Talk:History/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an excellent source and i reccomend it --Franksbnetwork 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• • • I think , it will be interesting for you: Boii named such places as Stonehenge "Quariokreih". (Naa)

External link?

I think this looks like a good resource and will add it in as an external link. Ezyryder11 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I was always taught thinking that history is not the study of the past but the study of the RECORD of the past, since we can't actually go back in time and study the past, but we merely study sources. Should something be changed in relation to this? LordRobert 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The black man

"As an academic field, history is the study of a black man in the ghetto past human activities when he shoots white people in a drive-by and is generally considered a social science."

What the fook is this?

It looks like vandalism. Did you revert it? Xaxafrad 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

??

This article describes history in the intro in one aspect of its meaning. Surely the general meaning of the word is more general and not nessesarily just the study of human events but simply the past.

Dear Sir,

With much respect, I strongly disagree with your definition of history. First of all, History is an interpretation of a past event. It is not the past that is studied, but the event in the past. That event can be anything. That anything could be from social acts (Human Activity) to the formation of inanimate objects such as stones.

This takes us to another point. History belongs to the Humanities and not to the social sciences, which by the way came very much later. That Social Science can use History as a tool, fine; but it can not be said that History belongs to the Social Sciences. Back to point one; It belongs to the Humanities just because is the humanity who interprets the events undergone by it. History is not the truth and nothing more than the truth, ever since is an interpretation of an event. For example; the fall of the Roman Empire, to whom it is attributed to? To whose interpretation you read.

Then point three, what is Pre-History? That is when nobody wrote or interpreted it. For that matter we have to rely on other methods of assessment to interpret, like Carbon dating, etc. When we do interpret it becomes history- The History of Dinosaurs, for example.

In Terrorem Fidei Defenso--72.50.18.192 13:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Surely the page could benefit from some historical related images on the study of history etc? LordHarris 11:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of History

It is not just in relation to humanity, but how do we write it to be more encompassing? Is it the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future? Or the branch of knowledge whose participants records and researches past events? Or is it even a phenomenon located at a single point in space-time; the fundamental observational entity in relativity theory??? -- Sedonaarizona 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)sidonaarizona

I was just going to get some citations. J. D. Redding 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO ...

more encompassing? Could use that ...

continuum of events? yes ...

branch of knowledge? yes ... but not limited to your example, IIRC ...

phenomenon in space-time? yes ...

J. D. Redding 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bais toward Western Society

fine until this is debated i'm moving that section to a proper place. Ofcourse history in the western world focuses more on the western world and in every other region of the world their own brand of history is taught but history as a whole is not western bais, it may seem that way simply becuase we are in the "western World" its not an issue of bais but rather proximity, importantce, value and identity. -ishmaelblues

Do you have a source for your claims?--BMF81 09:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

badly written

This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and yet seems to me to be very badly written. I'm going to attempt an improvement. Comments and corrections are welcome. Rick Norwood 13:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The critical thing is competence. When an article is badly written is mostly because editors lacked a deep knowledge of the academic field they should quote from.--BMF81 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, history textbooks would not be, as a general rule, so badly written. There was a very nice article on the subject in Time magazine some years back. There are, of course, historians who write well. Shelby Foote comes to mind. But a deep knowledge and understanding of your academic field does not guarantee your ability to write clean, professional prose. Rick Norwood 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a science

i'm a historian and history is not a science not even a social science, so i will be removing anything suggesting such. History is one of the humanties or a scholarly art but not a science like sociology or archaeology. i believe however there was a push in the early 20th century late 19th century to make history more like a science, but this movement turned up fruitless. -Ishmaelblues

I too am a historian, not a doctorate ... but do have a degree. History is loosely a science with it's own method, the historical method. Now, I wouldn't put into the article that it is a "science" as commonly understood (ala., not a science like sociology). I would like to know about "the push" that you refer to, though ... as it does not bring to mind anything right now. Do you have a name or publication about that? Anyways ... sincerely, J. D. Redding 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been taught that history and historical research is both a science and an art. The scientific aspects of historical research emerge in how sources are selected, approached and utilized, although interpretation of sources can be very subjective. Typically, scientific methodologies are used to when doing cliometric historical research, which is basically historical statistical analysis. The art, or humanities side of history, emerges through historical writing and some aspects of textual analysis. I must admit that I feel history occasionally leads more towards the side of art than science though.

If I'm not badly mistaken, the scientific history, or more appropriate objective history, emerged in the late 1800's when the history profession emerged. Like many other professionals, historians wanted create a respectable profession and separate the work they produced from earlier works by individuals of various rank and station. One of the main minds behind this movement was Leopold von Ranke. He, by many historians, is considered the father of the history profession and historical research. The concept of "wie es eigentlich gewesen", or "show what actually happened" that Ranke was famous for coining is consider the guiding principle behind the earliest professional academic historians. This became the objective approach to history, which has been under attack for years. I know this is a brief remark, but I only have so much time during my comprehensive exams to think about such things. I hope this helps Jfknrh (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a scientist, and I agree that history is not a science. It may have a methodology, but the methodology is not the scientific method. Even though historical analysis can use statistics, this does not mean it is a science. Many fields use mathematics without being fields of science. In general, the term "science" has come to be used too broadly. For some reason, people seem to use the word "science" in an attempt to take a position of authority or validity. One big key to a scientific theory, analysis, or hypothesis is that it must be "falsifiable." I don't think historical theories, analyses, or hypotheses meet this criterion, considerig that we cannot go back in time to watch an event and disprove a given historical theory, analysis, or hypothesis. For more information, read the article on "science." Leeirons (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On this day...

What does the article have to do with September 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackangel25 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what it is now after taking a look at the edit page. Blackangel25 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an "automatic date" UTC link. J. D. Redding 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Broad "history" vs Scholarly "history"

As in many WP articles on a common word, this article seems to struggle between describing the dictionary definition of history (the sum of past events) and the scholarly view of history as a kind of literature/art-science/epistemology/whatever. For editors with more knowledge of history than I, I have two questions that seem important but unanswered in this and subsequent articles:

1. When/how did modern history begin? As people of the 20th and 21st centuries, we view history through a modernist lense. I can only assume that pre-modernism history is much different that modernist history. And people writing about history in antiquity and the ancient world also had a different paradigm.
2. How does one identify a piece of historic literature? How do historians view the historyness of pre-modern literature? How can one identify (not the historicity) but the extent to which a pre-modern author was trying to write history as a modern perceives it? Eg, how much/what parts of the Aeneid, Bible, and Qur'an are 1 modern history 2 pre-modern history 3 not attempting to be historical literature at all?

