Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison/Archive 1

Archive 1

2005–2011

AKA?

What's with the AKA (Jonathan Trumbull)? You gonna change it? WB2 23:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

links / criticism

Unless someone can find some good links to the criticism section, they need some change. If you are going to lay serious charges at Morison for being a bigot, you better back it up. Not a bunch of second trash cites from places that don't carry an article anymore. Dean acheson 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes under 68.108.94.116

Were made by me, PainMan. I forgot to log in before making changes logged under this IP address.

POV Editing, Original Research, Changing a Citation

While one viewpoint contends that this historian ought not be held responsible for his writing, another would point out that W.E.B. Du Bois preceded Morrison at Harvard, that Du Bois was an elder historian whose works Morrison ignored. When he received his Ph.D. more than a dozen years after Du Bois, Morrison became a contemporary of Du Bois who has a literary output at least as great as Morrison. Du Bois was a scholar who was painfully aware of what some --but not all- contemporary historians were writing about African Americans.

We both have been around long enough to grasp that Wikipedia policy is to cite sources for what is added. As you know, personal opinion and personal research is unacceptable. For that reason the material added will be reverted.

It is also being reverted because of the unsubtle change in context. Commager and Morrison were not quoting; they were stating.

Further, your viewpoint weighing Morrison's views on Reconstruction are directly at odds with Pulitzer Prize and National-Book-award winning historian Leon F. Litwack. While it is your personal opinion that Morrison wrote about Jim Crow fairly, Litwack says he realized in 11th grade in high school that Morrison and Commager's book was opinionated in an offensive manner and in a way that negatively impacted African Americans-- and that theirs was the textbook required at his high school.

"The textbook was my first confrontation with history. I asked my 11th grade teacher for the opportunity to respond to the textbook’s version of Reconstruction, to what I thought were distortions and racial biases. (I had already read Howard Fast’s Freedom Road.) The research led me to the library—and to W.E.B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction, with that intriguing subtitle: An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880. Armed with that book, I presented what I thought to be a persuasive rebuttal of the textbook."

You know the drill. Find a book that zeroes in on Morrison's scholarship about African Americans, someone who answers Litwack directly.

skywriter 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this drill, find a good original quote form SEM for this claimed bigotry, not some second hand stuff from some UC Berkley prof. who taught about 'race-relations' and that professor's memory of what was in Morrison's general history text. THAT is kinda the drill in real history scholarship, at least what I was taught in the graduate program that I attended. Dean acheson 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The freedmen were not really free in 1865, nor are most of their descendants really free in 1965. Slavery was but one aspect of a race and color problem that is still far from solution here, or anywhere. In America particularly, the grapes of wrath have not yet yielded all their bitter vintage. The Oxford History of the American People, cp. 33

—wwoods 07:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What edition? It mentions 1965, suggesting that is an example of a later revision among many revisions of that book into the 1980s. The content changed and was revised as mass protests against crude forms of racism could no longer be ignored. Chances are good that quote did not appear in the same edition as the one Litwack was reading as a high school student. As a result of the campaigns against lynching, some forms of speech, previously common in textbooks became less acceptable when people marched in the streets to protest terror and the various forms of segregation. Skywriter 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whichever one is quoted in the Fourteenth Ed. of Bartletts's. Probably printed in 1965, since the first quote from the book is "[1965]". This one sentence seems to get grossly disproportionate weight—two paragraphs of seven—for the current version of this article, but I presume the article will eventually be expanded.

—wwoods 09:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As to the comment "This one sentence seems to get grossly disproportionate weight" -- that is a matter of viewpoint i.e. whether your sympathies lie with the historians who made that comment in a textbook, or part of the group on the receiving end. Litwack is critical of the entire Morison/Commager explanation for Reconstruction era, not just this one comment, and he has written a number of award-winning books to prove his point about Reconstruction. Skywriter 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is astounding that there is an edit war ongoing on here, and on the Commager page over a serious criticism of a textbook that was widely used in schools all over the United States for so many years. Are these pages now candidates for POV and fact tags? Wwoods argues (above) that drawing attention to this entry is "grossly disproportionate". That is the subjective opinion of one who was not likely the object of the verbal assault contained for three decades in this required textbook. Why in the world would anyone insist on deleting specific criticism from a noted historian of a famous textbook wherein the textbook was criticized by others, yet it took 30 years for the authors to modify their repugnant viewpoint?

This is viewpoint suppression of the worst kind.

Are the people who have repeatedly removed Litwack's criticism (and earlier wanted to remove all comments concerning the authors' racial views) not aware of the hurtful nature of these lines in a required textbook? Is there a rule on Wikipedia that racism will not be discussed, or it is to be tamped down? Is this political correctness at play? Skywriter 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the criticism. I simply moved the anecdote about Litwack's "first confrontation with history" to the article on Litwack, where it belongs. And I don't think there's anything wrong with including criticism of the book, but devoting two of the seven paragraphs on Morison—and two of the three on Commager—is indeed "grossly disproportionate". The easiest solution is to prune down the criticism section, but if you expand the articles to something like full size, that'd be even better. By the way, why'd you remove the {{historian-stub}} from Commager?

—wwoods 05:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted from this article where it most properly belongs--with the authors of the textbook that was so widely used for so many years. Deletion of pointed criticism by a leading subject historian in favor of anonymous critics is a non-neutral viewpoint decision. Claim of proportionality is also non-neutral viewpoint decision. Those affected feel the significance. Some of those unaffected would rather see it go away. Skywriter 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"I thought were distortions and racial biases. ... I presented what I thought to be a persuasive rebuttal of the textbook." That doesn't seem like a particularly pointed criticism to me; what did his teacher think of his rebuttal?

—wwoods 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Litwack's assertions are nothing but opinions (of Morison's writings) and opportunistically biased ones at that. One of the quickest ways to academic advancement is to kowtow to the Liberal orthodoxy that rules nearly every college and university in this country (a conspicious element in their noticeable decline in quality). Morison is, in fact, more more prejudiced against Republicans and those he calls "right-wingers" than African-Americans. He also--sadly--repeats the McCarthy Myth with no critical evaluation at all.

Morison simply lays out the facts. It is regrettable that he used some of the language he did, but that in no way proves him racist--unless we intended to make the over sensitivity of 11th graders the measure of scholarship. Unless disagreeing with Litwack makes one a racist.

After the GOP effectively abandoned the ex-slaves both physically (by the withdrawl of the highly unpopular military reconstruction) and politically, the ex-slaves, cast completely adrift by the government that had freed them, looked, not unnaturally, to be people that had been their leaders and former owners.

Before "Jim Crow" laws slammed the door shut on African-American civil rights (i.e. passed bySouth politicans--'Democrats all), "white" Southern Democrats actively sought the votes of African-Americans. Unintentionally, African-Americans contributed to the entrenchment of racist elite which would soon impose second class citizenship on them. "Jim Crow" as it is commonly known, wasn't imposed overnite. It was a process carried out over decades, beginning in the late 1880s (not so conicidentally when the first Democrat since before the war was elected President) and complete by the end of the 1890s. What law could not achieve, terrorist violence by the Klan(s) and other racist "whites" did.

Sadly, both the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive refused to do anything to defend African-Americans' civil rights. The last nail in the coffin of equality before the law, was nailed down by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

All of this is covered, in detail, by Adm. Morison in The Oxford History of the American People.

PainMan 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Columbus

And here you go again: one(1) paragraph on Morison, and two(2) paragraphs on Zinn's criticism of Morison. Do you really not see why this is disproportionate?

—wwoods 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny to put Zinn on the same level with Morison. Zinn can always dream... Skywriter could take a practical lesson in NPOV by also adding material explaining how Morison's books became so popular, including quotes from the many enthusiastic reviews that they received along the way. It would be an asset to the article to have a discussion that is not detectably for or against. Stan 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it that Wwoods and Stan Shebs have not added material they believe is relevant? Why are they arguing only to delete valid viewpoints? Skywriter 14:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for "viewpoints", Skywriter. Viewpoints, according to the Wikipedia canon, but not Encyclopedia Britanncia (indisputably the template for all subsequent encylopedias), are not permissiable in wikipedia articles. The goal is to provide information that is as objective as possible. While complete objectivity is impossible, complete truth is not. Calling Hitler a bloodthirsty tyrant is not POV, it's the unvarnished truth.

