History Forum discussion

CDfm

This is a TV show and is fiction.

EDIT - The thread being refered to is this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76110214&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post76110214

"Is DeValera portrayed in Boardwalk Empire"

or this thread on the Treaty which became politics

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056474919

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

This is a TV show and is fiction.

Yes - apparently so.

Never heard of it prior to this but when I clicked on the link supplied on this thread I was gobsmacked at how bad it is. The description on the link is full of historic inaccuracies, half truths and downright falsification of the actual historic record.

The thread ought to have been closed or transferred to movies or a TV forum or something else other than an actual historic discussion.

jonniebgood1

CDfm, Marchdub, Your contributions have been missed on the forum and I would welcome your return. I do not disagree with the points made in both your posts. You should however consider why it may not have been moved at this stage. From my point of view there are a number of reasons why this is so which I will explain for sake of clarity:

-Whilst this seems to be a fiction tale or programme (I am unfamiliar with it) it mentions a portrayal of De Valera. If the OP were to clarify the type of portrayal that is contained in the program then a discussion based upon this would be entirely appropriate to the history forum.
-With the above in mind and the low amount of traffic on the History forum currently I feel it is remiss to shut down a thread before it has a chance to develop. This is also why the OP was asked to clarify their query.
-No post on this or the other thread that you both posted on have been reported. The threads are being followed closely by moderators and you will have seen that efforts have been made by both History moderators to keep things on track. We can however only do a certain amount. A forum is based upon its users contributions hence it would help us if you both returned to contributing. Of course that is entirely up to yourselves to decide and you may have entirely valid reasons for stepping back from former levels of contribution.

Thus the thread will remain open in the hope that it may lead to a discussion on De Valera. I would suggest that if users are interested in discussion regarding De Valera in the context of this thread it would seem the following could be discussed:
What type of Fundraising did De Valera carry out in America?
who did he carry it out with?
What did his compatriots that remained in Ireland think of his fundraising,
Particularly after independence what was the manner of his dealings with America- what was he promising at this stage?

I would prefer if the thread goes in this sort of direction and will be glad to contribute. It could be interesting.

MarchDub

Well if you want a thread on De Valera I would suggest resurrecting last year's Megathread on Dev that Brian started.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65132709


This currant thread which begins with a questionable fictionalised account is not a valid place to start IMO.

As to the questions you pose re Dev - they must be understood within the context of the 'illegal' [according to the British] Dail of 1919 and the necessity of finding money to back up the fledgling state. It was not a solo 'De Valera' fund raising as in a 'what was he doing' question.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

-No post on this or the other thread that you both posted on have been reported. The threads are being followed closely by moderators and you will have seen that efforts have been made by both History moderators to keep things on track. We can however only do a certain amount. A forum is based upon its users contributions hence it would help us if you both returned to contributing. Of course that is entirely up to yourselves to decide and you may have entirely valid reasons for stepping back from former levels of contribution.

Jonnie seeing as you have brought up the subject let me answer you.

Moderating on a history forum ought to go beyond just checking to see if there are offensive posts. I can well see that no posts got reported -that is not the point. The point I am making about any posting is this - is this history, can it be validated? Modding ought to also include an input that involves - in my understanding - a knowledge of the subject itself, how it is studied and source validated, so as to to be able to comment/check that posters are actually posting 'history' that can be authenticated and not just wild, random unsourced opinions which both threads are full of.

Otherwise the discussion becomes something else - and not historicity.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

CDfm, Marchdub, Your contributions have been missed on the forum and I would welcome your return.

Hi jonnie & thanks, I am not avoiding the forum and it is just coincidence that both MD & I posted today.

I haven't been on the forum because things haven't come up that interested me and others haven't been posting either.

The points that MD made on the Treaty thread ,& here, I agree with and there is enough proper history there for a decent discussion using real sources.

I could hardly contribute to this thread as it is a historical fiction TV show. As it is fiction, there are no sources to check it against . I haven't seen the series but some people like it so it must work as a drama or entertainment. History it ain't.

I am still interested in history but as in history as a discipline.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Moderating on a history forum ought to go beyond just checking to see if there are offensive posts. I can well see that no posts got reported -that is not the point. The point I am making about any posting is this - is this history, can it be validated? Modding ought to also include an input that involves - in my understanding - a knowledge of the subject itself, how it is studied and source validated, so as to to be able to comment/check that posters are actually posting 'history' that can be authenticated and not just wild, random unsourced opinions which both threads are full of.

Otherwise the discussion becomes something else - and not historicity.

I agree that it is important that subjects are validated. I have on certain threads insisted on sources to back up any confrontational views expressed. The problem with that is that it stopped users posting and contributing to the history forum. The first point I am making is that there must be a balance in doing this or the forum will have nobody posting.
The second point I would make is that there is a responsibility in a discussion forum for the users of that forum to help out. By this I mean both by questioning and by example. If someone expresses an opinion that is questionable it is fine for another user to simply ask, 'do you have a source for that?'. If they don't it will be apparant from the reply that it is opinion rather than fact. At that stage people can make up there own mind. Similarily if by giving an example that disproves a users opinion another forum user can discount posts if required. Neither of these examples involve a moderator necessarily.
Thirdly it is also possible for a discussion on a subject that a moderator is not following. If there is a problem that cannot be dealt with in the way I detail above it can be reported. This is most often when users become abusive.

MarchDub wrote: »

Otherwise the discussion becomes something else - and not historicity.

