Talk:History: Difference between revisions
imported>Ori Redler No edit summary |
imported>Ori Redler No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
We should, because this is really | We should, because this is really a horrible article. I rewrote the opening paragraph to avoid it being re-imported. I'll suggest that a rewrite follow some sort of a plan. E.g. | ||
#(Short) Etymology | #(Short) Etymology | ||
#Materials used by historians (types of sources) | #Materials used by historians (types of sources) | ||
Revision as of 10:33, 18 November 2006
Are you planning to discuss other methods with the satisfying depth combined with concision you showed for Ibn Khaldun? Or do you propose him as the general model.DavidGoodman 20:56, 2 November 2006 (CST)
Reorganization
Shouldn't this entire entry be scrapped and re-conceived from the ground up? There is no generally recognized 'historical method'. There are people who think that there is a continuous tradition of historical 'thought' (such as Donald Kelley), but they essentially disregard economic history or other efforts to make history more continuous with the sciences. André Carus 02:50, 18 November 2006 (CST)
We should, because this is really a horrible article. I rewrote the opening paragraph to avoid it being re-imported. I'll suggest that a rewrite follow some sort of a plan. E.g.
- (Short) Etymology
- Materials used by historians (types of sources)
- Methods of analysing sources
- Types of historical descriptions (subject matter, scope, holistic and historicist approaches versus subject matter driven, etc.)
- Methods of relying the "narrative" (following a course of events, or following a development of some idea or approach)
- Approaches to valuing historical descriptions
Ori Redler 10:32, 18 November 2006 (CST)