Quibbling over certain phrases used by the late admiral sixty and seventy years ago--when exceptable language was quite different, it was not illegal, for instance, to mention God in high school commencement addresses--is ridiculous--quibbling, furthermore, by anonymous academics obviously trying to build reputations by attacking a man no longer capable of defending himself. Morison's books will be read long after these opportunistic wannabees and their works are forgotten dust. PainMan 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Morison's treatment of the Japanese

In reading Morison's "History of the U.S. Navy in World War II," I notice that he uses what appears to be derogatory and pejorative phrases and names to refer to the Japanese adversaries of the U.S. Navy during that conflict. For example, words like "Nips," "Nipponese," "Samurai Sons of the Emperor," etc. (I'll add specific citations to back this up if necessary later). I would think that this should be mentioned in the article on him and the entry in Wikipedia about the book, but, I haven't found any sources or references that address this issue which is necessary since we're not supposed to put our own opinions into Wikipedia articles. If anyone knows of an article or essay that discusses the issue of how Morison refers to the Japanese in the "U.S. Navy" series, then perhaps it could be discussed in the article or here on the talk page first because I think it is a valid issue. Cla68 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First: The Japanese refer to themselves as Nipponese--to this day! The official name of the country is Nippon, not Japan. Like many other names attached to far-away places by early modern European explorers, an erroneous one stuck to Japan.*

• (Just as the error of a cartographer gave Amerigo Vespucci's name to the two continents of the New World when Columbus' primacy is irrefutable. It should be remembered that neither the Vikings, and others, who visited north-eastern N. America--possibly but not definitively proved, as far south as Massachusettes--did not realize they had stumbled onto a new continent, let alone a "new" world.

• (There has also been some speculation that a Chinese expedition may have reached, and briefly explored, the California coast. However, this evidence is far from conclusive and is based entirely on certain disputed references in Chinese records--not on any achaeological or other scientific evidence.)

Second: the Samurai ethic was inculcated into Japanese servicemembers by intensive indoctinration and brutal discipline. Even Japanese ministers were assassinated by fanatical army officers (the so-called "double-patriots") for not kowtowing to the Army and its insane policy of aggression. Isoroku Yamamato, planner of the Pearl Harbor attack and apostle of carrier warfare, openly opposed a Japanese attack on the United States (having been educated at Harvard and spent some ten years in the US, he was acutely aware of the USA's overwhelming economic superiority over Japan--while none-the-less spinelessly participating in it and Japan's scheme of rapacious attacks and conquest which stretched from India to Oahu. The Naval high command so feared that he would be assassinated he was sent to sea to put him out reach of the Long Knives of the "double-patriots." (Even today, writers and others who dare to mention Japan's wartime atrocities face everything from harassment to having guns fired at their houses by Japan's tiny group of hyper-nationalist nutballs.)

Japanese officers also carried the katana (the long samurai sword) as part of their uniform. There are numerous verified accounts of some of the officers using their swords to murder captured enemy POWs (e.g. pilots of the Doolittle Raid) and civilians in occupied countries.

While the Samurai had been defeated during two short civil wars the the last half of the 19th century, the Samurai ethic was adopted by the Japanese middle class (from whom the majority of senior military officers would originate, including the most infamous of Japanese admirals, Yamamoto). Its perversion was not terribly dissimilar to the way Hitler perverted the traditional ethics of the Prusso-Germanic officer corps' ethics.

Therefore referring to the Japanese military as "Samurai Sons of the Emperor" is exactly how these men conceived themselves!! As Hitler placed the "superiority" of the Aryan "race"--and more laughably, his own "genius"--as the keystones of German feelings of superiority and nationalism, service to the Emperor was similarly used to focus and intensify Japanese imperialist and nationalist ardor from the beginning of the so-called Meiji Restoration (1868) until Japan's final surrender (on 11 Aug 1945) during WWII.

Thus, as should be clear to any reader not hungery to destroy the reputation of another DWM (Dead White Male--a favored terms of Liberals), RAdm Morison was, in fact, honoring the courage, tenacity and perspicacity of Japan's fighting men.

In his historical works he expressed admiration and praises the Japanese for their military efficacy and quick achievement of a great power navy in a very short period of time. At the same time, he correctly notes the murderous brutality of the military regime.

The period in which Morison wrote MUST also be stressed. Many terms for so-called "persons of color"--a racist term in and of itself--were common in the first half of the 20th century--especially terms for African-Americans. Some of these terms, it must be noted, are to this day still used by African-Americans themselves.

While it is deemed heretical for a "white" person to use the word "nigger" in any context, or for a drunken, conservative actor to use some anti-semitic phrases, the rapper Ice Cube can write a song fantasizing about raping a "white" woman with absolute impunity from the Drive-by Media.

As a term of abuse, the word "nigger" is bigoted and despicable--when used by persons of any color. Declaring that any use of the word by so-called "white" people (I myself am of European, Jewish, Cherokee and African-American descent) is Orwellian. Especially when many of the people who seek to impose this double-standard freely refer to "white" people as "crackers" and describe them as "fish bellies."

To judge books Admiral Morison wrote in the 30s, 40s and 50s by linguistic standards of 2006 is anachronistic and inauthentic.

Futhermore, the few strays phrases that we, today, consider inappropriate, do not represent to views of the Admiral. To quote a French author, "A man's vices are a product of his time; his virtues are his own."

Adm Morison served his country with distinction and is one the greatest of American historians. To attempt to trash him based on these few stray phrases and by taking other remarks taken out of context, or unbalanced by other remarks on the same subject, is despicable.

I notice that W.E.B Bois's rabid pro-communism is not mentioned to balance the late Admiral's alleged racism and "whitewashing" of slavery. Nor should it have been. Because neither this contrived controversy nor DuBois' support of the Soviet Union is germaine to a biography of Samuel Eliot Morison!

PainMan 13:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose for bringing this topic up here on the talk page is not to debate the matter with other Wikipedia editors, nor to try and ``trash`` Morison. It`s to open an inquiry into whether this is a matter that deserves mention in the article. If no credible, authoritative sources have discussed, criticized, or commented on the vocabulary Morison uses to refer to the U.S. Navy`s Japanese adversaries in World War II, then it isn`t an issue that needs to be addressed in the article. Cla68 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While I feel that this "controversy" is nothing more than the afflatus of nameless academic gasbags trying to build their reputations by trashing a great American historian over a few phrases; my position is supported by the lack of any evidence worthy of the name. To repeat: are we to call Mark Twain a racist for using the parlance of the times in the dialogue of his novels? Forty years ago "negro" was a perfectly acceptable appellation for African-Americans, now it is regarded as tacky, at best, perjorative at worst (as well it should be).

If someone feels that strongly about this "tempest in a teapot", they should write a separate article. In my opinion, the topic doesn't deserve a separate article; but it definitely doesn't belong in his biography. Nothing in Morison's works demonstrates him as a racist and his reputation should not be libeled when he is unable to defend himself. PainMan 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV-tained material irrelevant to a biography

1.) Removed sections on alleged racial bias "whitewashing" of slavery because they are not germaine to Morison's biography. They clearly belong in a separate article; either one addressing his work in toto or just the controversy.

By giving so much space to the alleged racial bias and "whitewashing" of slavery without similar analysis of the totality of his oeuvre is clearly POV--an attempt to smear the man with the racist brush by using selectively displayed parts of his work. This selective attack was completely unbalanced and clearly an attempted to overshadow his irreplaceable contributions to the historiography of WWII.

The attack is clearly in the same vein as those people quite absurdly want to remove the greatest American novel, Huckleberry Finn, from school libraries because of the frequent use of the word "nigger" in the book's dialogue. This, of course, ignores the fact that in the 1850s, and for decades to come, "nigger" was, sadly, the word used to designated African-Americans both by "white" Americans and African-Americans themselves. Such anachronistic criticisms are at best ignorant, at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead those unfamiliar with the works in question.

