Talk:Allan W. Eckert

Birth

So... was he born in 1930 or 1931? The first two lines contradict each other. Fabiform 15:43, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Criticism"

I am very much bothered by the "Criticism" section, as the citations point only to the Widipedia articles on the organizations cited, not to the text that is being excised and quoted within the body of our acticle. The actual source documents appear to be almost 20 years old and are not available on the web, as far as I can tell. I don't believe that they meet the high standard for reliability set forth in WP:BLP. Also, per WP:BLP, the article seems to be heavily stacked toward criticizing Eckert rather than serving as a biography of the man (we have 7 lines of biography, and 5 lines of criticism). We need to improve the quality of those sources, or remove the critical material. We also need to turn an eye toward maintaining an overall NPV. Cmichael (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the sources are 20 years old is a "so what"? And it would be nice if they were on the web, I agree, but that is not a requirement. Lots of sources are cited in Wikipedia articles that cannot be found on the web. For God's sake, libraries still have a use ya'know!! (And BTW, if you don't like the 7 lines vs 5 lines... write some more... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:BLP. I obviously haven't seen the sources, but my understanding is that they consist of book reviews printed shortly after one of his books was published. Book reviews are, by nature, opinions. It would be nice to have some corroborating reliable sources if we are going to criticize a living person. The standard is higher here than in an "average" article. Cmichael (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Higher than Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews? They're pretty good. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not my intention to question the quality of Publishers Weekly or Kirkus. I am not familiar with either of them. My point is that it is inappropriate to spend nearly half of an encyclopedia article attacking the work of a living person, based on sources which are 1. clearly opinion, 2. not easily verifiable, 3. not independently corroborated and 4. apparently based on only one book out of his large body of work. This does not meet either the letter or the intent of Wikipedia policy, as expressed in WP:BLP and WP:RS. I am inclined to just remove the material in accordance with WP:BOLD, but wanted to create an opportunity for others to improve the sourcing first. Cmichael (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, a well referenced "Criticism" section is not inappropriate. It is true that the article is unbalanced by being so heavy on the "Criticism"... That is because the other, non-critical text in the article is so scant. Solution: write more non-critical or neutral text... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that TWO, not just one, reviews had the same problems with the book in question amounts to "independent corroboration". Good referenced book reviews are frequently cited in Wikipedia articles. Nothing wrong with them... Dogwood123 (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, to describe his use of creative dialogue and incidents is a factual description - it is a criticism only if he is trying to promote his books as meeting a factual standard as histories, which they cannot do. On those grounds, it appears that there is sufficient evidence to say he was writing historical novels - based on fact but with fictional elements. Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The issue here is not that history books are bad or that historical novels ("romances") are bad. The issue arises when someone blurs the line between the two & presents a largely (or partly) fictional work as a "well-researched" historical account...and Eckert certainly did that. He got very defensive about this in his later years (see his intros & "Author's Note"s). As a novelist (fictionalizer of historical events) he had his fans. As a non-fiction historiographer, which he claimed to be ("This book is fact, not fiction"!), he completely failed. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

John Sugden

In this article, a great deal of leniency is granted to what are merely romantic historical broad-brushes, clearly designed for teenage reading.The author might wish to refer to two works by John Sugden, "Blue Jacket: Warrior of the Shawnees" and "Tecumseh: A Life". I have a 'dog in the fight', so to speak, being (A) from the Miami Valley, and (B) having been completely hoodwinked by these 'histories' as a youth. I had my first clue soon after reading "The Frontiersmen". It references Cornstalk's secret burial "...at a location just north of the bend in the the B&O railroad tracks, Hawkins Road, Xenia Township, Ohio", or words to that effect. Well, I go down Hawkins Road all the time. There is no bend in the tracks. I also eagerly devoured, as a callow, myopic laddie, both outdoor dramas, "Tecumseh" and "Blue Jacket". More fool me. In short, the "creative" nature of Eckert's works needs clear mention. He took a free hand with Ohio history worthy of a Merlin, Oz, or Baptist minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalancedScales (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Newbery

Greetings. I've just started working on an article for Eckert's book, Incident at Hawk's Hill, so I added the ref here and Wikilinked it, even though the link is currently red. The Newbery is the highest award a children's book by and American can receive, so it seemed it should be mentioned.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely - thanks for the good article and tracking down a possible historic incident.Parkwells (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allan W. Eckert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222075738/http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20110708/NEWS01/110708005 to http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20110708/NEWS01/110708005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)