Talk:James M. McPherson

most historians

i removed this sentence, because it is opinion and can not be sourced. However most competent historians would argue the presenations at the battlefields are slanted in favor of the pro-slavery, pro-white supremacy Conferderate States of America.

That's a pretty broad statement. How do you back it up? "Most competent historians"? Who is deciding what a "competent" historian is here? What's your criteria? And do you have any facts on your battlefield assertions? DesScorp (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

McPherson and neo-confederates

The "gatekeeper" would like to see some references for these broad generalizations:

• 1 the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy ... are largely seen as benign heritage organizations... -Seen by whom?

Seen by their 100-year history. The only types who see the UDC and SCV as anything other than that are Ed Sebesta-type demagogues.

• 2 The UDC and SCV were similarly offended by these comments. -There's one reference to one UDC chapter.

And for source purposes that chapter is a representative link to the way the UDC and SCV responded. Digging up and linking each and every single individual SCV and UDC chapter would be an absurd exercise, even by your selectively stringent sourcing demands.

• 3 Can you provide a source for the "outrage" of the SCV?

Your selective source stringency is showing again, willmcw. McPherson's comments dominated the SCV and UDC chapter newsletters for several months after the incident, most of which are in print - not the web. Just because you didn't find it on google doesn't mean it never happened.

• 4 For any UDC chapter besides Virginia?

See above.Rangerdude 06:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 5 McPherson the ire of many Civil War enthusiasts... -Does this refer to the Virginia UDC too? That's a lot of mileage to get out of one webpage.
• 6 Since when is Sebesta a "leftist" activist? Last week he was an "anti-neo-confederate" activist.

Looking at his various blogs (he has several), its fairly obvious he tends to reside more on the left-wing side of the political spectrum. His blogs also link to several left-wing websites, authors, and blogs. DesScorp (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, -Willmcw 06:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Note: Critics of McPherson have taken over here and dominated this Wikipedia article. Amazing! I recently learned of his work as a civil war historian. It is clear his accomplishments as an author and historian are worthy. RD, I have no problem with including the information sourced on the Virginia UDC page, and any other information supported by specific, verifiable information. Many, most, some and related vaguenesses with no support should be avoided in an encyclopedia.

It's fine to reduce those terms and refine the language to something more precise, but demanding several links for each and every facet of a commonly known incident among the UDC and SCV when the existing one suffices is excessive and goes well beyond the elimination of vagueness.Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding point #1, lasting 100 years is no guarantee of goodness. If you want to say it is "generally regarded", you are asserting something that is virtually unprovable unless someone has taken a poll. Just omit it.

It may or may not be a guarantee of anything, but it is factually correct to note that the SCV and UDC have not encountered much of any criticism ala the Sebestas of the world until the last decade, and even then only from a small number of persons like Sebesta who are on the political fringe. Mainstream groups like their union veterans descendants counterparts and other geneological associations seem to have no problem with the SCV or UDC and often participate in activities together with them.Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For #2 & #3: If the SCV as a whole has expressed outrage, then the press release should not be hard to find. The SCV has a national governing body. If it wants to be outraged, it is capable of passing a resolution or writing an essay. And if one chapter of one society has expressed outrage, then that should be what we write. Whatever the verifiable facts are. There is plenty of room for facts and citations. There is no room for unsupported generalizations.

A press release is not necessarily hard to find (and in fact there were several print articles in the SCV newsletters at the time discussing McPherson). Online electronic versiosn of press releases for a controversy that happened SIX YEARS AGO, on the other hand, are not easy to come by for the very obvious reasons of time and the fact that elderly geneologists aren't particularly known for posting their daily activities on the internet, an especially not 6 years ago when the internet was still relatively new to most people.Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For #4: If you have a scanner or a good digital camera, and access to the newsletters, then you could scan in some of the articles or LTE's that you would like to use for citations. Otherwise they aren't verifiable. That's one of the Wiki tenets.

