Battle of Round Mountain

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

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? Purplebackpack89 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what do u think? I'm leaning towards yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly in favor of it; just not sure what I'd use. Purplebackpack89 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. It will become clearer as time goes by.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Purplebackpack89 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).^[1]

I rebuilt the section. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]