Historicity is important as a basis for a history forum. But ultimately on a public history forum people will have different interpretations of the facts. For example the first meeting of the Dail would have a different interpretation for a unionist or a nationalist in Ireland. I agree with some of the points you are making but we are reliant on the people contributing to keep the forum going also. I think a look at the last months of threads still shows that.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The points that MD made on the Treaty thread ,& here, I agree with and there is enough proper history there for a decent discussion using real sources.

I agree and encourage history forum users to do so. As you know there are even guidelines posted to help beginners identify sources. We need to be careful though not to turn people off posting on their historical interest. I think to say that someones blossoming interest in history is not 'proper history' is seen as snobbishness by many people following the history forum. Thus as I am trying to explain the History moderators need to have a balance where people are able to contribute without feeling that others are not respecting them. This has been highlighted to me by several users as a reason why they do not contribute (going back to my requests for sources in threads in August).

CDfm wrote: »

I could hardly contribute to this thread as it is a historical fiction TV show. As it is fiction, there are no sources to check it against . I haven't seen the series but some people like it so it must work as a drama or entertainment. History it ain't.

As I explained above there are reasons why a moderator would leave a thread such as this open. I think it is in post 3 of this thread.

CDfm wrote: »

I am still interested in history but as in history as a discipline.

As a regular user of the history forum in the past you regularly started interesting threads. There is no reason not to continue to do so- I know I enjoyed them. An OP starting a thread has scope to define what follows and you are well capable of doing this. Most of these threads did not have moderator intervention so I am interested if you feel that is not possible anymore. My point in case it is not clear is that it is not up to forum moderators to set up threads for the users although we may do so at times.

CDfm

I really can't see the point of moving the comments taken out of context and starting a discussion.

H & H has changed and I was interested in seeing if the former users were interested in posting real history.

They are hardly going to see that here.

I feel a bit singled out. Marchdub & I were probably the last of the regular contributors to stop posting.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I really can't see the point of moving the comments taken out of context and starting a discussion.

H & H has changed and I was interested in seeing if the former users were interested in posting real history.

They are hardly going to see that here.

It is feedback and this is the feedback forum. It is also linked to from this thread on the history forum
link no 01

And also from this thread on the history forum

Link no. 02

I have made an effort to make sure it is easy to see. My reason for doing this is that I hope suggestions can be made to improve the history forum.

CDfm wrote: »

I feel a bit singled out. Marchdub & I were probably the last of the regular contributors to stop posting.

I hope not. You were both good contibutors to the forum and my intention in encouraging this discussion would also be to see you both return to the forum. My apologies if you feel I have singled you out by moving these posts but I thought it would help the forum get ideas by doing so. I will leave it at that as I would prefer a more general discussion.

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

I really can't see the point of moving the comments taken out of context and starting a discussion.

H & H has changed and I was interested in seeing if the former users were interested in posting real history.

They are hardly going to see that here.

I feel a bit singled out. Marchdub & I were probably the last of the regular contributors to stop posting.

I think the negative changes in H&H can be traced directly back to here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056296762

CDfm

No probs jonnie.

Its really simple for me . I would never post on a "politicized" Irish History Forum anyway as its not my thing.

My own political beliefs are not always evident or relevant ,though I have some bias, because I am discussing the history and use history as a discipline it is the facts that interest me.

If I am discussing Ruth Dudley Edwards "Patrick Pearce" biography it is not OK to say I don't agree with it I have to back it up with facts from sources. Was he gay, well there is no evidence. Simple as that.

If anyone I know is reading this don't get me the RDE book for Xmas not even as a joke

Take the Treaty Tread quoted above most Irish historians dispute the concept of a "unified kingdom" prior to James I so the concept of a "32 county Ireland" prior to that point was a myth as opposed to a historical fact.

Otherwise its just chat and not history.

So I get MD's reasoning that in Ireland we can only discuss these controversial topics with a disciplined approach and try to be inclusive. That does not mean its being academic but its being history.

MD is a professional historian as were other users like Bannasidhe.



Maybe H & H is not the place for that approach.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Take the Treaty Tread quoted above most Irish historians dispute the concept of a "unified kingdom" prior to James I so the concept of a "32 county Ireland" prior to that point was a myth as opposed to a historical fact.

Otherwise its just chat and not history.

So I get MD's reasoning that in Ireland we can only discuss these controversial topics with a disciplined approach and try to be inclusive. That does not mean its being academic but its being history.

MD is a professional historian as were other users like Bannasidhe.



Maybe H & H is not the place for that approach.

I think it is the place for that approach, but allowance needs to be made for other less formal approach also (within reason). I guess the difficulty moderating that is getting a balance. To that end I have tried to look for sources on more confrontational subjects but given the lack of traffic this may not be working. Both moderators are open to suggestions in this regard that would allow valuable contributors like Marchdub continue to do so. It is an important issue and I think there should be a happy medium that is achieveable.

CDfm

Ah but jonnie, the Boardwalk Empire thread ain't history. Its a bit like asking how historically accurate the Quiet Man is.

Anyway, it isn't about me as I stayed posting there ,as did MD, as the forum sort of fizzled out and others had stopped posting.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but jonnie, the Boardwalk Empire thread ain't history. Its a bit like asking how historically accurate the Quiet Man is.

Anyway, it isn't about me as I stayed posting there ,as did MD, as the forum sort of fizzled out and others had stopped.

So how do we encourage people to re-engage?

In my time posting on the forum it was never overly busy but I did not see that as a no. 01 objective. Perhaps people have more time for realtime issues currently than was previously the case. The forum is there for people interested in history. Its content is set by its users so when people stop posting it can be a problem. There is currently a wide variety of topics but people cannot be forced to post. It seems counter productive in this situation to shut a thread when there is a potential that it could lead to a discussion and the thread mentioned has that potential IMO (I understand your argument against it also).