Thanks for any insight. I realize the historian community probably has multiple perspectives. I hope we can integrate any answers/perspectives into this or a relevant article. --Ephilei 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Before the birth of modern scholarship, many peoples considered myths to be true. Plato seems to have thought, or at least pretended to think, that the stories in Homer were true. Many Christians today believe that the stories in the Bible are true. Herodotus, the "Father of History", mixed myths, such as the story of the Phoenix, with fact, such as the story of the war with Persia. Thucydides, who picked up the story where Herodotus left off, tried to exclude myth, and actually interview the people involved. But he did not hesitate to make up speeches he had not heard. Xenophon, who picked up where Thucydides left off, attributed much of his history to acts by the gods.

A serious consideration of which old stories were plausible probably began in the late 18th century, with Gibbon, and early 19th century, with Rilke. In Germany, the question of which parts of the Bible are true and which are myth was called the "higher criticism". The Wikipedia article on this subject is amazingly bad, even embarrassing. Rick Norwood 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A point about the etymology section...

In the section it's state that in every language there's no distinction between history and story. This is simply false, as in Arabic we use the term "qisa" to refer to story, and "tarikh" to refer to history. Mind you, "tarikh" is taken to be a narrative of the past which is falsifiable by original sources, sightings of events, archaeological evidence, etc. Quisa, on the other hand, might refer to the past but, it most usually involves a moral, and is not scrutinized because, it usually includes some elements of fiction. Just wanted to clear that up. 213.42.21.150 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says "in most languages", not "in every language". Rick Norwood 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfering text from Historical method section to Historiography section

A lot of the information in the Historical method section is the subject of the Historiography article rather then a summary of the information in the Historical methods article. Unless anyone has any objections or other suggestions I’m going to move the information that matches the Historiography article to the Historiography section and put a summary of the Historical methods article in the Historical Method section. --Kaly99 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@Kally

The historical method section is a plain description of how production of history has been thought of in different cultures, times and locales.But on the other hand it is devoid of any discussion on history or the theory of history after the 'linguistic turn'. My suggestion would be to keep the historiography section separate and then discuss the status of history after Hayden White and 'Linguistic Turn'by forming a subsection in it. Contribution of important French Theorists and Post-colonial critiques of history can be included under the same rubric. Zero Supplement 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Zero Supplement

I agree that more postmodernists (and modernists) information needs to be included but at the moment the history of historical method section is concentrating on historians and the development of methods rather than being a description of the historical methods themselves. At the moment the article doesn't have any information about how historical method is used in the study of history, for example, source critism, historical facts, synthesis and context. At the moment the Historiography article contains a description of the history of the production of history, and the historical method article contains a description of historical methods used in the study of history.

Having looked at this article and other subject articles I think it would make the structure more logical and clearer to have a Development of history section, with three or four sub-sections for pre-history, the advent of writing which started the historical record, the development of history in terms of method and possible a separate section for histories development as an acedemic discipline. This would incorporate the information from the pre-history, Historiography and history of method section and allow space in the rest of the article to discuss historical method, different fields of history etc. --Kaly99 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Historiography

I consider myself to be a moderately well-educated person, but the historiography section reads like gibberish to me. Does anyone care to re-write it in plain English that would be accessible to the general audience that a basic article like this is intended to appeal to? Cazort 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the recent edits to the top of the page are utterly ridiculous. I think they constitute deliberate obfuscation. Anyone with me on this? This page has gotten absolutely out of control with the pseudo-intellectual drivel people are spewing...people need to reword this in plain english. Cazort 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted back to an older version which doesn't make as much use of deliberately obfuscated jargon, but it still needs work. =Axlq 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cazort (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

comments should be below the ToC

In 1910, American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a "theory of history" based on the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of entropy.[11][12] This, essentially, is the use of the arrow of time in history." What is this about? Am I an idiot or is it really a rather nonsensical piece of text almost completley unrelated to the s I've just reduced the two long (and longwinded) opening paragraphs of this article to one short paragraph. While what I have left is entirely open to modification and improvement, I thought the changes were entirely needed.

The prior version of the opening of this article was IMO a failed, flawed, and flatulent introduction to a crucial Wikipedia subject. Vague, unreferenced, and over-intellectualized theories and abstract constructs of what history might be, could be, would be, should be, etc. -- these approaches do not respect the needs of ordinary Wikipedia readers seeking plain and simple knowledge and instruction.

I don't think my action calls for a reversion. Instead, I think the opening of this article (and many sections within the article) cry out for help. I invite other editors to reword and make sensible what I removed, if it is of value to them.

And before you auto-revert, please look closely at what I cut. Including: "This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history."

Yeesh, people. Schema me up some foregrounded autonomous temporality, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

cheers,
--Madmagic (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(with 1200+ edits to my credit, including serious contributions in Canadian history)

I didn't mind the tightening of the intro ... BUT don't remove the other info ... move it to a subsection. Thanks ... J. D. Redding 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (ps. did it already)

Oh, btw ... just because it's not sensible to you doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to others. Just a note. J. D. Redding

Your assumption is in error. I understood what was written.

I also understood it was in violation of Wikipedia policies and standards. My actions were based on following those policies and standards.

You are welcome to present your views in defence of the words I edited out. Please do so, if you wish.

You are not welcome to personalize this discussion on how to improve an article. Don't do this again to me; you're violating Wikipedia policies.

And kindly don't patronize me again. Take a look at the contributions I've made in Canadian history here, some of them are linked on my user page.

I understand the subject of history, and I understand post-modern interpretations of history. What I removed sucked. Defend it if you wish -- but kindly leave your opinions about other people out of the discussion.

cheers J. D.,

Madmagic (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs don't need reverting, but they certainly now need improving. Text Redding added contains what I consider dubious claims that need sourcing, and reads like an essay written for a school project, containing archaically-worded phrases like "The spirant is problematic" (which is also an unsourced opinion) and "is attested from." Claims about the sense in which Bacon used the word need to be sourced, especially quotations. I have added a "citation needed" tag to the first paragraph in the etymology section. =Axlq 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and adding the fact tags ... be looking for citations for the material. J. D. Redding 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (PS., the etymology section is a merge from another article.)

