Talk:Whig history

Var

I reverted the reference to a quote from macaulay to an earlier version before changes made by ManoDei. I did this because I feel that edit added inappropriate orginal criticism. "the belief that protestantism was inevitably tied to progress." was not held by Macaulay, and I refer you on this matter to his article "On Ranke's History of the Popes". ---

I removed some phrases from the Whig History article, which struck me as being the ravings of a political paranoid. These phrases, apparently, were the contributions of WhigAmerican, made in early April. Perhaps, WhigAmerican would like to provide substantiation. BruceW07 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I revised the "good yarn" paragraph to make clear that the valuable things being described apply to specific works like those cited above, rather than to the Whig interpretation categorically. It's entirely possible to write a thoroughly whiggish history that's terribly dull and uninformative. I also clarified "valuable": since the paragraph discusses entertainment value and insights into the authors' philosophies, I tried to make that explicit.

I cut "told by good writers..." simply because that quality does not necessarily distinguish whig history from non-whig history: both have good and bad writers. Quality of writing does not correspond with interpretive approach. I also cut "motives and beliefs" because the list above makes clear that whig history misleads about all kinds of stuff.

I cut "the uses..." paragraph because I think it's inaccurate. We can infer from Whig history what Whig historians thought British reformers, etc. believed, not what the reformers actually believed. Since one of the listed criticisms of Whig history is the tendency to project today's ideologies backward onto historical figures, I don't think the entry should say that it offers insight into historical figures' ideologies.

Finally, I added a paragraph about the Whig interpretation's ongoing influence because it seemed like an important issue that wasn't addressed elsewhere. And I even added a reference! Maybe others can add examples of ways whiggish interpretations pop up in their own fields of interest.--Neurotic Nerd 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

merge/change title?

I suggest that this entry and the "Whiggishness" entry be merged under the title, "Whig interpretation of history."

As they stand, the two entries are largely redundant. Also, the titles are misleading: "Whig history" sounds like it's about the history of Whigs, and "Whiggishness" sounds like it refers to the political philosophy.

Whether or not the entries are merged, they should distinguish more carefully between Whiggish politics and Whiggish historiography. After all, not all Whiggish historians (or those who invoke the Whig interpretation) identify politically as "Whigs," or even share the political principles of Whigs. Clearly, classic "Whig historians" like Macaulay were associated with Whig politics, and Butterfield's critique addressed that connection. As the entry suggests, however, the implications of the critique extend much further than Macaulay et al, to the history of Science, the history of the United States, and heaven knows how many other fields. --Neurotic Nerd 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge carried out

Well, I merged in Whiggishness. Subsequently much has been cut out (without discussion). About Macaulay, in particular; and a properly-sourced comment from Jack Plumb that put Butterfield in context. I don't think the pre-Herbert Butterfield formulations should be treated in such a cavalier fashion. Charles Matthews 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so bad on a second reading. However, still something to discuss. Charles Matthews 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

removed the description of macaulay, and the out of context quotation of his work. I feel that only published critiques of macaulay should be referenced here, not personal opinions, as to my understand the critique of whig history written by butterfield did not even mention him by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.49 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edit you made. The text might need changing, but not removing completely. Ultimately it is just paraphrasing what Macauly said in the passage quoted. BillMasen 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, 192.5.109.49, you have cut other things you didn't mention. Also, you have inserted the idea that Butterfield was Catholic. Charles Matthews 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

quotation cuts

Most of my edits should be self-explanatory. I think they spell out things a bit more clearly in spots.

I cut the Butterfield quotation at the end and the Plumb quotation because I don't think they help explain what Whiggish historiography is. I also suggest replacing the long Macaulay quotation with a sentence or two summarizing his views: this would communicate them much more effectively.

I cut the Kuznicki quotation for the same reason and because it's essentially a pot shot at academic historians. If someone wants to write an NPOV explanation of whig history fans' criticisms, that would be great, so long as the focus remains on Whiggish history rather than on general complaints about academic historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurotic Nerd (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just cut the reference to Marxist historiography. I'd already added a sentence stating that academic historians generally reject whig history, and I don't see that there's any need to mention the Marxists specifically. If Marxist historians have offered a critique that specifically targets whig history and that differs substantially from the critiques of other historians, then the nature and distinctiveness (and significance) of that Marxist critique need to be explained more clearly. The earlier language about questioning progress and elite perspectives doesn't cut it: the criticism of elite perspectives targets all sorts of history, whig and non-whig; and all sorts of historians, Marxist and non-Marxist, reject the whiggish narrative of progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurotic Nerd (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Presentism section

As it stands, the section on presentism offers a rather confusing explanation of the concept without really adding much about its significance for understanding whig history. Perhaps this section could be deleted, and the mention of presentism in the previous paragraph could be linked to the full article on the subject? --Neurotic Nerd 07:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this: I figure if people want an explanation of presentism, they can find it on that page - no need for it here. If someone wants to add an explanation of the presentist aspects of whig history in particular, be my guest. --Neurotic Nerd 07:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuts

Well, that's a whole sequence of cuts with little chance of anyone else contributing views, isn't it? I'm going to reconsider each of these on its merits. In particular presentism is directly linked to the major criticism of Whiggishness. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fukuyama

I think Francis Fukuyama qualifies as a Whiggish historiographer. Should he be included? --193.203.157.235 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Put him in. Iosifvissarianovich (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Change the title of this article

May I rant just a little, since I find the title of this article to be quite jarring. Butterfield, in his Whig Interpretation of History called it "Whig history", as have most people since then. I decided to check Google (and Google Scholar as well) to get a sense of the use of the competing terms.

