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.
**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.
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.
**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
