Talk:A People's History of the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunnyche0102, Azeng24, VickyL, BEvangelista.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Editions

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

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)

"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)

I suggest replacing "revisionist" with Marxist, since Zinn is a Marxist. It is a simple matter of fact, and if you don't believe me, ask him (he's still alive.)

As someone who has spent that last 7 years reading a lot of the available original documentary evidence on the topic of the American Revolution I have to say that at least in that area Zinn has when of his facts are not wrong they are mis-cast. So also suggest relabeling the work as fiction, since the supposed facts are incorrect - and the ones that are not incorrect are cherry-picked for effect. Robtmorris 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

which facts are incorrect? examples. cherry picked for effect? examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask (which facts are incorrect), take a look at Howard Zinn's Revisionist History Text by Bettina Esser: "Once a person is labeled as 'evil,' there is no personal redemption. 'Robber barons' are not recognized for their own personal achievements or the risks and losses they endured, but only for their manipulation of people and money. In Zinn's economic view, where everybody is out for the most he can get, there is no room for voluntarism, charity, or philanthropy."

Or how about this one: "In the world of Zinn, these were the only things that Columbus, Jackson, or Roosevelt ever did [respectively, 'carry on a rampage of violence,' 'drive Indians out of their land,' and pave 'the way for the United States to take control of Cuba'], and no other actions in their lives could compensate for their sins. In his chronology, the reader goes from one unpleasant climactic event to the next, and nothing good happens in the interim."

I think Zinn's purpose was to basically give another side of the story.

We all know the viewpoint of history as given by the textbooks, and "People's History" is just the same history but to give different points of view whenever reasonable differences in opinion occur.

Personally, I don't even see why there should be different perspectives on history. Facts are facts, and the facts should speak for themselves and be neutral of POV; However, it seems that in this country, we are doomed to an everlasting tug-of-war between interpretations.

Anyway, remember, it is not a textbook, because if it was, it would have the responsibility to record good and bad throughout the years. It is just merely another party's point of view, and complementary reading for the social studies student. 96.250.159.74 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bettina Esser adds: "the book's overarching thesis could best be summarized in this way: 'America is not a republic but an empire controlled by white men, but only certain white men, and its heroes are anti-establishment protestors and those in the trenches of class warfare.' … In the world of Zinn, things never evolve, economies don't recover, victims never overcome adversity, and white men are always to blame." Asteriks (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with using an Historian, who is critical of Zinn's work not because he has inccorect factual information but because of his political views, as a refrence in proving arguments made by Zinn false. History changes with the times of the historian. The political and social climate of every period in history serves as the background in which an historian writes. The purpose of Zinn's work was not to give credit to the "great man theory" as most historical refrences of the time did but to show a different history wheter some like it or not. Whether we agree or not his interpretation remains a valid source for an historian or students. If we all wrote and believed the same then what use would education be? Is it that Zinn cast a deprecating light on our golden and angelic for-fathers that has everyone so upset or that some of his arguments cannot be ignored? Do we really want to discredit someone whom is a noted historan because his views differ from that of our own? In order to validate your claim and make a sound argument against Zinn you must also read the critics who champion Zinn not only the ones who try to discredit him. Plus it might help to know the text itself besides just the critical analysis of the text. Plus an adept knoweldge of the historical background not only of the text but of the author as well. Historians not only research their subject but also those writing on the subject in order to gain a full understanding of the material. Gradandphd (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Gradandphd

Also, none of this is an example of incorrect facts or cherry-picked evidence. You may disagree, as Bettina Esser does, with Zinn's characterization of history, but there's nothing in those quotes that even is a fact, let alone one that can be shown to be false. This wiki is not the place to post your rebuttal to Howard Zinn. Kaiguy (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

A miserable little turd of propaganda is what that book is. Doesn't deserve more attention than that.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deletion of Text in Criticism Section

Hi, this is not a useful criticism section. Zinn's arguments are presumably to be made elsewhere (as they are). If we are going to simply allow every criticism to be "rebutted" just delete the whole section. Because this can go on forever, as I could easily rebut what has been written here (ie. because Zinn states that he is not objective does not mean a reviewer cannot critique such an element). Again, really an embarassment to see this kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.213.63 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Man, the criticism section is a complete joke. No other book on American history has been more roundly criticized than Zinn's Marxist garbage masquerading as history. This article in no way conveys that fact, at all. Rather it merely includes a few token critical reviews of the book and that is it. It is akin to writing an article on Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" without mentioning the DDT controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Bands