Google

Results 1 - 10 of about 21,300 for "Whig history".

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,060 for "Whiggish history".

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,160 for "Whig historiography".

Results 1 - 10 of about 669 for "Whiggish historiography".

Google Scholar

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,990 for "Whig history".

Results 1 - 10 of about 431 for "Whiggish history".

Results 1 - 10 of about 420 for "Whig historiography".

Results 1 - 10 of about 70 for "Whiggish historiography".

The bottom line is that "Whiggish historiography" is the least favored term, while Butterfield's original "Whig history" is most common -- in both the general uses reflected by Google and the academic uses reflected by Google Scholar. I propose that we change the title to conform to generally accepted usage. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The article name has been bugging me since it was changed.--Johnbull (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no further comments, I've renamed the article to Whig history.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(un)Intelligent Design

Can this be taken to include the Intelligent design theory of evolution? I say yes. Corrupt one (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this comment? It looks off topic and perjorative. Unless someone has a really good explanation on how it's not either of these, it should be removed. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside party verification

• Herbert Butterfield. The Whig Interpretation of History, G. Bell and Sons, 1931

In what is now a classic little book, Butterfield criticizes those historians who write in terms of the "friends and enemies of progress." The book concerns English political historiography but also applies to our field. Although Butterfield does not mention them, most historians of science and historians of religion before 1930 wrote history in this way. Even now, it continues to be an issue, although now "Whig interpretations" are done with more subtlety.

Neutrality/History of Science

There was a disputed-neutrality tag on this but I couldn't see specific discussions on the talk page about it. I've tried to fix the article, rewriting a couple of sentences and removing the following

However, many more would argue that the job of a historian includes judging historical characters and point out that revisionism and cultural reletivism makes an ultimately doomed attempt to try and understand people who lived in the past. This ignores the fact that this is a logical impossibility because, when judging people from the past, it is not who they are underneath that matters but it is what they do that defines them, which makes not judging those actions almost irresponsible.

This passage doesn't have any references and to me seems speculation, editorialising or moralising; many of the claims may well be untrue and need evidence, specifically the claims (1) many historians believe their job is to judge people, (2) relativism is doomed or even a logical impossibility, (3) it is actions not motivations of historical figures that matter. But I left the POV tag up so people can judge my corrections.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes seem to have been accepted and I see no problem with them. I'm removing the POV tag. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking Liberties

http://www.bl.uk/takingliberties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku&tblisi (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How could the term have been coined in 1931 by Butterfield if the article says "H. A. L. Fisher in 1928 gave the Raleigh Lecture on The Whig Historians?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.142 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Whig historians, as a group of writers writing on the British Whigs were around long before Butterfield; Butterfield however first clearly articulated The Whig Interpretation of History in 1931 in his book by that title. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The nature of Whig history

The bullet points in this section have been with us since the first version of this article. They express only part of the concept of Whig history and not in the form that Butterfield articulated it in his classic book. His discussion talks at least as much about the historian's need to understand the religious ideas of the past as it does about the political movement. In speaking about the need to understand the religious attitudes of Luther or Queen Elizabeth, Butterfield contrasted Whig history to both Tory and Catholic histories (p. 7). It's not just that the bullet points need to be organized and sourced, but that the full scope of Butterfield's argument needs to be clearly articulated. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inheritance of acquired characteristics

I cut the clause about Lamarck and Darwin in

From this whiggish perspective, Lamarck would be criticized because he believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics while Darwin would be praised because he did not; Ptolemy would be criticized because his astronomical system placed the Earth at the center of the universe while Aristarchus would be praised because he placed the Sun at the center of the solar system.

because Darwin did believe in such inheritance, as did nearly everyone until the early 20th century. This is pointed out at the beginning of the Wikipedia article Acquired_characteristics. An excellent presentation of how the theory of biological evolution developed is Wolfgang Lefèvre, Die Entstehung der biologischen Evolutionstheorie [1] (apparently not translated into English). The book contains detailed citations of the original works of Lamarck, Cuvier, Darwin et al. Science historians over the last 40 years have made it possible to know that many popular views about "what Lamarck and Darwin believed" are erroneous.

Stuart.clayton.22 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong here

If the term was coined in 1931, what's it doing being used in 1928? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.169.32 (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed a sentence

In the Name section, I removed the following:

Butterfield's celebrated book itself has been criticised by David Cannadine as slight, confused, repetitive and superficial.

The citation of a critic does not belong in the Name section. The term Whig history is worthy of a Wikipedia page because it has had significant and lasting usage in the field. A particular criticism by a particular academic is much less important, and belongs in a criticism section, if at all.

MarkBul (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "criticism" sections are deprecated, and it is better from the point of view of neutrality to have this kind of contestation integrated into the text. I'm reinstating the quote. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to follow Wikipedia:Criticism sections, which says that they should be integrated. See also WP:CRITS. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My red links

I have read this article with interest. While reasing I added quite a few links to subjects not necessarily known to non-English non-historians. Quite a few of them turned red after I clicked "Save". Please don't de-link them, but rather fill in. This expecially concerns personal names: if you qoute, e.g., a Reba Soffer, please make sure that this is a person sufficienly respectable to be a source of wikipedia wisdom; in this case they deserve a bio article. And vice versa. Yceren Loq (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)