History Forum?

[livius drusus]

So Celsus was bitchi... er... noting (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=43571#post43571) that there isn't a history forum here, nor is there any place where history threads would seem a natural fit. vm and I discussed this many a time when building the forum structure, and in the end we decided history threads could go in the topical forums -- art history in the Arts & Literature forum, religious history in the Philosophy, Religion, Morality forum, etc.

However, this isn't really satisfying because there are plenty of historical discussions that just aren't going to fit in a topical fourm, and after all, I'm a huge history nerd. I'm reluctant to start a forum called simply "History" for the same reason I was reluctant to start a "Travel" subforum: :tumble2:. We could add "& History" to one of the extant forums -- probably PRM or A&L -- but that's so cobbled together.

So what do y'all think? Should I just get over my potty training issues, open a history forum and start typin'? Should we tack history on to one of the other titles? Suggestions are very much welcome.

[Ymir's blood]

I think the Science forum is a good fit, as it is. A large percent of the threads there have been historical in nature. There is not so much traffic there that the history threads are overwhelming the others. IMO it is generally best to have a few forums as needed and to only add new ones when there is a clear need to relieve pressure in existing forums.

[Blake]

Yes, I'd always figured history threads belong in "The Sciences," given that its mandate is "Hard, soft, social, natural"; on the other hand, I can see how that's kind of unsatisfying. I mean, some history can be described as scientific, but far from all. Topically, sure threads regarding history often fit in Arts & Lit, or Phil, Rel & Morality, or even Politics & Law or Current Events. However, "History" as a subject seems important enough and distinct enough to deserve a forum all its own.

I say go ahead and set one up, and if it gets very little traffic, fold the threads back into Sciences. However, I'm betting Celsus alone will start enough new threads in there to sustain its separate existence! :cool:

[wei yau]

History and Travel Forum.

















:runaway:

[Celsus]

Maybe Science and Computers & Tech can be merged into one big Science & Technology forum, so as to make way for the freight train that is History... I mean, what has science and technology ever done for us? Actually Arts & Literature could reasonably be retitled as Culture & History. Then anything to do with those newfangled moving pictures, picture boxes, shortwave receivers, phonographs, or whatever it is kids are up to these days goes into a new Media forum.

/me ducks various tomato-like projectiles
Ok, well it's all good, I just wanted to know where to dump livius. Er... dump livius.org

Joel

[Ex-zombie]

I second Celsus's suggestion of merging the Science and Computer forums. Look at their thread count, it is less than half of the others.

[viscousmemories]

Actually the low post count in both forums might be in part because they were originally one forum, Science and Technology (I think it was called). I proposed splitting off the computer threads because they were dominating the forum and, it seemed to me, stifling the non-technology related science discussion. livius didn't like the idea much at first, but after some coercion discussion I managed to convince her it was a good idea. We had a thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=495) on the subject where a few others agreed.

That said, I'm all for reshuffling things. I agree that the structure is imperfect now. :yup:

[Crumb]

Merging science and technology and trying out history as its own forum is a great idea! Now that Crumb has spoken, go forth and tweak! :yup:

[Skep]

Howzabout a Humanities forum, such as that at SC, in which the topics of History, Art, Literature, Music, and Film are discussed?

[godfry n. glad]

Well, now...

Don't that beat all?

Now they talk about a history forum?

Isn't history merely a genre of literature?

[Seven of Nine]

Supposing that there history is a popular enough subject to warrant it, I'm all for a separate history forum. I found the first one I intrud...erm, I mean posted in entirely by accident.

[livius drusus]

As vm pointed out, Technology was created to keep Science from becoming overwhelmed with computer threads. I still think that's a good idea, despite their lowish thread counts, which are in all likelihood related to how they used to be one forum and really not a problem for me as is.

Now, I know eldar was just fucking with me, but Mr. Dewey (http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/fi_books_dd_list.htm) kind of agreed with him, and I rather like the idea of a Geography and History forum. The more I think of it the more I like it, in fact. We've already got several great travel threads in Lifestyle thanks to godfry's efforts which could seed the new forum, and several other history threads which could join them.

That way my :tumble2: fears are assuaged, we history nerds get room to grow, godfry and Shake get the travel forum they very reasonably requested, we don't have to totally rearrange all the threads in a large forum like A&L, and nobody has to look at a silly subforum on the forum index.