It is NOT a wiki tenet either that I have to dig up and scan a newsletter for you from half a decade ago to personally satisfy your selectively stringent citation demands on a matter that is already documented beyond any reasonable person's standards on the existing source link. Use a little common sense. It's not as if this controversy is being asserted out of the blue with nothing to back it up - there's a very detailed link that sources it through the UDC and details the progress of the controversy (including a quote where McPherson himself acknowledges his UDC *AND* SCV detractors and tries to respond to them).Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your other edits, you've basically reverted all of the editing that I did except for (some of) the new facts that I've added. I see that you wrote most of the previous article, but that doing so does not give an editor "ownership". The amount of space devoted to criticism is far in excess to the description of his many accomplishments, and it needs to be brought into balance.

I attempted to incorporate what you added into the existing article. If I have missed something you added, by all means tell me what it is and we can put it back in. However you came along and completely reorganized the existing article without any sound reason offered and with an apparent goal of doing the exact same thing you did on the Sebesta and neo-confederate articles: propping up your side of the issue while downplaying and covering up anything and everything factual that potentially makes your side look bad. For example, others have made material critiques of both McPherson's politics AND his scholarship. One of the critiques of the latter was specified and linked to (i.e. McPherson's allegedly poor handling of economic issues). Yet your edit removed that critique from the discussion of his scholarship, stuck it in the bottom of the article with his political views, and added a positive quote about his scholarship in its place. I have no problem with that positive quote about his scholarship, but there's no reason to remove and relocate negative statements about his scholarship as well.Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add ad hominem comments to the edit summaries; they are not necessary or helpful. I do not think that it is appropriate for you to be accusing me of pursuing a POV in editing this article. Please, let's focus on writing a fair, even-handed, verifiable biography of a history professor. Thanks. -Willmcw 07:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I accused you of a POV because you are pushing the same type of POV that caused us to go down this same path in the other articles. In all three articles where we've had these discussions they've been about your edits that try to weaken or remove any material that isn't favorable to your opinion. You now evidently have a favorable opinion of McPherson - which is fine in itself. But, in light of that opinion, you are conducting your edits in a way that minimizes discussion of and diminishes portrayal of facts, events, and critics who reflect unfavorably upon McPherson. As I have said many times, I have no problem if you want to load up the article with every friendly quote of praise for McPherson imaginable and talk about whatever good stuff you want to that he's done. But when you go through and cleanse out factually valid and adequately referenced material (and don't give me this garbage about scanning newsletter images for you from six years ago on a commonly known subject that can be directly inferred from the existing links I have given you) that reflects negatively on him, it IS pushing a POV. Rangerdude 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More vague asertions

1. McP is "very politically active". The only specifics given are a petition (signed mostly by professors) opposing the Clinton impeachment and two columns in a magazine for professional historians. That counts as "slightly political active", if anything. Is there any other political activity? Is he a party committeman? Alderman?

The point is that most historians who run historical organizations write about historical topics in their organization's magazine. McPherson has used it repeatedly to pontificate about modern political issues including twice on Bush and Iraq and another time on the Michigan affirmative action case. That isn't even a simple break from the routine of historical writing - its a consistent pattern. Nor is that the extent of his activism as discussed in the current article. He's also spoken out about modern confederate flag controversies such as South Carolina. There's also the Pacifica interview, which if you read the entire thing you'll find it was a political commentary show called Democracy Now! and the subject was George W. Bush. I'm certain there's plenty of other things he's done, but I don't think that list of repeated and constant modern political commentary is "slightly active" by any means.

1. McP "...is a supporter of many liberal causes...". Which ones? Opposition to the rhetoric that led to the war in Iraq is not an especially liberal issue. (Moderates and Paleoconseravatives are opposed to it as well.) Let's list the liberal causes that he supports. There's room.

You're straining at gnats to deny the obvious, will. Some paleo-conservatives may oppose the war in Iraq, but they don't typically speak out in favor of an Affirmative Action court case or sign petitions supporting Bill Clinton. It is also my understanding that McPherson himself is open about his liberal leanings. A quick google search immediately pulls up three favorable articles written about him by leftist organizations that identify his politics as "progressive" or "liberal" [1] [2] [3]

1. "McPherson has also espoused the removal of confederate flag imagery..." Cite please. I did a search and it didn't show up.

Did you simply not read the Pacifica interview despite all our discussions of it? [4] He says very plainly at the end of the interview that he opposes the contemporary use of the flags and criticizes Trent Lott for defending it.

"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that."