Like Madmagic, I totally agree that far too much of this article is written in very pretentious prose which will be completely incomprehensible to most users. Whoever wrote it appears to be more concerned with appearing intellectually superior than in actually explaining things clearly. I think the extract quoted earlier (which inexplicably still gets being put back in) speaks for itself: "This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history." . I'm sorry but this is intellectual drivel wrapped up in pretentious prose. Either the writer should speak in the plain English which is appropriate for an encyclopedia, or go navel-gazing elsewhere. I agree with J. D. Redding that it's not exactly incomprehensible, but if that is the best point in its defence then I think there's a good case for getting rid of it.--82.249.27.162 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentences

I've just had a read through this article and the first two sentences just open the article really badly. The first sentence gives a definition of history; then the second sentence basically says "and here's another definition because the first one clearly wasn't good enough - with an italicise 'history' for emphasis and a footnote to a 100-year-old dictionary to give it added gravitas".

The simple fact is that there is no single defintion of history (as any dictionary will tell you). Could I propose the following as an alternative opener?: "Theoretically, History refers to everything that happened in the past. Realistically, it refers to the interpretation of the past based on the surviving evidence". This definition seems clear, factual and practical to me, anyway... --Russeltarr (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the opening of the article is bad. On the other hand, I think "theoretically" is a bad word to begin an article. I think the article should begin by saying that history is the study of the past, and then mention that it is particularly concerned with human beings. There are, after all, references to "the history of the universe". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've given it my best shot. The next section, "description", also seems particurly bad. Maybe tomorrow I'll tackle it, but one change at a time. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A note to Reddi: if you are really sold on your Whitney quote, try putting it further down in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

There were two parts to the recent edits I reverted. One was the well referenced fact that in many countries what is taught as "history" is in fact propaganda. Certainly this is a major point for anyone seriously interested in the subject. The hardest part of teaching my own students is helping them to unlearn the nonsense they were taught in high school.

The other part concerns language and usage. I'm going to take a closer look at that edit, but it seems to me that

History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past.

is just better prose than

History can refer to events from the past, the record of events from the past, and the study of this record of past events.

The brief etymology in the lede seems appropriate. The etymology below the lede is much more detailed, but has at least one call for references.

On the other hand, I agree with the removal of a patch of pretentious and unreferenced postmodern doublespeak, and am going back to remove it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

History/Propaganda

The section labeling history as taught in American Schools as Propaganda needs to be severely edited (but not deleted). I admit teaching Propaganda as History is a problem, but not as large a problem as implied in that section. I also placed a notice of the article's objectiveness being called into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I carried out the rewrite along the lines you recommend. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article at all. It belongs in Secondary Teaching of History. Secondary Schools don't attempt disciplinary history. In addition, and the primary reason why it doesn't belong, is that it is not as notable to the subject "History" as the other sections, meaning that it is an irrelevant inserted into a head article. We don't, for example, have a section on "Empiricist Historiography" in the main article, nor should we. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. To the majority of people, "history" means "that course I was taught in secondary school". They need to know the difference between that kind of history, and history as it is understood by professional historians. Wikipedia is not just for the minority of people who are college educated.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a record of what the majority of people believe. Basic reading comprehension of every element of the article, particularly the introduction, should emphasise the specific meaning of history, as it does. Start an article on secondary teaching of history in a few first world countries, perhaps at Problems in the secondary teaching of history in a few first world countries. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

the propaganda section should be removed in full, it describes how SOCIAL STUDIES is taught not what history IS which is the point of the article, i like the examples but it does not belong here. Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a similar item has popped up in the pseudo history column. The author of this segment listed US, Japanese and Russian school curriculum in away that cast doubt on the entire subject as taught in those countries. US high school textbooks are certainly not exempt from watering down or factual errors but widespread censorship is an inaccurate portrayal of the curriculum taught. Plus you have the problem of blanket descriptions of US schools when curriculum is locally decided. Not sure about Russian or Japanese curriculum. Maybe a better idea is, since this is a broad article on history, to mention that all history is subject to subjective bias and then elaborate on different causes to that bias and list examples in the linked articles, such as political revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.34.170 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro?

the intro to this article is dreadful and appears to be a collection of compramises between people not at all within the field of history.Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro is changing so rapidly you need to specify which intro you are talking about. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

i fixed it, it is precise, sourced and correct now.Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to your changes is that they are badly written, lumping together words that do not really belong together. For example, your source uses the word "discipline", and with that subject, the rest of the sentence makes sense. The way you have changed the source makes it read awkwardly. Also, from your dictionary source, you've chosen definition four of five.

Please stop blanking referenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ok agreed my additions are rushed but the old ones are so dreadfully either wrong or worded badly it needed to be changed, lets tinker with what we have.Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How can we "tinker with what we have" if you keep reverting everything to your version, which you admit is rushed. It is not helpful for you to say "the old ones are so dreadfully either wrong or worded badly". In what way are they wrong? Which words are badly chosen? Please be specific. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok first thing in the inro is the statement about mtotion pictures ect supplanting the wriiten word, more accuratly it is complementing the written word in keeping historical record agreed?Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

further down i also added a bit about how traditionall y historians also recorded history such as herodontus, not just researching documents but being the people who create the documents in the first place, this is an important distinction, please do not revert change the gammar if it is off. Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem fine. As you request, I will only edit slightly for style and grammar. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Patternism

I understand that a methodology known as "patternism" was started in the 1930's at Cambridge University. Shouldn't this article mention that, as well as cover the entire history of the development of history methodology? Leeirons (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this article inform people that they have been taught or are being taught lies under the name of history?

I feel very strongly that this article should inform people that not everything that masquerades as history is really history. Others feel equally strongly that such information has no place in this article. Instead of repeatedly deleting the section, please talk about it here. Pending such discussion, I'm going to restore the section, because the person who remed it out calls it "personal opinion" when it is clearly referenced fact. There may be a reason to leave it out, but that isn't it. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist. While the details of (objective, science-based, non-propaganda) history are often disputed between historians, unless you can prove here that it's all lies, then go away.

