![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Presentism (historical analysis) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Genuine history is as unclear as the motivation of strangers, and often has little immediate relevance to current events.
Popular history is crystal clear and full of implied prophecies and other vividly direct relations to modern times.
"Whig history" has been removed from the "See also" list and "whiggishness" has been de-linked on the grounds of MOS:OL and MOS:ALSO. I find nothing there that gives a reason not to list "Whig history" or blue-link "whiggishness." Since this article is in the "See also" list at "Whig history," it only makes sense to have "Whig history" in the same list here. Webster's dictionary defines "Whiggishness" thusly: of, relating to, or characterized by a view which holds that history follows a path of inevitable progression and improvement and which judges the past in light of the present. It isn't a very common word, so I would think many readers might want to explore the concept. I'm going to restore. YoPienso ( talk) 19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why this article is subtitled "literary and historical analysis"? There is no mention anywhere of literature or literary studies: it's all about history (with a minor digression into sociology). I'm sure the term is used in literary studies, but surely only in relation to historical literature and historical understanding? I guess the word may have introduced to distinguish the concept from philosophical presentism, but I don't see any real need for it. Would there be any objection to moving the article to Presentism (historical analysis)? GrindtXX ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Without reviewing the sources, but just skimming this article, this article seems to present multiple possible definitions of presentism:
Per WP:NOTDICT, we should pick a single concept to discuss. This will certainly involve re-reading the existing sources. Daask ( talk) 22:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Presentism (historical analysis) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Genuine history is as unclear as the motivation of strangers, and often has little immediate relevance to current events.
Popular history is crystal clear and full of implied prophecies and other vividly direct relations to modern times.
"Whig history" has been removed from the "See also" list and "whiggishness" has been de-linked on the grounds of MOS:OL and MOS:ALSO. I find nothing there that gives a reason not to list "Whig history" or blue-link "whiggishness." Since this article is in the "See also" list at "Whig history," it only makes sense to have "Whig history" in the same list here. Webster's dictionary defines "Whiggishness" thusly: of, relating to, or characterized by a view which holds that history follows a path of inevitable progression and improvement and which judges the past in light of the present. It isn't a very common word, so I would think many readers might want to explore the concept. I'm going to restore. YoPienso ( talk) 19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why this article is subtitled "literary and historical analysis"? There is no mention anywhere of literature or literary studies: it's all about history (with a minor digression into sociology). I'm sure the term is used in literary studies, but surely only in relation to historical literature and historical understanding? I guess the word may have introduced to distinguish the concept from philosophical presentism, but I don't see any real need for it. Would there be any objection to moving the article to Presentism (historical analysis)? GrindtXX ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Without reviewing the sources, but just skimming this article, this article seems to present multiple possible definitions of presentism:
Per WP:NOTDICT, we should pick a single concept to discuss. This will certainly involve re-reading the existing sources. Daask ( talk) 22:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)