Talk:Historical method

message: We currently have a mess of articles with about the same content or with a content different from what it is supposed to be: Historical-critical method which should really be about the Historical method but which is about the use of the Historical method in Bible studies , an article called Historical criticism which was really about Historical criticism in Bible studies, an article called Source criticism which is also about Historical criticism in Bible studies but which should be about the Historical method. It is a great mess and a lot of articles should be merged, some should be redirects to others and some should have different content than they have. Please help me straighten it up.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now September, and no one has seized the day.  The article "Historical-critical method" is a total mess, has stirred up endless debate, and says nothing that is not better said elsewhere.  It should go.  I suspect Source criticism should go as well.  It certainly does not sound encyclopedic.  Justifications for belief in the Bible should be under Apologetics, but that article, too, is dreadful "Apologists are writers... of scientific logs..."  There should be an article titled, "Higher Criticism", which confines itself to discussing the historical movement in the 17th century that went by that name. Since I hate to see really bad articles in Wikipedia, if somebody else doesn't do something soon, I will. Rick Norwood 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and redirect mess discussion 

message: Why is archeology not mentioned? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this page expecting to find information such as what techniques are used to date and place old texts. (Carbon in the medium? Lettering style? Language style? Associated pottery style? Calanders? Astronomical events? Contiguous overlapping journals? Tree rings?) Isn't that something which historians do, figuring out when events occured? (Or is it something separate -- chronology?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those sort of practical techniques are listed under Auxiliary sciences of history (or, if not explicitly listed, can be found by following the links). This article is – rightly, in my opinion – more concerned with the theoretical principles underpinning the interpretation of historical evidence. However, I agree it needs a lot more development. GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I have put a link to archaeology in the lede. Otherwise, it's mentioned obliquely in the body ("relics" of the past) and again at the bottom among the See Also. If someone wants to do further write-up on the function of archaeology as part of the historical method, that is welcome. --Peter Kirby (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Archeology

message: Sadly, I have no formal training as a historian. So I'm posting a question here for anyone who does. As a historical-method layperson, I would ask up front whether historiography and historical method are topics that overlap enough, in terms of their content of ideas, that their encyclopedia articles should mention each other in a more integrated, cross-referenced way, fairly early toward the tops of the articles (even in the ledes, probably)? As I write this, ctrl-f finds that historiography isn't mentioned on the page any earlier than the "See also" section. I bring this up not as a whine whose solution would be "Well, OK, fix it yourself then". I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix it myself in this case, so I'm just raising this question as something to consider for the future development of this article. Maybe someone can beat me to fixing it (someone with a degree in this field). Thanks, — ¾-10 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't historiography be mentioned sooner than all the way down in the "See also"?

message: I'm not really into history, but Ernst Troeltsch and his three principles of critical history and seems to be relevant . --TimSC (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ernst Troeltsch

message: I'm not a historian, but citing Gilbert Garraghan (a Catholic) arguing that oral tradition should be acceptable if it has an unbroken series of witnesses, seems like it could be biased; as unbroken oral traditions is a common Catholic apologetic.  Could a professional historian weigh in on whether Garraghan's approach is accepted in secular history, and/or for other religious histories?
Related: If the tradition is oral, how would a historian known that it has an unbroken series of witnesses?  This seems like it would have to rely on the oral tradition, and thus be circular. Khilker15 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert Garraghan on Oral Tradition 

message: My understanding is that the majority of historians have adopted methodological naturalism. If so, an overview of that that seems relevant to this article.  If not, I'd like to see some content specific to how historians evaluate supernatural/paranormal/religious claims in history. ie; can the historical method weigh in on whether any miracles of history are historical facts? If so, what are the criteria? Khilker15 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernatural & Religious claims in history