Etymology

In most other wikipedia articles I've looked at, the Etymology section comes right under the ToC. Any particular reason for moving it? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, under etymology, the current (10 May 2009, 19:50 hrs) version begins, 'The EARTH'S history comes from ....', when surely, shouldn't it say 'the WORD history comes from...'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.181.57 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is History a Science?

This particular section of the article seems completely useless on so many levels. Primarily, the existence of this section begs the questions, should we add a section titled, "Is History an Art?" or, "Is History a Math? or even, "Is History a Gourmet Dinner?" The article should be about what History IS. If the article does a complete job of explaining the methodology of History, then it does not matter whether it has similarties to other disciplines. Anyone can read the Wikipedia article on Science and this one on History, and make their own judgment as to whether there is overlap between the two disciplines or not. If we need an article on "The Development of Human Inquiry in the Second Millenium," then maybe it would be appropriate to start comparing History and Science and how they became differentiated along with all other fields. Leeirons (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph as it stands is worthless. A brief article on the subject should at least mention Gibbon and Toynbee. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More on the problem of defining what things are "sciences" and what are not... see article on the demarcation problem. This problem cannot be resolved in this one article on history, so it should probably not even be brought up, unless there are specific sources to cite in which historians are debating the demarcation problem specific to history. Leeirons (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Repair of this Talk page

Interesting. Haven't been back here for a while, but I was browsing the History Portal and thought to look in.

On 20 February 2008, I wrote comments which are currently near the top of this Talk page. There were two more sections, discussing other issues, right above mine.

The prior two sections, and my following section of February 20, have somehow become merged. Making none of those sections read in a very sensible way.

So: I'll re-post what was written in the two sections before mine, and what I wrote in my own comments, right below this comment.

Let's hope this restatement of what was said before will neither suffer bitrot, nor un-noticed vandalism.

cheers, Madmagic (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Restatement follows. See this link to the original edits in the Talk page history. Or, look it up yourself -- 22:31 (EST) February 19, 2008 Madmagic (Talk | contribs) (16,951 bytes) (Radical edit of opening paragraphs) under the Revision history of Talk:History.

Scientific views

"Main article: Entropy and life

In 1910, American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a "theory of history" based on the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of entropy.[11][12] This, essentially, is the use of the arrow of time in history." What is this about? Am I an idiot or is it really a rather nonsensical piece of text almost completley unrelated to the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krastain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

questionable article

Could people who watch this page check out Psychohistory? I am not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not. Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. I am even more concerned about Early infanticidal childrearingSlrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Radical edit of opening paragraphs

I've just reduced the two long (and longwinded) opening paragraphs of this article to one short paragraph. While what I have left is entirely open to modification and improvement, I thought the changes were entirely needed.

The prior version of the opening of this article was IMO a failed, flawed, and flatulent introduction to a crucial Wikipedia subject. Vague, unreferenced, and over-intellectualized theories and abstract constructs of what history might be, could be, would be, should be, etc. -- these approaches do not respect the needs of ordinary Wikipedia readers seeking plain and simple knowledge and instruction.

I don't think my action calls for a reversion. Instead, I think the opening of this article (and many sections within the article) cry out for help. I invite other editors to reword and make sensible what I removed, if it is of value to them.

And before you auto-revert, please look closely at what I cut. Including: "This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history."

Yeesh, people. Schema me up some foregrounded autonomous temporality, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

cheers,
--Madmagic (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(with 1200+ edits to my credit, including serious contributions in Canadian history)

Requesting vandalism protection for this article

This article has been vandalized a lot lately, this article should be semi-protected against vandalism. WinterSpw (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this article mention propaganda which is taught as history.

In many countries, the subject taught as history is actually propaganda. A recent example of anti-Jewish propaganda taught as history in Saudi Arabia has been in the news. Because this misuse of "history" is so pervasive, I think this article should at least mention the subject. Others think otherwise.

Here is the subsection in question. I would like to see some discussion of why it was deleted, and whether it should be in the article or not.

This practice goes back to the earliest recorded times. In Book Three of The Republic, Plato recommends that citizens be taught lies in order to instill patriotism.

Those who do not understand how real history is researched and annotated may believe what they learn in primary and secondary school, and develop a distorted worldview. There is evidence, however, that few students remember any of the "history" they are taught..

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a few other articles for "misuse" subsections. The article statistics has a section on the misuse of statistics. The article psychology has a section on the misuse of psychology. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

gonna put it in the psuedohistory section. J. D. Redding 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the placement. Obviously, the term "history" has multiple uses, and can also be used as a generic label for popular, but unscholarly, topics, such as UFO's, legend and folklore. However, the creation of a false history, as Rick Norwood notes above, continues to be a popular tactic by repressive regimes. This intentional alteration of history deserves emphasis in the article. Just me! (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

unscholarly? one's trash is another's treasure ...

anyways ... repressive regimes do do that ....

J. D. Redding 12:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

In reference to:

==Propaganda masquerading as history==

In many countries, such as the Japan, Russia, and the United States, the subject taught in the primary and secondary schools under the name "history" is censored for political reasons. To give just a few of many examples: in Japan, mention of the Nanking Massacre has been removed from textbooks; in Russia under Stalin, history was rewritten to conform with communist party doctrine; and in the United States the history of the American Civil War is censored to avoid giving offense to White Southerners.

