Talk:Gertrude Himmelfarb

Concerning User Kolkhoz's Edits
The following paragraph keeps on getting deleted by the user known as Kolkhoz : "Himmelfarb is a leading defender of traditional historical methods and practices. Himmmelfarb has been sharply critical of those who seek to combine history with other discplines like psychology, writing that too of the resulting work was based on dubious and unverifiable speculation like the claim that Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism was due to alleged anger over the death of his mother while being treated by the Jewish doctor Dr. Bloch (this theory, which first appeaered in the 1970s has been widely discredited by the discovery of a profuse thank-you note for the care of his mother written by Hitler to Dr. Bloch in 1909) . Likewise, Himmelfarb has argued that the methods of Robert Fogel cannot properly explain the past, and argued that to understand American slavery is a moral question that cannot be reduced to number-crunching . Himmelfarb has contended that those who place a greater value on social history as opposed to political history are degrading the historical profession by leaving out the crucial factor of politics to understanding the past. . Himmelfarb has praised Sir Geoffrey Elton for making the claim that political history is the more important type of history as politics represents the endeavor of a people to create a rational organziation for themselves. Himmelfarb supports the view that Britain become the world's "first industrial nation" in the 18th century not only because of economic considerations, but primarily of a better political organziation than the other nations of Europe. As part of her attack against the claims of the primacy of social history, Himmelfarb maintains that social historians like Lawrence Stone were reducing history to a series of isolated "moments" with no explanatory narrative structure. . As part of her defence of traditional history, Himmelfarb argues that Marxist historians were gulity of subjecting history to their political biases with no empirical basis. ."

Kolkhoz claims that this is "fringe exposition unrelated to Himmelfarb's life work", but given that this summary is from a book written by Himmelfarb, namely The New History and the Old, I do not understand how this be reasonable described as as "fringe exposition unrelated to Himmelfarb's life work"? Since when have books by the subject of the article been a "fringe exposition unrelated..." unrelated to the "life work" of the subject? By the same logic, one could delete a summary of Oliver Twist from the Charles Dickens under the grounds that it is a "fringe exposition unrelated to Dicken's life work"? A most misleading edit summary to say the least!--A.S. Brown (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming upon this dispute nearly two years later, this deleted text appears to be a well-referenced summary of GH's distinctive views on historical methods. I have restored it to the article. Dwalls (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dawalls.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Himmelfarb's ideas
A person claiming to be a spokesman for Himmelfarb wants to delete all discussion of her ideas. Since the section closely follows books published in her name, and she is an historian of ideas, that seems very odd. The new editor in question has nothing to replace the deleted material--presumably he is unfamiliar with any of her ideas. the section has been replaced. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The section does not represent Himmelfarb's present positions, but strives only to represent what she wrote earlier. It is hard to see what would be contentious about the descriptions of her positions, in what way they distort her thoughts or cause harm to her reputation. (This is an amateur encyclopedia, after all.)
 * That said, I am concerned that the section reads like an essay summarizing her work, which is based on her work, rather than on secondary, high-quality, most-reliable sources. I would assume that nearly all of Himmelfarb's books have been given prominent reviews in the leading journals, and that they have been widely cited by other leading historians (and writers on social issues).
 * I am concerned that the description seems simplistic and gives the impression that Himmelfarb was dismissive and ad-hominem in her criticisms' of others work.
 * Rather than blanking the section, it would seem appropriate for editors to improve the existing text. For example, if Himmelfarb did not discuss Robert Fogel or Laurence Stone, or if she never used the dismissive phrasing attributed here, then those sentences should be removed. If there are errors, then please list them. I should be happy to remove immediately any gross error that cannot be quickly removed and I welcome a posting on my talk page alerting me to problems.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I toned down the attacks and straw-man characterizations of other historians and schools. Per WP:Undue, there should be a modest attempt to sketch her main contributions to history and to public discussions, rather than a focus on her criticisms of other historians (which seemed rather crudely presented and so suspicious). There was a lack of secondary sources. There seemed to be some close paraphrasing of the (not highest quality) encyclopedias cited. Expansion should focus on invited reviews of her work by leading academics in leading journals, rather than paraphrasing her or encyclopedias. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NO YOU HAVEN'T. You've proffered gratuitous Right-wing slurs and long-held caviling about various historical approaches (all of which rightfully call into question Right-wing assumptions and indeed Himmelfarb's claims, positions, and perspectives), and you cite Himmelfarb as your "source!"

THAT IS YOUR IDEA OF "WIKI OBJECTIVITY?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.127.137 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * good edits--but the UNDUE rule does not apply. (it refers to a situation where the mainstream is ABC, but there is a minority view XYZ and XYZ is getting too much space relative to ABC. Wiki's example is ABC= planet earth and XYZ = flat earth theories)   Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks RJ, for the recognition and the correction. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)