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but jonnie, the Boardwalk Empire thread ain't history. Its a bit like asking how historically accurate the Quiet Man is.

+1
Yes, that's the point that I am making also. Allowing fiction to be included in what is supposed to be a historic discussion is a very, very, bad precedent.

Amongst other issues it will lead to widespread confusion about what is actually documented as being on the historic record. There are literally mountains of historic fiction both written and in film form that could sideswipe any historic moment and keep nonsense discussions going around in circles forever.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So how do we encourage people to re-engage?

I don't know, something went pear shaped.

P. Breathnach

MarchDub wrote: »

... Allowing fiction to be included in what is supposed to be a historic discussion is a very, very, bad precedent....

Using a fictional source as support of a point of view is unacceptable.

But some literary or film representations involve an effort to treat the historical record with fidelity, and I think it is fair to consider such representations in order to discuss how accurate and truthful they are.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I agree that it is important that subjects are validated. I have on certain threads insisted on sources to back up any confrontational views expressed. The problem with that is that it stopped users posting and contributing to the history forum. The first point I am making is that there must be a balance in doing this or the forum will have nobody posting.
The second point I would make is that there is a responsibility in a discussion forum for the users of that forum to help out. By this I mean both by questioning and by example. If someone expresses an opinion that is questionable it is fine for another user to simply ask, 'do you have a source for that?'. If they don't it will be apparant from the reply that it is opinion rather than fact. At that stage people can make up there own mind. Similarily if by giving an example that disproves a users opinion another forum user can discount posts if required. Neither of these examples involve a moderator necessarily.
Thirdly it is also possible for a discussion on a subject that a moderator is not following. If there is a problem that cannot be dealt with in the way I detail above it can be reported. This is most often when users become abusive.



Historicity is important as a basis for a history forum. But ultimately on a public history forum people will have different interpretations of the facts. For example the first meeting of the Dail would have a different interpretation for a unionist or a nationalist in Ireland. I agree with some of the points you are making but we are reliant on the people contributing to keep the forum going also. I think a look at the last months of threads still shows that.

I understand the wish to include posters but the case you make for this eliminates real historic discussion IMO. If you allow posters to post fiction, make personal statements about how 'they think' history happened then you shut out the valuable contributors. Back in Brian's time we had a lively amount of posters who were well versed in historic discussion and the mod was able to weed out those who posted hearsay and what amounted to non documented rumours. It was not at all off putting for posters to be subjected to this gentle prodding and advice. Look back at any of the threads from that era and you will see this.

Letting posters just post 'I think' or 'I heard' shuts out those of us who want a real valid discussion and not have to deal with those who are posting from flagrant ignorance of the record and are clueless about source material [and even the difference between history and fiction].

In addition, I have to add, having a history mod post in support of a blatant piece of fiction - as happened on the fiction thread - is not a good direction for a history forum.

ejmaztec

MarchDub wrote: »

I understand the wish to include posters but the case you make for this eliminates real historic discussion IMO. If you allow posters to post fiction, make personal statements about how 'they think' history happened then you shut out the valuable contributors. Back in Brian's time we had a lively amount of posters who were well versed in historic discussion and the mod was able to weed out those who posted hearsay and what amounted to non documented rumours. It was not at all off putting for posters to be subjected to this gentle prodding and advice. Look back at any of the threads from that era and you will see this.

Letting posters just post 'I think' or 'I heard' shuts out those of us who want a real valid discussion and not have to deal with those who are posting from flagrant ignorance of the record and are clueless about source material [and even the difference between history and fiction].

In addition, I have to add, having a history mod post in support of a blatant piece of fiction - as happened on the fiction thread - is not a good direction for a history forum.

Boardwalk Empire is supposed to be based on fact, so it's not a blatant piece of fiction. People have gone to the trouble of proving how accurate it is, using other available records, an example of which is quoted here:

http://www.marioncountyline.com/2010/09/boardwalk-empire-history.html


I have been asked by someone who knows me to be a student of the history of American organized crime if the new HBO series, Boardwalk Empire is historically accurate. It's a good question.

Specifically, were Al Capone and Lucky Luciano together in Atlantic City in 1919? Was Al Capone a soldier in World War I? Was Capone a member of a "lost batallion" as his character claims in the show?

Here's what we found out, from John Kobler's 2003 biography, The Life and World of Al Capone:

So, the real-life Capone did claim to be in the "Lost Battalion," even though he really wasn't. So that checks out.

But did a young Al Capone meet with other gangsters including a young Lucky Luciano in Atlantic City in 1919 at the dawn of Prohibition? This one is a little less clear, from Get Capone by Jonathan Eig:

So, as best as we can tell -- while there WAS a meeting that included Capone and Luciano in Atlantic City at the height of Prohibition in 1929, there doesn't seem to be a record of one happening a decade earlier as depicted in Boardwalk Empire.

It's still interesting that the meeting has some historical precedent, which the greater scope of Boardwalk Empire could be foreshadowing, depending on how quickly the plot moves.

Discussing historical factual dramas produced on Hollywood conveyor belts is a good idea in my opinion, because any inaccuracies can be brought to light. I'd hate to think that there are people out there who assume that these productions are 100% true.

The H&H forum has had discussions on the Michael Collins film, not to mention The Wind That Shakes The Barley, and no doubt there was poetic licence in those productions as well. These two films were discussed long before the new mods showed up.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I understand the wish to include posters but the case you make for this eliminates real historic discussion IMO. If you allow posters to post fiction, make personal statements about how 'they think' history happened then you shut out the valuable contributors. Back in Brian's time we had a lively amount of posters who were well versed in historic discussion and the mod was able to weed out those who posted hearsay and what amounted to non documented rumours. It was not at all off putting for posters to be subjected to this gentle prodding and advice. Look back at any of the threads from that era and you will see this.

