Talk:History of mentalities

message: In the reference section, the title of Peter Burke's article is not:
'Strengths and Weaknesses in the History of Boners' - the page has been vandalized.
It should read, 'Strength and Weaknesses of the History of Mentalities'.
24.108.6.62 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Burke's article 

message: Outline for improvement to this article
* Introduce the history of the History of Mentalities, including the origin of the term and those that developed the methodology behind the History of Mentalities. Namely, discuss the works of Georges Duby and Roger Chartier and their importance as historians of the Annales school, which helped develop and idea of total history that might encompass the history of mentalities. Here it is also important to introduce Michael Harsgor's article and analyze the development of the total history that would provide the backdrop to the history of mentalities.
* The article has some definitional aspects regarding the history of mentalities, but it would be useful to improve or expand upon that definition and also describe the importance and meaning of the term culture in describing the history of mentalities. 
* Discuss the work of Carlo Ginzburg (The Cheese and the Worms) as well as the work of Robert Darnton in providing a more focused methodological setting in which the history of mentalities could develop. It might be prudent to bring up the influence of Clifford Geertz and of ethnographic methodology taken from the field of anthropology and its influence on Robert Darnton's work. This will provide another methodological component (along with the Annales) that will solidify the methodological framework in which the history of mentalities developed.
* Here it will be important to provide the response among historians to the history of mentalities and the impact of anthropology on the field of history. Specifically, I would like to incorporate aspects of Dominick LaCapra and Roger Chartier's criticisms of Darnton as well as less favorable reviews of Ginzburg's work. I believe this is important to add because it will provide real historical debates that are occurring and situate the history of mentalities within the methodological arguments of the historical profession at large. Michael Harsgor's article has some interesting insight into this debate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmallard (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography for this article for future editing 

message: Hey Brian!
Great article. Are you editing one or did you make an entirely new article? If you are editing, I assume what you added was the part on Darnton's book. 
You mentioned how Darnton included different chapters on the different social classes and their mentalites and I'd like to suggest maybe elaborating on that part a little bit.
Perhaps including the different stories and how they were symbolic, such as the fables that were told to the peasants.
I realize that your article isn't about Darnton but seeing as his book is about the mentalites of the people, I think elaborating on the different stories and symbols would allow the reader to better understand those mentalites and how the different estates understood things in different ways. Does that make sense? 
This could be a separate section on its own within the article.
Peasants:
Bourgeois:
Nobles:
Also, maybe try organizing the page better, perhaps separating different thoughts or different authors and what they have to say about the History of Mentalites 
Does that make sense? Maybe I can better explain my self in class later
This article is very well thought out and written, I just think a few changes would make it a little more interesting and appealing to those who have never studied this ares before!
-Monique :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moniquebrianna (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comment 

message: Unsourced and false to assert "The history of mentalities focuses not on the wars or great men which have been the subject matter of most European history-writing since ancient times," -- the French historians were far beyond the notion that wars and great men made history.  The Enlightenment had dropped  those old themes and emphasized society and culture.  Here's a recent quote:   Led by Michelet (1798-1874) "19th-century French historians no longer saw history as the chronicling of royal dynasties, armies, treaties, and great men of state, but as the history of ordinary French people and the landscape of France"  Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, that's only a part of your edit. You also deleted a chunk of content that had nothing to do with the historiographical point you refer to here - under a frankly misleading edit summary. As it happens, I agree that the phrase you take issue with here should probably be removed. The rest of the content you removed, however, is perfectly useful and should be kept. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK we now seem to be in general agreement  :)  Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  false statement about wars & great men