I went and removed the "the" before "Japan" for grammatical reasons (!), but I have a problem w/the last statement regarding the teaching of the American Civil War in public schools. The author of this section gives no specific information to back up this controversial claim, other than referencing an entire book, a text that deals with many topics, and one that is not considered a "scholarly" book. The author should at least cite the specific section of the book that pertains to his or her comment; ideally they would cite an actual current textbook that adds or omits important information about the Civil War. Even then, as education is not standardized in the U.S. on a federal level, this is a difficult statement, as individual states choose a variety of books that teachers may use for their classes, and these books themselvs are constantly being revised. To my knowledge, students are by-and-large taught an accurate depiction of the American Civil War these days, and there is nothing equivalent to the omission of the Naking Massacre in U.S. textbooks to be currently found on this matter. Historically, this may not have been so, but that is not the author's claim here, stating "the history of the Civil War is censored..." Dartist (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe put in "has been" or "had been" instead of "is" ... just a thought. J. D. Redding

"Particular studies and fields" sidebar

In the "Particular studies and fields" sidebar, the description for the "People's history" approach says "historical work from the perspective of common people." I have two problems with this statement: 1. who are "common" people?, and 2. there is no singular perspective for any group of people. Linking to that specific page ("People's History"), when one clicks on "common people," you are redirected to the wiki for the "working class." "Working class" is a technical term, understood by many; "common people" can have several different definitions, and not all "working class" people would like to be called "common"! It is a false assumption to think that an historian can provide "the" perspective of a diverse group. This description sounds biased (Marxist), not objective. Perhaps it could be re-worded as: "historical work from a Marxist (or Populist) perspective, focusing on the working class"? Dartist (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it's a "marxist" ... more of a Populist view IIRC. J. D. Redding 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Earlier today I typed in "Herstory" expecting to arrive at a page discussing, well, history. Instead I was met with a stub-like page describing why the word herstory was coined; really, this should be made a section of the main article on History since the subjects of herstory and history are really the same thing (if with a slightly different perspective, but Marxist history is still history, too, after all). This merger would also benefit those Wikipedians who type in herstory while looking for an article discussing history (their spelling choice being driven perhaps by ideological considerations). I realize some people may possibly disagree, but I think we have reached a point in time where herstory really is history just as black politics in the United States are rapidly becoming, thanks to Obama, just politics. That's not to say herstory is unimportant but that we'd be doing justice to the readers with a simple redirect and the inclusion of a section discussing this term in the main article.--NeantHumain (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. The interesting bits about "herstory" are the political/philosophical bits. As far as them Wikipedians who refuse to type "history" in order to learn about history, well, I'd have to be convinced that they exist. Phiwum (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Cannot Buy The Proposal".I cannot convince myself that merging history with herstory would be correct from a spreading-knowledge perspective. It may seem correct to over-enthusiastic feminists but a knowledgeable article in an honourable encyclopaedia is not a place to promote feminism.Rachitbhatia1993 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is a well known term in LGBT communities including the The Lesbian Herstory Archives and many usages of the term. Hard to believe any would confuse the two but reading both articles, even just the lede, would clear up any confusion. Banjeboi 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I have been unhappy with the Lead for a while and have just taken a first pass at improving it. I haven't cleaned up the references yet, but will do so. In the meanwhile, what does the community make of this?

History is one of the Humanities subjects and is the study of the human experience in the past . Those who study history as a profession are called historians.

It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the causation of events with objectivity . Since the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment History has used an empirical method of analysis in its study of the past. Since the 1960s Postmodernist analysis has forced Historians to recognise that the past is interpreted through the self-conscious act of re-writing it.

Very much a WIP; the current definition needs strenghtening and there should be some mention of the areas of debate in the History community about the subject itself as well as the different strands of analysis. Major Bloodnok (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposal for the lead, but I think the first sentence should be more succinct. Something like:

History is the study of humanity's past. Those who study history as a profession are called historians.

It is a school of humanities that examines and analyses the causation of events to construct a narrative of the past. Since the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment history has used an empirical method of analysis. Since the 1960s Postmodernist analysis has forced historians to recognise that the past is interpreted through the self-conscious act of re-writing it.

It's difficult mentioning specific theory that has influenced history, just because there is so much of it. To mention some is to ignore others. Undoubtedly, the 'scientific' method introduced to history by 19th century Germans and the post-modernist developments had massive impact on history. But there is also gender history, cultural history, structuralism/post-structuralism, the anneles school, linguistics, not to mention types of history that (can) completely ignore scholarly theory like textbook history, historic film and historic literature. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there is so much Historical theory which should be dealt with, it's hard to know where to begin and where to end. My feeling is that the lead should briefly summarise the article that follows it; mentioning as far as possible some of the main strands of "what History is" and then acknowledge that there are many areas of debate in the areas you've mentioned. However, maybe there would be merit in making it clear that there is no easy definition of History beyond "history is the study of the human past". Perhaps a solution is to mention them all (as far as is possible) further down the lead. There is also the importance of History as a means of projecting an identity (as various "culture wars" over the years will attest), which should go in too.

Do we want to mention these things in the lead, or should we just stick to a definition and note that there are controversies?Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On a small note, history/historian/historical are more or less always lower capitalisation. I guess, as long as the lead includes some main points and isn't too long it's fine. There's little consensus on what history actually 'is' amongst scholars. What needs to be noted is that it is a narrative constructed by historians, and an interpretation of the historical record (I don't think it needs to be mentioned, like it is in the current lead, that film and other such material are part of that record). That it is the study of the human past (and to use a term such as 'geological history' to describe the past of the planet is halfway between using a misnomer and a metaphor), and somehow mentioning how it is affected by culture and theory. Most of that is already there its just what i think needs to be said in the lead. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Of course. Sorry; doing it in a rush! I'll bear in mind your suggestions and come up with something when I can. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How's this?
History is the study of humanity's past. Those who study history as a profession are called historians. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the causation of events with objectivity . Unlike other physical and social sciences history requires no technical knowledge to be a practitioner However, amongst academics there is much debate about the nature of history and historical study, and where this has changed over time. It is considered an important subject because it gives context to the present, although some academics distinguish between the teaching of a history to further a specific point of view ("heritage") rather than a "disinterested investigation". .Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good... but probably some of the regular editors should weigh in too. Perhaps you could direct it to the attention of the editor who made changes back in February? Pez Dispens3r (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have followed WP:BOLD and re-written the lead using a slightly modified version of the above since no-one was going to get involved in the discussion. Merry Christmas all!Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

By and large, Major Bloodnok, I think your edit good. (Hear hear! Where where? There there!) So naturally I've changed it. My reasons are as follows:

History is the study of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time. ((To allow such common uses as "The History of the Solar System".)) Scholars who write about history are called historians. ((Responding to the objection below that some famous historians have been amaturs.)) It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it often attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events.[1][2] ((I've removed a sentence suggesting that historians do not need any specialized knowledge. The reference supports this view, but it is certainly false today, when (to give just one example) knowledge of demographics is essential to history.)) Scholars debate the nature of history and the lessons history teaches.[1][3][4]A famous quote by George Santayana has it that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."[5] ((Got to get this in there somewhere! Better the quote than the paraphrase.)) The stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the legends surrounding King Arthur) are usually classified as Cultural heritage rather than the "disinterested investigation" needed by the discipline of history.[6][7] ((I thought an example was useful.)) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Who ever fixed this srticle since the last time i looked at it THANKYOU, especially the lead in. the article is pretty good now, i use to come here and wince! Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a historian?

