![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Figured I'd make mention of IB history courses that also use this book.
Matcat1116 ( talk) 22:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lies My Teacher Told Me is a book critical of this textbook (along with a few other history textbooks) Yumfoodisgood ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
Believe it or not, we've trimmed out enough stuff in this article to bring it back to stub status. As such, I've added a {{ stub}} tag to the bottom, and changed the rewrite tag at the top to the unreferenced tag, since we're almost starting from scratch again. So now we just need independent sources to verify stuff. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This says its an AP level book, but Amazon bills it as in the [http://www.amazon.com/American-Pageant-History-Republic-Vol/dp/0618479287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223128339&sr=1-1 age 9 to 12 reading level]. Something's amiss. R. fiend ( talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The American Pageant is mentioned by the book Lies my Teacher Told Me, to which there is a link in the See Also section. Perhaps that book's criticisms about The American Pageant should be incorporated. Sofa jazz man ( talk) 01:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)