Rangerdude 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. "Others criticism of McPherson note that his work is known to exhibit marxist or revolutionary themes - a historiographical complaint that has also been made against Civil War historian Eric Foner." Cite please. I couldn't find this one either. Are you saying that Foner and McPherson are a marxist school of Civil War historians? How is Foner related to McPherson?

See the DiLorenzo article links for a criticism of his marxist themes. His marxist/revolutionary themes are also discussed in the favorable articles about him that I linked to above [5] [6]. Foner is related to McPherson in that both are well know Civil War historians and both have reputations for marxist-revolutionary themes in their approach to the war.Rangerdude 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. "His grasp of economic issues ... are described as poor quality by some, including ...DiLorenzo." Is there another critic who describes his grasp of economic issues as poor quality? If so, who? Otherwise we should drop the "some, including" because it implies additional critics. If DiLorenzo is the one critic then we shouldn't put his words into the mouths of others.

Please do not add this material back in until you can support these vague assertions. Thank you. -Willmcw 07:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yes there are other critics, particularly at the Rockwell/Von Mises site. DiLorenzo is simply the most prominent of them and one of the best known academics to make this critique. Going through and naming each and every person who has ever blogged a critique of McPherson's economics though would be tedious and cluttery when DiLorenzo, who has a wiki article about him already, more than suffices.Rangerdude 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've added back some stuff you removed and modified others to include the specifics that you've filled in above. Thanks for providing that info. Regarding the AHA column, his predecessor is given the credit for setting the precedent of writing "president's columns" on politically-related issues. I've added a cite for that fact. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the "Rockford Institute" I'd fixed it to the correct Lewrockwell.com, but then somehow reverted myself in the next edit. I had used the description of Sebesta that the "Democracy Now" webpage uses for him. I don't know why it is important to say "self-described", when other people's terms can be be used to describe him. "Self-described" seems like a prejudicial formulation. NPOV please. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

self-described indicates that the description of Sebesta, "anti-neo-confederate," is a quote by Sebesta himself. Since Sebesta is a controversial figure who been described by any number of other sources in many different ways it presents a problem of how we identify him. Do we call him an "expert" as he is treated by Pacifica, a virulently left wing source? Or do we go to the other end and call him a "nutcase"? Or a "south hater" as the UDC calls him? The most neutral way around this problem is to quote Sebesta himself and note that he is the source of it. Another issue - the use of singular versus plural to refer to McPhersons critics is problematic. As was the case on the previous articles, using a specifically singular form is misleading because it implies that DiLorenzo is the SOLE person who holds that view, and that is inaccurate just as it is inaccurate to assume that only one UDC chapter was upset by McPherson's pacifica interview since their newsletter is the one on the web.Rangerdude 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could go through the other mentions of groups and individuals, and change everybody to "self-described." The SCV is a "self-described genealogical society", "DiLorenizo is a self-described economist", etc. I think that it is fair and appropriate to give the guy the reference that he was given on the show since that is the context and the reason he's being mentioned. If you are afraid that it will be taken as a universally accepted description, we can say that he is "described by Goodman as a..." Regarding the number of critics, I'm open to including whatever number is shown to exist. So far, it's the VA UDC and DiLorenzo. Regarding non-web sources, what are they? do you have in your hands on an SCV newsletter expressing "outrage" over McPherson's statemetns? If so, what's the name and date and page number? What evidence, of any kind, do you have? -Willmcw 23:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. The SCV is by its own structure a geneological society (as in you have to be a descendant of a soldier to join). DiLorenzo is an economist because he has a credentialed PhD in economics. McPherson is a historian because he has a credentialed PhD in history and so forth. Sebesta, however, has no special credentials in anything related to neo-confederate movements and nothing particular about him establishes any credibility he should have beyond the average guy off the street. Because of that he could be easily assigned any number of descriptions and has been called everything from an expert to a nutcase. You may prefer the former and I the latter, but both of those terms would connote a POV so calling him what he calls himself and noting that he is the source of that description is the most neutral way I can think of approaching it. Using Goodman's description of him also gives her very liberal POV undue credibility, as Goodman's view of Sebesta (she considers him an "expert") is NOT universally shared and would be disputed by many people who consider him a non-credible kook. If we let Sebesta speak for himself, however, we find that he describes himself (hence "self-described") as an "anti-neo-confederate" activist. If you remove wording that signifies it's what he calls himself then you leave the description unsourced and without context (aren't you the one who keeps demanding that every detail imaginable be sourced? Or is your selective citation stringency kicking in again?). As to critics being "shown to exist" your selective stringency is indeed kicking in again. Your "standard" - if it could even be called that - for showing something to exist is being able to dig it up on google, which for purposes of citations is a laughable methodology. Using your terminology suggests that DiLorenzo is the SOLE person to criticize McPherson's biases and one single UDC chapter is the SOLE membership of the UDC to be upset over the quote, and that is simply incorrect. A neutral terminology such as that I have offered leaves the issue of concurring voices open without imposing any artificial and factually inaccurate constraint. And quite frankly if you don't know that the SCV and other UDC chapters were upset at McPherson's quote, then you don't know anything about the SCV or UDC and thus you are unqualified to be writing encyclopedia articles about them.Rangerdude 01:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, as the article is put together now, I think that the source of the criticism is clear enough. As long as we do not add back assertions from unnamed critics or impute emotions to organizations, I am satisfied with the handling of the Democracy Now, Politics, and Criticism sections. Overall, I think that the article could use a bit more of a description of his books and a photo or dustjacket would be cool. Thanks for helping to make this a better article. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is fine by me. If you know of a public domain photo of him by all means add it.Rangerdude 01:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Marxist" Eric Foner

