I knew I needed to unsubscribe sooner.

Martin said:

If I understand Julie correctly, historians tend to refrain from making moral judgements about history, particularly when the people of that period had a significantly different world view. So it's not OK to say that "women were treated unfairly", but it is OK to say that "women were

not able to vote or own property" - the former being a statement of morality and the latter being one of historical fact. Similarly, historians explain things in terms of the temporal context, so the Rape of the Sabines in Rome would be explained in terms of how the romans viewed

women, sex, marriage, and the necessity of making lots of little Romans who would grow up to throw weird-shaped spears and feature in historical

novels.

Julie Replies: Pretty much -- although more in terms of women being legitimate spoils of war and the story perhaps semi-legendary

However, certain periods in history have been reinterpreted by later generations. The inquisition is a classic example, in that some neopagan

religions have used as a quasi-historical basis. Also, (IIRC) later christian leaders have retrospectively apologised for the inquisition, so clearly they were judging the morality of the period against modern morality. The inquisition has been used as evidence for the claim that christianity and/or organised religion is amoral. Finally, the term "witch hunt" is an idiom for an irrational search for evil-doers that works similarly to the way the Salem trials and the Inquisition are supposed (in popular imagination) to have been conducted.

Julie clarifies; In an article on the Inquisition or on witch hunts, I would expect to include such things as "current research suggests that, in fact, some (perhaps many) people were the subjects for ulterior motives -- for example, in so-and-so's (can't recall -- its out there) seminal work on with trials of the 16th c. s/he demonstrated that many accused of witchcraft were independent landowning widows who had no male relatives to protect them or defend them in the legal system or community or whatever." This does a couple of things: 1) it brings forward more current views, which may not be available to the general, non-scholarly public; and 2) it allows people to see that the situation wasn't morally cut and dried, and allows them to make their own moral judgments (a la RK's comments). In the case of the Inquisition, there is no reason NOT to mention apologies for the institution -- Just as in an article on the Rape of Nanjing, one should include the fact that there have been demands for apologies and that Japan has acknowledged it happening, but never actually apologized. Let people make their own judgments based on the facts and the least intrusive, least biased interpretations.

The historical NPOV would seem (if I read Julie right) to be to ignore these later moral judgements as fundamentally ahistorical, anachronistic, and irrelevant. My question is, is the wikipedian NPOV "wider" than the historical NPOV: should we include content that historians would judge inappropriate? If so, how can we include it so that the historical view is not damaged or confused by non-historical approaches?

Julie replies : I believe that, if wikipedians stick to the keep out the utter dreck, give appropriate space to minority valid opinion, part of NPOV, things will be fine. If, as Fred suggests, we:

should resign herself to inclusion of viewpoints from popular culture.

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.

In the same way, an article on the medieval economy would say that for years historians believed that an agricultural boom in the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries was partially the result of technological advances like the padded horse collar and tandem harnesses, the most recent research shows that the climate became milder and that, in fact, there is a great deal of evidence showing that the ancient world had very similar horse collars and that chariot horses were in fact yoked in tandem, and that most of the previously held theory was due to one piece of flawed research which was nevertheless accepted by people who perhaps didn't know much about farming and horses, but read a source that appeared to them authoritative. So the article says what most people thought (and what popular culture pretty much holds) and why they thought it, but shows that this theory, which influenced the writing of history for many years, has been more than legitimately challenged and is now in the process of being discounted. It will probably take a while to trickle down, by the way. Not, as Erik seems to think, because historians like to misrepresent things, but because we live in a world where people who took one course in this subject as an undergrad 20 years ago are now being called on to teach outside their specialties. Most professional historians who reach the top are very specialized -- not medieval, for example, but Visigothic Spain, or 9th c. land transfers in southern France, or 8th c. sewer construction in English towns. The rest of us -- the people who teach more than research, often teach outside their fields to make ends meet. As long as we have a system that relies on part-timers, we'll have modern Europeanists and Americanists teaching the invention of the horse collar -- because they took a class years ago that taught them that, and nobody can keep up with everything.

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. 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, that historians, medievalists in particular, are not to be trusted. One of these books (Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages) has little in the way of concrete evidence to support its claims -- and really only deals with one mostly geographical section of the world's medievalists. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Erik feels comfortable in labeling anyone who disagrees with this an apologist or at least wishy-washy. It's kind of like, "what Julie says disagrees with what Erik sees as being true (the destructive force of the church, for example) , ipso facto, she fits into Cantor's group of apologist historians, and can't be trusted to be non-biased. "

That is patently untrue. Anyone who has read my work can tell that -- except Erik, because he has an agenda based on the idea that I've been corrupted by my teachers and tradition and just don't know the difference. All I can say is that I have been trained to read documents and look at other primary sources and interpret them, both apart from other interpretations and, critically, in light of other existing interpretations. Oddly enough, I don't specialize in the Church -- I specialize in Carolingian political, institutional, and social history, mostly using written histories and land transactions. One would think that would be fairly neutral. But here's the deal. I can't defend myself against Erik's accusations, because he has set up a situation where anything I say that disagrees with his preconceived notions is by definition wrong. Unfortunately for the wikipedia, Erik is not speaking from a position of expertise, or training, or even a broad and comprehensive exposure to the many schools of historical thought. And, it appears clear from your responses to the issues at hand, that his approach finds more merit in your eyes, because it may reflect more popular (albeit not really sustainable) beliefs. If that's the case, and if such attitudes are encouraged, then NPOV will cease to exist on the wikipedia -- instead, NPOV will become PC POV, and reflect whatever the lowest common denominator holds true. It's a shame, because the immediacy of the technology could make wikipedia cutting edge. I don't see it happening. I am going to unsubscribe to this list after sending (when I'm not subscribed, my posts don't go through -- someone should check on that).

JHK