Talk:History/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about History. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019
 | This edit request to History has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction, please change "was known to be compiled from as early as 722 BC although only 2nd-century BC texts survived" by adding "have" before "survived." The current wording sounds like only the 2nd-century texts survived a specific event, or survived until a certain time, but the actual meaning (confirmed by the Spring and Autumn Annals article) is that the 2nd-century texts are the oldest ones currently in existence. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
History books
An article on early history books? -ApexUnderground (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
History sources
Is wrritten in historical books true history or just a story?33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019
| This edit request to History has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please repunctuate the pseudohistory section. The second sentence is long and easily misunderstood. Right now it says
Pseudohistory is a term applied to texts which purport to be historical in nature but which depart from standard historiographical conventions in a way which undermines their conclusions. Closely related to deceptive historical revisionism, works which draw controversial conclusions from new, speculative, or disputed historical evidence, particularly in the fields of national, political, military, and religious affairs, are often rejected as pseudohistory.
Please change it to
Pseudohistory is a term applied to texts which purport to be historical in nature but which depart from standard historiographical conventions in a way which undermines their conclusions. It is closely related to deceptive historical revisionism. Works which draw controversial conclusions from new, speculative, or disputed historical evidence, particularly in the fields of national, political, military, and religious affairs, are often rejected as pseudohistory. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
