Archive:Introduction to US History/Justification

Why not the featured US History book

which is found at wikibooks here. [1].

from nearly the opening chapter of the book, what I have found was neither neutral nor easily corrected.

• to start with, the author immediately discounts the major theory on North american settlement; the 'bering land' bridge theory. While it is true that recent scholarship has painted a more complex picture of N american settlement than this 1920's era theory. We do not need to in the words of the talk page; assume that the bering land bridge theory only works if 'million' of siberians cross into america. This is a 'straw man' theory for sure.Indeed recent scholarship has proved that there are undeniable migrations through the bering land bridge.

--Jolie 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't know that such a claim, although evidently incorrect, is properly a "straw man". It is more simply a "false claim", which is not necessarily the same thing. More significantly: Why not simply edit the current Wikibook to be more accurate? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Geo.plrd is quite significant to this discussion and hopefully will come here to discuss. I think HE might have problems with its organization and ability to meet AP US History

But Here is the question. if we start altering the textbook in a way that he doesn't like, he Might feel we are vandals and take administrative action against us. After all He wrote the book and was heavily against the bering strait theory and might not appreciate my edits. All efforts to invite him into the discussion did not work. It feels more natural (although much harder) to offer an "opposing book" when the book you are using seems heavily skewed and not objective. --Jolie 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, the material appears abandoned. IF a project author cannot be reached to work out differences with; you are left with two aggresive steps. Either redo material in another forum or rewrite his work. The latter might just be more aggressive. While we are potentially being somewhat offensive to ignore his project altogether. I trust Geo's assessment that the project was very difficult to redeem. It may also be Geo.plrd judgement that training me is better served by my 'rewriting american history' than neccesarily any serious attempt to create a definitive textbook.

we are in new territory here, because normal history courses utilize history books created by panals of accomplished experts. For a Chemist (with little training) To CREATE a history textbook is NOVEL and Unique (CRAZY?). I make no guarentees that my own little researches are the definitive content of a introductory textbook. That is the weakness of this project. So really, Am I making the definitive textbook??? I don't know. I am studying history, trying to be unoffensive, and trying to learn from Geo.plrd. --Jolie 16:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your efforts are to be applauded. I simply like to encourage collaboration as much as possible. Yes, it's possible that the author of the previous Wikibook might take issue with your edits (not as vandalism, but simply as "incorrect" in his opinion). But if the book is abandoned, no one would take issue at all. And there is always the possibility that the current author(s) would be willing to work with you to create a better, balanced book. Would that not be worth attempting? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I see it, the US History wikibook has evolved into a euro centric general US history textbook. That is what the dynamic appears to be. I think it would be counterproductive to waltz in and attempt to shift the dynamic. Also, we are working on an AP textbook. The College Board has different ideas of topics than what you or I would include. Geo.plrd 05:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)