2.) Christopher Columbus

Again, this is not relevant to a biography. It is also very riddled with POV and clear bias against the late RADM Morison.

3.) Reference & External links

Unnecessary with removal of irrevelant material.

4.) Quotes

Again this is a biography of his life, not an analysis of his works. These selective quotes are intended to further the agenda of painting the late RAdm Morison as a racist--a label completely unsupported by his published works.

It's interesting that Lyndon Johnson, who constantly referred to African-Americans as "niggers" (e.g. many examples of which have been found on his secret phone recordings), is not condemned as a racist for his use of the word. Yet the person who contributed the irrelevant material to the Morison bio, clearly feels that trashing his reputation is more important than providing individuals seeking knowledge about him with encyclopedic information. This cannot and will not be allowed to stand.

If someone feels that their skewed views deserve an airing, another article is the place to do it--and I will be watching for it and I will make sure it is sticks to the facts, not selective, and out of context, quotes and anachronistic criticisms.

PainMan 13:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Suppressing viewpoints = un-encyclopedic violation of Wikipedia

You can not remove criticism from a biography. This encyclopedia stands for inclusion of viewpoints not suppression. That you don't think this historian's role in history is subject to evaluation does not mean his work has not been evaluated. I am returning the material that was removed.

The viewpoint that criticism of the subject of an article belongs in a separate article is without precedent. Please cite examples of where this concept has been applied to biographical articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.

By the way, if this material is again summarily removed, I plan to ask for mediation.

Skywriter 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"The viewpoint that criticism of the subject of an article belongs in a separate article is without precedent." General criticism yes, but as I said under the subsection titled "Bias," this huge serving of criticism in Morison's biography about peripheral features in his work is distorting, and items such as the huge discussion of two sentences in The Growth of the American Republic really belongs in a separate article devoted to that textbook. As comparisons, one might look at the separate articles on William L. Shirer and his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or Arnold J. Toynbee and A Study of History. 69.239.236.37 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Morison as an historian

If the article is not an analysis of his works, then why does it contain this:

The celebrated British military historian Sir John Keegan has hailed Morison's official history as the best to come out of the Second World War.

Would this not give the casual reader the idea that Morison is an accurate and reliable historian?

I note in passing that the article on Keegan does discuss criticism of his work, and if he says things like this a lot it's no wonder. So why would a few words on the subject be out of place here?

In researching the campaigns in the South West Pacific, I came across instances where Morison deliberately suppressed uncomfortable facts. I knew he had done it because the two of us were reading the same reports. Other people have found similar deliberate errors in his account of the Guadalcanal campaign.

Hawkeye7 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions on Morison's works or legacy by credible sources should be okay to mention in the article if written neutrally. Cla68 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

tag on Samuel Eliot Morison‎ page

{{refimprovesect|date=July 2007}} Please suggest what additional reference you'd like to add to Morison page. Because that section is referenced directly, specificity of what you question would be useful. Thank you. Skywriter 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote my response to you on my talk page:

That section has no proper citations. An ISBN tag and an author's last name and page number (for separate statements), with no further information, is no help to anyone trying to verify the information. I presume the sources exist, they just need to be cited properly. -- Donald Albury 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was copied from an archived page, and the complete prior reference was apparently hacked before being completely removed. Thanks for the heads up. Skywriter 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias

As it stands, this article is extremely prejudiced against Morison. The man wrote two dozen books, but after a cursory survey of them, the article is swamped by eight paragraphs about two sentences of a thousand-page textbook he wrote with Henry Steele Commager, and a series of quotations that goes into overkill from Howard Zinn about what is perceived to be an improper emphasis present in an (abridged) version of one of his major works. Criticism is fine, but not when it's presented this disproportionately. In the case of Zinn, that's only worth a sentence noting that "The scholar Howard Zinn has criticized Morison for giving inadequate weight to the sufferings native Americans experienced under Columbus." Similarly, the fuss over the two sentences needs to be much condensed here; the place where all that material really belongs is in a separate article about the Growth of the American Republic textbook. 69.239.236.37 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No Bias

I see no problem incorporating the breadth and scope of his work, positive and negative, in this short article. To move criticism of his work and separate it from his bio is inconsistent with biographical articles on others where there has been controversy. To belittle comments by the historians Zinn and Litwack and also by leaders of the black community when they pleaded for years with Comager to change his insulting wording --and he refused-- that tells us something about his character and the tenor of the times. It would be segregation.Skywriter 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say about criticism is untrue, as pointed out in a comment above regarding William L. Shirer and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Arnold J. Toynbee and A Study of History. It's also a strawman, since no one is suggesting that criticism of Morison doesn't belong here - just that the stuff currently there is disproportionate and results in distortion, and isn't NPOV. Eight paragraphs about two sentences. A string of quotes from one man complaining about emphasis in a single book Morison wrote, and which the guy isn't even known for (for Columbus, that would be Admiral of the Ocean Sea). The fairest way to handle this would be to distill both issues to a sentence or a paragraph, leaving more detailed discussion (if thought necessary) to articles on the specific books. 69.237.198.66 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, these comments deserve an award. For being silly. Adm. Morrison was a great historian, and his offical histories are very enjoyable to read, to this day. Certainly most of your sources, and yourself, have some PC axe to grind. I mean, Zinn is a polemic author, and Litwack goes around trying to be offended by oppressive crackers. The cited article doesn't even have any footnotes to the actual Morrison text. THAT might be a bit helpful. I expect that I have to get on Ebay and purchase an ancient copy of one of Morison's texts to check out this horrible blight on his scholarship? Is that where the history profession in the acadamy is at these days? God bless, no wonder kids hate these classes. The only opinions that one can have are like Skywriter here. Bad= United States; Good= anything that criticizes the United States, but that is what goes for patriotism today. Whatever.

The above is an unsigned comment

To those who view racism is unimportant

This page is strewn with comments arguing that Morison's racism should be ignored, that it is a minor blemish in an otherwise distinctive body of work.

For example, the last brave soul who did not bother to sign the comment had this to say: I mean, Zinn is a polemic author, and Litwack goes around trying to be offended by oppressive crackers.

Zinn is no more polemical than Morison. Each had a point of view. Zinn admits and writes elegantly of his subjects and of his point of view. (If you haven't read his books, you wouldn't know that.) He defends those who are rarely written about in other history books. He writes of working people, white and black and of every ethnic group who struggled for justice and fair play.

Litwack is a winner of both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. He is a giant in the field of history and has made significant contributions. To argue against using his observations on this subject because you personally do not think racism is worthy of writing about is just that -- a personal viewpoint.

Leaders of the African American community went to Morison and asked him over an extended period of time --for a number of years-- to drop the gratuitous insults against African American people from many editions of his textbook, which was widely used in schools in the United States. He refused. This was during the many decades when the United States was a legally segregated country. Morison was stubborn about maintaining vile attacks on African Americans in his textbooks that were prescribed for school children. This was Morison's polemical point of view. You think his viewpoint, his legacy should be white-washed? I don't know that he would thank you. He was firm in his viewpoint.

Some people argue on this page that Morison's viewpoint about African Americans should be suppressed. That argument is unpersuasive.

To argue in the 21st century that historians should not be held to account-- by their peers-- for their viewpoints and the way they represented history is not a position that is easily defended. Each scholar, each historian leaves a legacy. To argue that legacy is not a part of a person's bio is also not easily defended. No one who has written comments on this page has written persuasively of the need for a separate article on Morison's legacy. If you want one, write one. That will not mean that the thrust of critical comments about Morison will not be retained here. These pages are read by people of every ethnic group. Morison had a lot of good qualities. He was human. He also had negative qualities. His racist treatment of black people is a matter of record, and any fair accounting of his legacy will include that.

