Humanities desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17

History vs current events

Sometimes, getting long term views of current events can be difficult because not much time has passed since the event occurred. There are a lot of viewpoints regarding how long events should pass before we get a long term historical view without being affected by current events. For example, post-1992 US politics and post-1978 Iranian politics are considered contentious topics on Wikipedia since they are heavily influenced by recent events. In the essay of WP:Recentism, it mentions the 10 or 20 year test as a way to evaluate events. The history and AskHistorians subreddit on Reddit prohibits discussions on events that happened less than 20 years ago. Another argument is that all events that have happened already are considered history without a specific time period of how long the events occurred. I would like to know how long should we wait after an event has occurred before getting a fair, accurate, long-term historical view of the event. One could argue 150 years, 100 years, 50 years, 25 years, 20 years, or 10 years. Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until valid sources tell us that an event or era is "history" rather than "current events". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple answer, as the question covers virtually all events, regardless of importance, duration, or impact. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My own, personal, rule of thumb: examine the recent sources and who is writing about the event. If most of the authors are journalists, it is still “current events”. If most are historians, then it’s history. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a fallacy: the definition depending on the source, which is defined by the product itself. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions are not fallacies; history is that which is written by historians, journalism is that which is written by journalists. A fallacy would mean that we started with a proposition, and connected it to a conclusion via an invalid set of logical connections. A definition is just what it is. --Jayron 32 16:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "historian": A historian is a professional who writes about history. Definition of "journalist": A journalist is a professional who writes about current events. Circulus clausus. --Lambiam 00:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this question is calling for opinions and therefore should not be discussed here. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good dividing line between history and contemporaneous events is when the last person who witnessed an event and can recall it dies. 2A00:23C1:E10D:BD01:D172:1AA2:4115:DC5E (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good things out there to help you research this answer. This blog post, this blog post, this article, or really any of a dozen of different perspectives from This google search. The short answer, from my perusing this, is that there is not a clear dividing line, insomuch as this is a human-created thing; we invented concepts like journalism and history, and we define them however we want. It's not like defining the difference between hydrogen and helium, or between a dog and an oak tree, or between an electron and a proton; this is not a difference which is baked into the laws of the universe. It's a linguistic question, and all language is just made up. --Jayron 32 16:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans in Medieval China

I just made a strange discovery of sorts, which is likely attributable to coincidence more than anything else, but I'm also wondering if there might be something more to it. Our article on Europeans in Medieval China and Chronology of European exploration of Asia covers a few historical points of interest here and there, but I haven't seen much to answer my question, which is this: is it in any way conceivable that in the 12th century, the Benedictines somehow got their hands on a copy of the Blue Cliff Record (~1125) from Hunan? As synchronicity would have it, I was recently listening to a teisho on case 19 from the BCR (which may not be relevant), when I had the sudden realization that many of the teachings from the BCR were oddly similar to teachings from Hildegard of Bingen, who was coincidentally active a decade after the BCR was compiled, from 1136 until the 1170s. Is there any possibility that Benedictine monks in Germany could have been aware of Buddhist works in China? Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious influences only overcame geographic distances and barriers between major religious traditions by slow convoluted indirect routes -- see Barlaam and Josaphat. It was pretty much impossible for Western European Christians to be informed on recent developments of Chinese Buddhist sects at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the old, conventional wisdom, that people were isolated and not in contact with other parts of the world. But that version of history has been increasingly challenged in other areas, such as the slow acceptance of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, only some of which have become mainstream since the 1970s. There's evidence of ancient Chinese ocean capable trade ships going back to the 10th century, for example. Far older than that, you have ancient trade routes like the Amber Road, which could connect with routes (land or sea?) by the Mongols during the Song Dynasty at the time. The dynasty article even says that Christian Byzantine emperor Michael VII Doukas visited China in 1081. The article on the Mongol invasion of Europe, which took place two centuries later, also covers this kind of movement. Clearly, the routes from Germany to China were long and arduous, but also possible. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how any of that would help Hildegard von Bingen living on the Rhine river to know about recent developments in offshoots of Chinese Buddhism. The Chinese ships were in the Indian Ocean (a long way from the Rhine), and the largest and most far-traveled of the Chinese Indian Ocean expeditions came several centuries after Hildegard von Bingen's death. Her lifetime was also before the Mongol empire brought the land routes from the middle east to China under a single rule, and Christians in China were overwhelmingly Nestorians who had little friendship for Catholics, and the people going back and forth on the trade routes were usually practical merchants. There was definitely no trade direct from Germany to China; look at the A.D. 1212 trade routes map in Colin McEvedy's "Atlas of Medieval History" to see what there was... AnonMoos (talk)

To address your point about Hildegard living on the Rhine, our biography on her says: "Her preaching was not limited to the monasteries; she preached publicly in 1160 in Germany. She conducted four preaching tours throughout Germany, speaking to both clergy and laity in chapter houses and in public…She traveled widely during her four preaching tours." The article also mentions that Hildegard had visitors, in particular, people who played the role of teachers. Surely, with all her travels and visitors, Hildegard learned about ideas from the greater world at large. It’s also likely that some kind of Invisible College existed for ideas considered heretical or outside the acceptance of the religious community. Further, Buddhism had a thousand years to transmit itself throughout these regions, with Buddhism in China having already been present for more than 500 years. Lastly, our article on Buddhism in Europe, notes that it was well known and established but had "little impact". While I admit it is highly unlikely that Hildegard knew anything about Chinese Buddhist texts, the subject of crypto-Buddhism in antiquity and in Christianity in general has been a third rail for religious scholars for centuries. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hildegard von Bingen probably could have heard of Barlaam and Josaphat, if it was circulating in her area, but it's extremely improbable that she had access to recent developments in offshoots of Chinese Buddhism. You seem to be setting up esoteric entities for which there is little or no ascertainable historical evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See route from the Varangians to the Greeks, Raffelstetten customs regulations, and the Silk Road. Please make note of the trade route between Kiev and Regensburg. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP, that it is conceivable that in the 12th century, the Benedictines somehow got their hands on a copy of the Blue Cliff Record, is inherently yes. The OP conceives of the possibility. We do not, have, however, any evidence to support this notion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more conceivable that both were indirectly informed by a common, now lost, source. --Lambiam 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But, it’s not lost. If memory serves, the BCR is informed by the greater corpus of old Buddhist literature that it draws upon. I just thought it was an interesting and unusual coincidence that the BCR was written and popularized contemporaneous with Hildegard’s adult life. I also dispute the accepted, conventional notion that people at that time were isolated and relatively unaware of the larger world. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]