[WikiEN-l] Re: Jacques Delson and Helga-ism

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

Julie, your emails are very strangely formatted. It is
hard to tell what is your writing and what is Stan's.
In this letter, it might seem confusing, but I am
responding to both.

--- Julie Kemp <juleskemp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stan wrote:
> 
> I think you're touching on the root of frustration
> here.  Wikipedia
> is supposed to be a secondary source, not a primary
> one, which
> means that every factoid in it should be extracted
> from somewhere
> else, preferably from the published work of a
> recognized authority.

Yes.
> 
> **Actually, Stan, you misunderstand the difference
> between primary and
> secondary sources.  I think you may mean that the
> 'pedia is not supposed
> to be articles that are original research?  If
> that's the case, what I
> am saying is neither original nor is it new.  If for
> some reason only
> other encyclopedias and general popular history and
> lower-division texts
> are considered appropriate as sources, but not
> scholarly books and
> articles meant for a narrower audience (or even
> primary sources) then we
> are truly working towards the lowest common
> denominator.  Just because
> it hasn't trickled down to the mass audience doesn't
> make it cutting
> edge or some wild theory.

Wikipedia is supposed to report *everything*. Not just
the old stuff or just the new stuff. We are supposed
to report both the old theory and the new one, and say
that they are *theories*, not facts. And Stan's
definition of primary source was accurate. Your
definition included only a part of it.
> 
> When there are multiple authorities disagreeing with
> each other,
> it's a difficult situation for editors.  For
> instance, you've alluded
> to latest research or latest trends among
> historians, but is the
> latest trend authoritative?  Not really, because
> maybe it's just a
> fad and will be discredited by an article - maybe
> even one of yours! -
> a year from now.  Although we'd always like to pick
> up the latest
> info possible, in some cases I think we have to hold
> back, just use
> what is at the most recent edge of consensus, and
> note that more
> recent claims are not yet settled. 

Again, we should write about all theories (if
possible). The cutitng edge and the traditional. If
someone wants to report on the cutting edge, while
leaving out the old stuff, then what can you do? All
you can do is write about the old things yourself.
What article are you reffering to?
> 
> **How very patronizing -- again, this idea is hardly
> new.  The 1982
> version of Hollister's "Medieval Europe" first
> published in 1964, says
> that Charles the Bald became sole ruler of West
> Frankland, "which
> evolved into Modern France" (p.106).  The
> implication is clear that
> there was no France at this time -- approximately
> 300 years after
> Clovis.  
> 
> **The crux of the problem is that we are using
> modern boundaries and
> modern concepts of nations anachronistically.  **For
> example, Edward
> James' book, cited on the page in question, is about
> the history of
> France -- it's been a while since I've read it, but
> I would wager money
> that he calls the Merovingians kings of the Franks
> (rex francorum).  Yet
> the book is called Origins of France or something
> like that -- why?
> Because we want to know where the France of today
> came from, and its
> modern roots are in the post-Roman, Germanic world
> of the Franks (not to
> mention all the Roman and Christian things they
> adopted.  You might
> notice that the books Jacques cites are fairly
> recent -- in academic
> terms as recent as the Geary books I cite -- and I
> could name others, if
> I didn't have a ton of papers to correct.  By the
> way, what makes you
> assume that I am stating a view not currently held
> among those people
> whose studies focus on the period?  
> 
> 
> Merovingians as not-French is definitely in the
> radical rethink
> category, and it may be a decade, or a generation,
> or even longer,
> before it comes to be generally accepted. 
> 
> ** Why do you think this?  What evidence do you
> have?  Even Anthere
> admits to the possibilities of what I am saying.
> 
> Until then, trying to edit Wikipedia based on the
> assumption that the
> assertion is true
> is going to be hard; you're going against an army of
> editors who
> are backed by a horde of published authorities with
> reputations
> much higher than your own.
> 
> 
> **Again, that's pretty patronizing.  Did you read at
> all what I had
> written?  It includes the fact that French people
> traditionally consider
> Clovis a king of France, but that this is not
> properly true, in that
> France didn't exist.  In fact, have you read any of
> the discussions on
> the talk pages (where there are a couple of comments
> that demonstrate
> that a compromise view makes sense)?  And, since you
> have jumped into
> the fray ready to tell me that, as nice as they are,
> my views just don't
> jibe with what "most people know based on published
> authorities," I have
> to ask you one question.  Why exactly do you think
> you have enough
> background knowledge on the subject to tell someone
> who has probably
> read a lot more on the subject for the past 15 or so
> years, including
> reviews of the books I haven't yet gotten to (which
> means I have an idea
> of what colleagues think of these newfangled
> theories) that her judgment
> as to what is accepted and what isn't, is in
> question?  
> 
> JK -- building up the first scream

All presentation of history in a definitive tone is
somewhat biased. This may sound bad, but Wikipedia
should use an uncertain tone, only quoting others,
never just stating facts. This can go to far, though.
I don't know where to draw the line between unbiased
and bad writing, and I face this problem often.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com