Letting posters just post 'I think' or 'I heard' shuts out those of us who want a real valid discussion and not have to deal with those who are posting from flagrant ignorance of the record and are clueless about source material [and even the difference between history and fiction].

In addition, I have to add, having a history mod post in support of a blatant piece of fiction - as happened on the fiction thread - is not a good direction for a history forum.

It is not a matter of supporting or not supporting fiction in the thread about the representation of De Valera in Boardwalk. It is a matter of trying to bring about a proper discussion on De Valera and his activities in America (in my view). I understand that not everyone will agree with this but I would like to allow the thread time to develop and see what happens. I have tried to direct it towards a path more relevant to history. If this does not succeed (i.e. people try and discuss the ficticious programme involved) then I will close the thread. More likely is that there will be some posts in the correct direction and then the thread will die off if not supported. I agree with your points about source material.
The OP is vague in the thread we are discussing. It mentions characteristics of De Valera and it is possible to explore them through the historical record to see if they are correct.

There are threads that are interesting at the moment on the forum and the bigger problem is that there is not enough contributions to them, moreso than 'hearsay' contributions. The points made are taken on board though (whether I agree or not) and I would welcome ideas on how to improve the forum.

LoLth

hmmm, while I agree that historical drama or historical fiction should not be used as the basis for an argument, I do think that discussion of the *historical* period upon which the fiction is based is valid and the fiction could be used as a reference point

eg: How historically accurate was Count Belisarius by Robert graves? was there really a rogue Roman general that could have become emperor?

In the movie, the last Samurai, it shows Tom Cruise as a westerner who joins a group of samurai in their battle against modernisation. Did this really happen? was it based on a true story?

however, I do agree that basing an argument on the true events of the Titanic solely on the events of that god-awful movie would be just wrong and should be seen as a completely unsupported argument at best (possibly a user in need of counselling..."but its true! John Travolta showed us so in Battlefield Earth!")

to me, it doesnt matter how the discussion gets started as long as the discussion in suitable for the forum its in and there are a lot of people who would find an interest in history based on something they read or saw on TV or in the movies.

MarchDub

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd hate to think that there are people out there who assume that these productions are 100% true.

Well this is actually what people do assume - and why fiction should be separated out. I've known students who made that assumption, many a time.

Besides, having to actually watch some of this stuff would be punishment enough for me - one look at the site of Boardwalk was enough. There were so many 'half truths' that it was ludicrous [in spite of claims made to its authenticity]. And there is nothing more misleading than the historic half truth.

CDfm

It should not be a big deal if those of us who like our history to be history don't want to use a historyish type forum.

Boardwalk is a TV show and is to entertain.

Its academic really as the two don't mix and people have stopped posting anyway.

Its a mystery why everyone stopped.

LoLth

so someone who posts "I was watching Boardwalk empire and I was wondering if someone could recommend a decent factual account of prohibition era America - in particular the Eastern Seaboard area because everyone knows about Chicago already!" is not a valid post for a history forum?

Or someone asking what elements of Boardwalk Empire are inaccurate from a historical point of view?

Allowing discussion of historical representation in mainstream media does not, imho, water down the validity of the forum - as long as the discussion remains on a historical theme and doesnt veer into "what do you think will happen next week?" type affair.

In fact, I think TV shows based on periods of history could only help to raise public awareness and interest in the subject. I'm sure the Tudors got a lot of people curious about that period of English history. if thats what urges them to ask questions and want to learn and discuss then I really dont see the issue with users using TV shows as a starting point for a discussion, just not as an ultimate resource that all other opinions must be measured against. (A bit like Dan Brown. I hate his books but I know so many people who had not read anything in ages until they picked up the DaVinci Code and from there they continued to read other (inevitably better!)books. I would have no issue with a user posting in literature "I just finished Dan Brown's book and I enjoyed it. Are there any other books set in the Vatican/Paris or ones that involve the FBI/hacking/super-computers or involve political intrigue/astronomical events ?" - Digital Fortress, the only book I have ever thrown away in case someone else had the misfortune of reading it!)

of course, thats my opinion. the opinion of the mods may vary

Bannasidhe

LoLth wrote: »

so someone who posts "I was watching Boardwalk empire and I was wondering if someone could recommend a decent factual account of prohibition era America - in particular the Eastern Seaboard area because everyone knows about Chicago already!" is not a valid post for a history forum?

Or someone asking what elements of Boardwalk Empire are inaccurate from a historical point of view?

Allowing discussion of historical representation in mainstream media does not, imho, water down the validity of the forum - as long as the discussion remains on a historical theme and doesnt veer into "what do you think will happen next week?" type affair.

In fact, I think TV shows based on periods of history could only help to raise public awareness and interest in the subject. I'm sure the Tudors got a lot of people curious about that period of English history. if thats what urges them to ask questions and want to learn and discuss then I really dont see the issue with users using TV shows as a starting point for a discussion, just not as an ultimate resource that all other opinions must be measured against. (A bit like Dan Brown. I hate his books but I know so many people who had not read anything in ages until they picked up the DaVinci Code and from there they continued to read other (inevitably better!)books. I would have no issue with a user posting in literature "I just finished Dan Brown's book and I enjoyed it. Are there any other books set in the Vatican/Paris or ones that involve the FBI/hacking/super-computers or involve political intrigue/astronomical events ?" - Digital Fortress, the only book I have ever thrown away in case someone else had the misfortune of reading it!)

of course, thats my opinion. the opinion of the mods may vary

I see your point and to an extent agree that using fictional deceptions of event/characters can be a way to kick start discussions. I have in the past advised students to read certain fictional works to help them get the atmosphere of an age and bring some life to what can otherwise be dusty and dry 'facts' (usually the books I recommend are Neal Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy as he captures the end of the Stuart period/beginning of the Hanovarian well and ditto for C.J Sansom's Shardlake for his depiction of the paranoid fear that suffused Henry VIII's later reign).

