Talk:Mark Kishlansky

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

Kishlansky as a "revisionist"[edit]

Mark Kishlansky is generally accepted to have been one of the founders of the revisionist school of Stuart history, along with Conrad Russell and Kevin Sharpe.

See, for example, the following interview with John Morrill of Cambridge University: http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/interviews/Morrill_John.html "Well I think the interesting thing about revisionism was how a whole series of people came to the same conclusions simultaneously without really knowing one another. I hadn’t met Mark Kishlansky or Conrad Russell or Kevin Sharpe when we all published our 1976 works which were the initial canon of revisionism, and that’s one of the most interesting things."

See also Annabel Patterson's book ˆNobody's Perfect: A New Whig Interpretation of Historyˆ, p. 2: "[Kevin] Sharpe implicitly acknowledged that the most recent heirs of Namier and Butterfield, themselves the heirs of Hume, have been the 'revisionist' historians of early modern England today, Conrad Russell, Mark Kishlansky, and of course himself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundel22 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the controversy between Kishlansky and Adamson, I do not believe that there is a consensus among scholars about which of the two made the most persuasive points. I am not aware of any published source that has sought to argue for such a consensus. I also am mindful of Wikipedia's goal of maintaining a neutral point of view when possible. I have therefore removed the changes recently made by a user which seemed designed to suggest that Adamson had prevailed in this controversy.

I agree with the user, however, that it is not necessary to describe Kishlansky's 1977 article in the *Journal of Modern History* as "new" or "influential".

I am still baffled as to why Kishlansky would not be considered a revisionist. Every published source on this topic calls him a revisionist, and I am not aware of any published source that has questioned his revisionist credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundel22 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted the recent changes to the paragraph on Kishlansky and Adamson, which seemed designed to suggest that Adamson had prevailed in this controversy. The goal of this section, in my view, should be to maintain a neutral point of view.

I have also, once again, corrected the change that seemed designed to deny that Kishlansky was a founder of the revisionist school of interpretation. I have also added a footnote to Kevin Sharpe's book of 200, Remapping Early Modern England, where he stated on pages 8-9, "These were the objections that provoked the revisionist critique of Whig history in the mid-1970s. ... on both sides of the Atlantic and within a short space of time, Conrad Russell, Mark Kishlansky and myself fired simultaneous salvos from different angles to the Whig citadel." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundel22 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has once again made alterations to the article designed to suggest that Kishlansky was not a founder of the revisionist school and that Adamson prevailed in his controversy with Kishlansky. The section on Kishlansky's revisionism now begins with the statement that "Kevin Sharpe and Conrad Russell founded the revisionist school of interpretation of early Stuart history of which Kishlansky was a minor transatlantic follower". The section on the debate with Adamson now ends with "Most early modern historians consider that Kishlansky came off badly in these exchanges". Neither of these statements has been footnoted. Instead of reversing these changes, since I suspect this will simply lead to another revert, I have flagged them with the term "neutrality is disputed".

Here is another published source that describes Kishlansky, along with Russell and Sharpe, as a leading revisionist in the 1970s: Peter Lake, "Revisionist and Post-Revisionist Perspectives," in J. F. Merritt, ed., The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621-1641 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 260. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundel22 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article immediately struck me as strange. Describing Kishlansky as 'a minor transatlantic follower' of revisionism is a hideously subjective phrasing, and, looking at the discussion above, the page seems once again to have been edited to suggest Kishlansky came out worse of the TLS exchange with Adamson (addition of tell-tale subjective adjective 'devastating' and editor's obvious privileging of UK-based academics in particular suggest unnecessarily subjective editing). This appears clear vandalism. I know very little about this subject, but it seemed obvious to me as a reader that the page had been repeatedly edited by someone with an anti-Kishlansky agenda. The neutrality warning added Arundel22 has also been removed. I defer to a specialist with greater knowledge, but have in the meantime reverted to an older phrasing which seems much the more reasonable interpretation.109.238.75.122 (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed massively partisan language in favour of Adamson, which the above comments suggested have been added multiple times. I am beginning to wonder if it is Adamson himself inserting the pro-Adamson comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.114.244 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are two death dates on the internet - the 19th, which is listed by the funeral home, but also 21st, listed by the Harvard History Dept webpage. I think the latter is probably more likely to be accurate than the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.247.92 (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Kishlansky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Kishlansky&oldid=1198875044"