Talk:History

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about History. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about History at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2024.

History Top‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about Her-story?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

History

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1k1 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

223.123.108.74 (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@⁦(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose, justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABCONCEPT probably applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Good grief. It's so clearly the primary topic that it's painful! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the primary topic. Barjimoa (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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