But, having been at the teaching coalface I also understand MarchDub's utter frustration at having students 'argue' a point based entirely on 'what they saw on the telly'. Personally there have been moments when I could have gleefully slow-roasted the producers of The Tudors over a historically accurate pyre and handed those responsible for Elizabeth The Golden Age over to the Spanish Inquisition. I have had 3rd years 'reference' a work of fiction in their final dissertations.

On balance - I think we should encourage those who come 'here' to discuss the accuracy of fictional depictions as at least they are seeking to uncover the 'truth' behind the 'fiction' and not accepting the Braveheart/Michael Collins/Elizabeth versions. However, I would have little patience for an 'argument' that is based only on the fictional account.

CDfm

Is it a spoiler thread on future Boardwalk shows. ? Will Mcgarrigle become involved with the Mafia in an Irish Hospital Sweepstake scam. ?

And, for me that is not History or Heritage/Lore and it is a period drama. Anyway, if you want to go off-topic why not have an off-topic megathread for that.

Why are users so adamant about it ?

There were some great contributers to H & H & it was possible to have civilised history discussions with others across the political spectrum without getting into difficult situations.

In Irish history it is a bit different as the issue's are still current and when it comes to this history as a discipline is useful and frees up the discussion.

Irish history is screwy and its full of myths, hyperbole and all the rest.

For me, I wouldn't want to get stuck into a political orange vs green debate though I can discuss it in history.

Take this thread, Hitler v Stalin, a difficult topic but it illustrates a point on "political" threads

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056313846&page=5

These are always open to arguments from emotion and I have seen other threads elsewhere where if someone takes the view that Stalin was worse they get called a Nazi or anti-semite or racist when all they are doing is discussing the sources.

Now with the 1916 Centenary breathing down our necks, it would be nice to be able to discuss Irish things. I should be able to admire the sheer brilliance of the Ulster Covenant, ( whose centenary is next year) the scottish tradition & heritage that it originated from & the suffrage & referendumness it have in that context without having Rev Paisley mentioned.

So I am totally with MarchDub on that you can't do discussions like that without an eye to the historiography and sometimes it requires users to be a bit more open minded & think differently in a "forget what you learned in school way".

The moding style of H & H evolved around that when Brian did it and that when I waltzed in and liked it because it worked.

I know that moding can be informed and inclusive & it works in A & A which can cover all kinds of topics wonderfully.

Maybe there was wholesale banning behind the scenes but some of the most interesting threads have involved the different traditions putting the history of their tradition forward and putting it up for scrutiny.

Sometimes , a bit of discretion and editing is all that is needed as opposed to I am going to hit you with my big shillelagh stick.

Where the forum is at now is the polar opposite of where it was at and the posters I would have posted with are gone. I wonder if anyone has thought of inviting them back.

CDfm

LoLth wrote: »

Or someone asking what elements of Boardwalk Empire are inaccurate from a historical point of view?

of course, thats my opinion. the opinion of the mods may vary

The Boardwalk Empire thread is something that is really where H & H is at now. No one really would have noticed it before because there was more activity and users .

Its a bit more like what is Boards going to do to revive H & H or is it planned to leave it as it is ?

So we can discuss it alright but ...........get me a young priest and an old priest

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Its a bit more like what is Boards going to do to revive H & H or is it planned to leave it as it is ?

I get the impression some people aren't going to be content until there's a change of management, when it's not the management that's the problem.

You can't suddenly moderate good posters into existence.

If there's a problem, it lies with the posters, both the ones that post in H&H and the ones that don't anymore.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I get the impression some people aren't going to be content until there's a change of management, when it's not the management that's the problem.

Hey , where has the "us & them" come from ?

I didn't start this thread - jonnie moved comments I made on the Boardwalk thread.

If there's a problem, it lies with the posters, both the ones that post in H&H and the ones that don't anymore.

Nobody is posting there anymore so there is no problem.

There isn't a group of disaffected users lurking or anything like that- people just stopped.

It's anyone's guess whether anyone would come back again.

It would be nice to know if there were any plans to revive the forum.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Hey , where has the "us & them" come from ?

I didn't start this thread - jonnie moved comments I made on the Boardwalk thread.

Sorry, I know I quoted you above, but I wasn't specifically referring to you.

CDfm wrote: »

Nobody is posting there anymore so there is no problem.

There isn't a group of disaffected users lurking or anything like that- people just stopped.

I assumed that was the case. Or at least that there were a bunch of 'quality' posters that upped sticks and left, never to return.

CDfm wrote: »

It would be nice to know if there were any plans to revive the forum.

Any suggestions?

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Is it a spoiler thread on future Boardwalk shows. ? Will Mcgarrigle become involved with the Mafia in an Irish Hospital Sweepstake scam. ?

And, for me that is not History or Heritage/Lore and it is a period drama. Anyway, if you want to go off-topic why not have an off-topic megathread for that.

Why are users so adamant about it ?

People are entitled to different views about it. The reason for the thread being left on the history forum has been explained several times and it is not as you state here.

