Talk:Presentism (historical analysis)

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.

Wetman

Whig history

"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)

I am not for one moment disputing the relevance of Whig history to this article. However, the term is already used and linked in the third sentence of the of the second paragraph of the lede. It is therefore redundant to link it again when used for a second time further down in the same paragraph. Per MOS:OL, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article ..." (the exceptions being when the term is re-used in quite distinct sections of the article, which isn't the case here). Similarly, as "whiggishness" is merely a redirect to Whig history, there is absolutely no point in linking it when it occurs in the phrase "'Whig history' or 'whiggishness'" (which makes it clear that the two are synonyms). Again, per MOS:ALSO, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". GrindtXX (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for somehow missing those points. Thank you for your patience. I've reverted. YoPienso (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Literary?

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)

Good point.76.174.113.253 (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No-one arguing for retention of the current title in over 2 years. I'm going to move it. GrindtXX (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Scope and definition

Without reviewing the sources, but just skimming this article, this article seems to present multiple possible definitions of presentism:

• the attribution of present-day ideas and perspectives to anachronistically to historical figures which did not hold such views
• the use of present-day etic categories instead of emic ones indigenous to the historical period described
• the distortion of a historical depiction by focusing on present concerns
• the distortion of a historical depiction to justify present views
• incorrect attribution of social changes to recent events rather than longer-term trends
• judging past behavior by current moral standards

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)