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.
- (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)