CDfm wrote: »

Take this thread, Hitler v Stalin, a difficult topic but it illustrates a point on "political" threads

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056313846&page=5

These are always open to arguments from emotion and I have seen other threads elsewhere where if someone takes the view that Stalin was worse they get called a Nazi or anti-semite or racist when all they are doing is discussing the sources.

This thread was only in June/ July. I do not understand what has changed so much since then but I am quite willing to listen to ideas. No regular user has been banned from posting AFAIK.

CDfm wrote: »

Nobody is posting there anymore so there is no problem.

There isn't a group of disaffected users lurking or anything like that- people just stopped.

It's anyone's guess whether anyone would come back again.

It would be nice to know if there were any plans to revive the forum.

I would not like to be disingenuous about this but it is only fair to point out that while I would prefer more traffic there are still a varied group of contributors. I think a look at the variation in threads that have been used in the last month shows this. It is unfair to these people to not acknowledge their contributions.

Maybe the people that you are referring to can come back and all ideas for getting them back are welcome. That is one of the reasons I moved your comments here as it allows greater freedom for discussion (History moderators are not moderators on this forum). Ideas though are one thing but if people do not wish to post then they won't. There is also the view that if people have to be accomodated in any special way then is it to the detriment of the forum and would it lose other users.

CDfm wrote: »

It should not be a big deal if those of us who like our history to be history don't want to use a historyish type forum.

I agree- it should'nt be a big deal. Perhaps you are expecting to much if you think every thread will be to your liking. When I look at a thread the first thing I do is see what the OP is seeking. It is up to the person putting up the first post to define what they want and on the history forum it is reasonable for the OP to ask for particular type of sources to back up the answers they may recieve. I think you understand that as in the past your threads did exactly that and when an answer strayed away from this you would tell them. This requires no moderator input and is perfectly acceptable. I have not yet seen any reason why this can not work now.

Regarding the forum being 'historyish' I don't think that is so. There is scope for a variation of topics and not everyone will have the same posting style. It is also unfair to suggest that some posters have no interest in history.

With regard to your points about people stopping posting there are several possible reasons, boredom, lack of topics, moderation, less time on their hands, other interests, unhappy with other aspects of boards, etc. I dont know which is most but would imagine from a small pool that a few people missing is more noticeable. You are in a better position than me to identify a reason for stopping though (EDIT> by this I mean you are posting on the history board for a longer period of time).

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

If there's a problem, it lies with the posters, both the ones that post in H&H and the ones that don't anymore.

Nobody is posting there anymore so there is no problem.

There isn't a group of disaffected users lurking or anything like that- people just stopped.

It's anyone's guess whether anyone would come back again.

It would be nice to know if there were any plans to revive the forum.

I was thinking a little bit more about this. I had tended to think the same as you- that the forum was very quiet in the last few months. I am not so sure having looked at the numbers (note- numbers using the forum are not everything). The threads ending in November from the last few years as a guide are as follows:

2008- 18 no.
2009- 18 no.
2010- 29 no.
2011- 40 no.

This is only a numbers guide and I know that other things are important (volume, quality, etc) but the number is surprising.

CDfm

You guys are the forum experts and not me.

Boardwalk style threads are not for me. I like lore, murder and scandal a lot when its done properly too. Part of our social history.

The reason why I didn't do on-line history (that is before H & H) is because you end up with threads on political lines and not history lines. I don't want to get dragged into that.

The Mountbatten thread is an example

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056368179

Irish history is a minefield .I imagine if my experience is anything to go by,you build up on-line connections with others and try to set up a thread. So its handy to know who is around or available for a thread. Community is important.


(There has been a huge historical revisionist debate in irish academic circles concerning Irish historiography to establish the factual basis of Irish history since the 1990's).

Other users and their area's of interest and the sources are great. From this thread you will see that information on Pearce for example wasn't hidden but was edited out

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056192193

The revisionist debate is important and recent and even professional historians are very passionate about it. It is also challenging for political types.

(A lot of the history taught in schools etc was just plain wrong )

So that's why people say fine you have a history forum but what is the moding style behind it.

Dades wrote: »

I get the impression some people aren't going to be content until there's a change of management, when it's not the management that's the problem.

So Dade's question is important to users as the type of user the forum get's depends on that.

The answer to Dades "when it's not the management that's the problem" is that it is the subject matter that boards hasn't come to terms with. That really is not a user problem.

That's the tricky part and sure its challenging for boards as the subject matter is difficult and I imagine the forum undergoes this upheaval every year or so.

Cynical moi but it really is a matter for boards how it intends to run the forum as that determines what type of history forum it is and who the users will be.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

So Dade's question is important to users as the type of user the forum get's depends on that.

The answer to Dades "when it's not the management that's the problem" is that it is the subject matter that boards hasn't come to terms with. That really is not a user problem.

That's the tricky part and sure its challenging for boards as the subject matter is difficult and I imagine the forum undergoes this upheaval every year or so.

Cynical moi but it really is a matter for boards how it intends to run the forum as that determines what type of history forum it is and who the users will be.

I honestly can't be sure what you're saying here.

If it is what i suspect it is, how is a change of management going to revive the forum if, as you have already said, there isn't a bunch of lurkers all waiting in the wings?

You can't define who the users are. Just look at the Politics forum feedback thread. Boards is the sum of it's members. We're not a niche site - we're big and getting bigger every day. With size comes change.

I'm not seeing a solution here, just, well, more politics.

CDfm

I only ever posted for the history and nothing else.

If there are personality issues at play here then I wouldn't know & if it is the case I don't want to get involved. And if its "management" issues and an "us versus them" then count me out too.

