Talk:A People's History of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Trey's changes

Trey has two substantive changes he wants to make to this article:

First, to change the lead sentence to say to say that the book "purports" to tell history from a certain point of view, rather than "seeking" to do so. The word "purport" seems to me to have a negative connotation, and "seek" is already perfectly NPOV.

Second, he wants to add "Zinn's work has been criticized by conservatives who have claimed that it has a blatant leftist bias." If we're going to include criticism of the work (and we should, in the interests of NPOV), let's include substantial ones. Saying that Zinn's work has a left-wing bias is like saying the same of The Nation magazine or the writings of Karl Marx -- it's completely self-evident and self-admitted. Zinn's entire approach to the study of history is based on a belief that it can never be politically neutral, and sso he is committed to taking sides. In any case, criticisms should always be attributed and sourced, and this one isn't.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

look at the bottom of the page. it is sourced. J. Parker Stone 19:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
and look, the only reason i made it "purports" is because of the "common people" bullshimaggle. "common people" is inherently a POV term, often used by leftists to only mean poor people or minorities. J. Parker Stone 19:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even read as much as the introduction to the book, did you? 72.224.60.38 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit summary says "not including criticism of Zinn is like not including criticism of Coulter or Savage." Please point me to the place in the articles on Coulter and Savage where criticism of them simply for being conservative -- as opposed to criticism of specific views or arguments -- is included. RadicalSubversiv E 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you don't get to determine what is "reasonable." personally i think Zinn is just about as reasonable as a pile of dogcrap, but that doesn't mean I get to remove his article. the charge you have removed is the primary charge levelled against him by conservatives. J. Parker Stone 20:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm a conservative who originally added the "seeks" word, and who thinks that Zinn is a superficial historian and that A People's History reads almost like a comic book ... and I agree with RadicalSubversiv. Criticisms regarding politically divisive issues must be specific and attributed: who said it and where. That's the only way Wikipedia can hope to cover controversial subjects.
The real problem with this article right now is that it demonstrates no understanding of what Zinn's book is actually about. (Right now the article basically consists of two long quotes from the first 10 pages of a 650+ page book.) His book isn't really about common people, per se: it's about how the wealthy American capitalist elite created and controls the United States as essentially a scheme to use the middle class to exploit the working class. Those who have read the book all the way through (probably a surprisingly small number of people -- I suspect Zinn has more "fans" than actual "readers" -- you don't think Matt Damon read all of it, do ya?) should take a crack at adequately summarizing what the book is about. --Kevin Myers 00:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
that's gonna be tough to find. hasn't this book been used as a HS text in certain circles, or am i wrong? J. Parker Stone 23:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That's what I understand. I imagine it's often assigned by teachers who think it's nice to have a book about the "common people", not realizing Zinn's "neo-Marxist" take on history. Of course, in colleges it's probably assigned by professors who think it's nice to have a neo-Marxist textbook. It's not easy to find conservative critiques of the book, since I think conservatives (and academic historians in general) don't take Zinn very seriously as a historian. (National Review recently referred to Zinn as an "obscure writer.") Recently a mainstream (or conservative) rejoinder to Zinn's book has been published: A Patriot's History of the United States. That could be mentioned in the article. --Kevin Myers 01:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm unaware of whether the conservative counterpoint is written by a pundit of equal bias on the Right but regardless, that could be included in a "See also" section at the end. J. Parker Stone 03:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the FPM article was a decent source -- not everything from them is, and yes they're staunchly neoconservative, but I saw nothing wrong with that particular article. Its essential point was that Zinn's personal Marxist (combined with other radicalism) philosophy made the book into a simplistic analysis of U.S. history, with everything attributed to class warfare. Maybe RS personally thinks that's a crap argument but I personally think that a lotta the stuff outta The Nation and z-mag are BS, that doesn't mean they aren't included as references in certain articles. J. Parker Stone 03:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Revisionist"

I replaced "revisionist" with "retelling", in keeping with the discussion of "A People's History" on the Howard Zinn talk page. Best to avoid such loaded terms as "revisionist", I believe. See also further discussion of this point from the same page. Pinkville 01:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Patriot's History of the United States