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)Ralphy

Pop culture references are not trivia

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)

Edits because of one's POV

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)

Title of Chapter 17

The title of the poem is most commonly known as "Harlem" or "A Dream Deferred", "Lenox Ave. Mural" is the last section of the book Montage of a Dream Deferred, which includes six poems. Documentation of this may be found on any Langston Hughes website. As far as what the poem is commonly known by, it may be my opinion, but I'm willing to bet that nearly every reference you find will first refer to the poem as "Harlem". Zinn may refer to the poem as "Lenox Ave. Mural" at the beginning of the chapter, but that is one of the very few times I have ever heard it called that, and the poem in the text is only "Harlem" and does not include the rest of "Lenox Ave. Mural". Do with this what you will, I know you guys are facists about your Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 October 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Peopleshistoryzinn.jpg

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)

Anonymous edits

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)

This book contains factual errors I just listed the tip of the ice berg as an example.

And no a history book claiming a fictional story is factual is not on par with a typo.

And your opinion is a POV. 132.241.178.146 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

What's going on with the person coming from 70.252.128.183 who inserts personal opinion while failing to identify him or herself? This person has repeatedly added personal POV claims that People's History is fiction and that Zinn is something other than a historian. Fiction vs. nonfiction is not subject to debate or personal viewpoint. When listed in <anofollow" class="external free">http://isbn.nu/9780606348768#biblio_detail">Books in Print</a>as nonfiction, as this book has been since 1979, it is fact not subject to interpretation. Books in Print is the determining authority, not an anonymous user. The universities where Zinn was tenured did not hire him as "an alternative historian." They hired him as a historian and teacher.

Anonymous User at 70.252.128.183: perhaps you would consider taking a course in Bibliography so as to be a more knowledgable contributor. With an overload of opinion and no experience, you are wasting the time of experienced editors. Also, please read Wikipedia instructions to new users. When you post on discussion pages, we ask that you sign your messages.

Skywriter (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Not related to this discussion, but I made a slight change I wanted to clarify. I changed in the last sentence of the opening statements "frequently overlooked" to "alternative". "Frequently overlooked primary sources" is an unquantifiable and biased statement. Unless you've read all the American History books in the world... Let's be honest here, the book is an alternative / revisionist history book, we can't go around claiming it's using sources that other books ignore, as though they are presenting some kind of false history. That's so opinionated it's not even funny.137.148.154.101 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That the primary sources utilized in APHOTUS were little used before Zinn used them is difficult to dispute. Furthermore, your own characterization of the book as "alternative / revisionist history" is itself "an unquantifiable and biased statement." 2602:306:8320:AF00:1CEE:EA4C:E0F2:EE6D (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Seven Oaks

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here's another review by someone not of a "respected institution." It just so happens that Bettina Esser's review goes to the crux of the problem: "Once a person is labeled as 'evil' [in A People's History of the United States], there is no personal redemption. 'Robber barons' are not recognized for their own personal achievements or the risks and losses they endured, but only for their manipulation of people and money. In Zinn's economic view, where everybody is out for the most he can get, there is no room for voluntarism, charity, or philanthropy."

The article, Howard Zinn's Revisionist History Text, gives more examples of things what is wrong with A People's History of the United States: "In the world of Zinn, these were the only things that Columbus, Jackson, or Roosevelt ever did [respectively, 'carry on a rampage of violence,' 'drive Indians out of their land,' and pave 'the way for the United States to take control of Cuba'], and no other actions in their lives could compensate for their sins. In his chronology, the reader goes from one unpleasant climactic event to the next, and nothing good happens in the interim."

Bettina Esser adds: "the book's overarching thesis could best be summarized in this way: 'America is not a republic but an empire controlled by white men, but only certain white men, and its heroes are anti-establishment protestors and those in the trenches of class warfare.' … In the world of Zinn, things never evolve, economies don't recover, victims never overcome adversity, and white men are always to blame." Asteriks (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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)Pinkville (talk)

Asteriks, thank you for sharing your personal opinion of what is presented on the Phyllis Schlafly rightwing activist Web site Eagle Forum. I think you are correct in saying "Here's another review by someone not of a "respected institution." No doubt about that, none whatsoever.Skywriter (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal Copy Of The Book?

