Talk:Historiography of the United States

Focus
Right now, the focus of this article is on determinism and various schools. Do you think we need to add sections about people who deconstruct or criticize historical discourse?  Pur ple  back pack 89    19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * what do u think? I'm leaning towards yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly in favor of it; just not sure what I'd use.  Pur ple  back pack 89   01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay. It will become clearer as time goes by.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editing thoughts. I think a problem comes after the lede -- it goes right into the sections, and each one is different, so I wonder if a reader gets lost. So what I was thinking is that the body of the article needs some kind of anchor -- what most historians typically do, for example, if there is something called a "standard approach". Then, each of the different schools could be contrasted with this; just an idea. This article is getting better, good job btw.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK...let's start by defining a "standard" or "traditional" approach. I'm not sure I can do that, because I'm not entirely sure what you mean (I think you're going with something on the lines of "great men" political history); and I think the "standard" or "traditional" approach has largely been eroded by some of the other approaches   Pur ple  back pack 89    22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things
1) I was wondering if it might be better to move the "Organizations" section down with the list of historians...it doesn't seem to flow right in the current place. 2) At some point, I had a small section on people like Daniel Harvey Hill and the memory of Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War, particularly in the South. What became of that section?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes I agree that organization section can move lower. As for Lincoln--well we have to cover ALL of history here. The entire corpus of Civil War historiog will get only a few paragraphs to cover 50+ major scholars (of whom Hill was not one). A serious discussion of the huge Lincoln literature is out of place -- it now is in the AL article & doubtless deserves an article of its own. By the way there is an excellent article on Lincoln in Schoolbooks at online -- he was surprisingly well received in Southern textbooks, it appears: it says "Surprisingly, the [postwar] southern schoolbooks did not recycle the negative images of Lincoln common during the Civil War. Rather, they were only mildly critical and occasionally praiseworthy." Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Wow. I do not remember the article being this good. It's definitely improved considerably. You people know your stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Civil War section removed
I removed the following section from the article. It is just notes. It can be reinserted after it is developed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Civil War Cover North (Wilson, Greeley), Neo-Confeds (Davis to Craven), memoirs (Century Magazine, Grant), Rhodes; Needless War, Freeman, Nevins, Potter, McPherson, Lincoln bios (Nicolay and Hay, to Foner).
 * I rebuilt the section. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)