Jump to content

Talk:Michael Beschloss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

presidential historian

[edit]

Isn't he a presidential historian (at least considered as a colloquial term)? [1] [2] [3] --Scriberius 11:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is not a historian. he writes histories. there is a difference. beschloss does not have a ph.d. in history; consequently, he has not gone through the rigorous training that historians go through during this time. he does not understand methodology. a historian isn't just anyone who writes about the past and the term should not be used colloquially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.148.5 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“It seems to be that what is missing here are the theories and findings of his writings. There is no content here that would help someone understand why he is so popular with television audiences and what he has actually written that is groundbreaking or significant. What did=2 0he have to say in his books?

The rule of thumb, IMHO, should be how can someone from another country, who has never heard of him, take a look at this entry and understand who he is?

Which brings up the earlier discussion of whether or not he is a presidential historian? This is ridiculous and smacks of professional jealousy. Terms and their definitions are constantly changing and he is referred to often as a presidential historian by the New York Times and Washington Post, etc. If these sources are acceptable for other data, then why not for his unofficial title?

If the term “presidential historian” has been corrupted, well, that discussion goes somewhere else for the fact is that Micahel Bechloss IS a presidential historian as the term is defined by our newspapers and weekly publications and television networks.

Besides, he has written many books that are public and as such have been exposed to far more rigorous challenges than a doctoral thesis ever gets. Professors can hide their ignorance and prejudices within the halls of academia and among themselves but a popular writer is exposed to the world and everyone – all professors in all universities and primary sources and archivists and librarians and researchers and other authors have a chance to double check to find the mistakes and errors. A poor historian and writer is winnowed out and does not keep writing bestsellers. To survive that process and come through without charges of plagiarism or error is really something.

Besides, what is the purpose of earning a doctoral degree in history if it is not to eventually write groundbreaking, widely acclaimed and accepted history books? Whatever “methods” Mr. Beschloss has used have been very successful.

It seems to me that this Wikipedia site and we readers are being held hostage by one or two scholarly snobs who are hovering over this site and are jealous that their own work is not more popular or known with the public.

Will someone with common sense please weigh in from Wikipedia and lets define Mr. Beschloss for who he is, a presidential historian, and not what this “team of rivals” wish him to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.118.180 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

In general, Beschloss would be considered an historian here if notable secondary sources--magazines, newspapers, broadcast--introduce him as such. So when, for example, PBS's The News Hour describes him as a "historian", that trumps the more restrictive definition of an anonymous editor--unless said editor can cite a source that argues, explicitly, that Beschloss is not. See wp:nor for the stated rule. Barte (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's IQ and Beschloss' objectivity

[edit]

A couple of editors have removed my recent addition for different reasons. The first removed it on the basis that it was out of context. The fuller context available at http://freedomswings.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/obama-is-our-smartest-president/ show that it was not given out of context in my addition. The second removed it on the basis that it was ideological. I believe that I worded the addition neutrally, but I'm willing to listen to a suggestion for alternative wording. Neutrality is a Wikipedia principle, not the presence of material that the subject of the article may not like seeing in his biography. I believe that the addition goes to the question of Beschloss' objectivity as a historian towards Obama. Drrll (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like good Wiki citizens, must certainly presume that Drrll acted in good faith when he inserted this quotation from Beschloss. But I am sure that the quotation should remain deleted. Within several days of the Imus program he said it on, Beschloss said (for example, in his 11/12/08 written statement in response to queries and a 11/13/08 appearance at a public forum in Scranton, Pennsylvania) that he had misspoken. Wiki rules that promote fairness and accuracy say that you don't include a quotation from someone if they later said they misspoke in making it. Beschloss said that he actually merely considered Obama to be "one of the brightest" people to become President. That opinion is so unshocking that it doesn't belong in his (or anyone else's) profile. Even some of Obama's toughest critics (like Larry Kudlow on CNBC) say they think he has very high intelligence while criticizing him for what they consider his awful policies. I don't think anybody would suggest that such critics are any less objective about Obama because they think Obama is a "terribly smart" (as Kudlow said in the Washington Post, 1/15/09) man. But Drrll is to be praised and thanked as a faithful and fruitful Wikipedia contributor. Wikireferee22 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact he said that he misspoke, I would agree that this shouldn't be included. As he originally said it, he said that he believed it was likely that Obama was THE smartest man to become president, not just one of the smartest. But if he retracted that, then I'll take him at his word. I would like to see that retraction if it is available somewhere. And thanks for the kind words. Drrll (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Scranton, said he misspoke and referred to or read from written statement of day prior. It may be on internet -- I know he said he sent it out. And glad to offer the kind words -- deserved for good work. Wikireferee22 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Early Life

[edit]

"Beschloss was born in Chicago, grew up in Flossmoor, Illinois and was educated at Eaglebrook School, Andover, Williams College and Harvard University. He majored in political science, working under James MacGregor Burns at Williams, from which he was graduated with Highest Honors, and earned an MBA at Harvard Business School, with the original intention of writing history while serving as a foundation executive."

