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

Thu Jun 3 05:20:20 UTC 2004

steven l. rubenstein wrote:

>
> 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.

It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
Pipes and his crowd.

The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
less authoritative than 172?

Stan