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)

We don't know, so I removed it. Better safe than sorry. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In History Is A Weapon's response to a DMCA takedown notice, the site owners claim that Zinn gave both permission and approval for the book being hosted online, as well as an in-depth discussion. It is not clear whether the approval was in writing, though. There is a possibility that this is a legal copy. David Spector (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Perlin, Fea, Kazin

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)

Bob Herbert

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)

Most? Not so. Two of the reviews are from 1980 and two from 2004. Changing viewpoints are the essence of historiography. All historians worth their mettle are subject to it. Like these, informally from fans of Ron Paul. [2] [3][4]

Herbert offered an assessment of A People's History that belongs here. When the assessments were written is not as important as offering the range of opinion that does not appear to favor one over another. In editing that section, I removed excess verbiage (date and edition, etc.) so that the presentation appears uniform, favoring neither one nor another. I placed Herbert in the middle because the other four are closer to point, counterpoint. I expect this section to grow as more assessments come in. Skywriter (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming 2010 "Revised and Updated editon"

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)

A People's History series edited by Howard Zinn

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)

Critical reception

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)

i fixed the times hyperlink. the next 2 need fixing in the exact same fashion but i don't have time now to find the actual articles. little help. keep infomed on ideas about avoiding paying for source material.Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias in Critical Reception section

Does anyone else find the "Critical Reception" section to be largely negative? Also, there is almost nothing as to the influence of this book on future accounts of history, which is arguably one of its most important aspects. 66.44.26.250 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The critical reception section is terrible. not only is it almost all negative, but it says nothing about the legacy of the book. not to mention it's just a bunch of quotes. needs some serious work. 71.192.254.223 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

i agree, it seems poor form to just have a litany of quotes. could the section maybe be more organized into positive reviews and negative reviews, so that the pros and cons of the book are displayed? right now, there are some quotes that support book and some that do not, but both kinds seem to have little to no substance. the book is hugely influential and was groundbreaking when it came out for the perspective it presented, but it clearly has some oversimplification and a lack of balance. why can't there be a simple paragraph providing a few sentences to expand on those two sides (which seem to be largely the consensuses of the two sides in the reviews), and leave all the extraneous detail to those who wish to explore the footnotes that are provided? as it stands now, the section is not encyclopedic at all (nor is it objective, informative, or even useful). 108.56.238.180 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

for example, these quotes are just awful:

"Writing in The New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert wrote:

Mr. Zinn was often taken to task for peeling back the rosy veneer of much of American history to reveal sordid realities that had remained hidden for too long. [...] What was so radical about believing that workers should get a fair shake on the job, that corporations have too much power over our lives and much too much influence with the government, that wars are so murderously destructive that alternatives to warfare should be found, that blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities should have the same rights as whites, that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet?[17]

Writing in Dissent, Georgetown University history professor Michael Kazin argued that Zinn is too focused on class conflict, and wrongly attributes sinister motives to the American political elite. He characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people, with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived. Kazin wrote:

"The ironic effect of such portraits of rulers is to rob 'the people' of cultural richness and variety, characteristics that might gain the respect and not just the sympathy of contemporary readers. For Zinn, ordinary Americans seem to live only to fight the rich and haughty and, inevitably, to be fooled by them.[18]

Kazin argued that A People's History fails to explain why the American political-economic model continues to attract millions of minorities, women, workers, and immigrants, or why the socialist and radical political movements Zinn favors have failed to gain widespread support among the American public."

there needs to be some serious work done on this section. i would prefer for someone with more wikipedia experience to make some correction, but if not, then i will remove all the quoted text myself and replace it with a more succinct and objective summary of the main praises and criticisms. 108.56.238.180 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

All credible historians says this is book is a fairy-tale. To not clearly include that idea makes this article unencyclopedic. For example, see what Oscar Handlin said in his 1980 review: https://d3aencwbm6zmht.cloudfront.net/asset/97521/A_Handlin_1980.pdf

Or the History News Network in theirs:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:41D4:8F98:387E:4A96 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's another top critical reference that the article ignores. It's by a Stanford professor of history: https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Wineburg.pdf

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ995904.pdf (working Wineburg.pdf link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.167.66 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael Kazin's review https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/howard-zinns-history-lessons which like all the reviews I've read and shared asks "[But] why has this polemic disguised as history attracted so many enthusiastic readers?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:CE80:1630:D01B:E6F0:BDA4:2AD3 (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

July 2012 runner up to worst book award

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:

The book was a close runner-up for the George Mason University award of "Least Credible History Book in Print", losing to David Barton's work, The Jefferson Lies. The Atlantic remarked about the nine-vote difference between the two ideologically opposite works: "Bad history, it turns out, transcends political divides."