Thoughts? Questions? Eviscerations?

[Ensign Steve]

Wait, are you talking about having the "Travel" threads be in a "History and Geography" forum? I think that's a GREAT idea!

[Celsus]

People, places and their past. Sounds good to me!

Joel

[Ymir's blood]

I think the idea of rearranging the existing forums is better than adding new ones.

[godfry n. glad]

Since my ISP seems to be suffering from erectile dysfunction today, I'll make this quick and to the point.

I support a "People and Places" type forum where history, travel, anthropology, archeology and even social "sciences" might be discussed.

I back the Eldar proposal.

godfry

[Ensign Steve]

That sounds a little less like Dewey, and a little more like Trivial Pursuit. Either way, I'm in favor of it.

[beyelzu]

That sounds a little less like Dewey, and a little more like Trivial Pursuit. Either way, I'm in favor of it.
having played trivial pursuit a time or two, I know that all knowledge can be divided into only six spheres or slices of the knowledge pie if you will.


I think having a history-geography forum would be the shit.

[godfry n. glad]

That sounds a little less like Dewey, and a little more like Trivial Pursuit. Either way, I'm in favor of it.
having played trivial pursuit a time or two, I know that all knowledge can be divided into only six spheres or slices of the knowledge pie if you will.


I think having a history-geography forum would be the shit.

Yo, Bub...

Can we assume that means you are supportive? Or not?

[beyelzu]

That sounds a little less like Dewey, and a little more like Trivial Pursuit. Either way, I'm in favor of it.
having played trivial pursuit a time or two, I know that all knowledge can be divided into only six spheres or slices of the knowledge pie if you will.


I think having a history-geography forum would be the shit.

Yo, Bub...

Can we assume that means you are supportive? Or not?
very supportive.

[ceptimus]

Ah, the problem of classification. Any Librarian will tell you that it's an art not a science :) Where should a large book, originally in German, about the author's experiences in the development of trams be placed? Transport? Science? History? Autobiography? Foreign Language? Outsize?

It's the same with threads here - though at least we don't need a separate area to store outsize posts.

The real answer, though it would mean even more work for the techies, would be to make use of the fact that all the posts reside in a database, and could therefore be presented using standard database techniques. So when I make a post about the history of Diesel engines, I could mark it as falling into both the technical and historical categories.

If we did something like that, we'd have to be careful of users spamming the forum by wrongly filing their threads in too many different areas, but I'm sure that we could come up with a workable solution to that potential problem, if we have the will, and the ability to try out the database 'multiple category' method of filing threads.

I think it would have to be done on a thread by thread, rather than a post by post basis, to avoid being too confusing. The thread starter, plus the admins would have the option of marking the thread as belonging in additional areas, if and when posts made to the thread warrant that. I don't think that a thread should ever be removed from an area though (except as might happen occasionally now, when a thread has been accidentally started in the wrong forum).

[wei yau]

Now, I know eldar was just fucking with me, but Mr. Dewey (http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/fi_books_dd_list.htm) kind of agreed with him, and I rather like the idea of a Geography and History forum. The more I think of it the more I like it, in fact.

Hey, how do you know that I was fucking with you? Maybe I meant exactly that, hmmm? Maybe, I'm smarter than I look. Maybe I'm not such an asshole.

Maybe, but probably, not.

Anyway, I like the idea.

[livius drusus]

The real answer, though it would mean even more work for the techies, would be to make use of the fact that all the posts reside in a database, and could therefore be presented using standard database techniques. So when I make a post about the history of Diesel engines, I could mark it as falling into both the technical and historical categories.

<snip>

I think it would have to be done on a thread by thread, rather than a post by post basis, to avoid being too confusing. The thread starter, plus the admins would have the option of marking the thread as belonging in additional areas, if and when posts made to the thread warrant that. I don't think that a thread should ever be removed from an area though (except as might happen occasionally now, when a thread has been accidentally started in the wrong forum).

I've been chewing on this suggestion since you made it, cep, and the more I think of it the more I like it. At first I was all "No! Scary, scary multiple categories! Must. Have. Strict. Order." Then after breathing into a paper bag for a few hours and discussing it at length with vm, we realized that this is actually quite an elegant solution to all kinds of categorization issues.

I even thought I had seen a hack for something similar at vb.org which might at least be a good jumping off point for us, but a week of searching has left me empty-handed. We know some people, however, so we'll see about getting this code custom written for us.