I remember finding a book with the above title in a local library. Reading the summary, it was clearly intended to be critical of Howard Zinn's work, going as far as calling it a socialist or communist work of writing. Does anyone have any more information about this book, and can someone start a file on it? DaDoc540 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

by TDC 7 February 2006 TDC and the labeling of content TDC does not personally agree with is vandalism. If TDC wishes to cite sources and thoughtfully edit copy, that is welcome. skywriter 15:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have cited sourced, and the material you inserted is 1) not relevant to the topic 2) definately not written in an NPOV way and 3) places many qualifiers whose only aim is to poison the well. Ten Dead Chickens 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, there are many more than "two" critics of Zinns work, I could list dozens, but these two seem to have the most points summed up the best. While Flynn would most certainly fall on the right end of the spectrum, Kazin does not. He writes for a very left wing publication, although many cannot see this because it is not orthodox. Th inclusion of Finkelman also does not make sense. His views are tertiary to the topic, and if they are to be inlcuded, so to should a rebuttal from one of the hundreds of historians and writers on Jefferson who take a decidely different view. Ten Dead Chickens 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead list dozens of Zinn critics, and do cite your sources. Flynn and Kazin are the ones that crop up everywhere. As to your personal opinion of where Kazin lies on the left to right spectrum, why is that relevant?

You made it relevant when you labeled him as a conservative. Ten Dead Chickens 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Finkelman is exactly on point because it goes to the central focus in the Kazin/Flynn summary. Perhaps this can be said more artfully but the point is leading historians, besides Zinn, have documented that U.S. Founding Fathers were slave owners. That fact dilutes and provides an alternative view to Kazin/Flynn claims.skywriter 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is one of many of thier criticisms, and Finkelman's is minority view. Ten Dead Chickens 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens on what do you base your opinion that Finkelman's is a minority view? Would you cite mainstream historians who agree with your contention that the founding fathers, such as George Washington, Madison and especially Jefferson did not own large numbers of slaves? Finkelman, one of the foremost legal scholars on slave history, bases his work on the close examination of Jefferson's writings and offers citations to each. Upon what do you base your scholarly viewpoint? skywriter 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is more space being devoted to criticisms of the work than to the work itself? Why not start a new article on Criticism of A People's History if that is your interest. Pinkville 16:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I added to the existing article to balance the bias of taking aim at historians who challenge the "goodness" of U.S. founding fathers, many of whom were slave-owners. TDC's point in summarizing Flynn/Kazin articles emphasized founders' idealism, vastly downplaying the role of slavery and private property rights in the writing of the U.S. Constitution. skywriter 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The old criticism section is 2 paragraphs long. [1] That hardly justifies a new article. Ten Dead Chickens 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
By my count there are seven sentences that discuss Zinn's book (and two excerpts from it). I don't think there's anything in the article yet to warrant adding such a lengthy section of criticism (including an extensive synopsis of another work on a related subject - more extensive by far than that provided for A People's History). It would be less POV to provide a comprehensive analysis of Zinn's work if you intend to provide this much analysis of criticism of it. Pinkville 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So do it then. But on the point, there are many example in Wikipedia of a criticism section far outweighing the content summary and analysis. Ten Dead Chickens 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not able to at the moment - but it's not up to me in the same way as it's up to you. If you intend to provide criticism of a subject that's fine - but you ought to provide an adequate description of the subject first. You wouldn't take up the majority of space in an article on igloos by indicating how unsuited they are for tropical habitation, however true that may be. Presumably you've read A People's History, your addition of criticism of it will be much more valuable, and less dismissable, if you were to provide an analysis of the work itself. As for your point about other articles in Wikipedia - are any of them any good? Even if some are, that has little bearing on this article, which isn't, at the moment. Pinkville 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Listen, thats not my job, if you feel that it is neccesary, then, OMG, do it, I have added my 2 cents a while ago by adding the small 4 sentence criticism section a while back, I had nothing to do with these more recent edits. Ten Dead Chickens 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Understood. My points weren't just directed your way - but also (particularly) to skywriter. Pinkville 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RVV of 22:52, 26 February 2006 (→Criticisms - NPOV)

1.129.170.217.228: Your edits would be received better if you they were nuanced and if you explained your suggestions on this Talk Page before reverting large swaths of information.

skywriter 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn's belief?