And for anyone to argue that critical comments about someone's legacy should not be included on their bio page has not read many biographical articles on Wikipedia. Skywriter 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And for anyone to argue that critical comments about someone's legacy should not be included on their bio page has not read many biographical articles on Wikipedia. You're wrestling straw-men. No one's suggesting that critical comments don't belong. There is a problem, however, with POV in the article as it currently stands. Things which would warrant a sentence or paragraph in a normal Wikipedia biography are bloated to sections five times that. The Zinn quotations are completely unencyclopedic; elegant writer he may be, I think it's frowned upon here to wallow an article in a morass of quotes, and it's pretty ironic that in a complaint about emphasis in a biography there is more of Zinn's thoughts on history here than Morison's. 69.237.198.66 01:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've chopped this back to a single para as it was mostly Zinn's thoughts about how historians have treated the impact of Columbus and Spanish colonialism and very little of the material was specific to Morison. I'd suggest that this entire section be removed as it seems a pretty minor criticism of Morison - it's basically Zinn's POV that Morison's work wasn't sufficiently different from that of the historians of his time and including it seems to violate WP:Undue weight. --Nick Dowling —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced phrasing

re: this unsourced phrasing that were both authoritative and highly readable.

(cur) (prev) 01:17, August 30, 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) (20,479 bytes) (Undid revision 310738162 by Skywriter (talk) that's a common view of the USN official history)

Please provide a citation to establish this is not personal opinion. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Service years

Morrison's biography on a Navy website (here) states that he went inactive in September 1946. So, what is customary for these things? Does "Service years" in the Infobox mean "active duty years", or does it include time in "inactive" or retired status? -- Donald Albury 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag

I concur, in principle, with the issue raised by Hurmata in adding a fact tag. On January 18, 2010 Hurmata wrote--"Add fact tag because the text does not back up the invocation of "parents" and "civil rights leaders"."

This reliably sourced facts have been in this article several times and have been repeatedly deleted, most recently since August 2009 when it was reinstated here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Eliot_Morison&diff=310737954&oldid=310737235

The following was specifically removed several times and I am again reinstating it. Skywriter (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've just removed it, again. This material has been discussed here over several years, and there's no real support for including such unnecessary levels of detail. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a unilateral decision, Nick. When you say "there's no real support"-- you are offering your personal viewpoint. Mine is that the level of detail is important and useful and it is against Wikipedia policy to censor viewpoints, which is what you are doing. I am going to reinstate the material and place a dispute tag at the top of the page. If you have arguments, please make them with the idea of reaching consensus. If you would like to take this to some level of mediation, it is important to start the discussion first on this talk page with the hope that agreement can be reached based on consensus. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted you again. This text was discussed above in 2006 and 2007, and there was no support for including it. I'm fairly astonished that you've brought this up again after so long, and am amazed that you're edit warring about it. I'm all for getting in external views on this as edit wars are pretty silly. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nick, you have a long history of censoring the viewpoints of historians and of records of the NAACP that demonstrate that Morison and Commager were racist in their treatment of African American people in their very influential textbooks. The argument on Commager's talk page is that Morison was most actively bigoted and that Commager was more passive. Since this is dispute over a long period of time over the same material, I again ask you to explain your rationale for deleting viewpoints from reliable sources that are different from the opinions that you hold, viewpoints that are critical of this historian.

It is Wikipedia policy not to delete viewpoints but to add differing viewpoints. Why don't you do that instead of deleting criticism? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A summary of the material (which included pretty much everything you're adding other than the quotes) was already in the article. Adding large block quotes on the same topic doesn't serve any purpose other than to violate WP:UNDUE. I'm bemused that you're claiming to be able to read my mind and know my views of Morison. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)::Nick-D misrepresents my position as well as his own. For example, he has removed archival material sourced to Benjamin Davis and the NAACP; as a result of Nick's two reverts tonight, this information now appears nowhere in this biographical article. A history of censoring viewpoints does not make a dispute "long-dead."Skywriter (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of textbook for justifying slavery

Morison and his Growth of the American Republic co-author Henry Steele Commager were asked by delegations of African Americans to remove racist passages from the 1950 edition of their widely used history textbook. The following is an excerpt from the passages targeted as a false and objectionable justification for slavery.

As for Sambo, whose wrongs moved the abolitionists to wrath and tears, there is some reason to believe that he suffered less than any other class in the South from its ‘peculiar institution.’ The majority of slaves were adequately fed, well-cared for, and apparently happy. Competent observers reported that they performed less labor than the hired man of the Northern states. Their physical wants were better supplied than those of thousands of Northern laborers, English operatives, and Irish peasants; their liberty was not much less than that enjoyed by the North of England ‘hinds’ or the Finnish torpare. Although brought to America by force, the incurably optimistic Negro soon became attached to the country, and devoted to his ‘white folks.’ Slave insurrections were planned -- usually by the free Negroes – but invariably betrayed by some faithful black; and trained obedience kept most slaves faithful throughout the Civil War. . . If we overlook the original sin of the slave trade, there was much to be said for slavery as a transitional status between barbarism and civilization.

According to several sources, the entry was not removed until 1962 despite requests for change to the earlier editions that began in 1944.

In the Spring 2004 edition of History of Education Quarterly, Jonathan Zimmerman wrote the following:

Starting in 1950, for example, African Americans petitioned well-known race liberals Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison to revise their popular textbook, Growth of the American Republic, which declared that the American slave—or "Sambo," as the text called him—was "adequately fed, well cared for, and apparently happy." Privately, the authors joked about Black complaints—"bushman squawks," Morison called them—against their book. "Felix the nigger-baiter is funny!" Morison told Commager, using the latter's nickname. Miffed by attacks upon his own liberal credentials, Morison stressed that his daughter was married to Jewish NAACP President Joel Spingarn—and that "Sambo" had been Morison's childhood nickname. Eventually, Morison agreed to remove the term "pickanninies"; in future editions, he quipped, Black children would be described only as "nice little seal-brown darlings." But he insisted upon retaining "Sambo," "Uncle Daniel," and several other images of slave docility. "I will be damned if I will take them out for ... anybody," Morison told Commager.

— Zimmerman,

The authors finally removed the passage in the 1962 version of their text book. The passage echoes the thesis of American Negro Slavery (1918) by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips. This view, popularized by most white historians until the mid twentieth century, relied on the one-sided personal records of slave-owners and portrayed slavery as a mainly benign institution.

"The Phillips school of slavery historiography was not limited to the South or to a faction within the historical profession; as recently as 1950, for instance, Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, of Harvard and Columbia Universities respectively, propagated the traditional interpretation in one of the leading college textbooks of the era," according to the American Social History Project at the City University of New York.

— 

Two reverts in one night

Significant tracts of material pertinent to this biography were reverted twice tonight.

I understand that the editor who did this is a big fan of Morison. However, this editor does not allow that Morison had critics. Morison had many admirable qualities, but also a significant blind spot when it came to African Americans. Reliable sources show that he had contempt for black people. Let the facts speak for themselves.

The very first paragraph of (NPOV) states-- "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

The issue before us is whether what a historian writes about race issues is important and should be included in a biography.

Most of the following material was reverted twice tonight on grounds that it offers "too much detail." (It has similarly been deleted from this article repeatedly in the past. The question is two-fold-- Does that justification meet WP guidelines for (NPOV)? Should the material be reinstated? Skywriter (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticized for racism

Morison and his co-author Henry Steele Commager were heavily criticized by African American leaders, intellectuals and historians for their textbook The Growth of the American Republic. Their description of slavery in America and depiction of African American life after the emancipation was called into question.

Morison and Commager were asked by delegations of African Americans to remove racist passages from the 1950 edition of their widely used history textbook. The following is an excerpt from the passages targeted as a false and objectionable justification for slavery.

As for Sambo, whose wrongs moved the abolitionists to wrath and tears, there is some reason to believe that he suffered less than any other class in the South from its ‘peculiar institution.’ The majority of slaves were adequately fed, well-cared for, and apparently happy. Competent observers reported that they performed less labor than the hired man of the Northern states. Their physical wants were better supplied than those of thousands of Northern laborers, English operatives, and Irish peasants; their liberty was not much less than that enjoyed by the North of England ‘hinds’ or the Finnish torpare. Although brought to America by force, the incurably optimistic Negro soon became attached to the country, and devoted to his ‘white folks.’ Slave insurrections were planned -- usually by the free Negroes – but invariably betrayed by some faithful black; and trained obedience kept most slaves faithful throughout the Civil War. . . If we overlook the original sin of the slave trade, there was much to be said for slavery as a transitional status between barbarism and civilization.

