Talk:Introduction to US History/United We Stand:The History of the United States of America

Important note! Books belong over at Wikibooks! You may want to take a good look at The Wikibook on US History before continuing further, and use your efforts to improve that text. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is here as a resource and as a project. Once it is complete it will be transwikied to Wikibooks. Geo.plrd 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought
If remaking the Wikibook is a priority, then I have an idea: Why not transform this into a learning project where the Wikibook is reviewed, and individuals here specifically discuss what is done well in the Wikibook, what is "good enough", and what needs to be removed, added, and altered? That way you can literally "rewrite" the book in a very wiki way, have an additional learning project, and improve the Wikibook so that it's what this course needs all in one go! Once what needs to change has been listed and agreed upon by multiple users, participants here can then go and bring about the proposed changes. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remaking the textbook is a priority only because the other textbook is off the mark. The biggest priority is providing a good foundation in US history. The textbook is being written in furtherance of that goal. I see this as writing a different textbook, not remaking the existing one. Geo.plrd 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! Wikibooks are not perfect, so please be bold and fix them. I don't see how this is a different textbook - it explicitly has the same audience and subject matter. Why would you not work on what we already have to improve it? You may wish to contact b:User talk:Neoptolemus, as he's done some work with related subject matter. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've invited Neoptolemus to come along and help. --Jolie 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This textbook will be focused towards the AP US History standards, therefore different purview. Geo.plrd 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're looking for AP United States History, which also needs work. Please don't duplicate texts unnecessarily, and please do develop them on Wikibooks. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask for all participants to recognize that I am completely willing to give up wikibook book publishing efforts for a cordial and collaborative learning experience in the course. That being said, I've shared my honest feelings about this with geo.plrd and I am hoping he will come and explain his postion to us. if it comes to that perhaps, I will do the course NOW and publish the wikibook later. --Jolie 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AP US History is essentially a stub. If they really want to start their own book, they're welcome to, I think.  It definitely should be developed at Wikibooks, though.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * hopefully the last word on this conversation is here:


 * basically I'm trying to be clear, both US history and AP US history have such poor organization and content, that current wording would surely be scrapped for 1.5chapters+ (which for AP history is the entire book).
 * Jade forking is dead. Thats what we proposed from the very beginning! no, if we make a textbook basically replace 1.5chapters of two books.  which one?  lets keep the conversation on mikes talk page until its decided. its difficult to participate in this coversation in 4-5 places.--Jolie 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the crowbar, chainsaw, and a shoehorn to US history to fit the content we think needs to be in US history, into US history on Monday. Plead with me if you must, but I feel consensus that the US history book needs to live up to its purpose no matter how severly we have to edit it.--Jolie 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One stub is as good as another
Yeah I was telling Mike and geo that AP US History seemed really irrelevant to me. Basically the person, who started AP history didn't have any more reason to start another book than we do. (Since AP HISTORY, UNITED WE STAND, and US HISTORY all have the same stated purpose) And, if you look at that stub is all full of irrelevant information.

Since there is nothing IN AP HISTORY relevant to college-board requirements to adapt; To change AP US HISTORY would be basically to take our current 'stub' writings and entirely replace the text of AP US History. AP US History would basically be our intended 'united we stand' with a not so cool title LOL.

My opinion is that US HISTORY which was clearly meant to be something different than it is, and it does some content we could use (If you look a little further ahead of the first chapter, its better). Thus my opinion is if we do this we should alter the wikibook US HISTORY. (Although again the first few chapters have so much problem with NPOV and odd content, that it would likely be a replacement).--Jolie 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; though it may be fine to fork for now, and then replace the US History book when this one is complete. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)