Talk:Quantitative history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Original research 2 View from the other side 3 Nice diagrams. But 4 Deletion 5 article loaded with offbeat OR

[edit] Original research

It appears that the article contains original research in the sections devoted to the methodology and simulations of various theories of historical change. For the simulations not to count as original research, they must be published in an acceptable source and appropriately referenced in the article. See WP:NOR for details.--Pecher 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I added five references to the methodology section that clarify this issue. All references were published in scholoarly, peer-referenced journals or in scholarly books published by Willey, Cambridge University Press and by Holden-Day. David Cruise 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done my master in economic history which use copious amount of statistical data. Plus, I am originally from the field of economics. I have never come across this however. Most historians are aware that social science tend to encroach in the field history and this quantitative "history" appear to be one of this type. Social science tend to use historical material as a tool to justify their pet theories be it social, political, economic or philosophical kind. For historians, investigation of factual/historical event is the end in itself. Think in term of the difference between criminology and criminal investigation. Former is done by sociologist (quantitative history) and the later is done by detective (historian). It also appear that the author of this page is promoting this theory and are somewhat biased. Historians are quite happy to use data/statistics, they are just not so sure about mathematical models coming out from social science. Given that, for example, economics so far fails to come up with a single model which can make prediction of economic event, failiure is solely on social science not on historian's (alleged) lack of mathematical ability. Lastly, this "quantitative history" appear to be capable of producing copious amount of correct prediction regarding "past" events. Hmmm, I wonder why..... ;P FWBOarticle

[edit] View from the other side

I welcome and respect your input and interest in this issue. I added the "View from the other side" section where I consolidated your objections. I had to do it primarily because the section on David McClelland consists of primary quotes and had to be preserved in its original form.

As this is a controversial subject, please, keep the "pro" and "against" opinions separate, at least for the time being, and wait to see if their synthesis and transcendence will be possible.

As this topic is undoubtedly large and complex, you may find of interest many of the "pro" views, integrated at the web side Visual Statistics Illustrated. David Cruise 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, it appear that you have little experience of editing wikipedia article. We don't use "we" here. It is wrong in so many ways. Please read NPOV policy of wikipedia editorial policy. This site do not pretend that there are such thing as "the" neutral point of view. Rather various points of view exist, and neutral editing is achieved by "attributing" different view to the correct source. I have so far correctly "attributed" the criticism of QH by historians to historians so there is nothing inappropirate here. On the other hand, you have incorrectly presented the pro view of QH without attributing it to QH adovocate, resulting in "biased" edit from wikipedia point of view. I suggest that you may say something like "adovocate of quantitative historians feel that the reason tradidtional historian do not accept QH is due to their lack of quantitative ability and their rigid adherence to their traditional method". FWBOarticle

[edit] Nice diagrams. But

What do these diagrams actually represent? They don't appear to have named axes, and there is nothing in the description. This seems to be a page of similar diagrams, but neither does this page state any intelligible axes (other than 'z', 't' (time?), 'Chisq', etc.). Jameshfisher 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Can anyone put this item's removal to a vote? It looks like a research paper as it is, not only specificaly because of the constant use of "we". 207.126.230.225

[edit] article loaded with offbeat OR

Whoever dreamed up the stuff here is not well connected to quantittative history. Little of it is mentioned in the standard textbooks on the subject (which are now included in the bibliog). Nor do we find them based on articles in the history or statistics journals. Rjensen 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)