The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as original research, the words "Jeffersonian model" are used to describe very different and disparate things in the literature (e.g. "a nation of yeoman farmers", for one). If this is a primary meaning of the phrase, Google isn't cooperating. There may be some merit in the concept per se but from what I see this isn't even a consensus view of the Jefferson presidency, let alone a widely accepted "model". --Dhartung | Talk14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepJames MacGregor Burns is probably the leading historian on (US presidential) leadership and this usage of Jeffersonian Model seems similar to the one in his Presidential Governance (which I haven't read) and the feel of the hierarchy in the article is similar to his work in Leadership (which I read last year but don't have with me). There are lots of other meanings for "Jeffersonian Model" as you can see in Google Books, but I'd listen to Burns before any other presidential scholar. I pulled up an article from The American Historical Review on Roosevelt which included quite a bit on Burns' idea, and I put that into the lead. This clarifies which meaning is used in the article. If someone has any relevant Burns book, they will be able to verify that the usage in the article is the same as his, and if possible add citations to other parts of the article. Smmurphy(Talk)16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Burns has posited a "Jeffersonian Model" specifically, then your linking of these two concepts is synthesis. We should be reporting on presidential "models" only insofar as they are widely accepted and widely taught, not because somebody put together their own interpretation (as far as I can tell) and we can find some quotes that sort of fit. --Dhartung | Talk17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure where synt comes in and I'm not sure what you are looking for when you say that it should be "widely taught" (or widely accepted, for that matter). If you want to see what is widely taught, here is a collection of syllabi to look through, I never took such a class. I understand what you said about when somebody puts together an interpretation of another scholar, but here they've published it in The American Historical Review. Like I said, I don't have Burns, but I can read Dallek's paper online, which uses that phrasing ("Jeffersonian model") to describe Burns' position, as does Hart. I looked at a couple more references via google scholar and added them to the article. Umm, so the usage of Jeffersonian to describe a president who tries to expand his powers is something we can cite, perhaps it belongs under a different title, and isn't the only meaning. But it isn't really "my" article, so maybe I'm off base. Smmurphy(Talk)22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that this article articulates a personal interpretation of Jefferson's presidency. It does not articulate (and certainly does not cite) the "Jeffersonian model" articulated by Burns -- in fact, Burns seems to closely associate Washington and Hamilton with the "vigorous executive" model, rather portraying Jefferson as a middle ground between that and the Madisonian model. So whatever this article is, it is not the Burns theory, so using Burns as support is synthesis (I hope you see). By way of analogy, it's a bit like taking an article on astrology that says "the movements of the planets determine human existence", and supporting it with evidence that the planets move. So, nothing against your taking this article in good faith, but I think you've erred in assuming it dovetails so neatly with Burns. I am not opposed to an article on the Burns models, but they would need to be rewritten from scratch, from what I see here. --Dhartung | Talk04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Like I said, I don't have Burns with me. I read the article, and it sounds like Burns, looked it up, and the Dallek paper seems to match with the article nicely. If you have Burns, and his writing doesn't say what Dallek says that it says (or if I've misrepresented Dallek) great. User:Nuvious has a note about where he got his idea on his page (Ted Jelen at UNLV, a religion and politics guy), but I couldn't trace it any further than that. We could email professor Jelen if we really wanted to. Otherwise we could probably stub it to capture what I cited), or even merge it with Jeffersonian political philosophy (which wouldn't be as hard to cite, I think), taking out the expansive powers stuff. This would leave us with one article about two different interpretations of what it means to be a Jeffersonian president. In any case, I do feel like Burns' (and Neustadt's, but I've never read him at all) ideas about presidents are quite notable. Best, Smmurphy(Talk)05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - I brought my additions to my page, and might make a stub later. I have no problem with the rest being deleted as Jelen's notes aren't online and so we can't see his sources or if this represents what he was teaching correctly. Best, Smmurphy(Talk)16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how about we delete all the information that has not been referenced or recently added. Any thoughts? --Stingray23464
Unless someone has Burns' Deadlock of Democracy and can verify how he defines his models, I don't think that even that material is WP-worthy as a stub right now (I've changed my mind from above, when I was a bit too defensive, anyway). I put the article in my userspace, and I'll pick the book up from a library eventually, but my suspicion is that if Burns' says this, the article will be more fitting merged with the other presidential models he gives (again, if he actually does this). If you think the lead makes a sufficient stub, though, we could just go with that. We could merge it with other presidential models later, if the Burns thing pans out. But I'm still very weak on my earlier vote until I know for sure. Smmurphy(Talk)18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.