Jump to content

Talk:Barbara W. Tuchman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Barbara Tuchman)

Historian?

[edit]

"As an author, Tuchman focused on producing popular history" - I take this to mean that she wrote well. She used original sources, met academic standards of rigour, and chose topics that interested her - just like university historians, though she was not one and encountered some snobbery about that. - AG, Stockport, UK. --unsigned by 85.210.147.2, 21 December 2006

Which "original sources" would that be? Name one. She never read anything except historical writings by professional historians, picking and choosing from them as she pleased. --Ojevindlang (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuchman clearly used primary sources, the notes in her books show the use of newspapers, battlefield reports, and diaries of leaders as sources. But as to whether her work qualifies as original research, while the boundaries are often unclear, particularly in history, her work certainly challenged the prevailing understanding of certain historical events.
Tuchman is pretty well acknowledged to be an historian. She was a self-trained historian, one without a PhD, and only occasionally employed in an academic setting, but that doesn't mean she was not an historian. The wikipedia entry for historian (which, granted, one could easily alter) says that "An historian is an individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it." There's no formal standard for this sort of thing. --Flyte35 (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuchman is pretty well not acknowledged as an historian. Reading old newspaper reports, published diaries and books by acknowledged historians simply isn't enough. Every conclusion she offers is second-hand. Contrast her with Alistair Horne, who did not train as a historian either but whose A Savage War of Pace (about the Algerian War) was independent research; he interviewed participants on both sides as well as civilians, eyewitnesses and old OAS members, visited the places involved (he had visited them before, of course, since he worked as a newspaper correspondent during the war), and looked at government studies and all the official papers he managed to get hold of. Much of the information he found was given in return for a promise of anonymity. --Ojevindlang (talk) 19:59/20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuchman also interviewed participants whenever possible, traveled to the places she wrote about, and made use of all relevant primary and secondary sources. (She did not, admittedly, interview participants for all of her works. “A Distant Mirror", for instance, was about the 14th century. But that sort of situation was also true for some of Horne's work so I assume that wasn't what you meant.) Tuchman gave several lectures and interviews over the course of her career in which she discussed her research methods. Her research appears to conform to generally accepted standards for historical research.
Perhaps identifying her as something along the lines of a "self-trained historian" in the first line might be appropriate. That would acknowledge her unconventional background and approach but avoid casting doubt on the quality of her work or her significance as an writer. --Flyte35 (talk) 5-7 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the PHD world has downgraded Tuchman unfairly. Readability is the first thing I want in any book I read, not how much "original research" into petty and often minor detail. The writer using the nom de plume John Le Carre rated The Proud Tower the best book he had ever read. Academia has erected a formalistic wall that does not serve the public well, one instance being footnotes relegated to the rear. It is much more convenient to have them on the same page.I dont have tildes on my keyboard and it's a stupid request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.91.109 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was a bit of both... e.g. in August 1914 she listed the Septemberprogramm war aims as German policy when it was always a discussion document to find a policy. She had an anti-German bias, understandably. Very readable and good for interesting young readers in history. --86.46.207.35 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State

[edit]

What is the association between Tuchman & Ohio State? --DEddy 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin De Siecle, a novel

[edit]

The error is the last entry in the list of her books. The last book listed is "Fin De Siecle, a novel", for which I can find no evidence. My next step would be to learn how to check for the book's existence at the Library of Congress, which I'm not going to take time to learn now. If someone wants to leave a message for me on my own talk page, feel free -- but I'm not likely to check back for it for weeks or months.
If the Library of Congress verifies the existence of all 11 of her actual books, but not the book which we erroneously list -- and which lots of websites quote, making WP's error much more serious -- then one could safely remove this book from the WP article. Or WP experts could judge whether the originator of this error is a reliable contributor.
I do not like WP making quoted errors like this one, but I'm not going to remove the book myself without absolute proof as above. --For7thGen 00:17/00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such qualms. Being bold cuts both ways. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Error in Barbara Tuchman article. It's gone until such time as absolute proof if its existence can be provided. --JackofOz 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the edit which introduced the apparently apocryphal Fin de Siecle into the document, I can only contend that it was an amendment made in good faith, and in all probability garnered from a 2nd or 3rd party bibliography or an article I was reading somewhere along the line. I am pretty sure I will eventually turn up a reference to where I got it from, but this may take some time. I agree entirely with its excision until such time as its existence or otherwise can be definitively determined. --Sjc 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential material for improvements to the article