If Eric Foner's "...marxist sympathies are well known and openly acknowledged by virtually all people who are familiar with him" then it should not be difficult to name one or two of those people. "unnamed critics" have no place in Wikipedia. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's no matter of "unnamed critics," will. One does not need a source to state that Ronald Reagan was a conservative, that Lyndon Johnson was a liberal, that Henry Wallace was a socialist, or that Eric Foner is a marxist. It is common knowledge to anybody possessing even the slightest familiarity with any of these figures. If you do not have enough familiarity to know this (and it is evident that you lack it on a great many of articles that you attempt to edit), you should not be trying to write an encyclopedia article on them in the first place.Rangerdude 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you can't find even a single authority to cite? Maybe it isn't such common knowledge. If the critics are not named, they are "unnamed critics". -Willmcw 02:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. I've simply decided that I do not desire to go on one of your deconstructive "source" finding errands over a fact that is common knowledge among anybody who knows the subject matter, which you do not. I no longer see any purpose in responding to the requests of other editors who contribute absolutely nothing new to the articles they attempt to edit and instead send others out on tasks under the threat of deletion. Rangerdude 02:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to support your assertions and cite your sources, then don't be surprised when the material is removed. That's the way Wikipedia works. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, but last I checked nobody appointed you "Source Policeman." If you find a source is lacking in an article and want to make an issue of it the very first thing you should do is attempt to find one yourself! I am not here to run errands for you, and seeing as Foner's marxist beliefs were a part of the article on him from its very first version long before I arrived there, you have no right to assign that task to me. Going through articles and selectively deleting things that you deem unsourced is deconstructive and approaches vandalism when it is recurring and when it supplants the information with snide unprofessional remarks in the article's text, which you have done several times. Try contributing something to an article for once rather than this silly game of self appointed policeman.Rangerdude 03:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does this rant apply to you?

More guilt by association. Being liberal is bad, as is agreeing with Marxists about anything. Can we have diLorenzo introduced a few more times - maybe we could find out more about him here than there is on his page? and I don't think this article is quite 50% criticism of the guy yet. Maybe we could say he has no economics credentials a few more times. Get crackin'--JimWae 05:58, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Who are you addressing this to, Jim? DiLorenzo is mentioned in all of two paragraphs - one summarizing his criticism of McP's scholarship and the other his criticism of McP's political views. It only states that McPherson lacks economic credentials a total of once. And Marxist themes in McPherson's works are the subject of criticism over his scholarship - not a guilt by association thrown in their for no reason. Rangerdude 06:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DiLorenzo is a nut in any case. The man manages to drag everything he writes around to criticism of Lincoln and the Civil War, including when introducing and editing essays by political philosophers decades dead by 1860; never has there been a more obvious case of axe-grinding and yet here we're projecting that on McPherson. Not to mention it takes a nut to support the Confederate States, since they openly and proudly seceded specifically to preserve and extend slavery. Rogue 9 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be cleaned up - there are significant grammatical mistakes throughout, and some NPOV work could be done too. I can't do this right now because I'm at school, and I'll probably forget by the time I get home, but it needs to be done. – ugen64 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC) I would add that this article also needs some substantive discussion of McPherson's ideas, in particular his view of the Civil War as a revolutionary struggle. As it stands this entry is not particularly helpful for someone who is not familiar with McPherson's ideas. One would get the impression from this article that he is mainly known for being disliked by southern neo-confederates. Bryanstreet 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I took out significant sections of the politics and advocacy section. The previous contributions make it sound like it is somehow suspect for a prominent historian to speak publicly about contemporary issues. This simply is not the case. The examples given, that he publicly opposed impeachment and that he also has opposed the Iraq war, are consistent with mainstream American opinion and hardly radical positions. This article needs more content which fairly describe the work McPherson has done as a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanstreet (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

