Wikipedia talk:Can history be truly NPOV?

Where is the encyclopedic subject here? This looks and feels like a Wikipedia-related essay and should be moved to meta. --mav

Mav, I entirely take your point about the meta-nature of this. However, I envisage it as a useful adjunct to the Wikipedia History standards stuff and I would be reluctant to see a topic which is certainly more relevant than about 70% of the gibberish which passes itself off as history proper in Wikipedia relegated to a backwater which nobody visits. It certainly makes the point that at least one of the historians working on Wikipedia takes NPOV (or rather its marked absence) seriously. I think that I could take every single essay on history in Wikipedia and flag it as NPOV from one perspective or another, (and that includes my own). But if you feel that strongly about it and are happy with the complacent malaise of POV which pervades Wikipedia, fine, sweep it conveniently under the carpet. user:sjc

Since the article talks about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy, I think it should be under the Wikipedia: namespace, alongside Wikipedia History standards? Maybe a second article, "neutrality in history" or "historical neutrality" or somthing could tackle the subject in an encyclopedic way. It's a question of angle of approach. -- Tarquin

A good point and well made Tarquin. I will consider how this might be best addressed and attack the problem from that angle (probably tomorrow: I'm shattered, just got back from watching Argyle trounce Stockport County 4-1). Certainly this is not a problem which is unique to Wikipedia and it is really the work I have been doing here which has thrown this inherent bias in all historical writing into sharp relief. user:sjc

My professor for the required modern European history course in college in the 1960s happened to be my faculty advisor, who also taught Russian language and history and did some work for the federal government that involved traveling to Russia from time to time. I give you this background to explain why I believe what he always told the class about history: All history is "biased" in the sense that it is written from someone's point of view. An "honest" historian is one who discloses his point of view to his readers.

My point in bringing this up is: NPOV is a good ideal, and presenting different points of view of "history" is probably the only practical way of approaching it, but everybody with good sense already knows that. What would be more useful to the Wikipedian community than this article, that seems to me merely to belabor the obvious, would be some examples, sentences or short paragraphs illustrating how to write and not to write for the 'pedia. For example, how about paragraphs on the Battle of Waterloo from the English, the French, and the Wikipedian point of view? -- isis 18:45 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

there is a joke that's relevant here: a frenchman travels to London for the first time, and upon arrival at Waterloo Station, remarks: "isn't that odd! Why did they name a station after a defeat?" (it's only a defeat from his POV. -- Tarquin

I take on board what you're saying Isis, however the plain and simple fact of the matter is that despite your assertions to the contrary not everyone knows just how fundamentally perspectival most historical writing actually is. A lot of people (you'd be suprised how many and a good number of them are genuinely intelligent and articulate people) take on trust what they read as being accurate, and this applies doubly so to things they read in encyclopaedias. You'd be amazed at the number of people, for example, who truly and honestly believe that Cornwall is in England, despite the fact that its present and unresolvable legal status actually means that it technically isn't. But they'll argue until they're blue in the face that it must be true because it says so in Encyclopedia Britannica or because all the Google searches they have done tend to support this inexact point of view.

Your assumptions about a neutral view possibly being possible by simply addressing a problem from a multi-perspectival standpoint is interesting but inherently flawed in that what emerges is not neutral history but history which is jumbled and does not highlight the cruces of the matter. A genuinely neutral viewpoint of Waterloo would not only have to deal with the French & English perspectives but also that of the peasantry whose crops were trampled, the wives of the soldiers that were killed or maimed, etc, etc. It is all an argument of absolutely infinite regress and one which tends to support the view of most historians that it is better to have at least some sort of solid ground to stand on in order to examine the problematics of a given situation rather than vacillate around the botched edges. The corollary of this of course is that NPOV disappears pell-mell out of the window. user:sjc

PS: All the best historians (in my opinion) actually have a point of view. It is precisely this which makes them good and accurate historians, because you know where they're coming from. An example of this is the quality work of Marxist historian A. J. P. Taylor who is able to articulate certain essential truths about history precisely because of his position and not in spite of it. Most of his work is of way above encyclopaedic standard, and is more reassuringly better researched and more rooted in the facts of the matter. Would we throw out the contributions of a reincarnated A.J.P Taylor on the basis of NPOV? I would sincerely hope not. user:sjc

My input on this topic (which is one that interests me, despite the perhaps dry tone of my contributions) is that the NPOV requirement is intended to emphasize the presentation of documented facts, rather than unsubstantiated opinion. Or, as one of my creative writing professors used to say, "Don't tell us, show us."

To take one example (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, consider the case of writing an article on Adolf Hitler. An entry that would clearly violate the NPOV standard would be, "Adolf Hitler was an evil man, started World War II, and killed millions of people." Not only does calling Hitler evil fail to actually tell us anything, anyone with more than the briefest familiarity with the history of World War II would know that war had many more causes than the actions of one individual (and some Asians might very convincingly argue that it had begin much earlier than September 1, 1939 -- when Japan attacked China). A far better article -- & one that, in my eyes, does not violate the NPOV standard -- would state the facts that Hitler was responsible for the remilitarization of Germany, directed the annexation of the Saarland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the invasion of the Poland (all of which led to war breaking out in Europe), & that he directed the various acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing known as the Holocaust.

