Talk:Whiggishness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
- the American Whigs of 1776 and 1830s did not partake of Whiggishness. Rjensen 08:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
