Talk:1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Someone has apparently "hacked" a really disgusting picture into the image page for the map accompanying this article. It cannot be edited out of that page by conventional editing (click on the map -- the picture is above the map).--Shoshoni 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another person is asking for citations. These inserts seem to be a distraction. In this case, they seem to be asking for citations for claims made in the book? The book is the cite in this case. The book itself has citations in its exhaustive appendices, but if someone is interested in further following up on claims in a book or paper, they should do so on their own. It is sufficient to cite the book only. It's like people who want citations on plot summaries for TV shows. Summaries of books movies shows etc do not need additional citations as it is clear to readers what is being cited. Sure, we could add a footnote to every sentence on this page and have the foot note say "1491 by Charles Mann", but that is not necessary, nor is it a standard way of summarizing something. Xj 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that in this case the wording should be changed to make it more clear that the suppositions and propositions come from the book, rather than anywhere else. Hires an editor 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone was asking for citations, then they were making a somewhat misguided, but, in my opinion, legitimate request. This article is inappropriate for an entry in a research encyclopedia because it was written by someone(s) who apparently agreed with, or were overall impressed with, the theories of author Charles Mann. In other words, it's a book review - a positive book review. This creates problems because by writing a very thorough breakdown of the book, the articles author has supplied enough information from the book that anybody - from a 10-year-old to a college student - without a proper background (or even with) in research, could take the article as gold - in other words - read the article, get enough from it, and not read the book - and then use it as an example. The area of concern for me, basically, is the 10-year-olds - which, in the long run, are the ones that are going to use wikipedia articles for doing research papers of their own, because they don't necessarily have to CITE sources when they write about them. I'm overexplaining.....which I always do, haha.
Basically, the article doesn't need to necessarily provide references or citations for ANYTHING from the book. What the article needs is less detail about this book, and MORE detail about how the theories in the book compare/contrast with past and modern theories on the subjects.
So to make it more clear, I would like to see the article structured more along the following lines - 1. Opening, with book title, when it was written, by who, and their credentials, along with an explanation for why the book was written, what it is contesting, theorising, or agreeing with, the publisher, and a brief bit about the author's broader field - "he has written several books about..." or "prior to this book he also.......", for example. HERE, you DO need a few citations - because if you are writing an article on something that you agree with OR disagree with, it is YOU - the article writer - who is trying to convince the article readers that they should check out the book, or that it deserves to be known about for anyone doing research on the subject. If it is a book (or any other subject) that you DON'T feel is worthy of yours, or anybody elses, time, then you should do the same as you would do if you were not knowledgeable on the subject - DON'T WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT!
2. Second, a brief synopsis. The author's main point, how he goes about making his point by giving a brief overview, with a few examples for clarity.
3. Third - How was the book accepted? Most books aren't given straight As or straight Fs. You need to show both sides, and you can even point out the fact that it received more praise than criticism - but you must CITE examples to back your claim up (that is YOUR claim - not the book author's - so it's your turn to cite.)
4. Fourth - What effect, if any, has the book made on the field of "whatever"? Has it been followed by other books with similar theories, and/or books that contrast? Cite them!
5. In addition, at the bottom of this particular article - you see a list of "see also..." articles - total crap. I don't mean the articles - I mean the fact that most of them are interviews with the author - at least one is "an article that inspired the author" - and it looks like someone else threw in a critical article." These aren't necessary - they do help. It would also help to point out other related Wiki articles, along with related literature. IT's all or nothing, though - because it can't be all praise propoganda - nor can it be all critical. It's not Fox News - it's Wikipedia. Haha. Anyway, this isn't supposed to be the area to place references and citations to merely back up the book. If you're going to include a section of related reading - do just that - include a selection of sources of information related in some way to the subject material. It's probably best to suggest reading that is on more limited topics - such as an article, for example, on prairie habitats and fire and how they work together" along with, say, another article about "farming techniques of the the indigenous people of....".
Does this make sense? I'm not an expert wiki writer - I detest having to format 20 citations into an article - which is why I haven't written more than one or two! But I do try to make improvements when I can (this article, however, requires editing from someone who has either read the book or can access it.... which I don't have...)
- I agree with the above complaints about the article being waayy too long and positive. The paragraphs on each segment of the book are too long. However, I'm surprised that this book is being challenged for non-notability, since it was on the bestseller list and reviewed in many places. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Biaised is maybe not a word, but...
Was there any critics and rebutal of the books or points in the book? at all? No controversies - especialy with rightwing historians..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus on 2011-05-23 03:05:01, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
- In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus on 2011-06-01 15:50:52, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
University of Utah (2012, April 9). Farmers of 800-years-ago could teach us how to protect the Amazon -- with raised farming beds. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from ScienceDaily. If it doesn't belong in this article, please suggest another. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)