Talk:History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic history topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
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, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2008.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Scientific views

"Main article: Entropy and life

In 1910, American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a "theory of history" based on the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of entropy.[11][12] This, essentially, is the use of the arrow of time in history." What is this about? Am I an idiot or is it really a rather nonsensical piece of text almost completley unrelated to the s I've just reduced the two long (and longwinded) opening paragraphs of this article to one short paragraph. While what I have left is entirely open to modification and improvement, I thought the changes were entirely needed.

The prior version of the opening of this article was IMO a failed, flawed, and flatulent introduction to a crucial Wikipedia subject. Vague, unreferenced, and over-intellectualized theories and abstract constructs of what history might be, could be, would be, should be, etc. -- these approaches do not respect the needs of ordinary Wikipedia readers seeking plain and simple knowledge and instruction.

I don't think my action calls for a reversion. Instead, I think the opening of this article (and many sections within the article) cry out for help. I invite other editors to reword and make sensible what I removed, if it is of value to them.

And before you auto-revert, please look closely at what I cut. Including: "This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history."

Yeesh, people. Schema me up some foregrounded autonomous temporality, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

cheers,
--Madmagic (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(with 1200+ edits to my credit, including serious contributions in Canadian history)

I didn't mind the tightening of the intro ... BUT don't remove the other info ... move it to a subsection. Thanks ... J. D. Redding 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (ps. did it already)

Oh, btw ... just because it's not sensible to you doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to others. Just a note. J. D. Redding

The opening paragraphs don't need reverting, but they certainly now need improving. Text Redding added contains what I consider dubious claims that need sourcing, and reads like an essay written for a school project, containing archaically-worded phrases like "The spirant is problematic" (which is also an unsourced opinion) and "is attested from." Claims about the sense in which Bacon used the word need to be sourced, especially quotations. I have added a "citation needed" tag to the first paragraph in the etymology section. =Axlq 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up and adding the fact tags ... be looking for citations for the material. J. D. Redding 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (PS., the etymology section is a merge from another article.)

Like Madmagic, I totally agree that far too much of this article is written in very pretentious prose which will be completely incomprehensible to most users. Whoever wrote it appears to be more concerned with appearing intellectually superior than in actually explaining things clearly. I think the extract quoted earlier (which inexplicably still gets being put back in) speaks for itself: "This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history." . I'm sorry but this is intellectual drivel wrapped up in pretentious prose. Either the writer should speak in the plain English which is appropriate for an encyclopedia, or go navel-gazing elsewhere. I agree with J. D. Redding that it's not exactly incomprehensible, but if that is the best point in its defence then I think there's a good case for getting rid of it.--82.249.27.162 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Sentences

I've just had a read through this article and the first two sentences just open the article really badly. The first sentence gives a definition of history; then the second sentence basically says "and here's another definition because the first one clearly wasn't good enough - with an italicise 'history' for emphasis and a footnote to a 100-year-old dictionary to give it added gravitas".

The simple fact is that there is no single defintion of history (as any dictionary will tell you). Could I propose the following as an alternative opener?: "Theoretically, History refers to everything that happened in the past. Realistically, it refers to the interpretation of the past based on the surviving evidence". This definition seems clear, factual and practical to me, anyway... --Russeltarr (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the opening of the article is bad. On the other hand, I think "theoretically" is a bad word to begin an article. I think the article should begin by saying that history is the study of the past, and then mention that it is particularly concerned with human beings. There are, after all, references to "the history of the universe". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've given it my best shot. The next section, "description", also seems particurly bad. Maybe tomorrow I'll tackle it, but one change at a time. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A note to Reddi: if you are really sold on your Whitney quote, try putting it further down in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

There were two parts to the recent edits I reverted. One was the well referenced fact that in many countries what is taught as "history" is in fact propaganda. Certainly this is a major point for anyone seriously interested in the subject. The hardest part of teaching my own students is helping them to unlearn the nonsense they were taught in high school.

The other part concerns language and usage. I'm going to take a closer look at that edit, but it seems to me that

History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past.

is just better prose than

History can refer to events from the past, the record of events from the past, and the study of this record of past events.

The brief etymology in the lede seems appropriate. The etymology below the lede is much more detailed, but has at least one call for references.

On the other hand, I agree with the removal of a patch of pretentious and unreferenced postmodern doublespeak, and am going back to remove it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History/Propaganda

The section labeling history as taught in American Schools as Propaganda needs to be severely edited (but not deleted). I admit teaching Propaganda as History is a problem, but not as large a problem as implied in that section. I also placed a notice of the article's objectiveness being called into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I carried out the rewrite along the lines you recommend. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the article at all. It belongs in Secondary Teaching of History. Secondary Schools don't attempt disciplinary history. In addition, and the primary reason why it doesn't belong, is that it is not as notable to the subject "History" as the other sections, meaning that it is an irrelevant inserted into a head article. We don't, for example, have a section on "Empiricist Historiography" in the main article, nor should we. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. To the majority of people, "history" means "that course I was taught in secondary school". They need to know the difference between that kind of history, and history as it is understood by professional historians. Wikipedia is not just for the minority of people who are college educated.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a record of what the majority of people believe. Basic reading comprehension of every element of the article, particularly the introduction, should emphasise the specific meaning of history, as it does. Start an article on secondary teaching of history in a few first world countries, perhaps at Problems in the secondary teaching of history in a few first world countries. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

the propaganda section should be removed in full, it describes how SOCIAL STUDIES is taught not what history IS which is the point of the article, i like the examples but it does not belong here. Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro?

the intro to this article is dreadful and appears to be a collection of compramises between people not at all within the field of history.Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro is changing so rapidly you need to specify which intro you are talking about. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

i fixed it, it is precise, sourced and correct now.Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to your changes is that they are badly written, lumping together words that do not really belong together. For example, your source uses the word "discipline", and with that subject, the rest of the sentence makes sense. The way you have changed the source makes it read awkwardly. Also, from your dictionary source, you've chosen definition four of five.
Please stop blanking referenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
ok agreed my additions are rushed but the old ones are so dreadfully either wrong or worded badly it needed to be changed, lets tinker with what we have.Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How can we "tinker with what we have" if you keep reverting everything to your version, which you admit is rushed. It is not helpful for you to say "the old ones are so dreadfully either wrong or worded badly". In what way are they wrong? Which words are badly chosen? Please be specific. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok first thing in the inro is the statement about mtotion pictures ect supplanting the wriiten word, more accuratly it is complementing the written word in keeping historical record agreed?Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

further down i also added a bit about how traditionall y historians also recorded history such as herodontus, not just researching documents but being the people who create the documents in the first place, this is an important distinction, please do not revert change the gammar if it is off. Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem fine. As you request, I will only edit slightly for style and grammar. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patternism

I understand that a methodology known as "patternism" was started in the 1930's at Cambridge University. Shouldn't this article mention that, as well as cover the entire history of the development of history methodology? Leeirons (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article inform people that they have been taught or are being taught lies under the name of history?

I feel very strongly that this article should inform people that not everything that masquerades as history is really history. Others feel equally strongly that such information has no place in this article. Instead of repeatedly deleting the section, please talk about it here. Pending such discussion, I'm going to restore the section, because the person who remed it out calls it "personal opinion" when it is clearly referenced fact. There may be a reason to leave it out, but that isn't it. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

In most other wikipedia articles I've looked at, the Etymology section comes right under the ToC. Any particular reason for moving it? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)