Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 123:
Line 123: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→My update to the civility guideliness
:This is the update I created: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:34, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
:This is the update I created: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:34, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
== RobS and Northwest content disputes involving historical matters ==
I see a lot of disputes between RobS and NorthWest involving historical disputes. Below I give some great rules of weighing historical evidence.
=== Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography ===
*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]
"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]
==== Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography ====
Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from [[Josh McDowell]]'s book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.
(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.
(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."
(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.
(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)
=== Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations ===
*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:11, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:48, 31 March 2021 (EDT)