Talk:History

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.glo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A deeply unsatisfactory article

History is one of the major academic disciplines with long traditions and various longstanding philosophical disputes. This article is absolutely amateurish, a hodge-podge of non-connected individual points and sheer diletantism. Surely we can do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.160.157 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably true; it's an article I seldom visit despite having it in my watchlist. Articles on specific histories are interesting to me, while an article on history as a field is less so. Perhaps what's missing is a proper section on the field's, er... history. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As a professional historian myself, I think it's pretty good. It covers lots of themes that interest actual historians. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, it is not perfect, but a very useful summation of the craft. Profcates (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe some of the philosophical debate can be found in the Historiography article. I agree that this article is somewhat disjointed and seems partial to perhaps a modernist/empiricist view of history as opposed to for example a post-modernist/post-structuralist view. PCChris23 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 9 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ELizaluu (article contribs).

The first sentence is wrong

"History (from Ancient Greek: ἱστορία, romanized: historíā, lit. 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the study and the documentation of the past." This preusumed definition of history is not everything that it seems to be. This sentence should actually say instead that history is the comprehensive study of the past using both including archeological and historiographic methods. These definitions are not the same way they appear to be, the first one just reduces the ehole subject to a pitifully constrained definition. History is not just the simple study of historiography. The second definition exposes this fact.

These distinctions should be self evident enough. But the real problem here is that this is somehow still not yet the cases nit yet the case. The whole concepyt that the study of history should be the study of the"recorded" past is litrraly ridiculous! What!? Geological history? What!? Astronomical hidtory!?, archeology? What!?

Are these not historical disciplines as well? Why do you hold the authority of deciding this matter by yourselves? Upon what reason and fact did you judge this absurdity to be true? On what base is it reasonable to assume that the treatment of the whole study of history (and the past) [synonymously] with all it's scrutiny should with all due respect be wholly entrusted to a (as ir is now apparent) pedantic, and also from time to time prejudiced historiographic method and therefore be reduced to ambiguity? History is a empirical science, and it's common sense, usual and mundane sense of the word is adequate enough. These linguistic contortions are ridiculous and insane! Archeology is a part of history, as well. Is the divise between history, archeology and historiography not actually suspicious? Are these divisions and distinctions not artificial as well, are they reall not? Is it not the case? 109.245.37.173 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Section 'Methods' needs refactoring

Just the intro portion of section § Methods before the first subsection is very long on its own, and needs further refactoring into subsections. Perhaps the entire section needs to be condensed, or have content shipped out to Child article|child articles, per WP:Summary style. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What about Her-story?

what about it? 174.6.13.69 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong article, see herstory instead. Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 432, International Relations in the 20th Century 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 9 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anairol (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anairol (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Problems of Independent West African States

At the end of the previous chapter, we discussed the impact of colonial rule in West Africa. This chapter now concentrates on the major challenges African leaders have had to confront since that attainment of self-care-rule. The post-colonial story in West Africa is not very pleasant. Since the 1970s, West African countries have been plagued by severe economic problems. Carl Draymon (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

History

Research on how apartheid affected people's lives and how people responded 102.221.95.247 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Define apartheid in three different ways 102.221.95.247 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that would be a bit more meaningful on a more specialized page. Consider looking at Apartheid and seeing how you can contribute there. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Does it make sense to mention Herodotus as the "father of lies" in the intro?

