believe the notability tag has to say in the article until it survives a trial by fire at AfD, and as long as it is there, this is not eligible for a DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

— We should be using Subject-specific notability guidelines for notability. The notability criteria for athletes, books, music, academia, etc are different. Notability for academics is what we should have been considering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability (academics)
In terms of Notability in the academic world, Risjord meets at least three of the criteria for historians here at WP:


 * 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution
 * 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Given his many years of involvement in numerous areas of the academic realm (Professorships, books, journals, etc), Risjord's notability is well established. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disagree. Being cited does not indicate a significant impact, particularly when it has not been noted in secondary sources. Charles Beard for example had an impact because his view that economic interest was a driver of both the U.S. Revolution and the Civil War was adopted by leading historians, although he is less popular now.
 * None of Riford's teaching positions were named chairs or distinguished professorships.
 * His post-retirement work cannot be considered to have had a substantial impact unless it is reported extensively in reliable sources.
 * TFD (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We've been through this. Some of Risjord's work are considered a standard, or the best, in its area of study, as noted by independent reliable sources, Hickey and Cox. He's done much more than having been cited in other works to achieve notability in the modern academic world. Risjord meets three of the criteria, esp number 5. As a writer he doesn't require a specific acclamation from a specific source to achieve notability in the realm of histiography, even though this has happened. His professorships alone, not to mention his many recognized works, give him notability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See Professors in the United States. A named chair appointment is an appointment that contains a name, while distinguished professor is a title awarded to particularly esteemed professors. So for example John Smith may be appointed the Charles A. Beard Professor of History or be called Distinguished Professor Smith. AFAIK neither applies. TFD (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In criteria 5, the phrase "distinguished professor appointment", which is not capitalized, per official titles, is one among many such titles given to the various top professors in universities. They include titles such as, "president's professor", "university professor", "distinguished professor", "distinguished research professor", "distinguished teaching professor", also listed in the article/section linked to. Risjord was a professor at several major universities, including Wisconsin State, for many years. I hope you're not expecting to find a source that spells out the phrase distinguished professor in reference to Risjord.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Risjord was Professor Emeritus at Wisconsin University, a title only given to a select few distinguished professors at retirement, which satisfies criteria 5.
 * Risjord's lectures on history were broadcasted over public radio, a public service not connected with any university curriculum, which, along with his efforts with PLATO, should satisfy criteria 7. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no the term "distinguished professor" is not capitalized, but neither is the term professor. While a professor would be styled Professor John Smith, a distinguished professor would be styled Distinguished Professor John Smith or University Professor John Smith. Here's a list of distinguished professors at the University of Toronto. Notice there are fewer than 40 of them out of a total faculty of over 2,500. Also, professor emeritus is not equivalent to distinguished professor. As your link shows, the University of Wisconsin applies the term to all retired professors. If you are not willing to concede this, I will take it to a noticeboard. TFD (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Professor is a tile of rank in academic pursuits, and is always capitalized when used to refer to an individual. Also, what link/source says that Wisconsin U. gives the title Emeritus to all its retiring professors? If the title was simply given away as some bonus or gift to all retiring professors, it would make the award/title sort of meaningless. Please see Emeritus Status, Univ. of Wisconsin, requiring long time distinguished service. According to our WP Emeritus article, it says, "..it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Also, there's really no need to go to a incident noticeboard to sort this stuff out.  An RfC would be more appropriate, but at this point moot, as only one criteria need be met to establish notability in the academic world. Risjord has met several, as outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article you linked to says, "In some cases, the term is conferred automatically upon all persons who retire at a given rank, but in others, it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Madison allows retired professors with 10 years of distinguished service to apply. The history department currently has 35 professors emeriti. The department of Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, which has a page for all former faculty, lists 15 retired professors, of whom 14 are professors emeriti. And even though almost all retiring professors become emeriti, it's not meaningless because it allows them to use university sources and remain part of the university community. TFD (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the WP article says, " it remains a mark of distinguished service, awarded only to a few on retirement." Awards are given for accomplishments, distinguished service, more than to merely offer University resources, etc. Again, Emeritus Status Wisconsin U. makes it clear as to what basis they offer a title of Emeritus Professor. Though others may have been awarded the title, it does not diminish Risjord's distinguished accomplishments, (very) often cited by others, in an area of study most often treated in a cursory fashion - pursuits which go far beyond those of average professors.  It seems you're trying to suggest that Risjord is no more notable than the average professor, most of whom only publish a nominal amount of work in areas of study most often well covered by many others already.   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you well intended, this nomination was originally reviewed under the auspices of general guidelines for people, where links to Subject-specific guidelines are also listed, including those pertaining to Academics. Quoting from this page, "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements", and, "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." Using the criteria for academics, Risjord's notability as an academic is based on criteria 1, 2, 5, and 7, which has been outlined by two editors, including myself, on the Risjord Talk page, beginning here. A reviewer is needed to evaluate the nomination under notability guidelines for academics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. Desertarun (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This is not a review but a comment, but I would highly suggest taking the article to AFD in order to properly address the notability concerns. Once that is accomplished, this can be given a full review.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The obvious person to take this to AFD would be Piotrus, since it was his concerns that set this off. If not, then perhaps Narutolovehinata5 would be willing to do so. However, if neither have done so within seven days, I will restore the new reviewer request, as the notability concerns will not have been serious enough to have been acted upon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. Just a reminder, that this article was originally reviewed under the auspices of general notability guidelines, rather than the specific and appropriate notability guidelines for academics. Since then the issue has been discussed here at DYK, and in an RfC, that has been abandoned by its initiator, and in a number of sections on the Risjord Talk page. As an accomplished award winning professor and writer for over 30 years Risjord has satisfied several of the criteria for academic notability, which was outlined and discussed at length by three editors (in the collapsed box above). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is currently at AFD; the nomination is put on hold until that is resolved.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The result of the AfD discussion was "keep", and the discussion has been closed. A re-review is now necessary. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. Desertarun (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Since BuySomeApples comment above indicates that the nomination is not actually approved, I've added an icon below the review template superseding the approval shown in the template display. However, if the hook facts do appear in the article and also in the sources cited at the end of the sentences where the facts appear, that should be sufficient for DYK purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for catching that and I'll defer to your knowledge of DYK rules here. I didn't other issues with the nom, and I can verify that the info in the article is cited. Since that's sufficient this nom is good to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |}}
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for catching that and I'll defer to your knowledge of DYK rules here. I didn't other issues with the nom, and I can verify that the info in the article is cited. Since that's sufficient this nom is good to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |}}