Talk:New Western History
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanaakimm.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled edit
The final section of the final paragraph is problematic:
"As in the fields of American Revolutionary and Civil War history, educated Americans have been drawn to the work of non-academic or “popular” historians like David McCullough, Ken Burns, Barbara Tuchman, Stephen Ambrose, and others to find a balanced interpretation of American history." Who are these "educated Americans"? Do only "educated" Americans read these books? Could "educated" also mean "academic"? The implication is that before Ambrose et al., the reading public was reading academic history, and now it isn't. I am not so sure that it ever read academic history. What is the real trend that may (or may not) be going on here? If there is a particular trend, it needs not only to be stated with less bias (incidentally, can we be so sure that people are reading Ambrose, McCullough and company for a "balanced interpretation"?), but it needs a source to back it up, as well. w --Ibnalhamar (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to explain the concepts, perspectives, and historical details that the New Western Historians offered. It's hard to read it and believe the author has an objective view of New Western History. There's a negative slant, with the most negative implication that the New Western historians are not or need not be read, that the "important contributions" they made turn out to be unacknowledged debt to their predecessors. The connection between old and new models might be good to keep, but the point needs depth far beyond the fact that these Progressives also treated "multiethnic and environmental issues". I'm glad the author started this article, but I would love to see someone fill in the gaps. --Seattleo (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)