predecessors

• My two immediate predecessors, Lynn Hunt and James McPherson, used the pages of Perspectives to share their thoughts on many matters concerning the writing of history, not excluding political and social commentary.[7]

This is the sentence that I regard as supporting the assertion that McPherson was not breaking ground by using the "President's View" for commentary beyond history. -Willmcw 07:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • If that is the case, (1) Hunt should be named specifically and (2) a direct link should be made to Hunt's opinion column including note of its subject. Otherwise it's a secondary source hearsay characterization with no real basis for comparison. If it turns out Hunt was advocating historical preservation funding whereas McPherson was ranting about his opposition to the war in Iraq, the two situations are hardly comparable in the sense implied. Find Hunt's material and we'll see based on it whether it is appropriate to include. Rangerdude 18:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (2) here would be original research. This is a qualified opinion by an expert in the field, and should be accepted or answered by an equally reliable source who disagrees. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunt's material is on the same website, one year earlier than McPherson. It seems that you don't mind, in this case, removing the informaiton rather than asking for a source first. You jumped on my case for doing less on the Eric Foner article. -Willmcw 00:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the source you gave simply happened to be a weak source relating second hand information. Since, unlike my case in the Foner article, you added this material, surely you can identify which article or articles by Hunt you are specifically referring to. Rangerdude 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took Hunt's word for it. I didn't reasearch the underlying material. You're welcome too. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The issue of mentioning DiLorenzo's involvement with the League of the South is problematic under WP:NPOV as the selective presentation of this fact in an article that is not about DiLorenzo has the potential to carry with it both strong positive and negative POV's due to the controversy surrounding the organization. Of all the potential introductions given for DiLorenzo, the choice of highlighting the most controversial organization (when, for example, DiLorenzo is also far more closely affiliated with several other organizations such as the Von Mises Institute) indicates a clear attempt to bias the POV of this article against/towards DiLorenzo based upon one's perceptions of the LOS. That creates a POV problem, as per the NPOV policy, "The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." In light of this, attempts to selectively highlight a fact that has strong non-neutral connotations may be construed as POV pushing and should be avoided. Rangerdude 18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It has to be mentioned because it is important to judge DiLorenco's authenticity. The fact that DiLorenzo is affiliated to the Von Mises Institute is not important in this case to judge his authenticity. That's why does not have to be mentioned. You say: "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." Right. So let's have a look at the Academic critcism part. There are IMHO two strong positive facts and one neutral fact.

• The caption implicates that DiLorenzo is an academic. Academic implicates neutrality and academic work. The impression of the reader must be high authenticity.
• it is mentioned that he is an economic. Same as academic. That gives a high weight to the "McPherson's grasp of economic issues" assertion.

The right way to create a NPOV is to mention all case relating facts the reader needs to adjudicate.

So let's create an NPOV article by mentioning DiLorenzos affiliation to the League of the South or skip that part. When we keep it, all relevant and important information has to be mentioned.

