Talk:The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Should this be separate from Jane Jacobs?
Nice work on this, Jleon, but I'm wondering if you are going to extend the length substantially more. If not, then there is a case for not having a separate page, but just incorporating this material into the
 * Jane_Jacobs

section. -- JimR 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

--Well I thought the book deserved its own article, mostly to allow the potential to expand it (kind of like the Power Broker article). The Jacobs article is rather long as it is, and some people may just be looking for info on the book and not want to sort through the biographical info on Jacobs. In terms of length, I guess it would be nice to expand into more depth about the theories she develops in it. --Jleon 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As an urban planner, this book has an influence above and beyond Jane Jacobs as an individual. Altho it seems to google only about 500, in many ways, Death and Life... has taken on a life of its own.  JC Shepard 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias
The version I came to was not written in WP:NPOV tone. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities&oldid=870145689#Contents this version of contents). The next section started with a claim she plagiarized with no reliable source to back it up. I deleted that. I think it better now, but I have not read the entire thing. I'd like some other to take a look, especially at the original and my re-write of Contents, and let me know what you think. I might be open to removing the tag if no other major similar problems are found. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as being unbalanced so have now removed the tag. The word was not "plagiarism" but in fact "pugilism", which in this context means "combative statement". My main issue at the moment is that it probably describes the book's content in more detail than would be permitted. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)