Talk:William Archibald Dunning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Beware

The statements in the article may mislead anyone who reads them. Opinions and suggestions appear to mar the article. Who needs those apparent opinions? Not me. Velocicaptor 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a good deal of clean-up in order to bring it up to the high standards of other entries. Simply quoting critical scholarship after Dunning does NOT substitute for a discussion of his ideas and their strengths/weaknesses. As much as I admire Professor Foner's scholarship, using him to recapitulate Dunning's main themes is not the same as quoting from Dunning himself and letting readers judge for themselves whether his work continues to have any merit. -Sean

The comment below was put on the article page, but seems better here:

This article needs citations from Dunning's own work in order for the author to bolster his or her arguments. Perhaps the author could also acknowledge Dunning's shortcomings on the issue of race while pointing out how historians W.E.B. DuBois and Eric Foner have acknowledged the work as "judicious" (DuBois in the chapter "The Propaganda of History" found in Black Reconstruction) and one of the few works on the period that offers a comprehensive, national synthesis.

I simply offered the possibility that some (though certainly not all) of Dunning's insights might still have relevance to scholars today. Otherwise, why do all of us keep bringing his name up repeatedly if the point is to dismiss his writings as "discredited?" Dunning treats westward expansion in his Reconstruction, something I do not recall even in Eric Foner's admittedly magisterial treatment of the period. Now scholars are beginning to realize that Reconstruction in the South was but one political issue upon which northern whites occupied themselves during the immediate postwar period. I would only submit the names of Heather Cox Richardson, Michael F. Holt, David Montgomery and Andrew Slap as scholars who have analyzed northern opinion during these years on issues ranging from free labor ideology and class conflict, interest in westward expansion, the plight of organized labor, as well as the rise of Liberal Republicanism.

NoahB 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above paragraph (starting "I simply offered" is not by me; it was inserted between my preceding remark and my signature. Please, if you maek a comment, sign your post. NoahB 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunnings positions have not simply been challenged; the consensus among historians is that they are discredited. This is not POV; iit would be POV to say they are wrong, or foolish, or idiotic. "Discredited" is a verifiable statement, true or false. There are several sources quoted in the article that say he is discredited, and that the overwhelming historical consensus among historians is that his views are indefensible. If you want to say his views are not discredited, you need to find reputable sources which indicate that historians still accept his views as defensible. NoahB 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discredited

Again, I think it's correct, and non-POV to label Dunning's work as "discredited" among historians today. I'm hoping to do a little more research to verify (or not!) this position. Here's one link to a discussion by Eric Foner, who is the most influential historian of the period these days. His discussion of Dunning is luckily online here [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoahB (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

He sure is discredited. Take a look at the introduction to Foner's Freedom's Lawmakers: A Directory of Black Officeholders During Reconstruction, rev. ed., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2082-0. If you buy it, be sure to get the revised edition. Meanwhile if I find my copy, I'll enter a sample into this article. Skywriter 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foner

if you can't say foner is unbiased and maintain a straight face. WillC 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your criticism of Eric Foner? Please provide references and citations. Without it, your personal opinion is unsupported. Skywriter 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you've obviously never read foner, or you've never read anything other than foner. you simply are projecting what you believe onto this entry, and that is clearly point of view. making a list of people who agree with you is academically irresponsible and wholly juvenile. WillC 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack in response to a request for scholarly references to support your viewpoint is unpersuasive. While we appreciate your passion, we do not understand why you substitute emotion for scholarship. What resources support your POV? Skywriter 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

riiiight, i disagree so therefore it is a personal attack....this whole accuracy by consensus thing....a bit orwellian don't you think? i'll say it again, unless you can PROVE the discrediting of dunning, you can list a thousand people who disagree and it won't mean anything. you can show me all the three-legged dogs you want to demonstrate they exist. i'm a four-legged dog. end of debate. WillC 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Will. Again, your own opinions aren't at issue here. It's the historical consensus. You need to find a reputable historian who supports your position. It's not a question of whether historians are biased or not; it's a question of what the historical consensus is. NoahB 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)