Talk:History: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Pat Palmer (revised status to 2) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| cat3 = | | cat3 = | ||
| cat_check = n | | cat_check = n | ||
| status = | | status = 2 | ||
| underlinked = n | | underlinked = n | ||
| cleanup = y | | cleanup = y | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Is this brief article about an enormous subject really "developed"? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT) | Is this brief article about an enormous subject really "developed"? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::I changed status to 2; when I added the Article Checklist, I didn't spend enough time looking at the article, but I do agree it needs more work, and keeping it at 2 encourages that. |
Revision as of 12:06, 7 April 2007
Workgroup category or categories | History Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Pat Palmer 23:33, 6 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Are you planning to discuss other methods with the satisfying depth combined with concision you showed for Ibn Khaldun? Or do you propose him as the general model.DavidGoodman 20:56, 2 November 2006 (CST)
Reorganization
Shouldn't this entire entry be scrapped and re-conceived from the ground up? There is no generally recognized 'historical method'. There are people who think that there is a continuous tradition of historical 'thought' (such as Donald Kelley), but they essentially disregard economic history or other efforts to make history more continuous with the sciences. André Carus 02:50, 18 November 2006 (CST)
We should, because this is really a horrible article. I rewrote the opening paragraph to avoid it being re-imported. I'll suggest that a rewrite follow some sort of a plan. E.g.
- (Short) Etymology
- Materials used by historians (types of sources)
- Methods of analysing sources
- Types of historical descriptions (subject matter, scope, holistic and historicist approaches versus subject matter driven, etc.)
- Methods of relying the "narrative" (following a course of events, or following a development of some idea or approach)
- Approaches to valuing historical descriptions
Ori Redler 10:32, 18 November 2006 (CST)
Wikipedia credit
There is just one sentence that appear exactly the same in Wikipedia. Does it formally imply that we check "Wikipedia content" credit box? Looks like a joke? Hmmm... Maybe we just reword it? Here it goes:
- The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.
--AlekStos 15:26, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Reword it. --Larry Sanger 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Developed?
Is this brief article about an enormous subject really "developed"? --Larry Sanger 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- I changed status to 2; when I added the Article Checklist, I didn't spend enough time looking at the article, but I do agree it needs more work, and keeping it at 2 encourages that.
- History Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- External Articles
- History External Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- History Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup