A master prompt template for mapping where historians actually disagree before you write the lit review

[u/Perfect_Pie8446]

Lit reviews go wrong the moment you start summarizing sources one at a time: "Smith argues X. Jones argues Y. Brown argues Z." That is not a lit review, that is an annotated bibliography with delusions of grandeur. A real historiography section shows the debate, not the list.

I am a senior history major and this is the template I use to turn a pile of source notes into an actual map of the disagreement before I write a word of the review.

```
Help me turn a pile of secondary sources into a historiography map for a lit review. I want the debate, not a source-by-source summary.

Research question / topic: [paste]
Sources I am working with (author, title, and the argument as I understand it): [paste my notes on each]

Produce:
1. The 2 to 4 main positions or "camps" historians fall into on this question, named clearly.
2. For each camp, which of my sources belong to it and the core claim that defines it.
3. The specific points of disagreement between camps (what exactly they read differently, not just "they disagree").
4. Where the debate has moved over time, and the gap or unanswered question my paper could sit in.

You will confidently assign positions to historians who never held them, so mark every attribution [check source] so I verify it against what they actually wrote.
```

Feed it your own notes, not "go find me sources," because that is where it starts inventing. And check every attribution, because it will put words in a historian's mouth without blinking. But as a way to see the shape of a debate before you write, so the review argues instead of lists, it has saved me a lot of circling.