Talk:A People's History of the United States

message: Is the 2005 edition any different than the 2003?Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Patriot's History of the United States 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: That is one of many of thier criticisms, and Finkelman's is minority view. Ten Dead Chickens 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The old criticism section is 2 paragraphs long.  That hardly justifies a new article. Ten Dead Chickens 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Understood. My points weren't just directed your way - but also (particularly) to skywriter. Pinkville 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: RVV of  22:52, 26 February 2006 (→Criticisms - NPOV)

message: 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)
thread_title: Zinn's belief?

message: I reworded the following paragraph by Stanley011 for the reasons mentioned below. Pinkville 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desc. of People's History

message: 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)
replies: text: A suggestion: blockquotes of this length belong in Wikiquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: No attempt to discuss or reach consensus

message: 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)
thread_title:  ok we need an honnest person here 

message: --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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think woodimt presented an idea appropriate to these Talk pages: an idea for improving the article, and WP in general. His idea, as I interpret it, is that every article have three pages (tabs): one for the article, which would be an uncritical, in-depth description of the subject of the article. NPOV would be easy, because the POV would be that of the article's subject. In this case, it would present a summary of Zinn's book and the reasons why it is unique among histories and among textbooks. A second page would present only opposing points of view, such as evidence that Zinn did not always present facts in his book (if this is true). This second page would frequently be empty, when the subject is uncontroversial. A third page would present discussion about the article by editors wanting to improve it. Actually, one might even add a fourth page of general discussion of the topic, in a world in which webserver storage were free (which it might be, someday, if a technological breakthrough allowed storing information at the atomic scale). An example: Adolf Hitler currently intermixes objective facts with criticisms of the man, his policies, and his actions. If WP had Pro and Con pages, this would be separated into a page for the basic objective facts, a page describing the subject from Hitler's own POV (for insight into his claims and motivations), and a page criticizing Hitler in depth. In the case of the Hitler article, this would only be a difference in organization of the material, since few people actually agree with his policies and methods today. But in the case of the present article, where there is active controversy, the use of several pages would help to present the pro and con sides in better depth than can be done if they are forcibly intermixed. All controversial (multiple POV) pages should be presented in a format of one page for each POV, in my opinion. David Spector (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Role of Wikipedia and how to present A People's History of the United States 

message: There are some bands out there who base some of their songs on what they have read in this and other books. Examples of this are Rise Against(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_Against) ,and im sure there is more i just haven't gone looking for them. But once i do, you will be notified.
Ralphy everchanging 07 19:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bands

message: Plenty of articles have pop culture references sections. This one is no different, and a rather small one at that. I don't see the need for the trivia tag. -- LGagnon 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture references are not trivia

message: I have never edited an article, or even participated in the discussions on them.  Having recently finished this book, it is apparent to me that most people suggesting changes to this article are doing so because of their own points of view.  The author uses facts, which are extensively documented in his bibliography, to form his own interpretation of events, just as ANY historian does.  Just because an editor does not agree with a particular author's interpretation does not mean that this interpretation is not valid.  There are many editors that seem to take the "traditional", for lack of a better term, interpretation of American history as fact, which it is not, it is simply just another point of view.  I have yet to read any compelling arguments in the above discussion that discredit, or disprove any of the theories or interpretations in this text.  This entire page seems to be POV.  As a side note, the title of Chapter 17 comes from the Langston Hughes poem "Harlem", a.k.a. "A Dream Deferred".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits because of one's POV 

message: :Image:Peopleshistoryzinn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Peopleshistoryzinn.jpg

message: As I have explained, this is a nonfiction book that, like most others, occasionally undergoes revision (e.g. typos, errors, etc). Identifying a single error does not allow an anonymous user to reclassify the book 'fiction' or even 'semi-fiction'. Because this has already been explained to the relevant user elsewhere, and because this user has failed to engage in dialogue, I consider these edits to be acts of vandalism. ~ smb 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The accuracy of claims has nothing to do with a work being fiction or non-fiction. Please read the entry on non-fiction and tell us how this work does not qualify. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This book is categorized as non-fiction by the publisher and by all major booksellers. It is not our job to second guess them.   — Aldaron • T/C   04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits 

message: Why is Dale McCartney's rebuttal even listed under "critical reception?"  All the other critics were professors or members of respected institutions, why does the "editor" of some magazine that basically amounts to a blog get quoted here?  Is it true to say that you have to dig down to the level of Seven Oaks to find a positive review of this book?
Millenium King (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree what the heck is he or she doing on here. The other people are prof. at major universities, who the heck is Dale McCartney? It isn't even a positive review of the book it's criticism of criticism and it is not even that good.--Jp1701a (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In some articles, call and answer type things like that are often used. Remember, we're not here to tell people what something is, only to basically use the words of others, and then leave it for the reader to decide. Its unusual for a book review to actually draw a critical response, so that to me makes it worth mentioning. rootology (C)(T) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we are here to make sure that "the words of others" are legitimate sources--everyone with a blog doesn't get to chime in, and Seven Oaks appears to be barely more than that.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The crux of the problem? The summarising last line you quote suggests that Esser either didn't read or misunderstood Zinn's book. Zinn pointedly describes developments and changes in economics and other issues, he continually shows victims overcoming adversity, and he provides numerous examples of white men's positive actions and people who are not white men performing "evil". 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven Oaks

