Talk:The American Pageant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:37, 24 August 2007

sources needed

We eventually need sources for the criticisms of the fourth edition. We shouldn't be adding our own criticisms, however valid. We don't need sources immediately, but we shouldn't add criticisms unless we think that someone has published them before. --Allen 04:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... all the fourth edition stuff is quoted directly from the fourth edition. No outher sources seem to be used. The page numbers in the book can been seen after all the quotes for verification... Seems good enough for me. 64.149.209.32 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are quotes, but the interpretation thereof is not cited. The opening clause comes to mind: "Published in 1971, this edition had language that would be deemed politically incorrect." Deemed politically incorrect by whom? I, for one, can see why about half of the quotes would be perfectly fine, if taken in context. Ourai ^т _с 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why only the fourth edition? Is there any criticism of later editions? That would be interesting to know. -Emiellaiendiay 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of this book in front of me and it seems that many of the "criticisms" are taking quotes out of context. The quotes provided would imply that the book was sympathetic towards slavery, which isn't the case. If just out of context quotes are provided, it seems to do little service to anyone. I expanded some of the slavery quotes to better show the context of the work. Frankly, until someone can cite a source of controversy, I don't see the point in HAVING those quotes. It sounds more like someone with an axe to grind over a 30+ year old book -- and even if their complaints were 150% valid, this is still "original research", is it not? Random User with a copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.52.31 (talk) 17:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

complete revision

This whole article seems to focus on edition-specific details that hardly matter in the scope of the whole book. The chapter list and other minutiae are overwhelming and should be removed. What's important about this book is a brief history of its existence, who uses the book, criticisms, and an approximate feel for its length and presentation style (e.g. chronological vs. topic-based; amount of primary sources). I like the list of inaccuracies, but it too seems overwhelming and could be curtailed. Barnaclese 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, chapter list removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poorly made

the physical quality of these books is quite low, even for textbook standards. it should be addded that they are poorly made and that the books fall apart easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.57.142 (talk • contribs) 17:40, January 25, 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree; my edition has taken quite a beating and still survived. Most textbooks are made to be durable; such a statement that Pageant's books are shoddy would definitely need some sort of reliable source. Maybe your book is just really old or worn out? Ourai ^т _с 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 This whole article seems to focus on edition-specific details that hardly matter in the scope of the whole book.  The chapter list and other minutiae are overwhelming and should be removed.  What's important about this book is a brief history of its existence, who uses the book, criticisms, and an approximate feel for its length and presentation style (e.g. chronological vs. topic-based; amount of primary sources).  I like the list of inaccuracies, but it too seems overwhelming and could be curtailed.
 [[User:Barnaclese|Barnaclese]] 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
+:Agreed, chapter list removed.  [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 18:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 ==poorly made==