Seems a weird choice. Barjimoa (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

History and government

Highlight the contribution of greek roman document as a source of history and government 197.237.200.142 (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Request link edit

Art history links to "history of art" instead of "art history" as it was intended to. I would like to request someone to fix it please. 2001:44C8:402B:1693:8522:C89D:4637:4DDC (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• You got it. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1k1 December 2023

223.123.108.74 (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@⁦(๑♡⌓♡๑)⁩⁦(๑♡⌓♡๑)⁩⁦(๑♡⌓♡๑)⁩⁦(๑♡⌓♡๑)⁩⁦ᕙ( ͡◉ ͜ ʖ ͡◉)ᕗ⁩⁦ᕦ(ಠ_ಠ)ᕤ⁩ 89.196.15.58 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GondaraHarpreet012, Sunardevendrasum (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GondaraHarpreet012 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I know that it just inside the 168 hour timeline (been 165) but (per WP:RMEC) since opposition is unanimous and there has been 7 oppositions, it is almost certain that it will not pass. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• History → History (field)
• History (disambiguation) → History

– When people look up the term History, people will probably either look for the academic field or a general history of the world. We have World history as a dab page since it could refer to the field (World history (field)) or a history of human beings. I think moving these articles makes sense in this way. Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is covered sufficiently by the hatnote link to Human history. The basic term usually refers to the field, as in the current setup. Dekimasuよ! 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Dekimasu's reasoning. Also, "History" isn't a field. All other subsets of History are, such as World History, US History, Chinese History etc. History is the overarching process, not a specific field itself. It would be like changing Science to "Science (field)". Vyselink (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• WP:DABCONCEPT probably applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yeah, for such a generic term a broad-concept article should be much better than introducing extra navigation elements. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good grief. It's so clearly the primary topic that it's painful! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the primary topic. Barjimoa (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primary topic and category error; history itself is not a field, it is the content on which other fields are built on. Chariotsacha (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm confused

What is the Methods section supposed to be dedicated to? To me, it seems that it details methods of constructing narratives around historical events that suit the writer's political agenda. Is this really what history is about? Shouldn't history be about fact-finding instead of narrative-crafting? Do I just have too much respect for the humanities?

Also, why is there a subsection dedicated to Marx? I believe it is undue. No other theory of narrative-crafting received elaboration. If readers want to read about historical materialism, they should be able to do that by clicking a blue link in the first sentence two paragraphs earlier. I propose that this subsection be entirely removed, while that sentence could be expanded by maybe 5 words to namedrop the theory. Dieknon (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of WP. WP Shouldn't be telling anyone what history should "be about". WP should be giving us the historical information, in this case the historical methods that have been used to write/talk about history. The section is warranted.

With that being said, I agree that Marx doesn't need it's own subsection, but can merely be a part of the overall section. I have been WP:BOLD and changed it. Vyselink (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

019938411639 2401:1900:155:FA4A:8043:47FF:FEAD:E571 (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

? 1250metersdeep (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article

Generalissima and I were thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article currently has 5 unreferenced sections/subsections (e.g. History#Pseudohistory) and 4 unreferenced paragraphs in other sections. As first steps, we were planning to add a section on how history as a discipline evolved and to rework the sections "Areas of study" and "Methods". The article currently doesn't have a section on the evolution, which seems to be an oversight.

The current section "Areas of study" has 15 subsections with several subsubsections, which is too many. Maybe we can reduce them by using the major subdivisions "By period" (e.g. ancient history), "By geographic location" (e.g. history of Africa), "By theme" (e.g. economic history), and possibly a section called "Others" for branches that don't fit this division. The current section is also repetitive in several locations. For example, it explains two times what military history is. I also don't think we need repetitive explanations like History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Northern and Western Hemispheres., History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Western Hemisphere., and History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Southern and Western Hemispheres.

The current section "Methods" is a little odd. For some reason, it starts with universal history in the early modern period and then discusses methodological considerations in the ancient period and the following periods. I think the section should focus on the methods themselves rather than how they developed in the past. This could include discussions of the different types of sources, source analysis & criticism, how different sources are synthesized to arrive at a coherent narrative, and possibly what interpretative tools and approaches there are. This is also roughly how overview sources on the topic proceed, like [1], [2], and [3]. The details about the past development of the historical method could be moved to the article Historical method instead. Maybe they could be discussed in a paragraph or two here, but this should not be the main focus of the section.

