Talk:Hayden White

Badly mangled
The article was badly mangled on 9 February 2012,18:12 with unsound arguments adduced; looks like the police is still after HW; the damage should be undone.91.92.179.172 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was completely replaced with a paragraph about a 17-year-old football player, 19:21, 8 April 2013‎. I reverted the article to what it was prior to this vandalism. XanthamNide (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT: This whole entry is a disgrace. All that bullshit about who owns "metahistory" and what happened in Los Angeles is an insult to an important and influential scholar. I am not a specialist on this subject, but surely there is someone competent to report on White's contributions. COME ON!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.133.229 (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Metahistory
I disagree with the proposed merger of "Metahistory" into the Hayden White article. Metahistory is both a name of a book by white and a term people have gone on to use in a larger sense (derived from White). In addition key books and texts often have their own articles because it's easier to list references and bibliographies and other information (which, BTW, got deleted in the attempt to merge). -- Stbalbach 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The merge is not so much proposed as already having occured. If you are upset about the bibliographic information getting axed, feel free to add it here, where it is also appropriate as part of a list of Mr. White's works.  While the term metahistory may have a larger import, the article as it stood before the merge only referred to the book and merged quite comfortably into the Hayden White aritcle.  Therefore, the book article is superfluous at this time.  We shall see what response this talk thread garners over the next day or so.  If no one seems to care, I will put the book article up for deletion as a manner of finding a larger consensus. Indrian 23:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the disputed merger from the article, it is currently redundant and the merge has not been agreed on, and is controversial, that is what the merge tag is for. I'll ask again, what's your background on this subject that you think the metahistory article can not and should be expanded on? Also, if you TfD before giving time for the merge tag process to work, it doesn't seem good faith, you seem in a hurry to delete the article for some reason. -- Stbalbach 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. If you expand the metahistory article so that it is not just information about the book that can easily fit in the article here, I have no problem with it.  If a goodly number of users stop by and say they think they should stay distinct, I have no desire to get into an edit war.  If neither of these things happen, I merely want to take the issue to a larger cross-section of users through AfD.  I fail to see the bad faith in that. Indrian 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding to this: over the next day or so. If no one seems to care, I will put the book article up for deletion. Proposals for merger need more than a day or two. Also, it's common and accepted practice on Wikipedia for books to have their own articles separate from the authors article, in particular when the books are notable.-- Stbalbach 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Metahistory by Hayden White is an excellent book about historiography in the 19th century that is probably worth a small separate article because it introduces a unique idea in what used to be called the philosophy of history: that all historical narratives are "emplotted" using dramatic tropes. Gavriel Pesach 13:12 3 March 2006
 * You are right that the language pertaining to a day or so was not proper. I will certainly let this stand at least a week before going to AfD.  You are not going to convince me about the need for the article.  You can keep giving your justification if you want, but I consider that debate closed between you and I (though not among the larger wikipedia community, of course).  Indrian 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I would support the move. As things stand we are looking at what is essentially a neologism coined by one individual which has yet to be widely adopted. This is to no way disparage the validity of White's conclusions, however if wikipedia were to create a page for every term with the prefixes meta or post- coined by an academic I can't help but feel it would swiftly grind to a halt. Daduzi 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know much about all of this but I know that Metahistory is a TOPIC of debate in my university class, and is not handled as the reflection of only one author himself. Its implications for postmodernism in history alone warrant the extra attention. I am opposed to the merger and wish there was more information avaible on Hayden White.(Andre - 26 March)


 * The book is a very significant book in the circles I run in (academic history), I think it is significant enough to warrant its own entry. The current entry for the book is rather short and could be easily incorporated into this one, though. If the book entry were to be expanded, it could have its own article, but if nobody wants to do that then I don't know if it couldn't be merged in here, since it what White is most known for. --Fastfission 01:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not Metahistory is merged with this article, the summary of the book there is much more accurate than the one here, and it should be incorporated here. The summary here suggests that White thinks historians writing at the same moment would necessarily rely on the same trope, and that the usage of tropes has evolved in a grand procession over time. That's not White's argument. He says that historians are free to use whichever trope they are predisposed to use by their ideology, but that their discourse--partly because history lacks a technical language--is ultimately reliant on tropes. It's true that he says irony is prevalent in our current moment, but not because of any evolutionary development. Anyway, I was going to edit the paragraph here, but the Metahistory article says it very well already. Ccoll 06:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is a Lockyer Manual?
There is a reference to the term "Lockyer Manual" but a Google search about that term reveals nothing. It would be helpful if this term could be explained or linked to a new article, or footnoted, or something.