As a note, the current article on Hitler does a good job of this. It could be better though: it could use a discussion on Hitler's successful election to Chancellor, which should include not only a history on Germany's defeat but the hyperinflation of 1921, and the actions of the powerful Communist party which could have siezed control of that country instead. Also missing from this article are some of the minor details of his life such as his vegetarianism, and the fact his nephew later left Germany to see service in the US Navy as an officer. (Google on "Hitler's nephew US navy" for information on William Patrick Hitler, one of those footnote people of history.) And yes, I'd add to the article, but I want to keep my focus on adding decent content to the areas I have staked out. llywrch 20:21 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

Llyrwrch, you make a number of interesting points. I should point out from the outset that my original degree was in sociology, so I am always sceptical de re "documented facts" and I am coming at history from a slightly unorthodox and somewhat more (socially) rigorous analytical position than many historians. Firstly, something is usually documented for a reason (& this always raises the question "Who benefits?"); and some of the smarter historical analysis starts from this viewpoint and proceeds like a police examiner to expose the past forensically. There are moreover facts, facts and other facts: like the many names of Satan, they are manifold to the extent that they are a drug on the market. The problem is which facts? If neutrality is the central tenet, then all facts are neutral, which is manifestly incorrect: knowing that sticking your fingers in a plug socket is not necessarily good for you is obviously a more salient fact than that King Obscure XIV died in 1306 or whenever. Some facts are manifestly not facts at all but are opinions masquerading as fact. Even worse are facts masqueraded as opinion and thereby runs the brook to historical revisionism.

Your point of "facts masqueraded as opinion" is a good one, and does happen for innocent reasons. One example is the often-repeated "fact" of a "Pelagian party" in post-Roman Britain, which I briefly address in my revision of the Ambrosius Aurelianus article: one historian in the 1950s speculated that one faction in fifth century Britain opposed rejoining the Roman Empire because of the ideology expressed in Pelagius' writings. This speculation is frequently repeated by both popular writers as well as people with professional credentials (i.e., degrees, scholarly posts, tenure) as a proven fact. If one has taken the time to get familiar with the primary sources, one can understand that this transformation is due to a poverty of detail in a topic of rich interest.

(And I would flesh out the process of this historiographic example, but I am currently working from notes & memory when I was deeply researching this topic several years ago, and am focussing on filling gaps in the Wikipedia -- better stubs and acceptable entries than waiting for perfect entries to be written.) -- llywrch 17:28 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Your Hitler example was a good one, despite the proximity of Godwin's Law. Clearly starting off a Wikipedia article in the terms which you cite as a strawman is not only not-neutral, it is poor history: Hitler alone cannot bear responsibility for World War II, and yet he is systematically depicted by historians as the primogenitor of it. Without his lenient treatment by the judicial system in the wake of the 1924 beer-hall putsch, without Mussolini and Hirohito, without the complaisance of the Roumanian Iron Guard, without the appeasement of 1938, etc, etc, etc,etc, his aims and ambitions would have been much curtailed or derailed. He is however just a component building-block in the frieze which is history, and perhaps it is some of the personification here which is problematic. So certainly I agree with you entirely in this respect. So the question is that of degree of culpability and the extent to which culpability can be established. Unfortunately this will always be a question of surmise and is completely unsolvable, and thus will always be relegated to one of tone and opinion.

Your observations about the deficiencies in the Hitler article are also worthy of merit; and there are plenty more corners of deficiencies which for a truly NPOV article would need to be addressed, and the problem with proceeding down this road is that inevitably the historian is drawn into the fascinating and seductive world of virtual history or counterfactuals, speculation on the line of "What would have happened if x had occurred?" Again we are back in the realm of opinion. user:sjc

Not to get distracted on one entry, but I hope my digression about this article was not overly negative. I think the article as it stands is a good piece of work: I was just making a few suggestions that I hope some future volunteer will consider who wants to add to this article. And it does one thing I'd like to point out that is on topic to this discussion: it starts by stating a positive about an individual who is widely thought as Satan incarnate. Perhaps this quality could be a suggestion for contributors who are concerned about the NPOV standard: when writing material, try to add one fact that contradicts your point of view or thesis. -- llywrch 17:28 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

No, I thought it a very balanced and reasoned response. BTW I have had a brief glimpse at the Hitler article in the meantime and thought it interesting but a long way from an NPOV article by even the broadest definition of the term, but under the circumstances, and given my own scepticism about the possibility of historical writing of any merit realistically conforming to the ambit of NPOV, I am not overly suprised. user:sjc

---

Interestingly Colditz castle which is currently starring in Recent Changes, while a stub article is very indicative of unwitting bias, none of which I have much objection to, it is just currently illustrative. The key prisoners are (without exception) English (there were any number of equally interesting non-English prisoners contained therein during the war); the castle was 'liberated' (how can an inanimate object be liberated?); and it really doesn't make any mention of the whys and wherefores of Colditz, e.g it was a high security prisoner of war camp for multiple escapees and high profile political prisoners, that it was run by the Wehrmacht who were under continual political presssure from the Gestapo, etc, etc. But it does superficially look incredibly NPOV until you probe at the dermis. Moreover British prisoners were in a distinct minority. user:sjc

---

-I don't think there is any logical merit in the argument (oft asserted in other places, and echoed above) that because there will always be a trace of POV in any depiction, you might as well go the whole hog and tell it the way you feel. We aspire to NPOV and because we aspire we come closer and closer; we limit ourselves to "facts", and are unafraid to include facts which don't quite fit in with our theories. I'm thinking of a Stephen Jay Gould comment:

Science does not deal in certainty, so “fact” can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.

-Whether history can be NPOV, and hence whether it is even worth teaching, is a discussion I have heard many times in more or less camoflaged form. So all by itself it is worth an article, probably in the "Neutrality in History" vein.
-
-The etymological meaning of Encyclopedia is "A complete education in a book"; by extension we get all the current meanings. Now I don't know whether a Wikipedia is exactly an Encyclopedia, but I do want to point out that articles like "Evaluating Bias in historical reportage" are valid Encyclopedia entries. the librarian