This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Eventually someone should get around to opening a "Criticism" section of the book containing the 3 supposed criticisms referenced at the end of the "Development" section. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've added a one line summary for each of the 3 criticisms. Igm2103 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The criticism section should be balanced with some praise for the book, and perhaps combined into a section called "Reception." As it stands, it reads as if the scholarly reception was entirely negative, which I don't think is remotely true. I may take a crack at it when I have some more time. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