Despite the criticism, which began in 1944, changes were not made until 1962, when the text was revised to present a more balanced version of events, according to Benjamin J. Davis in the archived papers of the National Association For the Advancement of Colored People

In the Spring 2004 edition of History of Education Quarterly, Jonathan Zimmerman wrote:

Starting in 1950, for example, African Americans petitioned well-known race liberals Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison to revise their popular textbook, Growth of the American Republic, which declared that the American slave—or "Sambo," as the text called him—was "adequately fed, well cared for, and apparently happy." Privately, the authors joked about Black complaints—"bushman squawks," Morison called them— against their book. "Felix the nigger-baiter is funny!" Morison told Commager, using the latter's nickname. Miffed by attacks upon his own liberal credentials, Morison stressed that his daughter was married to Jewish NAACP President Joel Spingarn—and that "Sambo" had been Morison's childhood nickname. Eventually, Morison agreed to remove the term "pickanninies"; in future editions, he quipped, Black children would be described only as "nice little seal-brown darlings." But he insisted upon retaining "Sambo," "Uncle Daniel," and several other images of slave docility. "I will be damned if I will take them out for ... anybody," Morison told Commager.

— Zimmerman,

In the 1962 version of their book, the authors finally removed the passage that echoes the thesis of American Negro Slavery (1918) by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips. This view, popularized by most white historians until the mid twentieth century, relied on the one-sided personal records of slave-owners and portrayed slavery as a mainly benign institution.

"The Phillips school of slavery historiography was not limited to the South or to a faction within the historical profession; as recently as 1950, for instance, Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, of Harvard and Columbia Universities respectively, propagated the traditional interpretation in one of the leading college textbooks of the era," according to the American Social History Project at the City University of New York.

— 

Morison and Commager's textbook was required reading in the school where Leon F. Litwack studied. Later, after winning his Pulitzer Prize for history writing, Litwack told an interviewer:

The textbook was my first confrontation with history. I asked my 11th grade teacher for the opportunity to respond to the textbook's version of Reconstruction, to what I thought were distortions and racial biases. (I had already read Howard Fast's Freedom Road.) The research led me to the library—and to W. E. B. Du Bois's Black Reconstruction, with that intriguing subtitle: An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880. Armed with that book, I presented what I thought to be a persuasive rebuttal of the textbook.

— Litwack,

Censoring viewpoints is wrecking this bio

If you look at the bio of Morison's co-author, his fans try to make a case that all or most of the racism attributed to their textbook -- that Morison and not Commager-- was to blame. And, those editors insist that details of the textbook criticism be moved to this article. While I don't buy that entirely -- a co-author does have responsibility and does have veto power-- articles in reliable sources make it clear that Morison's prejudices did indeed play a large role in the co-authors' refusal to fix the textbook beginning in 1944 when the Ben Davis et al. at the NAACP asked them to do so. And it is also clear that Morison specifically ignored the personal letters from his colleague and fellow historian August Meier imploring both Morison and Commager to tone down the blatant and insulting personal and political prejudice against African Americans in their popular textbook that was widely used throughout the United States. So the recent entry that changed the lead to say essentially that historians knew no better when Morison was writing is flat out not true.

Now I notice that the footnotes in this article do not link correctly to the text, and that is exactly because those editors who want to protect Morison's legacy from any criticism at all have systematically deleted critical remarks. Based on Wikipedia guidelines, I suggest to you this must stop. Skywriter (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reading through this ongoing debate from over the years, and I thought I would add my two cents. The only work of Morison's that I have read is The Oxford History of the American People. I think that the criticisms of Morison's work are worth exploring. The racism charge is interesting, and I don't think this should be dismissed outright. Yes, he was living and writing in a different era, and yes he essentially came of age in America's Nadir in Race Relations. And at the same time he was, for the time he was living in, a liberal. But there are a few viewpoints he sets forth in his 1964 History (I read the first edition, mind you) that would raise eyebrows, even in the early 60s:

He claims that during Reconstruction it would have been better to ship all of the former slaves to Arizona, as he concludes that they could never coexist peacefully with Southern whites. Nothing you can do about it, you know. This is hardly a "mainstream" idea from the mid 20th century, and is quite condescending to both Southern blacks and whites.

He follows the Dunning school argument that Reconstruction was essentially an orgy of corruption and misgovernment that was best ended by the redeemers (his history is consistently pro-Democrat...although this is history to 1965 so Lord knows what he thought post-1968). Once again even by the 1960s this was hardly a universal viewpoint any more, and is biased to say the least. He openly wishes that Samuel Tilden beat Grant in the 1868 Presidential Election (Tilden ran on a "White Supremacy" platform).

Morison is a New England Yankee of the old breed. French Canadians are simply a failed experiment, the Irish are corrupt and ignorant masses, at least until the "enlightened" John F. Kennedy comes upon the scene.

Some other interesting circa 1910 viewpoints he throws in. The Americans are a more martial people because they benefited from fighting and conquering the "Redskins". The sexual liberation that began with reading Sigmund Freud caused untold pain and suffering to young Americans...Americans stopped being "lions" when they stopped reading the Bible every day...people who don't like 1890's musical theater are uncultured...wristwatches and golf are for homosexuals (seriously...although in his defense he says everyone in the 1890s would have said this). And damn that Mr. Taft!

So really, the kindest thing you can say about Morison is that he is a 19th century historian writing in the 20th century. And even for the 19th century he wasn't terribly progressive thinking. He is basically a historical-author version of C. Montgomery Burns. I can provide the direct quotes if anyone cares for them! 209.6.89.252 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuing attempt to censor scholars

I do not understand the continuing war over this article. Historians and other scholars have looked into the racially-motivated basis of Morison's history-writing and have drawn conclusions that are critical of Morison's major textbook that was widely used in classrooms throughout the United States in the 1930s, 1940s and into the 1960s. That there were racially offensive rants in his textbook is beyond dispute. That certain editors have reverted this material numerous times to try to censor it is also beyond dispute. These editors are placing their personal viewpoints above the views of a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, among others, who have written about Morison and his textbook. Please stop it. The history of Morison's role in keeping offensive material in his textbook has been written about extensively by scholars. In assessing the biography of individuals, it is Wikipedia policy to treat the biography in an even-handed manner. The bio is not supposed to be a paean to the dead. It is to be an honest and fair assessment. Let's keep it that way, eh, and end the revert war. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Skywriter, You're engaging straw men here I'm afraid. As I wrote above earlier this year, my concern is that the material you want to add is over-long (particularly the wordy quotes) and violates WP:UNDUE given that it's about only one of Morison's many books. Claims that my edits are driven by my personal views such as this and this and your above comment are both simply wrong and uncivil. Can you please explain why this summary of the material previously in the article (and again since I've reverted you again) is inadequate given that it covers the problems with this book and the length of time it took to fix them? Is anything of substance (rather than quotes) being left out? If you'd like to write about the book in detail, I would suggest that you create an article on it - it seems notable enough and this would give you room to work with. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've posted notifications of this discussion at WT:BIOG and WT:MILHIST seeking comments from other editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, the discussion at Talk:Henry Steele Commager and edit history of the article doesn't support your claim here that editors there had a different view on this topic or were "in full agreement" over moving material into the Morison article - there actually appears to be long-running resistance to your edits and the edit which you claim an editor active in the Commager article moved material into the Morison article and supports your position ([1] to this article is the one which seems to match up with this edit to the Commager article) actually removed the material you're trying to reintroduce to this article and introduced the summary you're rejecting. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nick and Skywriter. I don't have specific knowledge of this subject so I can't really comment on content except as a layman. From this perspective, it seems to me that the current version (Nick's) provides a bit more of an overview and context, which makes it a bit easier for me to understand. E.g. of the two opening sentences, "Morison and coauthor Henry Steele Commager were criticized by African American leaders, intellectuals and historians for the discussion of American slavery, and African-American life after its end..." is clearer to me than (Skywriter's version) "Morison and his Growth of the American Republic co-author Henry Steele Commager were asked by delegations of African Americans to remove racist passages from the 1950 edition of their widely used history textbook". The second version, seems to jump straight into the requests for change, without introducing it. Having said that, there is clearly a need to deal with all of those "who", "when" and "citation needed" tags, so the solution I would propose would be to combine the versions in a manner that deals with the tags, but doesn't go over the top with block quotes. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate a summary of the writers that have criticised the work from Skywriter's version, but without reproducing large amounts of their words? Would that seem like a fair compromise? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible to me Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OR transferred to Talk