TDC: Following up on your edit of the critics' section, would you provide a basis/citation for the first 19 words in the next sentence, or the sentence will be deleted. Thanks.

1.

Zinn's belief that the conflict with the Japanese during the Second World War was instigated by the United States is also discounted by most historians.

skywriter 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


TDC: Please explain your deletion of this sentence and reference, (added 17:10, 8 February 2006 by 130.209.6.40)

However, a possible counter-argument could be that many of the founding fathers were also slave owners, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. For example, Paul Finkelman, legal historian and editor of the 18-volume encyclopedia called Articles on American Slavery established in his book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson that Jefferson owned more than 500 slaves during his lifetime.

skywriter 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply to the request for documentation here and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC, the edits by this user will now be reverted for introducing false information and for deleting scholarly reference material. skywriter 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desc. of People's History

I reworded the following paragraph by Stanley011 for the reasons mentioned below. Pinkville 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A People's History of the United States is a left wing revisionist account of American history. It is a book composed of a series of cartoon illustrations accompanying a description of different historical episodes in American history, purpotedly told through the perspective of historically opressed people. For example, there is a chapter titled "The Impossible Victory:Vietnam" that celebrates the communist rebels' victory over the United States in the Vietnam War and the ensuing totalitarian communist regime that seized control of Vietnam.

"Left wing" and "revisionist" are POV terms used to disparage what is being described. The use of these terms has already been discussed on the talk page and NPOV replacements were selected (see particularly the Howard Zinn talk page). "Cartoon illustrations" is both highly misleading (readers will likely expect images in any book so described) and contemptuous, therefore POV. The use of the word "purportedly" is inappropriate, since the word means that others - not Zinn - imagine the book as X; a more appropriate alternative would be "ostensibly", but even that suggests duplicity on Zinn's part, again POV. The better alternative is to rewrite the passage using a phrase like, "attempts to tell" or "intends to tell", etc. The example you give does not illustrate the previous two sentences - it's a non sequitur. It is also written in an inappropriate tone and in several ways inaccurately describes the chapter cited: 1) it incorrectly suggests that Zinn has shifted the focus of his book away from an account of US history to one of Vietnamese history, whereas Zinn summarises the events and official justifications of the US intervention, providing accounts from various participants in the events - a few are Vietnamese (or Cambodian, Laotian, etc.) but overwhelmingly more are American; 2) the celebration of "the communist rebels' victory" (in which "celebrates", "rebels" and "victory" are all problematic terms) can only be inferred from two or three sentences at the start of the chapter and at certain points later, the chapter mostly recounts the key moments of the war, the justifications offered by US planners for it, and the attempts by various parties to avoid fighting it or to oppose it; 3) the wording of your example suggests that this chapter primarily discusses the aftermath of the Vietnam War and conditions in unified (i.e. post-1975) Vietnam, which it obviously doesn't, it discusses the war itself. Pinkville 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No attempt to discuss or reach consensus

Various people have done a lot of work on this article over time, and this discussion page has been active from time. While I would like to see some changes made to this article, recent changes without benefit of any discussion or any attempt to reach consensus is inappropriate. There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia based on books -- see Category:History_books -- and many of them are summarized on a chapter by chapter basis. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one is unfinished. I would like to see chapter summaries, and when I have time, will add them, and hope others will too. Meanwhile, if the user who did mass reverts the other night without talk page discussion would like to come to this page to talk about it, we'd like to hear from you. Skywriter 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: blockquotes of this length belong in Wikiquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My edits were so patently obviously needed that it didn't occur to me that any reasonable editor would oppose them. This article is currently little more than a series of block quotes stolen from other websites, perhaps violating copyrights due to the length of the quotes appropriated. Why do you feel the need to quote Daniel Flynn for half the body of the article? Why does Zinn's quote about a "quiet revolution", which has nothing to do with the book, take up so much space? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be original content in encyclopedic form. No legitimate encyclopedia would tolerate quotes making up the vast majority of the article. Bibigon 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Text in Criticism Section