There seems to be a contradiction between this sentence:"Those who study history as a profession are called historians." when you go to the historians section it also refers to amateurs as historians.... The question is, can one be called a historian when one is not an academic and how to differentiate? Prinkipas (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2008 (GMT)

pages

hi the pages are sometimes to long like elvis and wilber and orville areway to long and i have to print some of them for school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.187.156 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? An historian is a person who does this stuff for a job - they've got a pHD or equivalent and they spend their working lives trying to uncover the past in the archives. The amateur historian is untrained and a bit of a joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.53.143 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 07:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

lead sentence

"History is the study of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time." I think this completely ignores social history, and oral history, discursive practices becoming more and more prevalent since the 1940s and 1960s. Doesn't this make the lead too exclusively Rankean? SGGH ^ping! 11:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History is the study of the past, encompassing all aspects of living activity in an academic understanding by scholars known as historians. History is one of the oldest academic practices, and the method by which is has been undertaken, the historiography, has evolved over time and continues to be debated by a wide variety of historians today. What began largely as a progressive narrative history of elites, often of men, from written documents of periods such as classical, medieval and modern, evolved – particularly in the 20th century – to include working classes, women, culture and oral history. The interpretations of history range along all social, cultural and political variations, including Marxist, socialist, capitalist, male and female, modernist, post modernist, traditional, progressive, Western and Eastern; and it's application is a critical aspect of society, both politically and culturally. History has had a key role in nationalism, modernisation, war, feminism, cultural heritage, philosophy, religion, biology, tribalism, anthropology, economics and colonialism; as well as impacting literature, music. art and theatre.

I'm going to be bold and include this introduction, and let the debate raise here, otherwise the changes might be discussed into never-happening oblivion. SGGH ^ping! 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll do the revert bit of WP:BRD and thus the discussion now begins. I think it's too encompassing. The first sentence would include sociology as part of history. You've also abandoned any distinction between history and prehistory. Plus, the lead should be a summary of the article (and thus normally not need citations), and I no longer think it is. And I'm not at all sure that the last sentence will be understood by most of our readers. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, and I prefer the current introduction, which is short and clear, to the proposed rewrite, which is too complex for the lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If we keep the first intro, then the opening sentence needs to be re-written, as it makes a declaration ignoring several equally important styles of history, IMO SGGH ^ping! 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do see SGGH's point - that history is a "wider" field that just being about the written word (although I would point out that there has to be a special attention to the written record given that history is generally written down by historians as an attempt to put order onto the past. The historian's work becomes part of the historical record).

The main issue here is how much of the debate about "what is history" do we (should we) include here for the general reader. My first thought is that we should abide by the KISS principle, especially in the lead. By all means lets acknowledge that there is more to it than that in the lead (although there is a suggestion of this in the sentence refering to "historians debate the nature of history and the lessons it teaches us"), then refer to the wider debate in the body of the article, and lead the reader to other sites and books through the references, and the links at the end. I think the lead is the wrong place to use too much jargon, and to blind the reader with (social) science. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"KISS me you fool!"

"You silly twisted boy."

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I agree with Major Bloodnok. The current intro does not say that history is only based on the written record, just that it gives special attention to the written record, which I think is true.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of History

1.MROLLIE can you explain your undo to DTMGO edit?

2.do you think there should be a section on criticism of history?

--DTMGO (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your link addition for two reasons: Because it appears to be a self published POV advocacy site, and because it hosts copyright violating material (the full text of Zinn's People's History of the United States, among others). - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if I'd noticed that I would also have reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

2.do you think there should be a section on criticism of history?

--DTMGO (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are in the wrong place in more ways than one. First of all, the website that you added as an external link seems to be promoting a left wing political activist biased interpretation of history of some kind. Whether it is fringe theory is not for me to say as I have not examined it that closely.

More importantly this article is about the fact that we (humans) study history, and it describes how that has been carried out in various cultures and at various times. The article is not adhering to a specific method or school of history, thus your "criticism of history" in connection with this article would have to be a criticism of the fact that mankind study history at all. If you have any reliable sources that criticize the fact that history is studied, then by all means I would like to learn about them, but if your purpose is to criticize a particular school of history then the answer is: "No, there should not be a section called "Criticism" with that kind of agenda in this article.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

hahaha "wrong place"...maybe it is the wrong place for the link, but not for criticism...

I am thinking something along the lines of the deficiencies of history's methods, its shortcomings, limitations, etc. for example,

1.why does it focus so much on ruling individuals (as if the history of Spain is just who was the king, and what the king did, and said)...there are many reliable sources that criticize history in this aspect. This is not a fringe view. obviously in the past the ruling classes employed some kind of historian (and others) that would glorify the ruling class and record it for posterity.

2. not only historians in the West have a centric view, there is in general an eurasian-centered perspective on world events.

3. traditional emphasis on written accounts. many world cultures transmitted history and knowledge in other ways, for example orally, e.g. native americans, and because of this, their history is not less important or interesting. to exaggerate the point, mainstream history has said if there is nothing in writing, there is no history.

4. history is written by the victors, the saying goes, for example, it is generally said that the Aztecs were bloodthirsty, a convenient stereotype spread by the Conquistadors to justify their ravages (meanwhile they brought smallpox and the inquisition which is not less disturbing), see today for example the movie Apocalypto of Mel Gibson presenting some Mayas as savages (the movie is pop culture but it says a lot about the result of stereotypes being blown up over time). There doesn't seem to be an effort by historians to be objective and neutral in their account of history.

5. many historians and other intellectuals have "sold out" using their brains to serve some other interest outside that of the discipline of history, there is some content in the article about pseudohistory, that is all right it can be expanded and improved.

this is a very preliminary list, i have to give it some thought, but you get the drift, there should be a general criticism of history here. I can start typing a proposal. thoughts? no censors please, any minority view that is significant should not be attacked.