I've transferred the following material, recently added by User:Longsun, here. A paragraph beginning "Supports might argue..." disqualifies itself immediately (through its implication that no one has actually argued that yet) and simply cannot stay in the article. I rush to add that I think the current "criticism" section is on extremely thin ice -- reciting the brave young historian's high-school opposition to a textbook etc. -- is just too smug and pat, and needs much work to achieve balance. But two wrong's don't make a Wikipedia right. If Longsun or anyone else case find a RS who's argued this, then fine...

EEng (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Supporters of Morison might argue that he was a sophisticated writer and that as a disciple of the historian Francis Parkman he would often use a touch of humor and sarcasm to enliven the topics he was writing about.[[2]] When Morison uses the word Sambo it is often to mock the whites that were stupid enough to believe such silly black stereotypes. While Morison's views on race were indeed old fashioned it is useful to note that in the late 19th and early 20th century America literally everyone was a racist, and, at that time, even W. E. B. Du Bois thought that the majority of blacks were genetically inferior. Progressives like Ulrich Bonnell Phillips and Morison believed that the exploitative system of slavery had been replaced by, or had evolved into, an even more insidious and exploitative system, wage slavery.[[3]] It was no longer necessary to feed, house and care for the health of the slaves: just kick them out on the street and let them fend for themselves. When Morison says that the black slaves fared better than the "Northern laborers, English operatives, and Irish peasants", there is an element of radical progressive truth there, and some scientific studies appear to support the belief that many slaves were in better health than Northern wage workers.[[4]] [[5]] When Morison states that blacks "suffered less than any other class" from slavery, one's first reaction is outrage, but when one remembers that slavery directly lead to the Civil War and the total destruction of the white South[[6]], Morison's claim suddenly becomes hard to refute. America's attitudes and opinions on the subject of race have greatly evolved since Morison and Commager first published in 1930 and their textbook has evolved along with America, following, but clearly not leading. The politics of textbook writing is an interesting subject and there has been much news lately about the undue influence that conservatives in Texas have on the textbook publishing business.[[7]] Textbook publishers aren't going to lead the revolution, that's one thing for sure. Note: Zimmerman's claims about Morison and Commager openly trading racist jokes sounds like little more than back-room gossip, although racist jokes were publicly acceptable and common during much of the 20th century.

I'm afraid that, for the second time today, I've had to remove similar material. Please see my comments here. : EEng (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

After making the posts above, I also posted an explanation to User:Longsun's Talk, which prompted the following series of exchanges:

I think that the criticism section of the Samuel Eliot Morison article is one-sided -- as I said in that article's Talk page, it's smug and pat. It fails to put Morison's writings in the context of the times, and makes selective use of the facts to portray the man as nasty when, at worst (and I'm not even saying I agree with this) he was perhaps a bit tone-deaf, historically speaking. But... You cannot fix this the way you are trying to fix it [8]. If you keep adding this kind of stuff you're gonna get yourself blocked -- and I say that, again, as someone completely sympathetic to the need to restore balance to the article. I myself simply don't have the necessary background to do this at the level of scholarship required. If you do have that background, please dig up third-party sources which have discussed this issue and use them as the basis for a more balanced presentation.

EEng (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (If you wish to respond, please do so here -- I will watch this page.)

Dear EENg, I not sure what you are looking for. I have provided a citation for almost every sentence in my addition. It is inexcusable that such inflammatory charges of racism go on challenged and you are setting a very high bar for a response. I thought Wikipedia wanted more than just articles filled with long quotes from "3rd party sources".

[Posted by User:Longsun]

As I explained, I completely agree that the charges of racism are out of balance, to say the least. But Wikipedia articles are not a debate forum. The debate on Morison needs to go on in scholarly papers and books; all we can do here is reflect that debate.

It's Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (not I) which "set the bar" for this. Please review WP:NOR, noting especially All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. It's not enough to cite sources for statements of fact; you must also cite any conclusion, interpretation, or analysis to be drawn from those facts. You've been involved in disputes on this issue before, and I predict there will be very little tolerance if you continue to violate policies such as No Original Research/No Original Synthesis.

EEng (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

EENG Dear Sir, Let me ask you a question: Wikipedia NOR quidelines clearly state that "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." Now it seems to me that the Criticism section of the Morison article is in clear violation of this standard. Critics of Morison have just pasted long quotes with no attempt at original summary. You let this violation stand yet hold me to the most strict standards. This leads me to believe that you are not unbiased in this matter. Please tell me I am wrong.

[Posted by User:Longsun]

Please sign your posts using four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) which will be automatically turned into your username and time/date. Now, then...

You are indeed wrong. I've said I agree with you -- the Criticism section of the Morison article is unbalanced, in violation of WP:NPOV, and in need of overhaul. But the problem with that section is not the presence of the material that's there, but the lack of balancing commentary and analysis appropriately sourced -- with sources not only for statements of fact (such as the fact of what DuBois said) but also for analysis, commentary, and conclusion on their significance to evaluation of Morison's writings.

Therefore, it is you that are letting the (very unfair) material on Morison remain unchallenged, because you're wasting your time adding original synthesis of your own instead of digging up third-party discussion which is more balanced, which you can then paraphrase in the article. (I have said that, as much as I bemoan the state of this section, I lack the time, background, and -- quite frankly -- the high level of interest necessary to find and make use of such sources.) I can hardly doubt that such discussion exists, because Morison was a prominent writer of prominent books, and this kind of subject has received a lot of attention in the last 40 years.

Again I stress: it is not the Criticism material already present which is the problem, but rather the lack of balancing material (which would be woven in with it, not presented in some kind of separate rebuttal section). You're the one trying to add balancing material, for which I applaud you. But you're going about it the wrong way. EEng (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. You said "Critics of Morison have just pasted long quotes with no attempt at original summary." Again I urge you to review WP:OR very carefully. Wikipedia editors may not add their own "original summary" -- that's specifically what WP:SYNTH forbids.

[Posted by User:EEng]

EEng, What you say and what you do are two different things and it's clear from your actions that you hold the critics of Morison to a very low standard. Good luck in the future.

[Posted by User:Longsun]

In removing your additions to the article I have not done anything that any of thousands of other editors wouldn't do -- must do -- if I hadn't done it first. However, I also did what many others wouldn't: I took the time to contact you, to applaud your goals and point you to rules you must follow lest you continue to undermine yourself. Your response is to impugn my motives. Since you insist on shooting yourself in the foot I guess poor Morison will have to wait even longer before being presented in a more balanced light.

EEng (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear EEng, One final question. If I wanted to complain that a senior Wikipedia editor was unfairly enforcing clear guidelines, who would I contact?

[Posted by User:Longsun]

I suggest you take a look at WP:ASSIST, but if that doesn't appeal to you see WP:DISPUTE. However, if your concern refers to me then you're laboring under another misconception: I'm not any kind of "senior editor" (no one is, despite cute userboxes and barnstars), nor am I "enforcing" anything. I've applied policy as I believe it applies. Iif you think I'm wrong, you should give substantive reasons instead of impugning my motives. I'm going to say, yet again, that what you're trying to do is noble and right -- but you're going about it in a self-defeating way.