message: http://historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
This external link is included in the article. As far as I can tell, it is not from the publisher nor the author, and the book is not under the public domain, GFDL, or Creative Commons. The website in question offers no explanation of why them hosting the book is not a violation of copyright. How do we know it is legal? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know, so I removed it.  Better safe than sorry.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Copy Of The Book? 

message: The last two are unsourced opinion.
Perlin's quote is taken out of context.  Is enotes.com considered a reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Perlin, Fea, Kazin

message: I'm not sure that Bob Herbert's eulogy is appropriate to put under 'Critical Reception.'  Most of the other reviews are from 1980, or soon thereafter, and Herbert's 2010 remarks are stuck in the middle.  I propose either identifying them as such or giving them their own section - if they belong at all.  They might more appropriately be placed in Zinn's biography article. Kaiguy (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Herbert

message: Is there any information on the edition coming on July 20 (see e. g. amazon.com) - content changes, possible impact of Howard's death etc. - that is known? The article contains no mention of it whatsoever. -- 91.11.213.88 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming 2010 "Revised and Updated editon" 

message: An editor wrote: 
Other books, specifically A People's History of the Supreme Court by Peter Irons and A People's History of the World by Chris Harman, are not a part of the above series but have been written in the spirit of Zinn's work. 
This is not factual. Zinn wrote the introduction to Peter Irons book and, A People's History of the Supreme Court is part of the Zinn series. Book titles can not be copyrighted. The Chris Harman book employs the title but is not a part of the series edited and introduced by Zinn. Look it up on amazon.uk. As estimable as the Harman book may be, it is unrelated to the author of A People's History of the United States 
The phrase "written in the spirit of" opens the door to too much for one little encyclopedia article. Skywriter (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A People's History series edited by Howard Zinn

message: reference 10 has several problems. some of which are found elsewhere and i'll go into it. First, the New York Times Book Review is hyperlinked to a wiki page. that is wrong. the only hyperlink should link the he actual reference. it therefor makes the reading jump through several hoop to even  find the review on the Times website, but what you then find is a problem wiki needs address. the Times and may major papers have a policy of making people pay to see old material. basic wiki policy is that every thing be easily verifiable. asking a reader to pay 3.95 to read a source article is absurd and it needs to stop. Many some expert wiki research can clue us on how to find old news. please contact me if you have an idea how to fix this problem as i'm finding on many other wiki pages as well.
Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: Twice now I've removed a bit about the book almost winning an award, the "Least Credible History Book in Print". Here's the text of the third time this info was re-introduced by an IP editor:
References:
*http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/and-the-worst-book-of-history-is/
*http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/07/17/worst-history-book-ever/?mod=google_news_blog
*http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/07/taking-names-out-book-awards-talking-about-cheating-junot-diaz/54677/
*http://hnn.us/articles/what-least-credible-history-book-print
*http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/lies-the-debunkers-told-me-how-bad-history-books-win-us-over/260251/
The problem I have with this addition is two-fold: it is undue emphasis on the second-place position for an award for which there is only one winner, and it misrepresents the sources which all say that Zinn is a far better historian than Barton and other ideologues. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse, it's an internet user poll, which have been considered unreliable/undue for WP. Rostz (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2012 runner up to worst book award 

message: but I find this paragraph:
:"Reviewers on the left have called it brilliant, moving, and a great tool for moving forward the cause of social activism through the teaching of history through the prism of class consciousness. Historians such as Oscar Handlin, Michael Kammen, and Michael Kazin have criticized the book, calling it revisionist and objecting to aspects of both Zinn's approach to history and the actual content of the work."
to be problematic. First of all, none of it is sourced.  "Reviewers on the left" is really (opinion) weasely (only lefties like it? Who are these reviewers, etc) and then revisionist is used in the sense that Stalin's guys were revisionists, removing folks from a picture, one at a time, as they fell out of favor.  Calling his work "revisionist" is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that Zinn is taking a new look at the material. Which is the point of the book. Anyway, I have to go vote now, Howard would want me to. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the bit about "left" should go. The revisionism is certainly historical revisionism rather than negation. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the bit about the "left" should go. The first sentence also does not seem to be supported by the sources elsewhere in the article. The critical reception has 7 reviews, and 6 are negative. The one that is positive does not support the assertion in the first sentence of the paragraph quoted above. (It also seems that the critical reception section needs some balance, considering that it is 6 out of 7 negative.) The second sentence seems unnecessary as those historians and their criticisms are mentioned and quoted in the critical reception paragraph. I would suggest that the entire paragraph be removed. This is especially so considering that it's original incarnation was relatively recently added entirely by one person, and the few subsequent changes to the second sentence seem to have caused some disputes. The whole paragraph seems unnecessary, and better off removed. 108.28.100.84 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