If we did something like that, we'd have to be careful of users spamming the forum by wrongly filing their threads in too many different areas, but I'm sure that we could come up with a workable solution to that potential problem, if we have the will, and the ability to try out the database 'multiple category' method of filing threads.

Yessir. Agreed on all counts. Once we get the software framed, we can sort out how to deal with spammers and excessive crossposters.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go ahead and create the new History & Geography forum and move a few threads into it. Many thanks to everyone for your participation.

:thankee:

[godfry n. glad]

Meanwhile, I'm going to go ahead and create the new History & Geography forum and move a few threads into it. Many thanks to everyone for your participation.




:mememe: YIPPEEE!!!

[livius drusus]

And she's up and running. Dive right in, godfry. :diving:

[Crumb]

Thanks, Liv. Did I say you were an asshat in another thread? Obviously I was quite wrong!

[Ensign Steve]

Places and their past.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!

Please fix it. Please. :crazy:

[ceptimus]

Places and their past.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!

Please fix it. Please. :crazy:
I don't see what's wrong with it. Please explain. I always like to learn about grammar.

[Ensign Steve]

It should read "Places and their pasts." Not all places share one collective past.

[ceptimus]

Thanks. I can see that 'people and their age' sounds wrong - 'people and their ages' would be better; but when it comes to properties of other groups of things, the singular version of the properties word reads OK to me.

Mountains and their height.
Cars and their top speed.
Foods and their taste.
Shoes and their cost.

Is this just that I've gotten so used to doing it wrong that I can't spot the mistake any more, or is it correct to use the words without the 's' in some of these cases?

[livius drusus]

That was my thinking too, ceptimus. I'll see what Messers Strunk and White have to say about it.

[Ensign Steve]

Mountains and their height.
Cars and their top speed.
Foods and their taste.
Shoes and their cost.

Stop! Please stop! Why are you doing this to me?!

(I'll give you 'shoes and their cost,' but only if you are talking one pair of shoes, not the whole store.)

I'd be interested to know what Messers So-and-so and Whats-his-face have to say about it, too, liv. ;)

[Crumb]

I am with Ensign Steve! Please remove this horrible blight on our otherwise perfect forum. :innocent2:

[livius drusus]

Well, Messers Strunk, White and Warriner had no comment that I could find, so I bowed to pressure and went ahead and changed it.

I'll have you know I'm not at all happy about it, however. From a stylistic standpoint I find it inelegant in the extreme, but in the end, I decided it was an impertinence up with which I would put.

The things I do for y'all...

[Ensign Steve]

Thanks, honey! You're the best! :) "an impertinence up with which I would put." Haha, that's funny. I have no idea how one could find it inelegant, but as it's a subjective claim, I will press the issue no further. Besides it's fun to say pasts. Pastststs. Pastisses.

[ceptimus]

I think you should name it: 'Places and their histories'.

That sounds so awkward that I could then lobby to get the final word changed back to a singular form rather than a plural.

I would like the opinion of someone well schooled in grammar on this matter. I'm still not convinced that 'Places and their past' is wrong.

[xouper]

Sorry I be late to this conversation.

ceptimus: I think you should name it: 'Places and their histories'.

That sounds so awkward that I could then lobby to get the final word changed back to a singular form rather than a plural.

I would like the opinion of someone well schooled in grammar on this matter. I'm still not convinced that 'Places and their past' is wrong.
I'm with EnsignSteve on this one. "Places and their histories" sounds quite correct to me. "Places and their history" sounds totally wrong and awkward. Likewise, "places and their past" sounds very wrong to me.

Do I have a cite for that? No. If I can be arsed to do so, maybe I'll go look for one, if someone doesn't beat me to it. :)

Could I be wrong? Of course. But I would need to see the evidence before admitting to my error. :)

[Crumb]

Maybe we should go with popular opinion. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22places+and+their+pasts%22&word2=%22places+and+their+past%22)

[xouper]

Here's a more obvious incorrect example: "places and their name."

AARRRGGGHHH

[xouper]

Here's a more obvious incorrect example: "places and their name."
Or this one: "Places and their story."

AARRGGHH

[viscousmemories]

"Places and their past" sounds right to me. I've given this a great deal of thought and I believe it's correct. My rationale is that time is universal, hence there is only one 'past'. So by "Places and their past" we really mean "Places and the part of 'past' specific to them".