User deleted new swath of material in criticism section without discussion on Talk page. For more than a year, Dan Flynn claims about George Washington have been listed in this article. Last night I went to the sources and added to the text. User deletion of this text is unjustified and now reverted. Further, the use of Salon to link to an article available and published by FrontPageMag is curious. Please explain these activities. Thanks. Skywriter 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,
I removed much of the criticism of the criticism. If I recall correctly, the main content I removed was (1) two or three paragraphs on whether or not George Washington was the richest person in the early US, along with (2) an extended quote from a review of Voices.... The first struck me as a strawman, since Flynn discussed much more in his article. I replaced the discussion of Washington with a summary of his criticisms. The second I replaced with a summary that contains much of the same information, but more compactly and without borderline copyvio.
I think the best course of action would be for you to add in what you think needs to be in the section instead of simply reverting. Hopefully after a couple rounds of constuctive contributions we'll be able to reach a consensus on the best form for the section.
Sorry about the mix-up with the link -- you'll note that in your previous version, both Salon and Frontpage Magazine were linked back-to-back. I accidentally removed the FrontPage uri instead of the Salon one (which should be removed, since it doesn't have anything to do with the quote it accompanies). Fortunately, that's easy enough to fix.
However, I see that although I posted these remarks within ten minutes on my talk page, I was too slow for you. I should also mention that I went through and converted all the ugly inline links to references. Since those have now been reverted back to their unformatted state, I'll probably not bother going through the article and rewriting them, but will revert back to my version. Since you have objected to that version, I'll see if I can find a way to include another paragraph or two in the criticism section.
-David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the Salon link is irrelevant and it has apparently been there for quite some time, now properly deleted. I left it but added the FP link. Because the Dan Flynn claims about what Zinn said about George Washington and the founders has been up for a long, long time, deletion of the full discussion at this time is not a fair action. It is a moving of the goal post. Because this is not a long article, I do not mind if you add a summary from the Flynn article. I do object if you remove the original section and its amplification, again because of the length of time the Flynn claims have existed in this article without comment. There is no borderline copyright violation in the material added last night. None.

The In These Times article is a direct refutation of the Kazin comments, and the weight of those comments should be reflected. This relatively new book Voices of", complements A People's History and continues to receive a lot of ink and public readings by name actors. It directly addresses Kazin and Flynn comments. As to your claim of ugly formatting, do fix that if you wish, but do not confuse mass deletion of content with formatting changes. Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. Skywriter 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the argument that bad content should be retained and expanded simply because it's been around for a long time. The longer it's been around, I feel, the more urgent it is to remove it or to replace it with a better account. I (or someone) should have replaced the Washington thing long ago, but I didn't bother to check out the Dissent article until I saw an extended discussion of Washington in recent revisions.
To be fair, the multi-paragraph quote from Sarver was probably fair use. I do prefer your newer version that reduces the amount of quoting and better intersperses original writing, though. It's less problematic. Still, I have to wonder what a very sympathetic review of Voices is doing in the "Criticism" section -- I think it would work well to split it off into a new section specifically on Voices, while still retaining continuity with Kazin's criticisms. I'll give it a try and see how it works.
I'm glad you found my reply courteous. I try to be polite and maintain rigorous NPOV. I hope I've made clear that my edits are meant solely to improve the appearance, logic, relevance, style and flow of the writing in this article. I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of POV editing in your edit summaries, as you did following the above discussion. Thanks, David Schaich Talk/Cont 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Criticism is and can be both positive and negative. On what do you base the claim that criticism must assume a negative air? Have you not seen both positive and negative reviews of literature, films, books and so on? When new swaths of text are deleted without discussion, and a viewpoint is all but suppressed, it looks very much like POV editing. What you left after the deletion was ounce for ounce longer on the negative than the rejoinder. And, it did appear that the goal post was moving. (It is nice to know you are not hostile aggressive as are many who contribute to articles where there is controversy or at least diverse viewpoints.) You may not realize your perhaps unconscious bias, but it is there ---for all of us. Everything written turns on a point of view. POV appears in the decision to include or exclude information. It appears in the decisions to write or not write about subjects. The goal must be to fair, to represent the various viewpoints fairly. But to claim one does not have a viewpoint is naive. A rock lacks a viewpoint. Humans have viewpoints. Each of us is the summation of our upbringing, our education, and experiences. Our viewpoints are based on those, and many other factors. We all do have viewpoints. The gray area is where the different viewpoints converge on these Talk pages. The criticism section of this article is not so long that it needs to be divided. Voices complements A People's History and Sarver speaks directly to the Dissent article. And so, it is part of the same narrative conversation. Will you return Sarver to the criticism section, or shall I? You would have saved yourself the trouble if you had raised the question here first, knowing there is active interest in this article. Take care. Skywriter 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite conscious of my POV: I'm a member of the Socialist Party and a great fan of this book, which is why this article is on my watchlist. I try not to let that dictate my contributions to Wikipedia, though.
While "criticism" can have multiple meanings, it (and "critical") makes me think first of negative reviews and reactions, rather than those that are simply rigorous. When used in the context of this article, I think of it as an antonym of "praise". I'm clearly not the only Wikipedian who thinks this way, as Criticism of Wikipedia (for example) contains few reports of praise of Wikipedia. If both positive and negative reactions are to be included in the section, I think it would be less confusing to name it "Reactions" or "Responses".
Although the section isn't so long it needs to be divided, I like having a separate section for the new book, since, as you say, it complements the original. Doesn't this highlight its contribution and importance? Also, I've done my best to retain the link between Sarver and Kazin, maintaining the conversation and continuity even across the section line. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While the word critical can mean "marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws," is it wise to ignore the fullness of meaning: "characterized by careful evaluation and judgment" If yes, then book reviewers, movie and literary critics all get a negative rap. A critical reading or viewing can lead to the statement that the play (or book) was a "critical success." Critical may also imply an effort to see a work clearly in order to judge it fairly. A critical essay can be an explanatory essay. Try embracing the diversity. You limit yourself by narrowing the word's meaning and trying to enforce the limited definition on others, particularly in a publicly edited effort.

