[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred Bauder)

[Ray Saintonge]

BRAVO!!  It's refreshing to hear from someone with an understanding of 
history!

The gulf between scholar and non-scholar is more important for us than 
the left/right gulf.  The study of history makes that gulf more 
apparent.  It's a matter of taking the best qualities of academia, and 
bringing them to the common man who has never learned the skill of 
critical thinking.  Early education  tends to discredit critical thinking.

 Ec

steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> I am very sorry to hear that 172 is considering leaving the project.  
> I am also disturbed by the nature of this discussion.
>
> To be clear, I myself have had frustrating, caustic, and even 
> exasperating arguments over edits with 172 myself.  I do not always 
> find his presentation of self to be very congenial, although I am in 
> no position to throw stones.  Nevertheless, I am convinced of the 
> integrity of his historical research, and his sincerity in applying 
> the standards of sound scholarship to Wikipedia.  while we are not and 
> ought not to be constrained by the limits of conventional 
> encyclopedias and scholarly research, academic historians are people 
> who dedicate the better part of their lives to learning about and 
> understanding events.  In my experience they generally hold themselves 
> to high standards, and I think Wikipedia can benefit from those 
> standards and the work of such historians.  In these terms 172 has 
> made many valuable contributions.
>
> It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others 
> -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand 
> that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have 
> gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the 
> root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other 
> countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in 
> terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not 
> think this is constructive.
>
> Every Soviet scholar understands that Stalin played a key role in many 
> awful things, involving millions of deaths.  I don't think 172 has 
> ever denied this.  I do, however, think that he has tried to establish 
> a framework for understanding Soviet history that is grounded in 
> scholarly research and not just Cold War rhetoric.  My sense is that 
> anyone who has studied history at the graduate level (although I am 
> sure this is true of many non-scholars too!) has had to slog through 
> now only huge amounts of historical material, but some pretty 
> complicated historical debates.  Of course in the process one learns 
> just how bad things were in the Soviet Union, especially during 
> certain periods and for particular groups of people.  But academic 
> historians have to go beyond just saying "SU = bad" or "Stalin = bad" 
> to say something more insightful about how and why whatever happened 
> happened.  I think 172's contributions have been informed by this 
> concern, and I think some people here systematically misunderstand it.
>
> Steve