Talk:History

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.

1. (Short) Etymology
2. Materials used by historians (types of sources)
3. Methods of analysing sources
4. Types of historical descriptions (subject matter, scope, holistic and historicist approaches versus subject matter driven, etc.)
5. Methods of relying the "narrative" (following a course of events, or following a development of some idea or approach)
6. Approaches to valuing historical descriptions

Ori Redler 10:32, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I attempt to implant the sctructure suggest by Ori Redler, for now parts of the original article are broken between these categories - these parts must be rewritten. The thema is ver yextent, and i start by rewritting some topics; i began by "Sources used by historians" and by "Etymology" (i also import the WP-article about this etymology).

L'Astorina 21:09, 02 Semptember 2007 (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.

Annalists

I cant find any Annalist- Mentality- or Microhistorical chools nomination? --Alexius Manfelt 05:01, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Subject matter

Just a thought, but it seems odd that the article says "This article discusses historiography, the writing of history by scholars and specialists". Surely it should discuss history and there should be a separate article for historiography since it's a separate (much more modern) concept. A Larter 12:14, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I was just stopping in to say the same thing.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:51, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

well it's hard to compress all of human history into 2000 words. Allocate 50 words for the Reformation? 100 words on the entire 19th century? Calvin Coolidge once compressed all of US history into 750 words that were supposed to go on Mt Rushmore--he wrote the words but they were never chiseled in place. On the other hand we can map out what historians actually do, which is the goal here.

Cleanup

I removed a lot of poorly phrased Wikipedia stuff. Richard Jensen 06:15, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Continued Reoganization

I have tried reorganize the subsection "Types of Historical Description", by showng a generic division in the major subfields of de discipline. I think the apresentation of much specific subfields should be explored not in this article, but in the articles of specific fields. By the general division i have had needs much more improvement and explanations. Also, i retired things such Quantitative History and Paleography because i think was better put this in the subsection "Types of Historical Sources". L'Astorina 08:49, 25 November 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

sorry for the modifications, but that section was a remained part of that version that everybody agree it must change. And i have done no much more that simply organize that topics. A section was erased and substituted for the editor by "National Debates" withaout be quoted here, but a renarganization of topic is not possible. And again, sorry for my english problems, i could be simply corrected them. And where i can acess my modfied version? L'Astorina 09:15, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Whatever, i suggest organize that subsection "Types of Historical Description", by showng a generic division in the major subfields of de discipline, in place of a simple list of generic denomination. I think there is possible two divisions: fields organized by time and place, and fields organized by approach (political, economical, social, cultural, intelectual history, etc.). I think also Quantitative History and Paleography remains better in the subsection about Types of Sources. What about it? L'Astorina 09:24, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Undone modifications

The editor Richard Jensen has simply undone my modifications (which consists just a reoranization of a subsection), saying just i must write on Talk Page before make it. I think it is not a just action of an editor. Or, in the words of the article about Professionalism on CZ, "If I spend ten minutes working on a page, and you simply undo my changes, you render my time spent pointless--which is tantamount to the claim that I spend significant time doing pointless things". No one says nothing? L'Astorina 09:42, 25 November 2007 (CST)

the problem is that much of the reorganization is faulty and does not conform to modern historiography. Richard Jensen 11:14, 25 November 2007 (CST)

i have attempted to divide in the major fields historically stablished. But in fact it was just first attempt to organize that section - much better that just a list of different things, in any case. It was great if a more precise categorization was done. L'Astorina 11:27, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Well thanks for jumping in. I added some more categories. Take a look at the American historical review at [1]to see what historians are doing these days. Richard Jensen 11:47, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Right, i just have a weak worry about things like these classifications reflects just the U.S. configuration field. But for now i have nothing to tell about it, just a weak worry. L'Astorina 12:03, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Humm... in this sense, i have added a comment abouty marxist historiography in topics of economical history. Here in Latin America the marxist historiography have dominated during troughout the didactorial governments - that's it, till begin of 90's. However, much of historiography here in Brazil - and stronger in many small countries at Caribe - is influenced by an economical marxist theory. For example, in latin and iberic discussion about the colonial system. L'Astorina 12:16, 25 November 2007 (CST)

good point,. you should add a section on Marxist history. Richard Jensen 12:20, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Types of Historical Description

I still think that hte multiple topics of this section must be better organized. We have already three categories: fields by date and place, fields by approach and fields closely related - the second seems to be the one in that the fields are more disorganized. Can't we include some of the topics into major topics (like history of Science, subtopic of History of Ideas)? E. g. Isn't Diplomatic History a subfield of Political History? And Military History, i't a subfield of any major field in which we can include it? Urban History into Cultural History? And what about Labor History?

L'Astorina 16:18, 15 December 2007 (CST)