I promise not to hold membership in any party against you (smile) though I tend to shun being a card-carrying member of anything. Skywriter 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ok we need an honnest person here

who has a copy of both Zinn's original 1980 vol. and his 1995 revision.

We need to clear up if Frontpage is tellling the truth or not.

22:57, September 23, 2006 Devilmaycares added the above request.


The answer is that the many updates of People's History reflect more current history, particuarly of US foreign relations at each interval. He does not rewrite the book at each version. He adds more material at the end. So, for example, the 1994 edition adds the first Gulf war, and the 2001 revision sums up the Clinton era. If you are referring to the George Washington brouhaha, note that Flynn's remarks were not necessarily based on the first edition. His rant was published within the last couple of years. Also, that part of the book has not changed.

What is your precise question? I have access to the various editions. Skywriter 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think frontpage state that Zinn claimed all the founding fathers owned slave, and that Washington was the richist man in America.

Devilmaycares 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I quoted directly from Flynn and Zinn but David deleted it. I concur in thinking it is important to clear up but David insists otherwise. Look at the version I wrote last night for the precise quotes. Flynn's rant is all hat and no cattle. He throws out his opinion, proving nothing. He offers no facts, no evidence, just his opinion, and you know what is said about opinions and a certain body part. Everyone has one. Skywriter 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To be on the level with you I hate Flynn and Zinn. Aren't there any legit Historians who have critized Zinn? Devilmaycares 01:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you hate Flynn and Zinn? Skywriter 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Role of Wikipedia and how to present A People's History of the United States

--Ummm... howdy!

I've been a fan of Wikipedia since I first heard of it, and I have consumed countless hours at home (and at work) hitting Random Article over and over again. I suggest Wikipedia to all of my friends as a way to pass the time semi-constructively (Learning being a close second to Doing), and I go out of my way to show this site to people that haven't seen it before. Being a huge fan of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, I see the pursuit and collection of Knowledge as something close to Spiritual, and regard Wikipedia (and all of those that contribute to it) as having a Great Purpose (with emphasis on the capital letters).

That said, I believe something's missing.

At the top of every article are the tabs "Article" and "Discussion". When I first began surfing Wikipedia, I came under the assumption that "Article" was a page devoted only to facts, figures, and critical analysis, so that even if the article covered a heatedly debated topic (The War on Christmas, Gay Marriage, or A People's History of the United States, for examples), both sides would be able to agree with everything posted to the "Article" tab. In other words, "Article" would be a depository for factual information and summaries (as opposed to an article stuffed with opinions, emotions, and bias).

