This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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.
"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)
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)