Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

what about the possiblity that the word "history" is derived from the phrase "his story". Its always possible isnt it? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No, that isn't possible. At least, not without a time machine and the ability to simultaneously change the internal wiring of millions of people's brains. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

missing sense[edit] in "Oh, he's history!" ---> Tooironic 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How would you define it? I'd say it's used to mean that the relationship with the subject is a thing of the past, over. I'm not certain that's the whole story though ("the November proposal is history", "as soon as the cancel script is working, pre-approval is history"). So perhaps we should have two defs:
  1. (of a proposal or situation) the proposal, situation, etc. is no longer current
  2. (of a person) the relationship with he subject is over, a thing of the past"
I'm not convinced we can't do better than that though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


This lists medical history as a separate sense, and I'm not seeing it. One example sentences are "A personal medical history is required for the insurance policy." (i.e. a personal history, specializing in the medical aspects, is required). "He has a history of cancer in his family." is interesting; "he has a history of" seems to be a very medical turn of phrase, looking at Google Books, but it looks like people will say stuff like "He has a history of shoplifting and taking money from his mother's purse." and "He has a history of reportedly attacking other students." and (more atypically) "He has a history of being right, in the face of doubters." and "He has a history of many different living arrangements..." It seems like the sense of history above it, "A record or narrative description of past events."

(I didn't tag it, but (computing) A record of previous user events. seems like it go for the same reason.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely keep computer sense ("He cleared his history" doesn't seem to make sense in terms of any other meaning of "history"). I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the medical sense if we had the more general personal history sense you talk about, but none of the other senses quite fit. So unless someone can persuade me that "a history of heart disease" is just "the aggregate of past heart disease", I say keep for now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't put my finger on why (maybe it'll come to me), but the medical sense seems distinct to me.​—msh210 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing we lacked was a sense like "A set of events involving an entity." This is distinct from "a record of such events", for which we had a differently worded sense. The usage in "What's the patient's history?", implying "set of medically relevant events" does not seem to me to be any more distinct than any other occupation- or institution-specific use of "history". But we have 5 senses of history and MWOnline has 10 senses and subsenses. AHD has 11. Both see fit to include the medical history sense. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that these dictionaries have two groups of senses, one focused on real events, the other on records or narratives. Their medical and criminological senses focus on the record aspect, even the formal record. I would have thought that usage would at least equally be concerned with the actual events, whatever the state of a formal record. DCDuring TALK 02:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
A cautious keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well then, gasping for air is related to respiration but it is not one of the criteria for respiratory sounds. This is a term you would find in any medical dictionary and if we have room for sports terminology and every combination of vulgarities how can we be treated seriously if we refuse medical terms?Lucifer (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Computing and medicine[edit]

The discussion above makes little sense without any kind of quotations or similar. The arguments pretty much seem to come down to "let's keep it just in case... uhm... whatever". One of the examples of definition 3 ("record of past events") is literally the same as the medicine sense. The computing definition seems to be a very specific technical application of the exact same thing.

At the very minimum, provide actual quotations before putting them back. And the duplication of definition 3 is especially bad. This needs fixing.

Peter Isotalo 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

None of this matters; these have to go through WT:RFD as they're not patent nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say say they are. At least in light of the contradiction of the example given for 3. Why on earth would you revert me but keep that? Does that have to go through procedural deletion as well?
Peter Isotalo 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not let other people have an opinion? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RfD, Again[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


rfd-sense x3:

  1. A record or narrative description of past events.
  2. (medicine)   The list of past and continuing medical conditions of an individual or family.
    A personal medical history is required for the insurance policy.   He has a history of cancer in his family.
  3. (computing) A record of previous user events, especially of visited web pages in a browser.

Peter Isotalo (talkcontribs) decided to speedily delete this with no discussion (for which he has been blocked before). Keep all three, definitely exist and definitely not redundant to any other senses. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep the computing one. Delete the medical one: even the usage example says "medical history", which is sense 1 (record of past events). Equinox 23:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep the first, delete the second and third or convert to subsenses. They are clearly specialisations of the first sense, to me. —CodeCat 23:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm stunned. One user votes to keep with the motivation "they definitely exist". Another votes to keep all except the single definition with a conflicting example added by a Wiktionary user.[1] Instead of the rather simple concept of verifiability you simply choose to vote on stuff. Again: stunned.
Peter Isotalo 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
But what is there to verify? All three senses seem pretty clearly in use to me. If you wanted to verify the existence of the senses, you should have gone to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This looks like it needs to go to RfC. The definitions seem to both have overlap and to omit some senses. Or is this what we settle for? DCDuring TALK 00:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Equinox might have a point about the medical sense. How is a 'history of diabetes' different to 'a history of violence' (which is non-medical)? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Peter, I just think you haven't got a clue here. Why would 'verifiability' be in question here? Do you dispute that a is an English indefinite article? If not, why not? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all three senses. The sum of parts rationale cannot apply to what is obviously a single word. As for redundancy, I am not so sure, but they do not seem redundant. The medical history sense is in Merriam Webster 2c[2], and AHD 1c[3]. In Czech, you don't use the word "dějiny" or "historie" to refer to medical history, you only say "anamnéza", so this medical use of the word "history" seems peculiar to me, and is needed for distinct translations anyway. The medical history sense already passed RFD in August 2012, as per Talk:history#RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the first: think of book titles like "A Short History of Rome" or similar. I really don't like the second, but something needs to be done with the sense in "He has a history of cancer in his family.", or even "This individual/suburb has a long history of violence." I don't see any reason not to keep the third, as it is a specific use that is not obviously covered by any of the others.

    If you are concerned about verifiability (verification), you should start a request at WT:RFV, rather than just deleting the senses from the page without discussion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all three: None are sum-of-parts, nor are any of them redundant to any existing senses. I'd particularly like to defend the first one because it's distinguishable from the primary definition because one is a countable work, the other is an uncountable study. Each definition could easily pass RfV if needed, so there's no need to take them there. Purplebackpack89 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    A history can refer to the specific written record as opposed to the events themselves. I totally agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all three. Donnanz (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept, as to all three. bd2412 T 20:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)