To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?

Just to remind you, when you say "students would be working from the "volume of academic history"/book rather than the source materials in the bibliography. "

My point dealt with graduate-level students.  Details, my boy.  Important.  Post #310, line 4.  Thanks.

Yes, I suppose things are different here.  And better I would say, if graduate students in England aren't using archival and (non published) primary sources.  I don't really believe that, however.  When you say "text books" you may give yourself away.  In the USA, students stop using "text books" after high school.  Unless the English definition of text book is different?  If so, I would like to know.

My point was: asking strangers on an internet forum is better than directly using google.  I stand by my point.

Then our definitions are the same.  Those sorts of books are used in primary and high school education mostly.  Certainly not in college, at least after freshman year.  (In the liberal arts)

I would call those textbooks.  Such are not really used in history or liberal arts education past perhaps the freshman year of college in the United States.  Since I have a liberal arts education (and graduate degrees) that's all I can talk about.  Your basic history college course in the USA would require anywhere from five to twelve books, being a mixture of secondary and published primary sources.  The instruction would consist of two lectures a week then a third session where the books were discussed in series.  Graduate students in the USA don't go to lectures, their time is spent mostly in these discussion seminars, hanging out with the faculty, perhaps teaching, and doing research.  Graduate students in the USA are expected to use archival and non-published primary sources in their work.

A book assigned in a college or graduate course is not a "textbook" just by the virtue of having been assigned in class.  I think that's where our definitions conflict.  Take, for example, "The Cotton Kingdom" by Frederick Law Olmstead.  If this book is required reading in a college course on the American South, do you consider it a textbook?

I agree with your definition of textbook as "A book used as a standard work for the study of a particular subject."

What books are assigned in various college history classes are not "standard" and very much depend on the whim of the professor.

You go from "A book used as a standard work for the study of a particular subject" is a textbook, to "required reading is a textbook."  Quite a hasty retreat, no?

If that's your position, you're wrong, or at least inventing your own idiosyncratic definition of "textbook."  

Nitpicking. What does it matter if the US schools call them textbooks or a ham sandwich?

I think you are vastly underestimating, first of all, what is available on the internet.

As an undergrad I took a senior level political science course on "John Locke" (my major was economics but I had an interest). We did not have a textbook, we used only original source material, which as I recall was Locke's "Two Treatises of Government", and "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".

Ta Da:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-201.htm

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/locke/humanund.pdf

And when, Johnnymusacha, you are reduced to backpeddaling to the point of "facts don't equal knowledge" off your original statement of "The internet tends to be unreliable. "  then you should be alerted to the facvt that you are simply defedning what has become a religious proposition for yourself. Of course facts are not knowledge by themselves, and this is true no matter if the source of the facts are books, wikipedia, an internet forum, videos, neighbors, strangers, lectures, or tea leaves. You have to integrate knowledge. Googling for information is just one of the best ways around for that. if I have a friend over, and we are arguing over some issue, if it is a question of fact then the argument is very short: we go to the internet and find the answer. Any other time I am mildly curtious about something, in earlier times the curiosity might have involved taking half a day to drive to the library and find a source, so the curiosity is easily put aside. Now? I can google it up and have my curiosity satisfied in mere seconds.

Cut yourself off from that, and you cut yourself off from one of the biggest sea changes in human history: the fact that information is now basically a free good. Its like public water fountains. You can have as much as you want, anytime.

Other than that you made up your own definition of "textbook".  I suppose in English you are allowed to do that.  Good luck in convincing millions of other English speakers to adopt your usage.

By the way, you are one of the last people on this site that should be calling anyone "pompous."  

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your definition of a textbook as "required reading," as you stated in post 321 is not a standard definition of textbook.  If you can find any reputable dictionary that defines it as such, please cite it.  Otherwise, the readers here will have no choice to believe that you indeed manufactured your definition of texbook as, to-wit: "required reading".  By this definition, Ubik's having been required to read "Two treatises of Government" makes that work a "textbook".  

In any case, please provide reputable support for your definition.  Hope that helps. 

I guess you just ignored my post. Why is the definition of a textbook important? You ARE sounding pompous. Hope that helps.

Check post #325.  Please find a reputable dictionary that defines textbook as you did in post #321, where you stated "required reading is a textbook."

It appears you are choosing to make up your own personal definitions of words.  Prove me wrong.  With a reputable source.  Thanks in advance.

Two treatises of government was a book. I still have it. (I took this course back in the late 80's but is was very memorable for me).

I was referring to the course material as original material due to it being material written by John Locke, and not material written about John Locke.

As an example of more recent memorable material I have access to only because of the internet - A couple of years ago I ran across this page while googling stuff: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ , and it contained a wealth of eye opening material for me. Even his book is wholly accessible online, for free. very interesting stuff, all google, all internet, all free, all day long.

I do not trust the "common sense" of a person that invents his own definitions of words. 

Please find a reputable dictionary that defines textbook as you did in post #321, where you stated "required reading is a textbook."  Thanks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=textbook+defintion&rlz=1C1WZPD_enUS432&oq=textbook+defintion&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6328j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

I am also not the one inventing my own idiosyncratic definitions of words then fighting tooth and nail of their rectitude even when confronted with mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Your definition fails.  You made it up.  Your inability to admit when you are wrong speaks volumes about the sort of person you are.

You know, CBA, there are references to easily solve questions of whether someone is right or wrong regarding the definition of a word.  Those references are called dictionaries.  The best of these refernces, once again, called "dictionaries" (for your future reference), are even compiled in England.  

That being said, do you have any of these "dictionaries" that support your idiosyncratic definition of the term "textbook"?  That is yes, or no.  If Yes, please present them.  Thank you.

Once again, your inability to admit when you are wrong speaks volumes about the sort of person you are.

Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of TEXTBOOK

See textbook defined for English-language learners »

I am saying not all required reading in a course is a "standard work."  

No, often times standard works in a subject are not required reading.  Professors are free to assign any works they wish.  Often higher level courses have no "standard works" or at least there is no consensus as to what such standard works are.