Talk:Chronology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Time assessment rating

I just signed up for WikiProject Time a little while ago (19:33, 2 January 2008 to be exact), but I think this High-importance article needs a serious overhaul, so I'm rating it Start. I rewrote the opening, but Chronology and most related articles need to become more encyclopedic. I intend to work up a comprehensive template in the next couple of days to get the ball rolling. -- Yamara 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] separate article

It seems to me that this deserves an article of its own, in fact that this is the right place to describe the current state of knowledge of general chronology, and to free the Egyptian chronology page to describe the state of Egyptian chronology. Andrewa 23:44 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start. Needs a lot more work and research obviously! Andrewa 00:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) --- Echoing silence. A chronology page that starts with Fomenko is not a promising stub, apparently.Wetman 19:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] moved section to Talk

During the 20th century, many previously accepted conclusions of historical chronology were questioned and revised, both by the introduction of new techniques, by new discoveries, and by claims that not all was well even in the original analysis of existing material. Thus at the start of the 21st century, the chronologies of ancient civilisations in particular were in a state of some controversy. For example, Russian member of Academy of sciences Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko has been very popular lately in Russia with his theory of New Chronology of Russia and Europe.

This is really awful POV. Fomenko's theories are not a "controversy" in the science of chronology. Professional historians almost to the last person regard him as a crackpot and ignore him. Selling popular books in Russia counts for nothing, since Russian historians treat him with the same disdain as Western historians do. Scientific theories are not judged by the number of books sold to the public, otherwise alien abductions and hidden codes in the Bible would be up there with particle physics. --Zero 00:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though I absolutely agree with Zero personally, there should be a non-committal hyperlinked reference in the article to the so-called "New Chronology". It isn't good policy to suppress all mention, even of what I'd agree is pop zaniness. A good quote from a mainstream historian? Hard to find, maybe... --Wetman 00:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timelines

While this is an excellent short article on chronology and the study of events in time, I think the presentation of events in time (A timeline) deserves its own article. Elijahmeeks 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'American technique of seriation'

This does not follow from the seriation (archaeology) page, where Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius is credited with its development. I am not completely sure which is correct, so I have not edited the page. Does anyone know which is correct? --hAl 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


i agree with u but i dont understand the information shown in the history section if only they could give instructions on how to read the info:(.

[edit] Caption

The caption to the picture at the top of the article is unclear. Could someone who understands it please expand and clarify it? Thanks. YechielMan 06:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Time assessment

It's still a mess in there, but I'm slowly kicking out the riff-raff, and letting in the quality. Of writing and editing, that is. -- Yamara 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)