The "Discussion" tab, I assumed, would be the antithesis to the "Article" tab. I thought it would consist of conversation relevant or closely related to the subject, with (hopefully) heated yet rational debates as to the validity of the information itself or (perhaps) a polite argument as to the merits of the ideas contained within the article.


So far, in my surfing of Wikipedia, I have found this not to be the case.


In the instance of the article on A People's History of the United States, I found that the "Article" tab contained little mention of Howard Zinn's ideas about our history's causes and effects, and focused instead on categorical (yet non-descriptive and non-informative) information, such as the Publishing Date and what Awards the book had garnered. Meanwhile, the "Discussion" tab seems to have focused more on what should be allowed in this (or any other) encyclopedic article, and not at all on the merits of Howard Zinn's ideas.

And so, my purpose for writing this blurb comes in the form of a lengthy hypothetical situation...


Let's say, hypothetically, that Adams School of Politics publishes a paper covering a study of a tiny, isolated community whose citizens operate in what is considered a Pure Democracy - decisions made by all the people, without exception. Let's say that the paper concluded that the government operated efficiently, the people were happy with their decisions (and also happy with the fact that they were able to reverse decisions they weren't happy with), and that the people were healthier than other nearby non-Pure-Democracy communities because of this system.

Let's also say, again hypothetically, that Brians School of Politics produces a paper in the same publication, covering a study in another tiny, isolated community whose citizens operate in what would be considered a Pure Republic - decisions made by a select few, whose selection came solely by a vote of the people. Let's also say that this paper concluded all the same things as the first, but contributed the results to the idea of the Republic, instead of the idea of the Democracy.

Wikipedia would have the goal of presenting these two opposing studies in as unbiased a manner as possible. The article, to accurately (yet fairly) present the inevitable debate arising from this situation, would be inclined to present one study (not in its entirety, but as a summary), followed by the other, with both similarities and pertinent differences highlighted. The article would also likely include comments and critiques by prominent supporters of both sides, with summaries of their support or dissent backed by excerpts and quotes.


I'm going to guess that no one that has read this far into my post will disagree with what I've written (though a few may be wondering where I'm going with this train of thought). And I'm sure that, once a debate of this sort arises, both sides will inevitably attempt to denounce, persuade, critique, and convert the other.


What I'd like to suggest is that the best place to present this ongoing debate (best place meaning that place which best promotes the sharing of ideas, the fair and unbiased exchange of information, and an unaggressive and mutually agreeable discussion) would be right beside the facts. If the "Article" tab is meant to be an unbiased and factual presentation of an issue or idea, then I believe it should be accompanied by a "Discussion" tab in which opposing sides of any issue be allowed to disagree, debate, and eventually (or, hopefully, rather) come to a conclusion acceptable to both sides. Or, at the least, the "Discussion" tab would allow both sides to hear the other's arguments in close proximity to the facts of the issue.

To make my analogy complete, I'd like to compare what I've suggested to a butter churn (Wiki - Churning (butter), if you'd like). The more the issue is 'agitated', the more the 'butter' rises to the top of the debate. In the case of the two test studies presented above, debate might likely produce the idea of a Democratic-Republic, or it might spur more studies relating governments to the health of their people, or it might provoke those that disagree with both sides to produce other ideas on self-governance. At the very, very least, a debate agitates those involved to become more knowledgeable (even if it is only to disprove a contending argument), and (as I mentioned above) I hold the pursuit of Knowledge in very high esteem.

And so I'll end this passage (because I have to get back to work) by asking what each of you has to say on the role of Wikipedia, and (more particularly) how to present A People's History of the United States in a format more focused on discussion than simply presentation.

--woodimt, 21Nov06

I think you misunderstand the purpose of talk pages. These are not supposed to be for general discussion about the topic, but for discussion specifically about how to improve the article on the topic. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the discussion page is the place where we talk about how to write the encyclopedia. --Delirium 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Woodimt. Wikipedia doesn't have infinite resources for bandwidth. There are lots of other places on the net for the discussion of specific topics. --Matt24 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/p/Talk%7EA_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States_a1e1.html"