--DTMGO (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Saddhiyama. The list of issues you have outlined, while valid criticisms of aspects of History, or as Saddhiyama put it "school"(s) of history", are too specific for this outline article. There are some interesting debates around many of the issues you have mentioned, but they should be in the main articles directly related to the issues (eg Philosophy of History, or Historical method). Just with a cursory look through the former, I notice there is a section on "History is written by the victors", for example. By all means add to these pages your points above, but I don't think they belong here. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Regions section

This is a mess and I see no point in such an arbitrary section except as links to other articles with no attempt at description. For some regions history starts with the first texts, with others, with the first modern Homo Sapiens, while we also have "History of South Asia is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation in the Sub-Himalayan region." and "History of Southeast Asia has been characterized as interaction between regional players and foreign powers.". Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This section is a mess - it's only a set of glorified links to other pages. For a start I'd get rid of the links to sub-sections so, for example, we'd have the History of the Americas and not North America, South etc as these are in turn linked to in that page. Is this section necessary at all? All these pages can be linked to through the page Outline of history. If we do need it, then should we move it down the article and reduce it to a series of links without the erroneous commentary? We may need to explain Eurasia, but would we need to explain the American continent? Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that hist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.100.161 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Misquote from the onset

George Santayana quote on his page and this page do not match up. --98.169.36.205 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what the person before me means is that George Santayana's quote, which should read

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",

is misquoted on this page as

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

This page cites the book by ISBN number, which may or may not mean the person has actually looked it up in the book. I've checked Wikiquote[1] and the page they source there[2] (Perdue University), which refers to the very edition and page number. I've taken the liberty of changing the quote. --Carlos de Laraha (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Right at the start I have objections to this article. First, that History is categorized as a social science, with no recognition that many historians consider their discipline to be part of the humanities. Second, "Mankind" rather than humans or humankind. Third, that there is too little recognition of the ways the discipline has changed in the last 30-40 years. DeAragon 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your points are well taken. Why not try a rewrite and see if it flies? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the usual "mankind" to other constructions. It seems a feminist idea to remove any instance of "man" and I see a link between activities of this sort and the decline in the status of teachers. I don't regard your attempt to change my language as neutral. 58.175.25.86 (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

15683roth our hero who ever you are 15683roth we love u for reporting security tool to google we love you!

15683roth our hero who ever you r 15683roth we love u for reporting security tool to google u saved us all!

Major Deficiency and the definicen of history

this is history. it's about dates.

what's the oldest "precise" date that we have a certain knowledge of?

only year; year and month; year, month, and day. There may be three oldest point in time that we certainly know precisely, that we may give a date like:

"B.C. May 9, 2517: it was the day we certainly know that mister X said 'hello world' and this is the oldest precise account in history without doubt."

so what's that date? imho, the History article has to state this. --78.162.148.204 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

on a related note, it might be interesting to mention the earliest record of a living human, probably a predynastic egyptian king like scorpion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

history is the past so your past is also history

Edit request from Infomniac, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Existing text: Mark Leone, the excavator and interpreter of historical Annapolis in New Jersey (a town on east coast), has sought to understand the contradiction between textual documents and the material record, demonstrating the possession of slaves and the inequalities of wealth apparent via the study of the total historical environment, despite the ideology of "liberty" inherent in written documents at this time.

Comments 1. Mark Leone's work should be described as an example of contrasting conclusions and sources noted in the previous sentence, i.e. prefix the sentence with "For example".

2. Annapolis is in Maryland, not New Jersey. Also the parenthetical phrase is unnecessary as well as incorrect (Annapolis is a city, not a town) [[3]].

The suggested revision: For example, Mark Leone, the excavator and interpreter of historical Annapolis, Maryland, USA has sought to understand the contradiction between textual documents and the material record, demonstrating the possession of slaves and the inequalities of wealth apparent via the study of the total historical environment, despite the ideology of "liberty" inherent in written documents at this time.

End request -->

Infomniac (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is "History of Frisia" included as a subsection of History of Europe? If regions as insignificant as Frisia are to be included then there are thousands more such regions that demand an inclusion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.193.143 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 219.139.57.144, 18 April 2011

I am a Chinese students,long for a fiend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.139.57.144 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from Rhonda87

In the sentence below from the etymology section, the word "fantasy" links to the literary genre, but in this context it should link to the psychological term. The URL for the correct page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_%28psychology%29

For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).

Thanks

Rhonda87 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Slight Quote error

Erm, wasn't it George Santayana who said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", not CARLOS SANTANA the rock dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.196.63 (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Luke (Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture for History

Historia (Allegory of History) By Nikolaos Gysis (1892) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Gyzis_006_%28%CE%97istoria%29.jpeg

is it a good representation of history? if so, somebody can explain the allegory? to me it looks likes "without arts ("artibus") there isn't any history" that is cool but it isn't the usual idea of history...

thanks! Niccolò Beduschi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.224.56.41 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

An or A?

In the Historiometry section, it says "a historical method"- I know I'm splitting hairs here but,it shouldn't that be "an historical method"? Take a look at the second post on here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=84850 Finbob83 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a definite WP:ENGVAR situation. For a very few ideosyncratic English speakers, "An 'istorical" is correct, because they say "istorian". But many English speakers say, "A historical" matching their saying of "historian." Check the ENGVAR status, and the earliest usage on the page. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but that link and several other forums tell me that there is an exception for words like historical and hysterical, in which the second syllable is stressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbob83 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links section

In the external links section there are two links to History.com. Could one be changed to link to History Channel UK - www.history.co.uk instead? Hillsshaw (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange link: quantum leap

Is there any particular reason that the expression "quantum leap" in History andprehistory links to Quantum_leap. I fail to see the connection with the subject at hand. I also suspect there exist a better wording, as you can see from the quantum leap article: it is something very small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.14.237 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence had no source and although I have a vague idea of what it meant, wasn't clear and I didn't see it as helpful, so I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

talk:Turko Mughal(Mongol) titles

Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012

203.215.123.104 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - please provide details of the edit you are proposing, and reliable sources to support the change. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Current neuronal linquistics, english.

History: His story. That would imply a Her story.

