Julie "Erik, when I puke up my overpriced latte, I'll be thinking of you" Kemp wrote:
I think you're heading down a slippery slope. Take for example the "jus primae noctis" -- the so-called Law of the First Night. Popular culture loves this -- it shows up as a motivating force in "braveheart." It didn't exist. Should articles give credence to it because it's part of the popular conception of manorial life? NO. I cannot for the life of me see talking about the Middle Ages in a way that panders to the Society for Creative Anachronism. If it gets a mention, it should be in the context that the great German historian Karl Schmidt debunked this ages ago and that, although many people accept it as "truth", really it was a conflation of laws granting permission for a woman to marry off the estate, and a church tax paid by the newlyweds to be allowed to have sex on the first night of marriage.
I think everyone agrees that historical claims don't deserve much credence if those who hold them are not aware of alternative explanations. There are many "common misconceptions" and "popular errors", and they are referred to as such on Wikipedia -- unless, of course, there are people who actually believe that the popular errors are not really popular errors.
But let's extend this beyond recent history for a moment and go back a little longer in time. We have a pretty large group of people on Wikipedia who happen to believe that God created Man. The general scientific consensus is that this is nonsense (let's not get into the merits of this or that "theory" about "intelligent design" and stick to old-fashioned creationism for the sake of the argument). Should we then call creationism a "common misconception"? This is hardly in the spirit of NPOV which allows people with very different views to work together.
Wikipedia is not like a traditional encyclopedia. We do not try to get only the best information from (presumed or real) experts in the field. We try to present all human knowledge, properly attributed, properly prioritized according to the number and standing of its adherents. I repeat my main point: There is rarely a case that can be made that certain information should be *deleted* from Wikipedia if it is verifiable and properly attributed. There is frequently a case that can be made that it should be moved, compressed, refactored etc. This is why I believe that your understanding of NPOV is dangerously wrong: You want to delete views you disagree with. Moreso, you want to do so simply by referring to your own authority or that of your peers, without any actual arguments.
As for Erik's letter, I will say that I think that there is a fundamental disagreement on what Erik thinks we disagree on. This is not meant to be a flame in any way, simply my understanding of things. Just as with facts, historians also deal with the history of writing history -- it's called historiography. Although we might not know the state of specifics, most of us are reasonably familiar with current trends. Unfortunately, a lot of our knowledge is acquired through conversation with colleagues -- just plain old shop talk about people we know (or that we've heard of) and what they're working on. A lot of it happens through glancing through mailing lists where someone says -- "I'm working on x, and need info about y -- can anybody help"? The responses might be about x, they might be about y, and they might be "so-and so is working on something where he thinks y is really the same as z." I know it's not very scientific, but it's how we work a lot of the time. There is no universal database where we can search and see what the latest is on any given subject.
Unfortunately, yes, historians have so far neglected the creation of bibliographical databases. There are some that can be used, however, and which are probably easily accessible to you.
Journals are mostly specialized, and some only published for small local audiences. From my conversations with Erik, I gather that he rejects this. Moreover, he seems to believe, based only on a small selection of books that support his own viewpoint, out of the overwhelming majority that do not,
Please, no popularity arguments.
historians, medievalists in particular, are not to be trusted.
Actually, re: your points
1) It's perfectly OK to gather information in informal communication. For Wikipedia, however, we need quotable sources and evidence, which should be gatherable in the same process. This is especially true when a case is made that "Person XY is not trustworthy and his opinion should be deleted from the article." Everything else is just laziness.
2) I do not believe in authority. If Robert Temple writes a book about aliens who allegedly visited Earth in antiquity and then another one about ancient lens, I try to take his plausible arguments seriously. For me, it is not enough to refer to someone's expertise to discount a particular argument. Neither the age of an interpretation nor the credentials of its proponents should be enough to reject or accept it. Instead, we should look at individual arguments and their merits. However, if a person repeatedly shows themselves to be not trustworthy, then I consider any statement from them more skeptically.
It is correct that I have come to approach the field of medievalism with some distrust because of its history and politicization, but that doesn't mean that I would reject any arguments without looking at them. And whether I would reject or accept them doesn't matter much anyway. In the context of Wikipedia, we need to present the different interpretations, carefully note who believes what, and prioritize our presentation according to certain standards.
One of these books (Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages) has little in the way of concrete evidence
Well, Cantor would certainly dispute that :-). But that's a separate discussion. The point I was making by citing Cantor is: There is a different historical tradition that needs to be presented. There have been very real and very provable attempts by the Catholic Church to create a new, apologist historical tradition. The existing, non-denominational medievalist school is not identical to that tradition, but it is influenced by it.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Erik feels comfortable in labeling anyone who disagrees with this an apologist or at least wishy-washy.
I have quoted specific claims from you that I can only call wishy-washy -- the typical "in the historical context of the time, .." stuff. Sometimes that's a good point, but often it is just an attempt to blur cause and effect.
I do not call you an apologist. That is besides the point, because I am perfectly happy to have your opinion in an article. I'm not happy to have it the only one that is presented.
Oddly enough, I don't specialize in the Church
Oddly enough indeed :->
Regards,
Erik