Talk:The Imperial Presidency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

This article needs a rewrite to get back to the NPOV needed, while the subject matter may be in debate or not, the phrasing and structure of the article does not convey a neutral point of view on the matter in question, this becoming more apparent during the sections listing certain years, with the final section reading more like an op-ed than an article found in an encyclopedia.

This article is supposed to be about a book, instead it starts to read like it IS the book, with no listing of criticisms, reception from the public at time of publishing, and having a notes section that is comprised of 72 references to the book that the article is supposed to be about, without reference to other outside sources of information about the book in question. Granted, the book was published long before the advent of the Internet so finding 3rd-party web sites referencing this work will be difficult, but 72 self-references is a bit much.

68.2.34.10 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reply to Comments of User:68.2.34.10 2 Reply to User: Id447 3 Poorly Written 4 History is "argument without end"

[edit] Reply to Comments of User:68.2.34.10

The author of this book did have a point of view and this is true of most authors. This is especially true of controversial subjects and books such as this one. I hope that anyone with some knowledge of the subject that is unable to find criticism would read the book and offer their insights as to the strengths and weaknesses of the book.

The 72 references establish that the article is based on the book and not on the opinions of the article's writer. If there are passages in the book that should have been included in the summary or were misrepresented in the summary then the references should be helpful in correcting these errors.

Id447 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to User: Id447

The point of view of the author of the work is all well and good, but this is Wikipedia, where an NPOV is a big part of what makes up each article (at least in initial spirit pre-vandals, etc), and I'm just not seeing how having such a direct translation and outline that comes almost straight from the book (and thusly, the author's POV) is gonna hold with that. Granted, this is gonna mean some folks are going to need to get themselves a copy (all references to the book require you to have a dead-tree format handy to reference, thankfully a 2004 edition has been published by Houghton-Mifflin, else getting references to check up on would be much more difficult) and actually sit down and read it to be able to cross-reference, which probably would help to establish a more neutral perspective on this particular article. 68.230.117.77 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly Written

This article needs to be rewritten. The grammar is quite poor and it does not flow very well. It further makes absurd claims and implications without references within Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.248.117 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History is "argument without end"

From Dutch historian Pieter Geyl

In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. For Geyl the best that historians could do was to critically examine their beliefs and urge their readers to do likewise. Geyl felt that history was a progress of "argument without end", but did not feel that this meant that an "anything goes" interpretation of history was acceptable.

Of interest to me is, if some of the historical facts written about in the Imperial Presidency make some people uncomfortable, would they be able to admit to it? Or would those people see that as a POV?

Is either "The Imperial Presidency" book or the article, factually incorrect? Are the facts either misrepresented or used to mislead? Are minor or unimportant historical facts used unfairly or over-emphasized? Have important facts been excluded? Is this book or article relevant today? These are the type of questions I ask when reading a history book.

From Wikipedia:Controversial articles

Describe the controversy

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

Id447 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)