text: "Reviewers on the left have called it brilliant, moving, and a great tool for moving forward the cause of social activism through the teaching of history through the prism of class consciousness. Historians such as Oscar Handlin, Michael Kammen, and Michael Kazin have criticized the book, calling it revisionist and objecting to aspects of both Zinn's approach to history and the actual content of the work."
Carptrash (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might have been discussed before 

message: I can see little criticsm of Zinn in the article, yet there exists significant criticism of him in academia from both the left and the right. There exists extremely pointed criticism of his abilities (or lack thereof as an historian). Similar criticism exists in the broader media. None of this is in the article as far as I can see. It is a very one-dimensional article presently.  Capitalismojo (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Should such examinations be a stand alone section or should it be part of the academic section? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and balance 

message: I noticed that the first paragraph of the article refers to Zinn as a political scientist instead of as a historian, which I believe is correct.  Im0nstandby (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction 

message: " and a clear political agenda aligned with a long-discredited Marxist worldview" 
because I found no mention of Marx or marxism in any of the three sources mentioned.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed this phrase 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A People's History of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/conetta/US%20History%20Docs/mark_twain%20anti-imperialism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A People's History of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flagpole.com/Issues/02.18.98/lit.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911172836/http://www.history.com/shows/the-people-speak%20 to http://www.history.com/shows/the-people-speak%20
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713003813/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/05/1542202&mode=thread&tid=25 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/05/1542202&mode=thread&tid=25
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If one reads the discussions surrounding the Wiki Manual of Style, one might notice concerns regarding confusing "sea of blue" over-linking and related Lazy Linking (linking rather than far better, in-context, more concise, more difficult, actual writing of a few concept-words.)  Related problems include readers dreading to click on possible illconsidered links that again require more links, links, ad infinitum to grasp an initial mere seven-word key concept....etc. 
This article is better than most, but I think could improve in that regard.  One example; quote:
 "Chapter 6, "The Intimately Oppressed" describes resistance to inequalities in the lives of women in the early years of the U.S. Zinn tells the stories of women who resisted the status quo, including Polly Baker, Anne Hutchinson, Mary Dyer, Amelia Bloomer, Catharine Beecher, Emma Willard, Harriot Kezia Hunt, Elizabeth Blackwell, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Fuller, Sarah Grimké, Angelina Grimké, Dorothea Dix, Frances Wright, Lucretia Mott, and Sojourner Truth."
 
Being ignorant in that regard, it reads like a typical crappy meaningless dry, dusty history book, which Zinn is not, and Wikipedia (all writing) should avoid.  Suggest describing with a sentence or two; resistance to inequalities or status quo that one or a few of these women faced. Both concept and flavor need to  somehow be conveyed.   --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:504A:5AE8:B18D:2D6E (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more details, & fewer Lazy Links 

message: The Critical Reception section opens with an opinion from the New York Times, followed by an opinion by the New York Times, then another opinion by the New York times, and finally finishing up with a big quote from the New York Times.  Then, to balance things out, there's one sentence tacked on to the end mentioning a couple of Professors of History (from... somewhere?) who have an opinion.  How about a little more critique from accredited historians and slightly less from a single newsroom?
Pisomojado (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wait to see what you come up with. Carptrash (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I seriously doubt you would like what I would do with this page.Pisomojado (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough, so what would your "reliable sources" do to the page? Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pisomojado is correct. This kind of critical reception section is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia, and whenever it arises it is immediately either revised or deleted. No GA or FA assessment would ever allow this.  I recommend dispensing with all the long block quotes and reducing the important parts to extremely brief quotes and using better sources per the above recommendation. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception: NYT Edition 

message: I don't find the UNSOURCED chapter by chapter guide is encyclopedic at all. It is massively undue given that it's not even cited or cited to the book itself or the author's own books. I have removed the entirety of that part. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After continued reinsertion, I would like to bring this up again. I think it's wholly inappropriate as well, as no other book is this in depth. It isn't a copyright violation directly sourced at least... We should probably at least try to find some consensus among other watcher/editors before this turns into a slow edit war. Sennecaster  (What now?) 13:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter by chapter contents

message: I accidentally put the wrong links in a recent edit summary. In case anyone is confused, I meant to use MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:INTRO. Freoh (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong links in edit summary 

message: Why is this described as a nonfiction book rather than a history book. It can still be a history book with harsh and valid criticism. DMH43 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonfiction book?