We were hoping to get some feedback on these and possibly other changes. For a discussion with more details and improvement ideas, see User_talk:Phlsph7#Idea_for_collab_-_History. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the overall ideas that you have expressed here. If I may make a few suggestions?

Work on one section at a time. This will allow for easier comments on changes, rather than "I like this from this change, but the change you made here in this other section isn't good". It can get confusing to try to adjust to 1000's of words being changed at once over multiple areas of an article, especially one as large as this one. So start with say "Areas of Study", get a good groove and consensus building going on that, and when it seems like all that is left is tiny changes or cosmetic tune-ups, move to "Methods". You will be able to help avoid any knee-jerk "so much change at once can't be good!" reactions from editors.

To that end, regarding "Areas of Study", I agree that we don't need every type of history broken into their own subsections with an explanation. However, I would keep the main page links under the primary heading with a "Main articles" listing.

To me, a good "Areas of Study" outline would consist of that heading, with a quick explanation reading something like this

The study of history can be as all encompassing as a world history or as narrow as a single person or event at a particular time, such as The River of Doubt which focused on Theodore Roosevelt's expedition down an unmapped tributary of the Amazon river. It can be divided into different periods, geographical locations, cultural institutions, religious belief, economic or political power and many more. Given this nearly innumerable number of possibilities, the following briefly presents some of the largest areas of study, though by necessity it can not be a complete list of every subject or subset.

I would then follow that with subsections, with the few suggestions following being "Name of subsection" (what areas may fall under that, though it is not all-inclusive) though this of course would need to be discussed and hammered out: Geographical Locations (Americas, Eurasia); Period (ancient, medieval, etc); Societal (religious, cultural, gender, public); Political (military, economic, diplomatic); Other (intellectual, environmental). I am well aware that some people will argue that this belongs there or that belongs here, but we need a base to start from.

In an attempt to help, I have taken the liberty of rewriting the paragraph for "Geographical Locations", which you may use as little or as much as you wish, it is merely a suggestion. Add the appropriate links/sources. I would NOT include/link "History of North America; History of South America; History of Central America" etc. I would simply have the main pages of "History of Africa/Americas/Eurasia/Oceania/Antarctica" and people can link from those to what they may be looking for. As a side note, however you go about it, the Michelet quote is a GREAT quote which I would definitely keep:

Geographical locations, ranging from as broad as entire continents to as narrow as a small village or settlement, are often, though not always, the starting point for historical study, with factors such as weather patterns, the water supply, and the landscape of a place affecting the lives of the people who live there. According to Jules Michelet in his book Histoire de France (1833), "without geographical basis, the people, the makers of history, seem to be walking on air".[62] As an example of Michelet’s point, to explain why the ancient Egyptians developed a successful civilization necessitates an understanding of the geography of Egypt. Without knowing that the rich soil deposited by the Nile River’s yearly flooding allowed farmers to produce far more food than was needed for simple subsistence, which meant the excess could be shared and not everyone had to farm, the development of the civilization appears nearly miraculous. Once the Nile River’s flooding is understood, along with many other geographical advantages and disadvantages, the progression of the Egyptian culture and civilization becomes more transparent, allowing for a greater insight into how a civilization like Egypt developed as compared to another civilization in a different geographical location.

I have not edited much on WP recently, but this seems rather fun. I will attempt to stay in the loop as much as I can, and please feel free to message me should you have anything you'd like another opinion on. Vyselink (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Vyselink and thanks for the feedback! That's a good idea about working on one section at a time. I've started a draft for the section "Methods" at User:Phlsph7/History - Methods. It's still a early version but I would be curious to hear your thoughts to ensure that it is going in the right direction.