[edit]

The following articles may contain material that can be used to improve the article:

--LambiamTalk 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clausewitz page numbers

[edit]

I'm having a devil of a time tracking down some Clausewitz quotes. My source is The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman says (p 39) that among Clausewitz' objectives of war is that of "gaining great victories and possession of the enemy's capital." Guns gives the cite for this (from the 3-volume Graham translation) as Clausewitz III, 209-10. This apparently doesn't correspond to the online versions of Graham (for example http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War or http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/ONWARTOC2.HTML ).
Can anybody give me a cite for any online English translation of this quote?
Is there any rule of thumb for converting page numbers of one translation of Clausewitz to another?
Thanks. --201.53.4.206 10:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Sword

[edit]

Tuchman states in practicing history that Bible and Sword was closed and never published, can someone confirm this ? I only have a section of Practicing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Challenger78 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchman's Law?

[edit]

Because "Tuchman's Law" seems to be forwarded in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek sort of way in the introductin of A Distant Mirror, I think it should either be removed or credited to a different source, if possible. --unsigned by 72.193.96.218, 02:41, 27 September 2009

Guns Of August republished as August 1914?

[edit]

In two places in the this article it says that The Guns Of August was re-published and re-named "August 1914". While I am far from an expert on Ms. Tuchman and her works, I believe that August 1914 is the title of an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn novel on the same general topic published in the West in the early 1970's and supplemented by him years later while he lived in Vermont. I would find it amazing that Tuchman would a) change the name of her book and b) use the same name as another noted author. Unless the author of this article has some real authority for the August 1914 items, I believe they should be removed. John Manaras --108.20.29.41 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first I've heard of the book having an alternative title but, yes, August 1914 seems to be another title used. See this review referencing the two names. Here's a cover of the book published using the alternative title. It appears "August 1914" was the title used for the UK edition of Tuchman's book, published 1963. August 1914, the novel, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was published in 1971. --Flyte35 (talk) 02:57/5:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Section "Criticism"

[edit]

That short sentence from the "Saturday Review" is ridiculous and nothing more than a weak pun. I think there are many points of criticism, somebody should work on this... (is it going to be me?) --91.10.63.27 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the article, I fully agree that it is ridiculous and I have pulled the one-item section for now. The Saturday Review, as noted in my edit summary, was on its last legs in 1985 and shortly thereafter became defunct. If we are going to have such a section in an honored author's article, something more meaningful and encyclopedic is called for. Clearly a case of WP:UNDUE as it stood. --Jusdafax 06:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal"

[edit]

As written today, the opening sentence refers to Tuchman as a "Liberal American historian." I see no basis for calling her liberal, using either a lower case or upper case L She was Jewish, but that does not automatically make her liberal, which is a term difficult or impossible to define. I assume no one will genuinely object, so I will remove it until someone can justify its use. --Closedthursday (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure Barbara Tuchman would not have identified as a progressive by today's standards! Vainamoinen --124.33.208.179 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communist spy

[edit]

I am bewildered by the following:
"When John Loomis Sherman left as head of a Communist spy ring in Tokyo (second to that of Richard Sorge), Tuchman took over Sherman's cover (less espionage activities) as head of Tokyo offices...."
What does "second" mean? To what does "that" refer? Did Tuchman take over Sherman's name, age, gender, appearance, etc.? (I used to be "Unfree") 208.54.85.239 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with previous comment. Statement suggests that Tuchman was a Soviet spy. If so, the language should be explicit and the citation should be clear. Footnote #4 looks like some sort to a FIA doc that goes on and on. When accusing a person of treason, the supporting evidence should be made as accessible as possible. If it is not unequivocal, the quality of the evidence (or lack thereof) should be expressed along with the accusation. Finding such an ambiguous and poorly supported statement in Wiki was disappointing. --Cholmondeleycle (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this bizarre passage. Don't be shy about getting rid of garbage that you spot on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara W. Tuchman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

surname

[edit]

I will take out a brief phrase in the article about taking her husband's surname, which is (a) obvious, and (b), standard for women in the 1940's.Asburyparker (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_W._Tuchman&oldid=1204354237"