Talk:James Belich (historian)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revisionist in preface[edit]

In the preface to his own book NZ Wars, Belich is called a revisionist apparently(?) this is something he embraced and clearly he didn't see it as a negative or I doubt he would have left it there so prominently, in the 2nd edition which had significant changes from the first edition. Claudia.

The opening words of the book's preface are, indeed, "This book is a revisionist study of the New Zealand wars of 1845-72." In the preface to the 1998 edition he admits that the book contained his own interpretations of the wars and their myths and that in initially writing hit he had been "perhaps a little too eager to prove predecessors wrong". That said, Claudia's edit was clumsy and inappropriate. BlackCab (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belich should not be described as 'revisionist' per WP:BLP and WP:LABEL. To do so would mislead people unaware of the distinction between what historians call revisionism and what the general public call revisionism. Additionally, just because one of his body of work is a revisionist study doesn't mean that even the appropriate meaning of the word can be applied to his entire body of work; any more than, for example, an editor once repeating a claim found on a white-supremacist blog would make that editor him- or herself a white-supremacist. I have just noticed elsewhere the adjective used to demean Belich's work and will fix that too. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Belich is happy to call himself a revisionist then that is what he is. The preface is in his most commonly quoted book "NZ wars". I have never seen the phrse applied to anything other than this work or quotes from this work in wikipedia. Probably the general public is unaware that he has written anything else-especially after this book was adapted to make a popularist history Tv programme.

As the taxi driver says-Belich went on to say (in a latter edition of NZ Wars) that he put his hand up to youthful over enthusiasm and lack of judgement or maturity, which he had cause to regret. This is why latter editions were modified to remove some of the early material that had been lambasted by historians and commentators. Later editions are less one eyed and show he had learnt from early errors. Late editions still have some errors of fact but there are so few commentators who are interested and Belich has a low output of history books that he hardly rates a mention now,especially since he left the country to work overseas.Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belich didnt say which form of revisionist he was claiming to be in his preface but Im guessing that he intended to claim he was re interpreting the subject in a legitimate historical way. It should always be remembered that the second part of the book title gives his interpretation angle, ie he was showing how Victorian British views coloured their contemporary accounts of NZ history. That is fine and well understood. What is also clear, given his own "pardon me for being over enthusiastic" statement is that he later realised he had made some mistakes, or errors of judgement, in the early editions especially. In this sense he is putting his hand up to negationism as all the errors were strongly "pro Maori and /or anti British" to varying degrees, not in the sense or degree as say a classic holocaust denier but nevertheless he was admitting he got it wrong. I don't go along with the statement re "what the general public call revisionism". The general public would not have a clue about either sense but if they had to guess I would say they would go with the former ,not the latter. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the Wikipedia policies I linked to?
This might be a bit before your time, but that adjective was commonly used to describe the likes of David Irving. Going around describing a respected historian in ways that would cause him to be linked in the reader's mind to the Irvings of this world would be a massive BLP violation. Instead of trying to explain this to you, a lot of editors would just remove and revert it on sight. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Irving .See above- that is why I referred to this being UNLIKE a holocaust denier.You are not in a position to judge or say with any degree of certainty what the general public might or might not think. This would only be of pure academic interest anyway. Belich " Revisonist" is a long long way from holocast denier which is at the extreme end of the continuum. You still have not addressed the vital point that Belich was quite happy to be called a self proclaimed revisionist in the preface to the last edition of his major work. Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The preface refers to the work as a revisionist study, but it's unnecessary and too much of a generalisation to describe Belich as a revisionist. BlackCab (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC

On the contrary Belich's whole approach which HE emphasized in NZ Wars... and every NZ historian I can think of congratulated him on his refreshing, new, revisionist approach which overturned many old ideas. NZ Wars...is his dominating work and the only book reworked into a populist television series. This clearly marks him as a revisionist. The fact that he later withdrew some of his previous statements in NZ Wars..., with public apologies, under scores this. Perhaps it would be fair to say that Belich's early editions of NZ Wars... his major work, were revisionist but his later comments and deletions showed that in later life, with mature reflection, he extensively revised much of his youthful work. This is paraphrasing what Belich himself said in late editions.ie that he got rather carried away as a young student and writer. Claudia.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on James Belich (historian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Belich (historian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Belich_(historian)&oldid=1206228116"