EEng (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Next, User:Longsun left the following on my Talk ("RRme", "RRNE" and so on seem to be Longsun's various attempts to type my username i.e. EEng):

Dear EEng,

here is the rough draft of the complaint that I will be filling against you, as you can see it needs a few spelling corrections. I hope to work with you in the future to improve the professional quality of wikipedia:

In a good faith attempt to improve the quality of Wikipedia I recently edited the Samuel Eliot Morison article to try to put charges of racism in some perspective. My additions (I deleted nothing) were very soon labeled by EEng as a violation of No Original Research and were quickly deleted by another senior editor. In the NOR message I recieved it stated the entry could be edited and references added to improve the quality and thus remove the NOR label. In a good faith atttempt to correct my mistakes I edited my addition, removing a couple sentences that I thought were OR and added a few sources and reposted my addition, this time under a newly added section called: Response to Criticism and Charges of Racism. Within a few minutes my entry was completely deleted by RRme, and I recieved a message from him telling me that I would likely banned if I keep editing the article and that he would be checking up on me. I responded that the article was extremely biased in it's present form and I was just trying to add some much needed balance. RRme responed that I was in violation of Wikipedia NOR Guidelines and he suggested that I read them. After reading the complete Wikipedia Guidelines, I pointed out to RRNE that the "critics of Morison" had violated several quidelines by pasting long, inflamatory quotes in the body of the article with little or no attempt to "summerize in your own words" in a neutral, unbiased encyclopedic voice perefered by Wikipedia. EEng responded that the problem was not in the article as it now existed but in my additions. I responded, in effect, that I would not work for Wikipedia if the "critics of Morison" were held to a very low quality standard, while I was held to a very high standard. EEng reponded by joking that "I quess that poor Morison will have to twist in the wind a bit longer".

Given the threat to ban me, and given RRME's shocking lack of respect for the principle of Neutrality I feel that I have no choice but to file a complaint in this matter. As the Wikipedia guideline says: be bold in editing articles, no harm is done, they can be easily be reverted...but there are times when it not wise to be bold. Why RREM has acted in this manor is a matter of complete speculation, but I note that one of the "critics of Morison" is another senior Wikipedia editor, Skywriter. I think that RRME may be friends with Skywriter or is just giving him the benefit of the doubt as another senior Wikipedia editor and is not holding him the the same standards as "normal" editors (if I was paranoid I might think RRme was Skywriter just using another nick).

I recently wrote a Criticism section for the Commanger article that deals with the textbook controvery, and while it is certainly not perfect it is superior to the Morison article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Steele_Commager The main problem with the Morison Criticism section that it violates Wikipedia guidelines on quotations and a neutral tone of voice. "When not to use quotations....Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language "In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as emotive language or high-inference language) is wording that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion...Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they prey on the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. They are thus suspect, and many people recommend their avoidance in argument and in speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals."

RRME wrote me that he very much disliked the Criticism section of the Morison article, but he stated that he didn't have the time or interest to correct it. I would suggest that there are several easy fixes that would take little time: 1. RRME could message his fellow senior Wikipedia editor Skywriter, who has long been focused on the racism/textbook controvery, and ask him accurately summerize the source material in his own words, using a neutral, encylopediaic tone of voice and to remove the long inflamitory quotes, 2. RRME could slap a POV violation on the article to encourage other editors to correct the problems, 3. RRME could simply remove the quotes with inflamatory language like he removed my additions., 4. The Criticism section from the Commager article could be transferred to the Morison article with a few edits., 5. An article totally devoted to the Morison textbook controvery/and or racism in the textbook publishing business could be created.

In my humble opinion the Morison article as it now exists is an embasassment for Wikipedia, and RRNE, as it's senior editor, can take the credit for that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longsun (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've transferred everything here in hopes someone else will take a pass at helping Longsun get the point. I'm out of ideas.

EEng (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

EEng, I don't think I can explain WP policy any better to Longsun than you have. However, as I first marked his contribution as questionable, if Longsun actually makes a complaint against you in any venue, I am an involved party and will willingly participate in any discussion that may ensue. -- Donald Albury 11:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the solution proposed by AustralianRupert above back in September (of simply trimming the material to a more sensible length) is the way to go. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent new start on "Criticism"

I want to be the first to congratulate User:Longsun on his complete rework of the Criticism section. I haven't even been able to go over it carefully, but I wanted to rush to say something before any dispute breaks out.

I could be wrong (I hope I'm wrong!) but I think some might be disappointed that some of the "juicier" quotes from the previous version have disappeared. Some may say, and it may even be so (I am not saying either that it is so, or not so) that it's too soft and apologist. Despite Longsun's idea that I am the article's "senior editor" -- I have no idea what he means by that -- I've had very little to do with the article until recently. So I'd like to propose thatI be considered a (relatively) neutral party, and that before anyone gets upset with what Longsun's done, I get 24 hours to copyedit it and, maybe, work some of the old material back in too.

I did a huge amount of copyediting on the Lee Harvey Oswald article with hardly an objection from anyone, and if I was able to navigate that minefield successfully I should certainly be able to work something out here, if I do say so myself.

Of course, if anyone else thinks he or she can do a decent job and wants to jump in, by all means don't wait for me. But please let's not let a revert war start here. Clearly most of what Longsun's written does belong in this section (thought a lot of sourcing is still needed), and it should not be reverted wholesale. EEng (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the section was overloaded with critical quotes. I'm no expert on the issue of Morrison's biases and the criticism of them, and the specific contents of the section are subject to other editors opinions, but I think the section now shows more balance. -- Donald Albury 18:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The new section looks pretty good to me. Based on the above discussion, there was no consensus to keep the over-long quotes and they'd been removed several times previously; only one editor supports keeping them (and I fear that he or she will be along in a few months to revert them back based on their previous conduct). Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A personal emergency has delayed my promised copyedit. Please indulge me a bit longer. EEng (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some issues have arisen which I want to discuss. For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to call the Cr iticism section, as it existed before Longsun stated making changes on Dec 26 2010, the "old" material (version here, and the current text, the "new" material (version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Eliot_Morison&oldid=405515371 here). I'm also going to refer to "Morison's treatment of slavery," "Morison's textbook" when more properly I should write "Morison and Commanger's treatment" etc.

1. The NAACP papers cited [9] by the old material don't appear to refer to Morison. I could be wrong about this (haven't had time to check the originals) , but it appears that someone simply copied this cite from Footnote 1 of the Zimmerman article [10]; the context of Zimmerman's use of the NAACP papers doesn't mention Morison. The old material uses the NAACP cite to support the statement that calls for revision of Morison/Cammager began in 1944; but Zimmerman (par. 15) specifically gives the year as 1950. Therefore, until someone can tell us what's specifically in the NAACP document, the clear balance of the evidence contradicts that it relates to Morison.

2. The old material cites [11] to a promotional writeup for a documentary film by SUNY's American Social History Project. The film itself might or might not be considered a RS, but the web writeup has no named author, and as far as I can see can't even be reached from SUNY's other pages, including the page [12] desribing the film -- it seems to be an orphan. The film's description page does link to an extensive viewer's guide, which mentions neither Morison nor Phillips.

As a result, I do not believe that the film's web description can be considered a RS. Nor can I find any other RS stating that Morison's treatment of slavery is derived from Phillips. The closest I could come are:

• [13], which simply lists Phillips and Morison as two of three "Historians which have provided stereotypical treatments of slave thought and personality" -- which is quite different from saying that they are the same treatment, or that one is derived from the other. (We might find here support for the statement that one treatment "echoes" another, but that's only because "echoes" is so uselessly imprecise).
• [14], which say, "The older generation of historians, whether the Southerner Ulrich B. Phillips or the Yankee aristocrat, Samuel Eliot Morison, were unable to write objectively about the blacks..." -- again, not at all a statement that Morison and Phillips were intellectually related, just that they both lacked objectivity.

Thus I believe the tie to Phillips is unverified. I wouldn't be at all suprised if it's true, but someone's gonna have to come up with a RS explicitly stating that point.

3. The Litwack interview turns out to irrelevant. Litwack says that "the textbook we used in highschool was no more enlightened than" Morison's i.e. it's not Morison's book he discusses in the next paragraph.

