Talk:The History of England (Hume book)

Macaulay

It's not really clear to me how Macaulay's history could be considered to supersede Hume's when Hume's covers only a fraction of the period, and I can't find a reference for the claim. Added a citation needed tag. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Facts about Hume

Material cited by a WP:RS was placed in the article. This was:

"Hume's biases included anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, anti-Presbyterian, anti-Puritan, anti-Whig, and pro-monarchy.(ref)S. K. Wertz, "Hume, History, and Human Nature," Journal of the History of Ideas (1975) 36#3 pp. 481-496 in JSTOR(endref)" This is from Wikipedia's bio of Hume with the "anti-clerical" and "anti-Catholic" added by me. But they can be (were) easily documented as well.

As anyone actually reading the history (available on Gutenberg or other sources) can tell, Hume was an anti-religious bigot. Even when he is unsure of whether an event occurred or not, he blames the superstitious masses or the clerics! Of course, almost nobody would ever read Hume for an English history nowdays. Had I been aware of his bigotry beforehand, I would have skipped it.

Since JSTOR is more highly regarded than Hume could ever be, it's ironic that the material was rejected. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Student7 edit

I have reverted this insertion by editor Student7:

Hume's biases included anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, anti-Presbyterian, anti-Puritan, anti-Whig, and pro-monarchy.ref:S. K. Wertz, "Hume, History, and Human Nature," Journal of the History of Ideas (1975) 36#3 pp. 481-496 in JSTOR/ref

In Hume, this editor added the words "anti-clerical" and "anti-Catholic" to what was otherwise the same sentence.

He has also been saying very critical things about H's History on the Hume Talk page. I have scanned the relevant Wertz paper, and I didn't see the words "anti-Catholic" or "anti-clerical" nor any of the other anti words. I think the original Wertz citation in Hume refers to other views. It seems that Student7 has put forward his/her own POV and attributed them (modified and strengthened) to Wertz. I may be wrong and will read the article more carefully. Myrvin (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"More a category of books than a single work" In the opening paragraph this sentence with the phrase a category of books is unintelligible to me. Does it mean it is not only a history but also a number of other undefined categories or does it intend to signify something else? Nitpyck (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the author knew what those words meant, but I'm with you. The phrase has been edited out. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism-section

A lot of the criticism-section seems based on personal opinion to me, including the unnecessary use of highly charged terms like atavism. The whole section really needs editing and citations. I have just made a start by correcting the paragraph that made it sound as if there was valid evidence for Cromwell being a cousin of Charles I. Whoever authored that bit cited Carlyle, but left out the footnote to the bit they cited which clearly says the claim has been refuted. There is no other evidence for this claim in serious sources. As a result, the subsequent speculation concerning Cromwell's psychology if he had really had his cousin executed was also irrelevant/misleading and I removed that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scat0389 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)