Talk:Shelby Foote

Update death

Someone should update the information about his death and remove where he currently lives. Tfine80 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC).

Ibelieve that he is most certainly not interred where this article states. The forrests are buried in a park overlooking the University of Tennessee Medical School. 76.246.31.217 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Love Interest ???

Can we dispense with this TV-based crap language? A person is not "a love interest" in the real world. Either it's a woman, or a man, or a sheep, or whatever. Can we obtain the facts and be a little more specific? Cheers JackofOz 28 June 2005 23:46 (UTC) http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-06-28-shelby-foote-obit_x.htm?csp=34

Jewishness?

If Foote "never felt Jewish", then I'm wondering why there's so much devoted here to his Jewish ancestry. Is this a southern POV that it would be controversial that Foote was Jewish? I don't understand.

For whatever it's worth, anti-Semitism wasn't as strong in the Old South as non-Southerners might expect (though it definitely existed). Several Jewish regiments fought for the Confederacy- Mississippi raised the most, I believe- and there are synagogues in the South dating back to the early nineteenth century. It wouldn't be out of line to have a sentence or two about his heritage and how that affected his outlook and his place in the world, but that huge block of text was definitely inappropriate. Stilgar135 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Secretary-of-State for the Confederate States Of America was Judah P. Benjamin; A Jew.

Foote and Southern identity

I added a short paragraph about Foote and his relationship with Southern identity, but I'm not overly pleased with it. The point I'm trying to get across is that Foote, as a Southerner, respects the cause, but he's also very clear-eyed about it, to the extent that he holds several beliefs that true neo-Confederate zealots would find abhorent. Despite this, he's still treated with a great deal of respect in the South, because the Narrative does demonstrate sympathy for the CSA, but not the out-and-out reverence of, say, Douglas Southall Freeman. Anyone who can make that section better, please do. Stilgar135 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Added bits about historical training

As Foote is a major figure among readers of American Civil War history, I added some small comments to point out despite lack of formal historical training he wrote an eminent Civil War tome... ugueghjflhdhklfhkdhaxch.kxhakcjka.jfkc

Photo

Anyone else feel that image of Foote is a bit ominous at best (and creepy at worst)? Is there a better image we can replace it with? --CPAScott 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to think of it as exemplifying Southern gothic :p. Off-hand, I know there's an author photo on the most recent hardback edition of the Narrative that shows him as a non-creepy young man, and I'm sure there are a few other author photos out there. The thing is that the current picture exemplifies how Foote is best known to the public: the bearded patriarch/storyteller (as seen in Ken Burns' documentary). Ideally, the article should lead with a picture of the grizzled, older Foote and possibly have a younger picture later on. Maybe a screen capture from the Burns documentary? Stilgar135 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ire

What does: "He considered Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest to be the only two authentic geniuses of the war, a belief that raised the ire of Forrest's granddaughter." mean? Why would the granddaughter have ire ("rage, fury") about this statement? Are there any quotes from this (unnamed) granddaughter about Foote? Where is this statement in the Civil War narrative? Unless some sense can be made, this probably should be deleted... ? Scott1329m 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but I remember the Foote anecdote from the Ken Burns documentary that that it's referring to. He told of having interviewed Forrest's grandaughter. When he offered the opinion of Lincoln and Forrest being the war's two "authentic geniuses", she objected to linking the two, saying that "she never thought much of Mr. Lincoln". I agree that the sentence is confusing and could probably just be removed altogether, but having explained it I'll leave that to someone else. Jkiang 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'll defer editing to someone who has seen the television program. It is interesting to know what that means, however. Who is the granddaughter? Is she a sister of NBF III who was killed in WWII? If so, the NBF III page here doesn't mention his siblings. Scott1329m 11:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, remember the anecdote from the documentary, but I seem to recall reading it somewhere also. If I remember where I read it I'll try to clarify "ire." BeeDub65 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It appeared in "Most Hallowed Ground" which is Episode 7 of the series. It's at the :50 mark of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDnhl8nVMX8&feature=PlayList&p=BC670FEC624D1380&index=0

Citations and References

I've added a couple of citations and an external reference. I'm new to this so please advise if they are incorrect or inefficient. BeeDub65 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that Foote himself expressed the words "Jewish Intellectual Movement" is erroneous, the interviewer in the article cited asked him: "It's frequently stated that the Southern dominance in American literature is past and a Jewish intellectual movement now dominates. Do you agree with this, in the first place?" To which Foote simply assented "I agree that it dominates, yes." The way the sentence is currently phrased gives an impression that Foote was somehow opposed or hostile to Jewish authors; he was not, if one reads the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.225.245 (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Trivia