E^(nix) 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, do you have any informations about the reaction of the academic world towards DiLorenzo's work? Can you proof his reliability? E^(nix) 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, E^nix, is that by selectively introducting the League of the South information you are attempting to sway the reader's perception of DiLorenzo depending on his or her opinion of that organization. That's not what Wikipedia is about - it's about allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind. Usually factual details about specific individuals or groups are placed on the article about them (in this case Thomas DiLorenzo) - not in the middle of texts in other articles where they are mentioned as a source. I notice you are new to wikipedia, and accordingly you should review WP:NPOV - a policy of this site that requires neutrality on issues such as these. The provision I quoted above is pertinent to this case as it prohibits the selective inclusion of facts with POV connotation - something your LOS reference violates. While it is fair and factual to mention the LOS on DiLorenzo's own article page, that piece of information is by no means what he's best known for (he's best known as an enconomist and Lincoln biographer) and in fact is a comparatively obscure and politically loaded piece of information about him. It would be the same problem if I were to go around to every single article James McPherson is quoted in and change it to "James McPherson, who is affiliated with a communist political party, ..." While it would be factual to note that, selectively choosing it alone as the main piece of information to include about McPherson would constitute POV promotion. Regarding your question about DiLorenzo's work, I can note that he is a widely published book author and has published several peer reviewed articles in academic journals. Books and scholarly journal articles are generally considered the two main indicators of credibility in academia. Rangerdude 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. But wouldn't it be better (more "matter-of-factly") to discuss the scientific dispute in the article instead of highlighting unreplied criticism? I guess there must be a dispute if DiLorenzo is writing books and is publishing scholarly journal articles. I think this would improve the article.

E^(nix) 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the criticism was part of a replied exchange between the two - DiLorenzo and McPherson. It happened about a year ago in North and South Magazine - one of the main Civil War history magazines in the U.S. DiLorenzo wrote an article for a series they did on Lincoln that emphasized the role of tariffs in the war, suggesting the south was unduly burdened by them. McPherson replied to it in the same issue by criticizing DiLorenzo's tariff arguments and asserting the north to have been the main tariff payer. In the next issue DiLorenzo replied to McPherson, critiquing his lack of statistical evidence and his lack of "even elementary economic theory" behind his assumptions. Rangerdude 15:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This does not belong here; if American Civil War ever expressly reflects McPherson's views on the causes, it might be relevant there. Unless there were consensus, or even an even split, that McPherson's scholarship is incompetent, this would be a WP:BLP violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rangerdude, for your last contribution. Well, I think we did a good job. It's much more informative now. I'm finishing my involvement in this article now. E^(nix) 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another sentence

The (he has none) assertion has to be cut off. IMHO can be assumed that in 40 years practicing as Doctor of Philosophy McPherson has had enough time and intellectual skills to learn everything about economics he needs to know for his work. Learning about economics includes the training of economic grasp. So it can rather be assumed that McPherson has SOME (maybe still not enough) economic grasp than to assume that he has none as the sentence (he has none) does. E^(nix) 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless you can show that McPherson has scholarly credentials in the field of economics it is not valid to revise the article in a way that assumes that he does. Simply having a PhD. does not make somebody an economist or grant him experience in that field - their are thousands of PhD.'s out there in hundreds of different fields who have not picked up an economics textbook since high school, if even that. For all we know about McPherson at the time he has no formal scholarly credentials in the field of economics & thus it is not our place to speculate that he somehow picked them up during his career in a different field. Rangerdude 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are we pointing out that he doesn't have those credentials? There are dozens of credentials that he doesn't have but we aren't mentioning those. Should we mention the lack in the article of every professor who has made some comment outside his main field? -Willmcw 07:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Because his lack of economic training is the specific criticism made of McPherson's work by DiLorenzo. Rangerdude 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(he has none) concerns both, lack of formal scholarly credentials and lack of self trained economic expertness. We know about lack of formal scholarly credentials but we don't know about the actual economic erxpertness of McPherson. So the not fact supported sentence (he has none) had to be removed. Let's not point it out as Willmc says. Everything about McPhersons credentials is said in the head of the article. That's adequate information.

E^(nix) 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere does the current version say anything either way about "self training" - it says specifically "scholarly credentials in economics" and McPherson simply does not have any - which is what DiLorenzo critiqued him for when McPherson attempted to conduct an economic analysis of trade in one of their exchanges in a well known Civil War magazine, North and South. Rangerdude 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

SCV Outrage

We still need a source for the SCV's outrage. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - If you're going to damn McPherson, damn him with what was actually said, don't omit anything or shape the article to POV.