4 The direct quote from Moison's text, apparently simply taken from [15] is inappropriate to include. There's no doubt that this is the sort of passage that the controversy is about, but it can't be included unless we also have some source that puts it in context. To show that there is context: Zimmerman (par. 18) says, "Indeed, southern segregationists condemned Commager and Morison's Growth of the American Republic, the same book that called slaves "happy," as too friendly to Blacks. The authors provided brief discussions of racial segregation and campaigns against it, causing many southern school districts to blacklist their book." Clearly there's much more to this controversy than, "Look at this horrifying passage! What a racist Morison was!" -- which is what the reader is left to concude from this bare quote.

I'll leave the list there for now. Please comment.

In the meantime, I've combined parts of the old and the new material. As I originally envisioned it, I'd weave the old and new material together. But since it seems (if my assessment above is correct) most of the old material is no longer supported, then most of the new material (which was essentially a defense against old material) isn't needed either. What we're left with is mostly Zimmerman, which isn't bad on its own but still needs work and surrounding material.

By no means is this meant to be a final version. It's rough, and perhaps bits of what's been dropped should be built back. I may tinker some more while awaiting comment.

EEng (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: the "new" text seems to imply there were two revisions in response to criticism, one in 1950 and then another in 1962. I've removed that for now since it's apparently contractdicted by Zimmerman. The new text cites to Jumonville, but I can't tell if it's for the two-revision idea or for something else.

EEng (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Spanish reference

I have left an English translation of the Spanish reference on the 'request for translation' page if someone can copy and paste it in. I have no idea how to! regards Richard Avery (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting (Mar 15, 2011) recent changes

Per my message to Longsun ([16]), to which he's made no response, I'm reverting his last batch of changes, which reintroduced clearly erroneous material. EEng (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography needs major work

The bibliography in this article is highly unusual and was filled with dozens of 'sources' that had little or nothing to do with the subject and were not used as references. This article needs to follow the normal standards most editors use for history articles by including in the bibliography only RS's that are used as citations in the body of the text. Other sources directly related to the subject but not used as references can be added to Further reading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The titles you have been removing were written by Samuel Eliot Morison, the subject of the article. I restored the titles and changed the section name to Works, adding a lead sentence to avoid confusion. Bede735 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This could have been avoided had the original contributor(s) listed them as you have instead. If any of the works are used as actual citations in this article I believe they would be considered primary sources, so if used as such, they could be challenged. (Not by me.) In any case, the list of Morison's works is impressive but it's a little lengthy for a short biography, so I will fashion a 'collapsible box' suitable for this collection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not think moving the Works and Honors sections of this article into navboxes improves the article. Is there a reason for this change? When readers download this article as a PDF, or try to print it, the list of works and honors is lost. The article is not that long, and the subject of the article is an historian, a writer, and the fairly comprehensive list of his works is among the more important elements of the article. Hiding extraneous or supplemental content in navboxes can help make lengthy articles more manageable, but here you are hiding important content for no appreciable reason. Bede735 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The content isn't being 'hid' because there's a section name for Morison's works and awards and there ares two labels, in enlarged and bold print, indicating the contents. If concern for pdf downlaods is that much of an issue it would seem all nav boxes should be removed. Morison was noted as a naval historian for his involvement with Roosevelt, naval operations, et al. In fact, the section covering this needs to be expanded. Previously the writings and awards lists took up almost half the page length. This is Morison's biography, not an expose' on his writings and awards. If someone really needs to have a printout of his works and/or awards, all they have to do is copy and paste/print the content, quick and easily. Lengthy lists are typically placed in collapsible boxes, esp when used in history or biography articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you focus your energies on Morison's "involvement with Roosevelt, naval operations, et al." before restructuring a stable article to which you've not contributed, for a subject whose well-known titles you did not even recognize. Bede735 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already addressed your objections. The material is not 'hid', as it's clearly and boldly labeled -- and that reader who may want to print out a list of works can still do so easily by copy/pasting to 'Notepad' or what have you. The article was/is not "stable", it had Morison's works recklessly listed under 'Bibliography' while the biography itself lacks much content. I didn't recognize the titles as his works as I am not that familiar with Morison or all of his writings, which amounts to nothing in terms of whether or not we should have long lists in a biography. And while you showed concern for pdf downloads and printable versions, you expressed none for the several nav-boxes already on the Morison page that are also excluded in printouts and pdf's. Also, no one has to contribute to a page in order to edit it again. Again, the lists take up almost half the page -- this is unusual for a biography whose contents should be about the person's life foremost. You have yet to address, let alone justify, why these two lists should dominate the visible text and content of the biography, an account of the man's life. Unless you can do so we should place these long lists in a nav-box, as is the normal practice for long lists in history and biography pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

More opinions

On retrospect, you are correct in that combining the two 'sections' in question was "unorthodox" but the subjects did have their own nav-box. We can keep the section titles separate but we still need to deal with the lists that overwhelm the page and account for almost half the length of Morison's biography. This way your concern for orthodox will be satisfied while we also observe the standard, or orthodoxy, used for lists placed in history and biography pages. If this is still an issue for you then we will have to call in other opinions or make a request for comment. Again, the long lists are highly unusual and out of proportion for a biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I prefer having such long lists collapsed. Given the formatting, it would be easy for a casual reader to mistake the list of Morrison's works as the article's list of sources. Intothatdarkness 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree That is exactly what happened to me. I am not that familiar with Morison, so when I first came to the page the list looked as if someone piled a bunch of unused sources into the 'bibliography'. Now that the section name has been changed to 'Works', we still have a list that comprises almost half the length of what is supposed to be Morison's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." Also, MOS:ACCESS: "Features which would cause content to be hidden or corrupted when CSS or JavaScript is unavailable must not be used. This includes techniques such as the hiddenStructure method for hiding table content—which produces incomprehensible output without CSS—and some implementations of the NavFrame collapsing code—which can make content inaccessible without JavaScript support."

I'm not sure what you mean by, "observe the standard, or orthodoxy, used for lists placed in history and biography pages." The standard all editors should follow is defined in MOS:WORKS, WP:MOS-BIBLIO, etc., and I find nothing about using navboxes for non-navigational purposes. I did a random check of articles on historians and did not find one article that used navboxes or collapsing code in the way you're proposing. Look for yourself: John Keegan, Stephen E. Ambrose, James Thomas Flexner, Alfred Thayer Mahan, John Hattendorf, Dudley Wright Knox, Lewis Mumford, James C. Bradford, James Williamson, William M. Fowler, Robert G. Albion, K. Jack Bauer, Clark G. Reynolds, Richard Hofstadter, Paul Johnson, Paul Kennedy, Ian Kershaw, David Lavender, William A. Baker, Briton C. Busch, John Hattendorf, Robert G. Albion, etc.

I do not share your opinion that these sections "overwhelm the page" as you suggest. Some of the historian articles cited above contain bibliography/works sections much longer. And yes, a list of books by an author is called a bibliography. Bede735 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The lists take up the bulk of the text/space in the biography. And yes, you will notice you could not find long lists in the pages you linked to, much less lists in nav-boxes. Thanks for that at least. Long lists, as you've demonstrated, are [usually] not stuck in biographies and history pages. They are most often found in nav-boxes, in separate lists with their own page, or in template form. The two lists of works and awards go well in their own nav-box, the one used clearly delineated the subject names. Also, a bibliography is more than a list of books, it is a list of books that relate to a subject and are used to reference the outlining of that subject. I believe this is why you changed the section title to 'Works', was it not? Again, your objections have been addressed, and no one can dispute the list comprises almost half the length of this biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I just finished looking at all the examples. While there are a couple pages with lists on the long side, they still don't approach the exceptional length of the two lists we are discussing here and need to have their lists in a nav-box also. One of the pages you linked to has a similar mistake and presents a list of works as if it were the bibliography to the article. Perhaps we can just put the lists of awards in a nav-box while displaying the list of works outright. We should wait for a couple of more opinions before we do anything else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1