Not sure this is relevant but don't want to just throw it away...(Foote's ancestor, Richard Foote, came in 1688 from London to Chotank in King George County, Virginia, to represent his father's interest in settlement of the Brenttown tract.)... BeeDub65 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Most quotes were unsourced. Stored here until sources can be located. BeeDub65 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

• "People make a grievous error thinking that a list of facts is the truth. Facts are just the bare bones out of which truth is made."
• "I think making mistakes and discovering them for yourself is of great value."
• On his epic: "They wanted only about two hundred thousand words," Foote recalled, "and it seemed like a good way to spend a year or two." Before finishing one hundred pages, he realized that he would have "to go spread-eagle, whole hog on the thing." (From the biographical sketch in Stars In Their Courses.)
• "I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war." (From The Civil War).
• "A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library."

Anyone else find "citation needed" tags on an article about Shelby Foote amusingly ironic? 150.101.30.44 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation in First Paragraph

"With geographic and cultural roots in the Mississippi Delta alluvium, Foote's life and writing paralleled the radical shift from the agrarian planter system of the Old South to the Civil Rights era of the New South." Are these the words of historian Dan Carter? If so, they should be enclosed in quotations and attributed to Carter. Also, I don't think it fits in the first paragraph. Perhaps put it at the end? Such a summary makes more sense at the end of the article than the beginning, I think.Cwoodw1 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that. I've never read Dan Carter. I thought of it more an introduction than a summary. BeeDub65 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Foote0001.jpg

File:Foote0001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Templates for bot recognition are not required under fair use. As such, the deletion warning on the image has been removed. Bellwether ^B_C 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Foote0001.jpg

File:Foote0001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone have a fair-use picture of Shelby Foote? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Related to Henry Foote?

Anyone happen to know if he's related, even distantly, to Henry S. Foote? Mellophonius (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Shelby Foote's Relationship to Horton Foote

If the two Foote's great grandfathers were brothers, wouldn't that make them third cousins and not second cousins as indicated in the article? The article on Horton Foote does state their relationship to be third cousins. Raaronson (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User inexplicable deletes request for citations

The user Springee is now apparently stalking me[1] and has done the most inexplicable edit I've seen in a long time: delete a "citations needed" request for unsourced claims[2]. The claim that Foote has received "generally favorable reviews" is not that at all adequately supported nor is the Wiki voice claim that "Foote labored to maintain his objectivity". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The user has never edited this page, did not write the text in the article and has not read any of the sources, yet has the gall to say that the claims are "reasonably supported by the citations"?! One of the sentences doesn't even have a citation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Foote is not a historian

Foote does not have a PhD in history nor has authored any peer-reviewed publications. He's as much a historian as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Bill O'Reilly are: just because you write about history does not make you a historian. Foote himself even rejected the term historian for himself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Many RSs refer to Foote as a historian. Having a PhD in a historical field is not a requirement to be a historian. Would you suggest we not refer to Lincoln as a lawyer because he had no law degree? It seems you are raising this issue because it related to edits you disagreed with here [[3]] Springee (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Standards of the 19th century are different than those today. I'm curious, is Bill O'Reilly a historian? Why not? Ta-Nehisi Coates?Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think Foote is a historian you are welcome to create a RfC or one of the request for help boards. Springee (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Foote spent more of his life studying the war than any ivory tower PhD historian with a fellowship. To sleight him, and you have, as not contributing factual and historical information about the subject reveals more about your tacit prejudice than any critique of Foote you will ever muster. Do you really believe that we have ascended so far up the credentialing ladder that one must hold a PhD to be a erudite historian? That is the quintessence of hubris, and it is why our systems of learning are failing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzdonn (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not true that "Foote spent more of his life studying the war than any ivory tower PhD historian with a fellowship." He was a *novelist historian*, and perhaps a great artist as a writer, but the fairly rigorous scholarship of his three-volume Civil War opus would have been greatly enhanced with full annotation. Instead, he chose to leave his research "defiantly unfootnoted".

It's a shame his publisher didn't issue an annotated edition; it wouldn't have been that much extra work to have organized his research notes, considering that he spent twenty years writing his masterpiece. For that matter, assistant editors at the publishing house could have done most of the work required for such a project; surely it would have been realized in a year.