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)

Worse, it's an internet user poll, which have been considered unreliable/undue for WP. Rostz (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This might have been discussed before

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)

Agreed, the bit about "left" should go. The revisionism is certainly historical revisionism rather than negation. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Okay, here it is. We can leave it here or do a little revision of our own and return it.

"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)

POV and balance

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)

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)

Minor correction

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im0nstandby (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed this phrase

" 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion and Criticism in the introduction

"In the book, Zinn seeks to present an alternate interpretation of the history of the United States."

Non-fiction isn't "alternate" history and it isn't "interpretation". His book examines lesser known threads of history. It is no more an "alternate interpretation" than a book focused on Jefferson's, Washington's, Thoreau's, etc. agricultural and flora activity would be.

"According to the author, American history is to a large extent the exploitation of the majority by an elite minority."

If it is non-fiction, then it isn't "according to the author".

"Despite its significant influence, A People's History of the United States has been heavily criticized by historians from across the political spectrum. Critics assert blatant omissions of important historical episodes, uncritical reliance on biased sources, and systematic failures to examine opposing views.[5][6][7] Professors Michael Kazin and Michael Kammen condemn the book as a black-and-white story of elite villains and oppressed victims, a story that robs American history of its depth and intricacy and leaves nothing but an empty text simplified to the level of propaganda.[8][9]"

Why is this entire paragraph not in a usual "Criticism" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.167.231 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the same problems, most still unfixed. Some of your questions imply a need for nuance. So I fixed some of them. Here is my main change, quote:

In the book, Zinn presented a different side of the history that was taught to American schoolchildren, which he considered to be a "fundamental nationalist glorification of country."[1] Zinn illuminates a side of American history that can largely be seen as the exploitation and manipulation of the majority by rigged systems that hugely favor a small aggrigate of elite rulers from across the orthodox political parties.
...Despite its significant influence, A People's History of the United States has been heavily criticized by orthodox historians from across the political spectrum.

I left the critisms as per wiki guidlines, controversy must be acknowledged in the Lead. Ref[1] explains a bit of his reasoning and mindset. He freely admits in his book that he may be biased, but argues that against the mountains of orthodox nationalistic glorification and childish platitudes, ——his is both needed and insignificant innocuous.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:504A:5AE8:B18D:2D6E (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"insignificant.?" Carptrash (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Not be the perfect word, so changed to "innocuous". However, in context of the cries from some circles that it is too biased, and "against the mountains of orthodox nationalistic glorification and childish platitudes," his "too biased" seems insignificant. For just one example, such orthodox distortions caused the U.S. states to universally celebrate "Columbus Day," but now, recognizing that crap —some states, (such as Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and South Dakota,) no longer do. In fact, Indigenous Peoples' Day is celebrated across the United States, is held on the second Monday of October, coinciding with the designated date for the federal observance of Columbus Day and is an official city and state holiday in various localities around the country to call attention to the losses suffered by the Native American peoples and their cultures through diseases, warfare, massacres, and forced assimilation. Those nasties were not taught in 1980 high schools, they were censored. Some local governments and institutions have either renamed or canceled Columbus Day, either to celebrate Native American history and cultures, to avoid celebrating Columbus and the European colonization of the Americas, or due to raised controversy over the legacy of Columbus. It began as a counter-celebration to the U.S. federal holiday celebrating Columbus, whom Zinn as he explains, held in low regard. Zinn even claims George Washington could indeed tell a lie. "Too biased?" Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:504A:5AE8:B18D:2D6E (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Needs more details, & fewer Lazy Links

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)Doug Bashford

Critical Reception: NYT Edition

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)

I wait to see what you come up with. Carptrash (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I seriously doubt you would like what I would do with this page.Pisomojado (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, so what would your "reliable sources" do to the page? Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

Chapter by chapter contents

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)

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)

Wrong links in edit summary

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)

nonfiction book?

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)