I would probably focus on the section "Areas of Study" after that. Thanks for getting started with some initial drafts, I'll see how they can be included. How to divide the different branches is a tricky question. I think the division by periods and by geography should be uncontroversial. The difficult part would be how to structure the rest. Having everything under "By theme" could work but your suggestion of further subdividing it into different types of themes, like societal and political, might also be viable if we don't introduce controversial categorizations. When I get to it, I'll try to look through the sources to see if there are some established subdivisions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a source that says the terms "ancient" etc. can be relative and be used to refer to different time periods in different cultures, for instance Mapungubwe and Empire of Kitara are called ancient in their respective societies (and by some academics). Anyways, I like your ideas. I assume a section on traditional oral history is outside the scope of this article if it is just on the academic discipline rather than the concept of history? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kowal2701 and thanks for the input! Having a main section on oral history probably violates WP:PROPORTION. I'm currently working on a draft of the section "Areas of study" (for an early work in progress, see User:Phlsph7/History - Areas of study) and I was planning to discuss oral history there, maybe between a couple of sentences to a paragraph. The point that the meaning of "ancient" depends on the context is good. I'll keep my eyes open in case I come across sources on this. It could be covered in a footnote somewhere. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, agreed a section would be inappropriate. In this context I recommend highlighting that it often has a different function to the academic discipline (including historical, social, and political functions), its communal nature as a group account, and its composites (eyewitness accounts, hearsay, reminiscences, hallucinations, dreams, and visions [4]), but you might rather imitate how a wideview source on history approaches it. That draft looks good!

• did Buddhism have a missionary tradition? I’ve not heard that before
• Does the source really say “undermining Western dominance” rather than European dominance, given unipolarity?
• Maybe mention the colonisation of Africa before “Various social revolutions” to link it into the sentences on industrialisation, and put “challenged autocratic and colonial regimes”

Kowal2701 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are good ideas. I added a sentence on the colonial empires and adjusted the part on social revolutions. I'm not sure whether the phrase "undermining Western dominance" or "undermining European dominance" is better. The source, Stearns 2010 pp. 43–44, says: The issue is: what’s the big picture, in terms of themes that capture the most important directions in world history over the past century ... First – and this is where World War I comes in as launching the new period – power relationships have been rebalanced, against earlier Western predominance. Concerning Buddhist missions, Missionary#Buddhist_missions, [5], and [6] have some information. I guess Buddhist missionary practices are different from the missionary practicies people usually associate with Christianity and Islam. I'll try to implement the ideas on oral history once I come to that part. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I finished rewriting the section "Areas of study" and am considering a few more changes to the article. It might be good to add a "Definition" section to discuss the different meanings of the word "history", like the contrast between history as a series of events and history as the study or representation of these events. Additionally, this section could address history's classification as a science or part of the humanities as well as questions about its scope, like whether prehistory is included. For an early draft of what some of this could look like, see User:Phlsph7/History - Definition.

I don't think we should have separate main sections for "Pseudohistory" and "Historians" since these topics don't seem to be important enough. Both points can probably be covered in the section "Definition" in a sentence or two. It might also be good to cover the motivations for and uses of history, possibly as a paragraph or subsection within the section "Definition".

I was also thinking about a section to discuss the relation between history and other fields. It could have subsections like historiography (currently a separate main section), philosophy of history (currently only covered indirectly ), teaching/education (currently a separate main section), and possibly some of history's interdisciplinary connections (like archaeology and anthropology). The section "Teaching" should be more global and less focused on conflicts and biases. It could instead concentrate on things like curriculum and pedagogical approaches.

The topic of the section "Description" seems rather vague as it discusses bits and pieces of philosophy of history, sources, methods, the classification of history as a discipline, and its internal organization into branches. A lot of this is already covered in other sections and the remaining parts could also be moved to sections with a clearer focus. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Those ideas sound really good, I especially like the definitions section. Functions of history is also very good, and you can tie pseudohistory, revisionism, and nationalist history into that. Maybe a small subsection on popular consumption of history? Whether it’s books, lecture/teaching, documentaries/movies, oral performances etc. That might not be encyclopaedic enough though, and especially for such a broad topic. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it would make sense to connect the discussion of the functions of history with abuses in the form of pseudohistory. I'll look into the idea of popular consumption of history. At the very least, popular history could be mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)