Talk:Historical method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject History	(Rated Start-Class, Top-importance)	HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
History portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

[edit] Merge and redirect mess discussion

We currently have a mess of articles with about the same content or with a content different from what it is supposed to be: Historical-critical method which should really be about the Historical method but which is about the use of the Historical method in Bible studies , an article called Historical criticism which was really about Historical criticism in Bible studies, an article called Source criticism which is also about Historical criticism in Bible studies but which should be about the Historical method. It is a great mess and a lot of articles should be merged, some should be redirects to others and some should have different content than they have. Please help me straighten it up.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is now September, and no one has seized the day. The article "Historical-critical method" is a total mess, has stirred up endless debate, and says nothing that is not better said elsewhere. It should go. I suspect Source criticism should go as well. It certainly does not sound encyclopedic. Justifications for belief in the Bible should be under Apologetics, but that article, too, is dreadful "Apologists are writers... of scientific logs..." There should be an article titled, "Higher Criticism", which confines itself to discussing the historical movement in the 17th century that went by that name. Since I hate to see really bad articles in Wikipedia, if somebody else doesn't do something soon, I will. Rick Norwood 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archeology

Why is archeology not mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)