Talk:Frontier Thesis

message: Me too! good article! 69.136.162.114 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Yes, me too. Thanks. --75.38.152.43 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [['''''Yes me too, this has helped me tremendously also with my homework and many other assignments.''''']] 

message: how did truner thinkthat his frontier thesis affected americans and american history  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.212.120 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  missTiff  

message: Keep searching, folks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.31.184 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is weak. 

message: Hi. This article should be part of "The Significance of the Frontier in American History". A redirect from "Frontier Thesis" and "Turner Thesis" would help also. I'm afraid they were forked just so somebody could have a whole section "Opposition to...". -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Turner wrote many essays on the frontier. The "Significance" one is especially important & deserves its own article. However the "frontier thesis" was further developed by Turner and others who moved beyond the "Significance"essay, hence the need for this article. I suggest: Do not merge. Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jensen. Both have significance; but they are not the same. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't know that it should be merged, but it certainly needs to be retitled. Intothatdarkness 14:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor a merge, I think one strong article is better than three content forks.  Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawing this request. Rjensen said merge (as in "merger should be into the more general article") on the other article and "Do not merge" above, on this one. Because I am not a historian and assume he is, I defer. But I still think they should be one instead of the garden of forking paths; there is my vote for anyone who cares to try again in the future. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I also am as much a historian as Rjensen, and the issue isn't significance, it's style and Wikipedia MOS; two crummy articles can and should be merged; when the sections are expanded enough, they can be broken out again.  And, of course, Rjensen can always add some material to any of them. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: Hi there. This article says, prominently in the lead, that "Turner elaborated on many points in a series of essays published over the next 25 years, but never a wrote a book on the frontier." (the source is a paper written by Billington). So I don't have to go to a library, I wonder if someone here can please explain why Turner's book was titled "The Frontier in American History". Sorry but as I wrote above, I sense a point of view here that might be valid but might go too far afield from Fredrick Jackson Turner. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a nonsense sentence worth deleting.  The essays were collected into a book, so I think that's all that needs to be said.  It would be like saying Walt Whitman never "wrote a book called Leaves of Grass." [This comment posted by User:Montanabw. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The article makes more sense now that you have deleted this phrase. I would like to learn however what Billington had to say. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Billington says that all of Turner's friends expected him to publish a major book on the frontier, for which he had done enormous research--he filled dozens of file cabinets with notes in 40+ years of intense research. He never did pull it together. The "Frontier" book is reprinted essays that had been previously published. Other historians have made the same point about FJT and it is important. The first page of the Billington article says it in a nutshell; i'd be happy to send along the full article to anyone who asks at rjensen@uic.edu (that is allowed by the JSTOR rules) Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any sort of context, it makes no sense, and especially not in the lead.  If you want to develop a whole paragraph on why he didn't write a book and why we should care, then that might be worthwhile.  Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never wrote a book 

message: Coming here before I add it in a bit of time, but this page is in dire need of a new section and/or additions throughout in terms of Indigenous and settler colonial studies and histories. Additions will come from Smith's Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth, Pearce's Savages of America: A Study of the Indian and the Idea of Civilization, Robert F. Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian, Slotkin's Regeneration Through Violence (unsure how there is an essay by Slotkin cited multiple times here but not his most well-known book), and contemporary work like Shari Huhndorf's Going Native, Phil Deloria's work, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States... Without representation of Indigenous, Native American, and settler colonial studies perspectives this article falls more than a little flat to me and reads like a large chunk of historiographical work over the last 80 years hasn't taken place. --Hobomok (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Histories and Civilization/Savagism Binaries