Talk:Whiggishness

Jon Stewart; Clarification

I've removed the section dedicated entirely to Jon Stewart for many reasons. First, Stewart normally identifies himself as a Whig in a joking manner, not a serious one. Second, the sentence containing "his stances seem to confirm" was already removed once - it violates both the Weasel Words and No OR policies . (The former from the weak 'seems' language, the latter as it's clearly a conclusion drawn by the writer and is uncitable.) Even if the factoid about Stewart did belong here, that sentence certainly doesn't - but the wikipedian who added the section in the first place reverted an anonymous user's edit that correctly removed it. Third, even if he was serious, he's not referring to Whiggishness, but to the Whig Party, and so this section wouldn't even belong in this article in the first place.

Here are two examples (Note - wisecrack and quip are used in the articles I reference and are not simply my choice of words. Stewart wisecracked "I'm a Whig, inherent to the Federalists" to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126226,00.html), and quipped "I am, and I think this is well known, I'm a Whig. [...] The old Whig party." to CNBC (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030730.asp). The first is the probably the more commonly quoted occurance, and certainly refers to the Federalist Party, contemporary to the Whig Party, but the language is vague enough that there's room for confusion. In the second, however, it cannot be refuted that he's referring explicity to the Whig party, probably the US one. He's certainly not identifying himself with the term used to describe a style of 20th-century historians like J. H. Hexter.

I am no expert whatsoever on Whigs (UK or US), Whiggism, or Whiggishness. I stumbled here through the Jon Stewart reference and have attempted to fix only that. As the Stewart biography mentions this affiliation and Stewart himself is clearly not a historical member of either historical whig party, I do not intend to move this section to either of those articles.

A final note - this article could use a lot of clarification in general. It mentions identifying with other ideas, Macaulay's attitudes, and compares it to other vague terms ('the modern'). Aside from the vague second paragraph, it does little to clarify what those ideas and attitudes actually are. Tofof 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More clarification

This peculiar little article is littered with many strange bits which seem to strain awkwardly toward grandiloquence while simultaneously contravening WP:OR:

unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position —
or which ... amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia:No original research

A few representative examples:

"the extraction of some sort of essence"—indeed vague and unclear (cf. Tofof post), even reminiscent of a mystical reverie.
"a more sharply-focussed term of art in historiography"—a claim that the word is historiographical jargon ("term of art" redirects to Technical terminology). And a focus sharper than what? Sharper than "the extraction of some sort of essence"? The extent (if any) of it's actual usage seems quite minor (plentiful and diverting elaboration notwithstanding).
The line for this article in Whiggery (a two-entry disambiguation from Whiggism, which redirects to Whig) is quite strange as well: "a more cosmic attitude on progress, liberalism, and the arrow of time in history." Excuse me? cosmic? arrow of time? An odd, even ludicrous, echo of the somewhat disoriented OR tone of this article and, to borrow Tofof's words above, "a conclusion drawn by the writer and ... uncitable."

The editor's summary ("give this a try ...") when initiating the page seems in retrospect to have meant "having them on ..." "putting one over ..." or "pulling the Wikipedian leg..." I found myself wondering if the thing had been written on a bet. Athænara ✉ 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. A little self-deprecation on starting a page in an area where one is not a great expert doesn't need quite such a close reading. Charles Matthews 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of my apologies—there's another nearby. — Athænara ✉ 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic

It seems odd to me that the article does not mention the Whig Party (United States) or, for that matter, the earlier Whigs of the American Revolutionary period. Perhaps it seems odd to me only because I don't move in circles in which whiggishness is a frequently used (or even meaningful) term but, for a term containing the root, Whig, with a larger and more complex history than is referenced, this article seems not just incomplete but idiosyncratic. Athænara ✉ 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the American Whigs of 1776 and 1830s did not partake of Whiggishness. Rjensen 08:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the introduction: "... in general terms makes much of progress, a reform agenda, constitutional government, and personal freedoms"—they did. –Æ. 11:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teleology

Why 'verify source' on this? A request here for a page reference would do. The comment is straight out of the book. Charles Matthews 09:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/change title

I suggest that this entry and the "Whig history" 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.

Edit: looking again at the Whiggishness entry, the intro sentence seems to reflect the conflation of concepts I mention:

Whiggishness is a generic term of description for some approaches, in the fields of politics and historiography, which accept or adapt attitudes of the Whig politicians in the past of the United Kingdom.

Since the disclaimer at the top states that Whiggish political philosophy is covered in the "Whig" article, I don't see why "the field of politics" and "attitudes of Whig politicians" belong here.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the disclaimer itself assigns the "political concept" to one entry and the "political philosophy" to another. Does this distinction make any sense? Isn't the political concept part of the political philosophy?

Perhaps the best solution would be to have three separate entries: for the political parties, the political philosophy, and the historical interpretation. I suspect that's what the original framework was, with the "whiggishness" entry covering political philosophy, but somewhere along the line someone hijacked it and created essentially a second entry on whig historiography.

Comments?

--Neurotic Nerd 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whig interpretation of history is something pretty specific. And just about dead. You could call this the general page on 'whiggish historiography' (one flavour of historical writing). But I'd object to 'whig historiography' because (for example) you can hardly find any whigs any more. Charles Matthews 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]