 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled] edit
Hia, I haven't done this before so I hope i'm doing it right. There's a few things I thought were wrong with this page so thought i'd say something...
- this article asserts that there is no or very little trace of 'bias' in The Age of Reform - it says this whilst also saying that Hofstadter had a particular aim in writing this book (the most common argument being that he was making a coded attack on McCarthyism
- spelling mistake in the last paragraph (slipt)
- last paragraph: says that other historians have 'proved' him wrong - this whole topic is surrounded by a lot of debate: nothing has been 'proven.'
Cheers :)
82.35.243.60 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose someone review the language, specifically for it's own bias language. As one example, the last sentence puts the word experts in quotes, while not seeming to quote anyone, which in context calls in to question the validity of the expertise of the appointed individuals. If someone has relevant information regarding questions of their expertise, that might serve as a more appropriate explanation than having the word expert in quotation marks.Prem (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)