Talk:The American Pageant

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

IB Courses[edit]

Figured I'd make mention of IB history courses that also use this book.

Matcat1116 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources needed[edit]

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)

Agreed, and being unsourced, it's basically original research, so I've pulled it per WP:OR. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

complete revision[edit]

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[edit]

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

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]

Re-stubbed[edit]

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)[reply]

Age level?[edit]

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)[reply]

This book is used in most AP US History courses, but as far as reading difficulty, it is pretty straigtforward. Both this article and Amazon are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.124.133 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Absolutely. And Thomas A. Bailey's autobiography no doubt should be used as a source to expand the article since the book details why and how he wrote the textbook, and how do readers view this book (e.g. Native Americans complained that he wrote from the point of view of the conquering whites, not that of the conquered and horribly abused Indian, and how far-right people criticized the book for allegedly having liberal prejudice). [1] is also a good source for having links to reliable sources about The American Pageant.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]