El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[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, 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
Madmagic (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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 SentencesI'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)
[edit] Recent editsThere 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
is just better prose than
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/PropagandaThe 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 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)
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)
i fixed it, it is precise, sourced and correct now.Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:29, 4 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)
[edit] PatternismI 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] EtymologyIn 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) [edit] Is History a Science?This particular section of the article seems completely useless on so many levels. Primarily, the existence of this section begs the questions, should we add a section titled, "Is History an Art?" or, "Is History a Math? or even, "Is History a Gourmet Dinner?" The article should be about what History IS. If the article does a complete job of explaining the methodology of History, then it does not matter whether it has similarties to other disciplines. Anyone can read the Wikipedia article on Science and this one on History, and make their own judgment as to whether there is overlap between the two disciplines or not. If we need an article on "The Development of Human Inquiry in the Second Millenium," then maybe it would be appropriate to start comparing History and Science and how they became differentiated along with all other fields. Leeirons (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
More on the problem of defining what things are "sciences" and what are not... see article on the demarcation problem. This problem cannot be resolved in this one article on history, so it should probably not even be brought up, unless there are specific sources to cite in which historians are debating the demarcation problem specific to history. Leeirons (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Repair of this Talk pageInteresting. Haven't been back here for a while, but I was browsing the History Portal and thought to look in. On 20 February 2008, I wrote comments which are currently near the top of this Talk page. There were two more sections, discussing other issues, right above mine. The prior two sections, and my following section of February 20, have somehow become merged. Making none of those sections read in a very sensible way. So: I'll re-post what was written in the two sections before mine, and what I wrote in my own comments, right below this comment. Let's hope this restatement of what was said before will neither suffer bitrot, nor un-noticed vandalism. cheers, Madmagic (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
[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 subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krastain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] questionable articleCould people who watch this page check out Psychohistory? I am not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not. Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. I am even more concerned about Early infanticidal childrearingSlrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Radical edit of opening paragraphsI'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, [edit] Requesting vandalism protection for this articleThis article has been vandalized a lot lately, this article should be semi-protected against vandalism. WinterSpw (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Should this article mention propaganda which is taught as history.In many countries, the subject taught as history is actually propaganda. A recent example of anti-Jewish propaganda taught as history in Saudi Arabia has been in the news. Because this misuse of "history" is so pervasive, I think this article should at least mention the subject. Others think otherwise. Here is the subsection in question. I would like to see some discussion of why it was deleted, and whether it should be in the article or not.
Rick Norwood (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I just checked a few other articles for "misuse" subsections. The article statistics has a section on the misuse of statistics. The article psychology has a section on the misuse of psychology. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC) gonna put it in the psuedohistory section. J. D. Redding 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In reference to:
I went and removed the "the" before "Japan" for grammatical reasons (!), but I have a problem w/the last statement regarding the teaching of the American Civil War in public schools. The author of this section gives no specific information to back up this controversial claim, other than referencing an entire book, a text that deals with many topics, and one that is not considered a "scholarly" book. The author should at least cite the specific section of the book that pertains to his or her comment; ideally they would cite an actual current textbook that adds or omits important information about the Civil War. Even then, as education is not standardized in the U.S. on a federal level, this is a difficult statement, as individual states choose a variety of books that teachers may use for their classes, and these books themselvs are constantly being revised. To my knowledge, students are by-and-large taught an accurate depiction of the American Civil War these days, and there is nothing equivalent to the omission of the Naking Massacre in U.S. textbooks to be currently found on this matter. Historically, this may not have been so, but that is not the author's claim here, stating "the history of the Civil War is censored..." Dartist (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe put in "has been" or "had been" instead of "is" ... just a thought. J. D. Redding [edit] "Particular studies and fields" sidebarIn the "Particular studies and fields" sidebar, the description for the "People's history" approach says "historical work from the perspective of common people." I have two problems with this statement: 1. who are "common" people?, and 2. there is no singular perspective for any group of people. Linking to that specific page ("People's History"), when one clicks on "common people," you are redirected to the wiki for the "working class." "Working class" is a technical term, understood by many; "common people" can have several different definitions, and not all "working class" people would like to be called "common"! It is a false assumption to think that an historian can provide "the" perspective of a diverse group. This description sounds biased (Marxist), not objective. Perhaps it could be re-worded as: "historical work from a Marxist (or Populist) perspective, focusing on the working class"? Dartist (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Don't think it's a "marxist" ... more of a Populist view IIRC. J. D. Redding 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Merger proposalEarlier today I typed in "Herstory" expecting to arrive at a page discussing, well, history. Instead I was met with a stub-like page describing why the word herstory was coined; really, this should be made a section of the main article on History since the subjects of herstory and history are really the same thing (if with a slightly different perspective, but Marxist history is still history, too, after all). This merger would also benefit those Wikipedians who type in herstory while looking for an article discussing history (their spelling choice being driven perhaps by ideological considerations). I realize some people may possibly disagree, but I think we have reached a point in time where herstory really is history just as black politics in the United States are rapidly becoming, thanks to Obama, just politics. That's not to say herstory is unimportant but that we'd be doing justice to the readers with a simple redirect and the inclusion of a section discussing this term in the main article.--NeantHumain (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The leadI have been unhappy with the Lead for a while and have just taken a first pass at improving it. I haven't cleaned up the references yet, but will do so. In the meanwhile, what does the community make of this?
Very much a WIP; the current definition needs strenghtening and there should be some mention of the areas of debate in the History community about the subject itself as well as the different strands of analysis. Major Bloodnok (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
How's this?
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