You can't define who the users are. Just look at the Politics forum feedback thread. Boards is the sum of it's members. We're not a niche site - we're big and getting bigger every day. With size comes change.

I'm not seeing a solution here, just, well, more politics.

I am not particularly bothered about what Boards is but History is a tricky topic to tackle on-line because of subject matter.

It might be that it is not a category that suits the Boards format as in an Irish context it is well controversial. The revisionist history debate that's been going on since 1990 or so & co-existed with the political stuff in Ireland & that might be reflected on the forum don't you think ?.

I have been into history for years and have tended to avoid on-line community groups and go down the heritage/lore route for the reasons I have mentioned.

History Ireland is just too academicy for me and for a time I thought Boards got it right. Spectacularly right, for a time.

It is easy enough to see who the history posters were and access them. Fcek, I invited people on when I wanted to discuss particular specialist subjects from other forums. I liked the mix of history academics, other disciplines and enthusiasts.

I can see the problem from both the user's and boards view's and if neither side want to see the others point of view then there is very little I can do about it.

jonnie must have had some reason for starting this thread and I really wish he hadn't done so with my post.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

jonnie must have had some reason for starting this thread and I really wish he hadn't done so with my post.

I am sorry if this is a preoblem for you. I have already explained why I moved the posts to feedback here

You were a regular poster on the forum so when you are questioning tohe direction it is taking I had a few options:
1. Delete comments & ignore them.
2. Do exactly what you wanted (shut the thread in question down).
3. Allow a discussion that may criticise the forum & its mods but might also give me ideas for making the history forum more tailored towards its users.

CDfm wrote: »

I only ever posted for the history and nothing else.

If there are personality issues at play here then I wouldn't know & if it is the case I don't want to get involved. And if its "management" issues and an "us versus them" then count me out too.
.

I may be slow on this but there has never been any contact with me to influence anything on the forum. I try to keep things running smoothly and if I was pressured towards a role I was uncomfortable with I would be gone. So when I look for direction or ideas for the history board it is from those who use it.

CDfm

This has already gotten way too deep

jonnie & everyone have a good Xmas and maybe Santy will sort it out but you gotta be good.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

This has already gotten way too deep

jonnie & everyone have a good Xmas and maybe Santy will sort it out but you gotta be good.

History will do so!!!
Good wishes to all involved and Happy new year to all.

CDfm

See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQy_ppY2bI

FloatingVoter

I just stumbled on this argument but heres the Boardwalk Empire angle. Lucky Luciano, Al Capone, Meyer Lansky etc. existed. They're portrayed pretty much as they were in 1920/21. De Valera would have been named were he part of the plot, no reason not to. Dead men tell no tales etc. There is no doubt that a hat is being tipped to the international element of bootlegging / gunrunning. They probably flipped a coin between Ireland and the counter-revolution in Russia to source booze for cheap guns.
The character McGarrigle is straitlaced and sober but so were many men at that time. Many would have tried to emulate De Valera in appearance and in character.
Sorry to intrude on a serious thread.

slowburner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see your point and to an extent agree that using fictional deceptions of event/characters can be a way to kick start discussions. I have in the past advised students to read certain fictional works to help them get the atmosphere of an age and bring some life to what can otherwise be dusty and dry 'facts' (usually the books I recommend are Neal Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy as he captures the end of the Stuart period/beginning of the Hanovarian well and ditto for C.J Sansom's Shardlake for his depiction of the paranoid fear that suffused Henry VIII's later reign).

But, having been at the teaching coalface I also understand MarchDub's utter frustration at having students 'argue' a point based entirely on 'what they saw on the telly'. Personally there have been moments when I could have gleefully slow-roasted the producers of The Tudors over a historically accurate pyre and handed those responsible for Elizabeth The Golden Age over to the Spanish Inquisition. I have had 3rd years 'reference' a work of fiction in their final dissertations.

On balance - I think we should encourage those who come 'here' to discuss the accuracy of fictional depictions as at least they are seeking to uncover the 'truth' behind the 'fiction' and not accepting the Braveheart/Michael Collins/Elizabeth versions. However, I would have little patience for an 'argument' that is based only on the fictional account.

LoLth wrote: »

so someone who posts "I was watching Boardwalk empire and I was wondering if someone could recommend a decent factual account of prohibition era America - in particular the Eastern Seaboard area because everyone knows about Chicago already!" is not a valid post for a history forum?

Or someone asking what elements of Boardwalk Empire are inaccurate from a historical point of view?

Allowing discussion of historical representation in mainstream media does not, imho, water down the validity of the forum - as long as the discussion remains on a historical theme and doesnt veer into "what do you think will happen next week?" type affair.

In fact, I think TV shows based on periods of history could only help to raise public awareness and interest in the subject. I'm sure the Tudors got a lot of people curious about that period of English history. if thats what urges them to ask questions and want to learn and discuss then I really dont see the issue with users using TV shows as a starting point for a discussion, just not as an ultimate resource that all other opinions must be measured against. (A bit like Dan Brown. I hate his books but I know so many people who had not read anything in ages until they picked up the DaVinci Code and from there they continued to read other (inevitably better!)books. I would have no issue with a user posting in literature "I just finished Dan Brown's book and I enjoyed it. Are there any other books set in the Vatican/Paris or ones that involve the FBI/hacking/super-computers or involve political intrigue/astronomical events ?" - Digital Fortress, the only book I have ever thrown away in case someone else had the misfortune of reading it!)

of course, thats my opinion. the opinion of the mods may vary

If the source of someone's interest in an area of history is a tv programme, or a website, or a burlesque show, or a dream - so fookin what?
It is more important that they have the interest.
If the interest is genuine, separating fact from fiction will follow.
If someone cannot separate history from fiction, then they need education.