Shelby Foot was certainly a historian, but his work should not be cited in Civil War-related Wikipedia articles. If an editor insists on citing him, the citation should be accompanied by one of a more rigorously academic source. Carlstak (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed "historian" from the lead with a source. On the other hand, I see no reason to remove "Historian" used as a header in the article. He certainly was a historian of sorts, but not a professional historian. Gandydancer (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with that change, Gandydancer, but I expect there will be some push-back. Thanks for the link to the excellent article, Why We Need a New Civil War Documentary by Keri Leigh Merritt. I agree with historian James Lundberg's premise (which she quotes): " 'The Civil War' is a deeply misleading and reductive film that often loses historical reality in the mists of Burns' sentimental vision and the romance of Foote's anecdotes." I was trying to strike a conciliatory note here, but having read Merritt's article, I feel vindicated for remarks I made at the Nathan Bedford Forrest talk page; if I may be permitted to quote myself: "For one example of its flaws, it cites Shelby Foote, who is not a reliable source, several times. His works are oriented to be read by a popular audience and not scholarly; they don't even include footnotes.

"I'm a southerner, and have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. I never could stand Foote, and listening to his folksy mannerisms in Ken Burns's documentary made me want to retch. I'm not at all impressed by Burns's romanticization of the subject, (i.e., the Civil War) either. His striving to present both sides, North and South, as forces led by honorable men serving God and country amounts to historical revisionism. His coverage of the moral aspects of the struggle obscures the fact that the South was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that the "Lost Cause" was immoral. In my family, Robert E. Lee was second only to the Holy Trinity, and ranked above them here on earth. The reality is that he defended slavery and advocated violence against recalcitrant slaves. He does not deserve statues built in his honor, and Shelby Foote's gauzy "history" does not deserve to be cited..." Carlstak (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Legacy section

Re the info accredited to Ta-Nehisi Coates, I do believe that the comment re the fact that he is not a historian is certainly to be considered. However, all things considered, it seems to me that his comments are important to the understanding of the controversy surrounding this man. (Just to mention, this is not easy for me--I watched the Ken Burns film and I, a "Northerner", came to be fully under the spell of this man. And I still am...) Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Political Bias

After thoroughly reading this article a number of times, a clear political bias is rather apparent. Extensive criticism is laid out against Foote, which is fair based on the controversial nature of the civil war. However, the critics and the negative criticism in this article all lean towards the political left, and the article is just short of blatantly labeling Foote as a clear racist. I am not the most avid supporter of Foote's work myself, but the bias on this page is glaringly obvious. To quote Ta-Nehisi Coates, a journalist with possibly the most severe anti-conservative/anti-white bias in modern existence, as a verifiable critic of Foote- is juvenile and ignorant of inherent bias. Wikipedia wasn't meant for this, and I am sure Foote would be appalled to read this article about him if he were alive today. The entire "Scholarly Reception" section completely strips Foote of any historical knowledge whatsoever, and falls inches short of calling him an outright bigot. This entire section demonizes Foote, and makes him appear empathetic to the entire KKK in general- which is entirely false. It might be nearly impossible in today's time, but someone with less political and racial bias needs to review and edit this article. In order to legitimize my argument (to myself), I asked my coworker, who had never heard of this man, to read this entire article and give me a one sentence summary of who he was. My coworker, who is highly-educated himself, stated "a pseudo-historian, white supremacist, racist who wrote a trilogy about the civil war back in the day". I laughed, as my self-justification was confirmed. If you know nothing about Shelby Foot and you went to Wikipedia to read about him, then this is the (wildly incorrect) conclusion you would come away with. Then here is the kicker: He followed up his statement by adding "The article seemed rather left-leaning". He himself is a registered Democrat, as am I.

Although I do support some of the criticism of Foote (clear Lost Cause sympathizer), this article is unfair to new readers, and Foote himself. A disclaimer of political bias in this article needs to be noted on the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Narco (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Shocking when an encyclopedia article presents a biographical subject as they really were. Your friend's characterization wasn't far from reality. Foote was a good novelist, and a not-so-good historian. After all, we're talking about the man who, as the article says, told Walker Percy that the wealthy black character Theo Wiggins was one of "those bourgeois negroes, and I never really knew a single bourgeois nigger in my life". Carlstak (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, to address your concerns about Ta-Nehisi Coates, he's certainly not an academic historian—he doesn't have a college degree—but he is a senior editor at The Atlantic who has good standing in academe. He is cited here with a reference to an article he wrote in the Atlantic in which he quotes statements by Shelby Foote concerning the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest (of whom Foote had a picture hanging on his wall) and the Fort Pillow Massacre made in an interview published in the summer 1999 issue of The Paris Review. The citation refers only to the quotes. Coates is also quoted in the "Legacy" section of our article; as an important social commentator on black culture in the US , a mention of his commentary on Shelby Foote's work is not undue emphasis and is not out-of-place. I must say your calling him "a journalist with possibly the most severe anti-conservative/anti-white bias in modern existence" is rather exaggerated. Carlstak (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean to ironically confirm Donnie's comment? 72.193.242.86 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)