I immediately tried to confirm the context of these arguments, regarding McPherson's comments, as the article is definitely NPOV in its present form. The only remaining online segment from the "Democracy Now!" radio show is McPherson responding after Ed Sebesta had already made his arguments about various groups, including the Museum of the Confederacy, being "neo-Confederate". It is harder to shade exactly whether McPherson (and Sebesta) were referring to the HISTORICAL reason why these groups were formed, or whether they were referring to the PRESENT makeup of such groups, because the earlier segment from Sebesta does not exist where we can listen to it, or read its direct transcript. In other words, was Sebesta claiming that a group such as SCV was started in the 1800s with "Neo-Confederate" aims, or is he claiming that today the group has these motives? Therefore, is McPherson agreeing that historically, these groups were "neo-Confederate", or was he agreeing that they currently have a motive of "white supremacy". Context is important in making these accusations, and certainly in how they are discussed here. Far from what was previously written in the article, which claimed that McPherson accused board members of being "neo-Confederate," he went out of his way to compliment the museum and note that they had made strides in putting together a professional museum that could compete with any major museum in the US. What he specifically argued was that there was a "dimension" in which some hobbyists and museum supporters/board members could be considered "celebratory," while others would be considered "genuinely historical." This is the full, unexpurged commentary on that radio segment: MCPHERSON: I do think though, that the Museum of the Confederacy, as it exists today, is in a different category. Its founding motives, back in the 1890s, at the same time that the United Confederate Veterans, and the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans were founded, its founding motives were celebratory. But over time, and especially in the last decade or two, it has become a much more professional, research-oriented, professional exhibit-oriented facility. Q: ...(asking about the Lone Star Ball) MCPHERSON: I, I can't ... I think the motives of people who fundraise money for the museum, and who attend balls in period costume and so on, probably range from celebratory to genuinely historical. So there is a dimension to that. But I do think that the Museum of Confederacy is now a research and professional museum in the same category as other highly regarded museums around the country. Some of its supporters, I'm sure, some of its sponsors, some of its members of the boards of trustees, are undoubtedly neo-Confederate. I do know that back in 1992 and 1993, the Museum of Confederacy had a special exhibit on slavery and on the relationship of slavery and the Civil War, which the Old Guard in Richmond, who identified with the Confederate heritage, were very angry about, because that exhibit made all the same kinds of points that Sebesta or I, or I would make about the Civil War, that slavery was at the root of the conflict that led to the war. That slaves played a major part as labor force for the Confederacy, but also a major part of soldiers for the Union. They've also had a good exhibit on Reconstruction, and on the creative, positive roles that blacks have played in Reconstruction. They have, they have moved away from the celebratory pro-slavery heritage that was involved in their founding. Additionally, the linked webpage that calls for a boycott of McPherson appears to be a Virginia chapter of SCV only. Did other chapters call for a boycott? Is there proof that this boycott was system-wide? Did the Daughters of the Confederacy join in the boycott? Any other group? This organization (SCV) is one that has had divisiveness and a split on other issues. There have been controversies regarding racism and. The way the article currently stands, there's almost as much about the Virginia chapter of the SCV as there is about McPherson - who is the article about? Perhaps this really belongs in a larger article regarding controversies about these Confederate organizations, rather than McPherson. Politely, 67.10.133.121 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to edit the article to better summarize the available sources. -Will Beback · † · 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, last time i checked, this was an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. Why don't you just find another article if you guys just keep changing this one every five minutes? You can get a free website and write whatever you want but don't go over to wikipedia and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Szanton (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

McPherson as a source: Lacks neutrality? Undue Weight?

I offered some cited material from McPherson at the Gettysburg Campaign wiki site on the subject of R.E.Lee and his military strategy in Maryland.

An editor strongly suggested I get another source to maintain "a neutral point of view without giving undue weight to a singular author's point of view." Are you kidding?

Since when is it nessesary to "back up" McPherson? Is this also required when citing Douglas S. Freeman, Shelby Foote, Allan Nevins, Bruce Catton and others among this pantheon of US historians?

To say "it's a good idea to get more than one source" is nonsense. If an editor thinks another is needed, let them go and find one that suits his or her.

Too many "award winning" editors at Wiki as it is, too few real contributors. 36hourblock (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James M. McPherson. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mcp2-m19.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)