Talk:Sacvan Bercovitch

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Too much information!

The amount of texts listed (articles, chapters, translations, and secondary works) is ridiculous. This should not be a bibliography, but an encyclopedia article, could we just stick to the books and major works, or at least those mentioned in the article itself? AshcroftIleum (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its "too much information" of a certain kind of information. Moreover it should be about Bercovitch, and not by Bercovitch. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got rid of some essays and chapters that seem to cover the same topics as the books, as well as translations of essays into other lanugages (let's leave it for the wikipedia articles in those languages to mention them). Still lots to cut. I'm not sure if Saccovan actually is Bercovitch, or just a big fan (or friend). In any case, it's suspect.AshcroftIleum (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed Saccovan's edits -- You are right. The edits don't have the bombast and hagiographic tone, e.g.

- "... perhaps the most influential and most controversial Americanist of his time."

- "... is characterized by large historical claims and bold intellectual syntheses."I just love this one -- may we say "wildly speculative" ? :-)

All in all, it reads like the introduction to a Festschrift. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A poor Festschrift. Hifrommike65 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the plagiarized version

Just curious: this article is identical, text and notes, to the NationMaster entry. The latter probably just rips off Wikipedia w/out attribution, but perhaps it would be good to ensure it's not the reverse. (JBeek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.151.150 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early work section

This section is essentially undocumented. It makes sweeping generalizations and judgments, with just one reference to one page of a book. It is clearly lifted from something, but the source is anyone's guess. Without references, the section's exposition is unreliable. Hifrommike65 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]