Neurologically & logically incorrect, it´s Their Story, so perhaps you should place a reference to that, theirstory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.167.177 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And what about hersteria and hersterectomy?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ə, History is not pronounced like "his". So what's the problem? why not write it hißtory, if you really object?--75* 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

In the text:

"Traditionally, historians have recorded events of the past, either in writing or by passing on an oral tradition, and have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents and oral accounts. For the beginning, historians have also used such sources as monuments, inscriptions, and pictures."

the beginning word of the second sentence, "For", should be "From" 35.9.60.82 (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlock, please

Why is this page protected ? Prehistory is mentioned twice. Please delete the repetition and unlock the page so uncontroversial corrections can be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.87 (talk • contribs)

This page is protected because of persistent vandalism. However, since you pointed out the redundant sentence, I've fixed it for you. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Noting that "history" comes from the Ancient Greek is worthwhile. Noting that that is in turn derived from an unattested PIE root seems excessive, IMO (and was very clunkily worded), so I've removed that paragraph.

A derivation from *weid- "know" or "see" is attested as "the reconstructed etymon wid-tor ["one who knows"] (compare to English wit) a suffixed zero-grade form of the PIE root *weid- 'see' and so is related to Greek eidénai, to know"."

Iapetus (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014

remove 'written record are considered prehistory' and add 'written or oral record are considered prehistory' Diresht (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

World history

There's two sections on world history (7.2.1 and 7.10). Which of the two should be moved to the other? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I'd merge the former into the latter. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Done! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

edit request

should we add a link to the word "humans" at the beginning? --Cards51 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

no need. no one will be misled for long as it is. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

100 best history books

Hello,

I'd like to suggest an addition to the External Links section. I'd suggest adding the 100 Best History Books list. http://www.listmuse.com/100-best-history-books-time.php

Thanks, Dave 217.44.41.29 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done:Per WP:EL, external links are added on a very limited basis and I've removed your link spam from Science book. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Shouldn't the word "analyse" in the second paragraph, the first sentence, be changed to "analyze"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboutwell (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tomboutwell: Not necessarily. Wikipedians edit in different varieties of English. There's no need to change it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Historical science" redirects here

"Historical science" redirects here. Independent of your beliefs, perhaps "Historical science" should redirect to its own article, or to Ken Ham, Creationism or Answers in Genesis. Notice that Observational science has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Marxist history?

Marxist Stages of history history? Should be summarized and main'ed to the appropriate article. Way too much info here in the top level article. Daytonian Historian (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking are the current Periodization article, this Stages of history section is a repeat; definitely need to be summarized and mained. --Daytonian Historian (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

The Website Slogan/site line.

We are the Riddle's that picks the songs.

Henryb679 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07^Talk 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Date Terminology Upgrade

Could we upgrade any dates on this page from BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini/Year of Our Lord) to the more academically and internationally accepted BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) please? As far as I know, this is an academic, not a Christian, article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.248.30 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of Wiki policy is that unless there is a clear, article-specific reason why one convention should be used over the other, then we should stick with whatever was first used in the article - which as far as I can tell was BC/AD. In any case, BC/AD is widely used in accademic contexts, and even more so in general culture, not just in specifically Christian contexts. IMO, it's no more inappropriate than naming some of our months after Roman gods, or our days after Norse ones. And its not as if we are using Anno Mundi - although if you really want to purge all religious references, I suppose we could switch to Before Present, or if that's too dry and modern, Ab urbe condita. Iapetus (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050917065532/http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

Memeorgmeme (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

memesmemesmemesmemes was the French scientist of Rome. He usually creates the meme as we all know today which is a very popular internet search for today. So we can than him for giving us memes in the first place.

Not done: Request is an attempt to vandalize the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

"Written documents"?

The article currently begins History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. I would suggest that more recent history also includes the study of things described in many NON-written forms, including for example, films, photos, and audio recordings. Should they not also be included in the definition? MeegsC (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New sub-title History of childhood?

Hello, Does it make sense to add a sub-title "History of childhood" in the list of sub disciplines of History? In other words, is it accepted as a sub-discipline in History? There is already an article "History of childhood" to which the new section could refere, so I suggest to add only a sub-title, a couple of sentences to describe the discipline and a link to the article. But I am asking because I am not sure if the list already in the article refers to some 'official list'. (If it isn't, then there are also other minorities with their history, like the History of the Deaf people, would that also be an idea to add a section?) Please give me your opinion. The reason I am asking is that I am French and there is no article "history of childhood" in the French wikipedia. I am planning to translate the English version. So I am also trying to see where is belongs exactly. Thanks for your help, --Cathrotterdam (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point-- I added history of childhood to the links under social history. It's a small field that originated in France. Rjensen (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hdjejxnds Samanthatan (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

Ako po si Kim, earthshaker lord. thank you Auto Correct infos. (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: That does not belong in this article. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong template

muser chand vidya sagar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.167.255.68 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The Template:Social science referred by this page do not exist. It should be replaced by {{{Template:Social sciences}}}. LesleyLai (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ruby Chin Rubychin (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Double mention gender history, Areas of studies

Gender history is listed twice under Areas of Study. it does both have a mention as a sub-field completely separate field of study.

It seems a bit arbitrary to have gender studies be the only social history with it's own subsection. And the article may become too bloated if all social history sub-fields get a own subsection. Therefore I propose that the subsection Gender history should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:2609:2900:A470:93D6:9441:F032 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. EggRoll97 ^(talk | _contribs) 01:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem--there is one very short paragraph on the topic, and it is linked in a couple other places. It is a new specialty that might not be familiar to history majors who graduated way back in the 20th century. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Our Uni..

...writes story verses. ... fair article is written already, it begun and this article will have more voices, it will be a good article by good choices which will give more. Fair for everybody. I hope for more story of love here in this article. We humans experience this, where we came from ? I will add something good in future here. --92.76.233.202 (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

"controverisal" = "cointroversial" 2605:E000:9149:A600:692D:986D:9F5D:538A (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

"controverisal" = "controversial" 2605:E000:9149:A600:4011:5179:9017:DCD (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018

"Their works continue to be read today, and for some the gap between the culture-focused Herodotus and the military-focused Thucydides remains a point of contention or approach in modern historical writing." 182.48.149.201 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You've not made clear what you want changed. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)