<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 7:26:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes: That's exactly my point. There is no lack of academic analysis of politicians, of artists, etc. But we do not seem to use any of it. For example, I can find numerous articles on George W. Bush on JStor. And once he is out of office there will be no lack of biogaphies written to analyze his presidency. >> First to attack your second point, why does W have to be out of office to have a biography ? There are several books about Bush out, which analyze his presidency. Secondly, are you actually willing to admit that you are complaining about something you're not willing to fix yourself? YOU my friend, if you can cite all these articles from Jstor, then do so! I personally have no access to Jstor, and I assume that the vast majority of our editors probably don't either. But regardless of that, I'm sure people cite what they can access and think is relevant. I do not (in any way) feel that "academics" have any toe-hold on "biography". In fact, professional writers, tend not to be in academia at all, and they write prose that is much more interesting (apparently from their book sales) then academics. We are not an academic encyclopedia anymore than we are a science one, a religion one or a fancruft one. In trying to represent the world as it is, we must use what resources are present. In general, for biographies, newspapers and hard-cover biographies, are much more *present* and readable than anything in a humanities journal. We're not trying to be technical as we can be, we're also trying to attract more readership. So again it's a balance. But by *ALL* means, if you have peer-reviewed biographical material, add it. However "peer review" is not necessarily the standard for all articles. TV Guide is not "peer reviewed" and yet we assume it's a reliable source for what's on TV Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)