Talk:Perry Miller

Untitled

It seems that this article is more about Ong than about Miller? --Janneman 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Perrymillerbook.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Perrymillerbook.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More Balance and Criticism of Miller Here Please

Large and wealthy institutions have PR departments and don't need our help celebrating their own, do they? They pay people to do that. Perry Miller was accomplished, prolific, and highly influential but this page doesn't yet contain the great deal of criticism from his fellow historians including his student and friend David Levin, or George Selement, or many others. This criticism is most important to represent in this encyclopedia, not because of what it says about Perry Miller the individual, but because he was shaping our view of our past. On a mere two-page spread, I have stumbled across more than a dozen factual mistakes by Miller. These mistakes seem to add up to a larger problem. Levin writes, "What troubled me was the belated discovery that some of his statements which looked like mere statements of fact were actually wishful interpretations which were not true." (p.31). It is even more troubling when you discover a tradition of heavy-handedness and seemingly willful mistakes, or a disregard of the truth, from the contemporaries at Harvard who brought Miller on board, especially GL Kittredge and Kenneth Murdock. In reading Miller today we can probably learn more about the culture of "Harvard men" in the 20th c. than about NE Puritans (who thankfully wrote in an English prose at least as coherent as Miller's). 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismr (talk • contribs)