Talk:History: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>DavidGoodman (plan) |
imported>André Carus (Reorganization) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 20:56, 2 November 2006 (CST) | 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.[[User:DavidGoodman|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. [[User:André Carus|André Carus]] 02:50, 18 November 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 03:50, 18 November 2006
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)