Just a few things.

1. Should the title of this article be "Background" or "Education"?

2. When an undergraduate student majoring on Political Science the article says he was "working under", instead of studying under.

3. "... he was graduated with Highest Honors, and earned an MBA at Harvard Business School, with the original intention of writing history while serving as a foundation executive." This seems to imply a different course of action was taken but there is no previous explanation, nor any follow up that explains why his implied unfulfilled intentions are an important to his bio or relevant to the article.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Moi[reply]

As to (3), it seems to me that a reasonable reader would grasp the line of argument that, if you are expecting to write history books for a living on a full-time basis, you would not bother to take the time to obtain a management degree. That MB did so is explained here by his original expectation that he would be writing history on the side while earning his bread and butter in management (of foundations). Seems to me entirely relevant. Nandt1 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Why was this deleted? George Soros is an important political figure. The information might be controversial, but is there a source that says that this information is not accurate?

Would this information have been deleted if the name was the Koch brothers instead of George Soros?

The statement seems rather tame to me.

Michael Beschloss' wife said have strong ties to Democrats (see [4]) and George Soros-backed groups such as Media Matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.160.200 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-28

What exactly is the connection to Soros? Is it that his wife works with someone with some connection with Soros? That is a pretty weak link, and does not seem worth putting in the article unless there is some event in Beschloss' life that it is particularly related to. Fred Birchmore (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Birchmore is correct, and the Wikipedia editors are making an effort to reduce partisanship and improve the quality of our sources, even if you like the conservative orientation of the source (which, in my case, I do). Indianapatriot22 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for your contributions. Wikireferee2 (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Show.. SNL ... Twitter

[edit]

Beschloss has appeared on The Daily Show in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. He was portrayed by Chris Kattan on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" on February 14, 1998.[6] He started a Twitter account, @BeschlossDC, in October 2012.[7] It appears on TIME Magazine's list of "Best Twitter Feeds of 2013".

Should delete. Someone explain to me the significance of appearing on TV comedy shows and having a twitter account. Anyone can do this.Danleywolfe (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historian?

[edit]

I can see skirmishes in the edit history over the historian claim, but I see nothing in the article that shows the question has actually been resolved *in the article*. That needs fixed, especially since at the moment any qualifications he may have to entitle him as "historian" are conspicuous by their absence. For example, the article makes no mention at all of any formal education in history. His undergrad degree is recorded here as polisci, and his only graduate dgree is in business. (And what's with the weird comment about him having an "original intention" when he did his MBA, of "writing history"?) Nor is there any mention of any scholarly publications, either papers or extended works, and there's no WP:RS of any acknowledgment by other professional historians that he is one of them.

Going further, even what there is of substance seems to be padded out by barely relevant references to his Twitter account, popular TV appearances, and even, bizarrely, a couple of mentions of him being mentioned by a couple of famous people who are mentioned elsewhere.

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with an earlier editor, that the article is describing at most something like a "writer of American history". As it stands, this is not a description of an historian. Some decent additional sourcing (along with maybe ditching the trivia, and making the existing source more precise) should fix this. Of course that's assuming he actually is what we're claiming and, therefore, that such sources exist. Otherwise, the "historian" claim will remain not justified and would probably need to go. Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, Teri, I see you removed the {{cn}} tag I'd added in the lead and I note your edit comment where you say, "citations don't normally go in the lede -- should be moved to career". But in fact lead citations are not only often permissible, they may even be essential in some cases (see WP:CITELEAD). I'd say that this is certainly an example of the former, if not the latter. The "historian" claim is both weighty, and up-front, so we need to get it either reliably sourced, or removed (either will do) no? Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleety Dribble: Issues have been fixed with appropriate citations. Many public historians do not have a slew of academic papers or a doctoral degree in history, but they are still considered by their peers as historians. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the sources for this in the lead (virtually all sources discussing him describe him as a historian first and foremost, to the point where it's clearly his primary claim to notability; but the ones we were using weren't necessarily the best, since they were a newsblog and biography.com.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Beschloss. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Beschloss. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Beschloss&oldid=1257248645"