History and heritage is a fairly decent form of education - well, it has been for me anyway.

While passing through this thread, I would like to thank CD for making stuff novel and interesting and Marchdub for putting me on the straight and narrow.

The Scientician

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I just stumbled on this argument but heres the Boardwalk Empire angle. Lucky Luciano, Al Capone, Meyer Lansky etc. existed. They're portrayed pretty much as they were in 1920/21. De Valera would have been named were he part of the plot, no reason not to. Dead men tell no tales etc. There is no doubt that a hat is being tipped to the international element of bootlegging / gunrunning. They probably flipped a coin between Ireland and the counter-revolution in Russia to source booze for cheap guns.
The character McGarrigle is straitlaced and sober but so were many men at that time. Many would have tried to emulate De Valera in appearance and in character.
Sorry to intrude on a serious thread.

Except that for example, the main character Nucky while based on a real person has a different name (Thompson/Johnson, so it wouldn't have been without precedent in the show for the character to have been based on Dev but called something else. Completely OT but what the hell was that bit about not eating a beast of cloven hoof?

Anway, perhaps the History section should have a "General Historical Questions about TV Shows/Novels/Movies" Megathread. Lots of people's interest in Irish history was stoked by things like Strumpet City, The Year Of The French, and the Michael Collins film, so somewhere to address how real history is incorporated into entertainment would be great. Perhaps it's too history-lite for the main forum however.

CDfm

This hits the spot nicely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZIxQyhgqqk

slowburner

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

This hits the spot nicely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZIxQyhgqqk

I must admit this has gone viral among historians on Facebook .

jonniebgood1

slowburner wrote: »

History and heritage is a fairly decent form of education - well, it has been for me anyway.

While passing through this thread, I would like to thank CD for making stuff novel and interesting and Marchdub for putting me on the straight and narrow.

I think this is a very important point. The agenda is set by the people using the forum. Regular users who care about the forum help keep track on things by the manner of their posts. People who come new to the forum with a genuine interest will take their que from this.
It has been pointed out to me that this thread has focused on one particular issue rather than more general mannerisms. I believe that the comments here show there is a divergence of views in regard of using a historical drama as a starting point for a discussion.

I would like if people could also give there opinion on people posting their opinions. From a moderation point of view it can be difficult to know to what extent sources should be insisted on? So is it realistic to insist on sources for all posts, or just some posts, or just contentious posts, or some other level of control. I would like the views of both regular users and also people who may follow history less often.
Thanks.

CDfm

If you call it a History & Heritage Forum there is an expectation thats what it will be.

Are facts important , yes.

Its the difference between a historical & political discussion.

To be able to interpret a fact you often need sources and sources can be biased too.

Irish history & revisionism is a hot topic and anyone can have a go. And, with Irish history that is awfully taught in schools facts are important.

This year is the Centenary of the Ulster Covenant and its origins go back to the Scottish National Covenant and then some.

Establishing facts mean you can discuss topics as opposed to opinions. A posters interpretation on facts or sources can be fantastic. On controvercial topics unsupported opinions can be a pain in the arse.

EDIT - I just don't think you could do a proper Ulster Covenant thread without sticking rigidly to history conventions. I have had second thoughts about starting one.

MarchDub

There really is no 'balance' between posters who have a knowledge of history and how historicity is developed/established and people just shooting the breeze or are only posting to make and win points. The two can't mix. The 'I heard' and 'I think' not to mention the sarcastic brigade are being allowed full range on the History forum now. You can't answer this kind of posting with anything intelligent because that's not what many of these posters are looking for.

I am not talking about those who have in the past come onto the forum - without having any necessary prior knowledge - to genuinely participate, who want to add to the discussion and maybe even learn something about how historic fact is established.

To make the H & H forum more intelligent it would require a greater intervention by mods to stop all the uninformed and often biased opinion and hate stuff that is currently being accepted as part of the mix. But TBH I'm not expecting that that will happen and consequently I am reluctant to waste energy trying to wrestle a good exchange out of those who in spite of not knowing historic sources from hearsay are not interested in learning but just want to win points. The one liner 'put down' post will run even more rampant if not checked and eventually turn the forum in an After Hours version of history [if it's not there already].

We did once have a forum where information and sources were shared and those who came by to just fill a thread with political points/hate trolls were immediately dealt with. But it requires moderation that knows that history is a discipline. I do recommend that we return to that stance.

Dades

MarchDub,

Is it just the snipers you want out of the forum, or anyone who doesn't have the required level of knowledge?

I don't know what kind or Nirvana you all had going on in there when Brianthebard was mod... did he wield the mod hammer without mercy? Or is Boards maybe just a different place like so many forums have found as it grows?

CDfm

I am going to weigh in a little here.

Anyone with any level of knowledge should be able to post on history.

Irish history was taught in a very partisan way that follows political extremes. Call that "traditional" history. It follows the political polemic rather than the historical facts/historiography.

Think of Christian Brother style history teaching and you have it in one. 'Cept it wasn't true & that was Irish History until recently.

The words " I think" in history discussions are normally the harbinger of "orange bastard" & "fenian murderer". No one wants that.

Now if DeValera called Churchill an "orange bastard" and Churchill said DeV was a "fenian murderer". Thats history.

For something to be history there needs to be a fact in there somewhere.

And, there has been a bit of a revolution in Irish history in the past 20 or so years and lots of the traditional stuff has gotten blitzed. Plus all kinds of sources are available online .

I would love to see loyalists and British posting with sources as it livens things up.