[godfry n. glad]

Submit to Word Court at Atlantic Monthly?

[xouper]

viscousmemories: ... My rationale is that time is universal, hence there is only one 'past'.
That would be correct when referring to THE past. But when you refer to THEIR pasts, there are sometimes more than one, relative to each place. In my opinion. :)

[godfry n. glad]

But wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to each place having "histories"?

After all, a history is merely one perspective's selection of details as to what it is important to remember.

[viscousmemories]

Hmm... I think you're on to something. We all share one past, but the past that is specific to a particular place is that place's history. I buy that. :yup:

And yet...

Places and their Past and Places and their History both sound right to me.

Pluralizing 'past' or 'history' makes it sound like each place has multiple pasts/histories.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmm... I think you're on to something. We all share one past, but the past that is specific to a particular place is that place's history. I buy that. :yup:

And yet...

Places and their Past and Places and their History both sound right to me.

Pluralizing 'past' or 'history' makes it sound like each place has multiple pasts/histories.


That's what I'm saying, vm. Each place does have multiple pasts/histories. Each person carries a unique history. When combined with many others, there are overlaps, but there are also discontinuities explanable through the variant viewpoints on the same events in the same locales. The history of Wounded Knee through the eyes of the US soldiers is one history, through the eyes of those First Nation members who survived it is another. Is Howard Zinn's history the same Shelby Foote's? Doubtful. The history of the causes of the Second World War from an American viewpoint are very different than those of the British, and even greater variance from the Japanese.

godfry

[xouper]

viscousmemories:

... Places and their Past and Places and their History both sound right to me.

Pluralizing 'past' or 'history' makes it sound like each place has multiple pasts/histories.
You are correct that there is an ambiguity. For example, "people and their names" could refer to multiple names for each person. However, "People and their ages" does not have that particular ambiguity. In any case, even if each person only has one name, you would still say "people and their names."

The words "places" and "their" are both plural, and thus the object of that must also be plural, unless it is clear that you are talking about a singular thing they all share in common.

Example, "animals and their environment" referring to a common environment that particular group of animals share. But when referring to animals in general, it is "animals and their environments."

If you are talking about a singular shared past between several closely related places, then perhaps it would be correct to say "places and their past". However, when referriing in general to places that have different pasts (different histories), then the correct form is "places and their pasts".

I still do not have a cite for this. I could be wrong, of course.

[Crumb]

Great explanation Xoup.

[viscousmemories]

Okay xoup, I'm on the bandwagon. :yup:

[ceptimus]

I just posted a question (http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/board/board_topic/1268580/83401.htm) at a grammar forum. It will be interesting to see what they have to say on the matter.

I didn't link back to here yet, but I will if they show any interest.

[xouper]

ceptimus: I just posted a question (http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/board/board_topic/1268580/83401.htm) at a grammar forum. It will be interesting to see what they have to say on the matter.

I didn't link back to here yet, but I will if they show any interest.
Good idea.

In the meantime, what's your opinion of this example:
http://www.hca.heacademy.ac.uk/events/history/200509-naht-call.php

[ceptimus]

Although I'm interested in whether or not there is an official 'correct' version, I don't have any problem with 'People and their pasts.' It's just that I suspect the version without the final 's' isn't wrong either - just an alternative form.

There are some examples where it would obviously be wrong not to have the plural form - things like 'People and their names', 'People and their possessions.'

I think the cases where a singular final word is OK is when the word refers to an analogue scale - something that is not countable in the usual sense. So when referring to qualities such as height, temperature, weight, colour, etc., I think the versions with and without the 's' are equally acceptable. I would tend to use the form without the 's' in these cases.

[xouper]

ceptimus: I think the cases where a singular final word is OK is when the word refers to an analogue scale - something that is not countable in the usual sense. So when referring to qualities such as height, temperature, weight, colour, etc., I think the versions with and without the 's' are equally acceptable. I would tend to use the form without the 's' in these cases.
Interesting point.

Here's a different kind of example: "People and their hair."

Not to be confused with "people and their hairstyle". Or "people and their hairpiece." :)

Or how about "people and their underwear" or "people and their lingerie."

If a case can be made that the word "past" is also its plural form, then maybe it's ok to say "people and their past." Although I still find that a highly awkward form.