Stretching the “what we’re reading” idea a bit, this post begins by pointing to the Making History Podcast Blog, where AHA president-elect Laurel Thatcher Ulrich reads from her book Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History. Also noted this week are articles on the Holocaust Museum’s assistance with the International Tracing Service’s archive, a new book on the 9/11 Commission, British teenagers’ misconceptions of who is real and who is not, and a look at text-mining with the Center for History and New Media (CHNM). Finally, find out just why humanists, in Cathy Davidson’s opinion, insist on reading their papers at conferences.

• Episode 4, Part 1: Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
  In the first part of a series of Making History podcasts, AHA president-elect Laurel Thatcher Ulrich reads from and explains the challenges of writing her recent book Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History.
• Holocaust Museum Helps Survivors Gather Information from ITS Archive
  Researchers from the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s Benjamin and Vladka Meed Registry of Holocaust Survivors will now search records from the International Tracing Service’s archive for Holocaust survivors who are seeking information on themselves or their loved ones.
• “The Commission”
  The New York Times presents the first chapter of Phillip Shenon’s The Commission, an “uncensored history of the 9/11 Commission,” which begins with a “recounting of former National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger’s theft of documents from the National Archives.” For more on Shenon’s book, see “Tragicomic Tale of the 9/11 Report,” a review by NYT writer Evan Thomas.
• Winston Churchill didn’t really exist, say teens
  A British survey reveals many U.K teens get their real and fictional characters confused. According to the article, “A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.” Hat Tip.
• Enhancing Historical Research With Text-Mining and Analysis Tools
  Dan Cohen reports on yet another intriguing effort at the CHNM, to explore how historians might better navigate through the vast wealth of source materials and information now online.
• Why Humanists Read Their Papers
  As the AHA continues to work on reforming our annual meeting, one of the subjects that keeps coming up is the question of whether we can and should discourage the formal reading of papers (see “Should the Format of the Annual Meeting Be Changed?”), which often makes for a desultory experience for the audience. Cathy Davidson offers an interesting and thoughtful assessment of "Why Humanists Read Their Papers." Hat Tip.

Contributors: Elisabeth Grant, Vernon Horn, Arnita Jones, and Robert Townsend

This post first appeared on AHA Today.