This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

A great discussion of periodization. I think the only other thing that could do with being mentioned is that the same name can refer to slightly different time intervals depending on the 'type' of historian using it - thus economic historians will have slightly different notions of the Enlightenment to cultural historians, who will have slightly different notions to that of an historian of science. Of course, these will all overlap to a certain extent; but the historian of science may describe the Enlightenment as beginning with the publication of Newton's Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica in 1687, while an economic historian may view the stock market crash of 1720 as the event defining the 'start' of the Enlightenment.

I am not sure that the 1960s in Spain is a good example. Maybe it should be "the 1960s arrived to Spain in the 1970s". -- Error

I am not sure where to put a history/background on the origins of periodization in the western tradition. Ive just tacked it on to the end rather than break the narrative by putting it up front. --Stbalbach 01:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made one change of a sentence that's been here since 62.30.0.2 wrote it in 2002. See edit description. Universitytruth 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that the "The word 'Renaissance', meaning rebirth in French" was "created by an Italian poet...". Wikipedia's article, Renaissance, states that "Renaissance is a French word coined by French historian Jules Michelet..." in the 19th century. Do we have a source for the claim that Petrarch created the term? If so, perhaps Renaissance needs to be corrected. --Sergio1 08:03, 19 Apr 2005

He uses the word 'rebirth', but the did not claim to have identified a historical period called 'the rebirth' period. Likewises, Giorgio Vasari describes the 'rebirth' of the arts from Giotto to Michelangelo. He means that this happened over a distinct period of time, obviously, but it is not a period label as such. That label came about in the nineteenth century, as the "Renaissance" article says. People prior to the nineteenth century did not speak of a "Renaissance period", though they do talk about the rebirth, or revival of the arts. Paul B 15:40, 19 Apr 2005

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it first appears in English in 1840 as an architectual term, supporting the Jules Michelet claim:

1840 T. A. TROLLOPE Summer in Brittany II. 234 That heaviest and least graceful of all possible styles, the ‘renaissance’ as the French choose to term it.

However the Online Etymology Dictionary entry seems to support an "Old French" origin, but again, first appearence is 1840. I don't believe Petrarch coined the term (on Preview, what Paul B said), he created the concept, and thus is seen as the breakpoint when one can reasonably say the seeds or start of the Renaissance began, although his conception was limited to rebirth of Latin texts than the wider conception we know today. Stbalbach 15:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible problems: unencyclopedic in tone (IMO); Possible plagarization - I'll wager a dozen donuts this was ripped verbatim from the introduction of a history texbook. Even if it's not, it seems more persuasive than factual. Foltor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well you'll have to hand over your donuts, since much of this was written by me years ago. I haven't looked at it much sine then. In those days the modern wiki obssession with verifiabilty etc did not really exist and a more essay-like tone was accepted. However, some of this can certainly be sourced. Paul B (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I deny absolutely writing the stuff about "glittering granules". I do have some standards! Paul B (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I was going to discuss that precise sentence! I rephrased it, "Yet without named periods, however clumsy or imprecise, past time would be nothing more than scattered events without a framework to help us understand them."

Hope you think this works. If you don't, feedback or improvements welcome, of course, especially since this was a quick rewrite.

Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines periodization as the process or study of categorizing the past into discrete, quantified named blocks of time in order to facilitate the study and analysis of history. So called 'Marxian Periodization' is Karl Marx's opinion on how societies of people progress into and through various political systems. The two subjects are in no way related. Thus, the section on Marxian periodization should be removed from this article and relocated to one that is more appropriate to its content. RobbieAZ (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are related, of course, but I see no reason why Wikipedia articles should be written from a Marxist perspective specifically. This is WP:UNDUE, but then the entire article needs to be revised to give a coherent overview of the topic. Perhaps best to proceed chronologically, i.e. periodisation in (a) cosmology, (b) astronomy, (c) geology, (d) biological evolution, (e) paleoanthropology, (f) prehistory and archaeology, (g) history (historiography, calendar eras, regnal eras, and such), (h) recent history ("post-War", "Soviet era", "Disco era", "Obama era" and what have you). --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this discussion since Jacksonpm23 removed the whole section: I agree with dab that this article could use a major overhaul to reflect the whole topic, but I think the Marxist perspective still would have a place. The historical materialist theory of stages was highly influential in archaeological periodisation (i.e. through Childe) and according to William A. Green, Periodization in European and World History, also in history. – Joe (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a peacock section template for the second paragraph of the lede. I've replaced it with a lead rewrite template that specifies the issue. This was done to improve the page layout and preserve the template that was added by another editor. I don't really have a comment on the merits of the original template. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]