User talk:Eriol11

Snippy comments

The comment to this edit is inappropriate. Please simply correct spelling errors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my comments. They were out of place.Eriol11 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Eriol11[reply]

Thank you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People's History of the United States

I would also like to ask that Zinn's history be regarded as a more questionable source, given that there are strong methodological issues with his People's History, along with disputed neutrality.Eriol11 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Eriol11[reply]

Zinn's book presents obvious problems, although it does represent a well-established American leftist point of view. Its use depends on context. If a matter Zinn focuses on is not well covered by conventional historians or textbooks and has a strong factual basis the information he adds needs to be included. If all that Zinn is doing is expounding radical dogma that lacks a factual basis the only place it is properly used is in an article on propaganda. Keep in mind that disputes of this nature date from very nearly the first edits made on Wikipedia; I have fought, and lost, a number of such disputes over the years. Messer-Kruse, Timothy (2012). The Haymarket Conspiracy: Transatlantic Anarchist Networks. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-07860-8. has, for example, been systematically been excluded from use in the Haymarket affair. Extensive efforts to include it as a source have been unavailing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]