Talk:Historical nihilism

SARA article

Could the user who keeps deleting this explain his case here? I can't understand why this is either lacking RS or that is OR and I'd like an explanation. The former means there isn't a reliable source for it, which isn't true and the latter means that it is not verifiable in a reliable source, which is also false. I think it serves as a good example of what the paragraph mentions in terms of how history is treated in China. Reesorville (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not that editor, but I agree with @Amigao that as drafted it doesn't make sense for this article on historical nihilism, a distinct political concept. I think it's an interesting topic, but probably better suited for an article like Censorship in China or China-Holy See Relations JArthur1984 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the logic is for the editor who cited lack of RS, but regarding why to include: my thinking for inclusion is because 'historical nihilism' is essentially an interpretation that rejects any interpretation of history except one that cites only the positive aspects for the CCP and rejects the negative. Pointing out actual textbooks, articles, pieces, etc. that are from the CCP, Chinese government or Chinese education bureaus, which totally omit well-documented historical events that reflect negatively on the CCP is showing the reader examples of exactly what this interpretation means in practice. Reesorville (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is RS for this purpose (it is a Chinese government website, so it is reliable to cite for the Chinese government position). But it does not talk about historical nihilism itself. And the reason it is interesting, is because of your own observations about what the article does not talk about. Your observations are interesting! However, it is not close enough to the subject matter of historical nihilism for this particular article. It would be an issue with WP:Synth here. I suggest inclusion of this interesting point in a different article. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Questionable relevance of Roland Boer

The explanation of Roland Boer's personal interpretation of historical nihilism is of questionable relevance (see: WP:RELEVANCE and undue weight for this article. As it is written, Boer is not analyzing the CCP's usage of historical nihilism and how that usage has evolved over time in any way. It's simply his personal interpretation/definition/opinion (see: WP:NOTOPINION). It is the equivalent of WP:FANCRUFT and we can do better than that. Amigao (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s a shame to see you say that, as wp:fancruft is sometimes viewed as uncivil.

That’s not “cruft” or “opinion.” It’s scholarly analysis from an academic text and is certainly relevant.

This is article is not limited only to the CPC’s view of historical nihilism. This is the “Historical Nihilism” page. The cited material clearly deals with this topic.

If you want to fold it into academic analysis, I think that would be good. But when we disagreed previously, you put it into its own section.

And obviously, you should feel free to add other RS on the topic. But every article has to start somewhere. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis of what exactly? It currently reads as a statement of his own personal definition and interpretation of historical nihilism. How is that relevant here? Amigao (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an identification and categorization of historically nihilistic genres and works.

You critique “how it currently reads” but you significantly re-worded this. Let’s go back to how I worded it, then. I think that was clearer. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's entirely his personal definition of categories. It does not analyze or even tie back to CCP usages over time. How is his personal definition even notable? It's the academic equivalent of fan fiction. Amigao (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

JArthur1984, how is a personal definition of historical nihilism even notable for this article? - Amigao (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to further respond to this "personal definition" remark. It is not a personal definition. It is an independently notable academic applying the concept which is the subject of the article to specific categories of materials, and the source cited for it is a scholarly, published academic text.

This is clearly relevant. Nothing in this article limits the subject matter solely to the CPC's own usage of the term. By way of example, when I added this further streamlined version of Boer's comments today, I added other scholars who have criticized other Western discourse on China (dynastic expansionism) as a form of historical nihilism. To look at another article by way of analogy, see our article for Paper Tiger another CPC (Mao era) term. Of course the article discusses the CPC's own usage, but it also discusses the terms use by non-CPC parties (including ones who call China a paper tiger!). These examples, and the Boer material, are all obviously within the subject matter of their articles.

I remarked in an edit summary: your use of "notable" in this context is a non-sequitur. Recall that "notability" is a guideline dealing with whether an article for a topic should be created. It does not apply to article content. For example, the guideline states, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." But I do wish to emphasize anyway that this is an academic sufficiently notable that a Wikipedia article for it exists. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Also @Amigao, I have started a request for third opinion. I think we are stuck in disagreement and would be well-served by another editor's view. So let's see if that process can resolve our differing positions. We should not bog down in an RV cycle with each other on this. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Paper tiger article is a helpful example here. While Roland Boer's article is the best place for this, I don't have an issue with it sitting in an 'Other uses' section. - Amigao (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you prefer it in an "other usage" I think that's a fine compromise and can move us along. Also, I am fine with the changes you made a moment ago regarding "define" etc. Should we consider this resolved and delete the third opinion request? JArthur1984 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed the third opinion request. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)