Talk:AP English Language and Composition

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Advanced Placement United States History which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MC Section Verification

If anyone can find verification for the 2007 test asking questions about citations please add that before March 1, 2017 as the information will be removed for non-verification after that date. Thanks Srm gunner (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

CB-AP-logo-RGB-160926.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Faces controversy

I just deleted the "Stranger Faces controversy" section from the article because it's only been referenced in one RS (a Washington post article) and probably doesn't have the significance to warrant a whole section. If another source picks up on the controversy, it may be reasonable to reinstate the section, but please keep WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE in mind. Anerdw (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that including the controversy is undue weight because there is only one source: that one source was a lengthy in depth article from a top 5 largest newspaper in the country, for a high school test. The reason I made it a section is that it does not flow well with the rest of the (poorly sourced) exam description. Maybe including the controversy as a separate section may be undue, but it should be mentioned somewhere. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with WP:CRIT when it comes to controversies sections. The Washington Post may be a major publication, but that doesn't mean every single Washington Post article documents a significant event. Putting a controversy on the sidebar is a fairly major commitment, and the Washington Post article is pretty pro-Serpell, anti-CB. I'd prefer to proceed with caution to avoid NPOV violations. If a second RS writes about the same event, I'd have no qualms about putting it back, even if it has a similar leaning as the Washington Post article. Anerdw (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]