What is Historic & Nostalgic?

[Mark]

What including anything you've seen on TV live? That counts out pretty much everything then.

[BDunnell]

Okay, then, so stop laughing and provide a definition, if you can, as to how "history" should be defined?

'Almost laughable', I said. As for a definition, whatever is stated in the Oxford English Dictionary is fine by me.

[Don Capps]

In which case, much of what gets passed as "history" in these sorts of fora would be difficult to accept as history. Of course, the real issue is whether there is a place for history in the sense of how a historian views history and the view of the non-historian which tends to quite at odds with the former. The consensus appears to be that the views of latter group regarding "history" tend to overwhelm that of the former. One need only consider the legends, myths, lies, and half-truths that permeate this area of history to realize this.

[Rollo]

Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth.
But trust me on the sunscreen...

The OED (definition 3) says that History is past events; those events connected with a person or a thing. F1 is a thing; therefore has a history.

A more useful definition would be all seasons excluding this one. Perhaps 2010 is still a little fresh in the memory, but discussing Brawn GP for instance despite being only two seasons ago probably counts for this section.

Though for me discussing the 2015 season which Menasheh Idafar won for Red Bull would be history, because that was a few years ago considering that I'm a time traveller

[Mark]

Good luck on your quest, but I think there is enough problem with people agreeing on what is happening now, nevermind what happened in the past.

[Don Capps]

To back up for a moment, perhaps a way to understand the one of the fundamental problems or issues relating to these sorts of fora is that when you think of them as being essentially one-room schoolhouses which include students from the Kindergarten to even the post-graduate level, with most of the "pupils" being at the elementary level, the problem with the ability to conduct any coherent discourse then becomes apparent.

The OED (definition 3) says that History is past events; those events connected with a person or a thing. F1 is a thing; therefore has a history.

A more useful definition would be all seasons excluding this one. Perhaps 2010 is still a little fresh in the memory, but discussing Brawn GP for instance despite being only two seasons ago probably counts for this section.

It is obvious that you are missing the point. This issue is not whether automobile racing -- which is much more than the myopic F1 fans seems to realize -- has a history, but rather how that history is approached and studied. While the season two years ago might be history to the casual fan, it is not to the historian.

Below is a link to a short comment that might help lay out the issue of why mixing -- lumping -- history and nostalgia together indiscriminately within a forum such as this one or others is not necessarily very productive.

Casey (and Case History) at the Battlements: Rear View Mirror Volume 7 No. 6

There have been a few brief periods when the forum format may have actually "worked" when it comes to the history of automobile racing, but those were clearly anomolies and as much a matter of luck then anything else.

[BDunnell]

Below is a link to a short comment that might help lay out the issue of why mixing -- lumping -- history and nostalgia together indiscriminately within a forum such as this one or others is not necessarily very productive.

Why does it matter as to whether or not a forum such as this is 'productive'? When I go to the National Archives to research a subject about which I'm writing, as I do often, I hope and expect my time there to be productive in research terms. When I log on to this forum, I do not. I see it as a free-time means of escapism, and am surprised that anyone would expect anything more of it.

[Don Capps]

Why does it matter as to whether or not a forum such as this is 'productive'? When I go to the National Archives to research a subject about which I'm writing, as I do often, I hope and expect my time there to be productive in research terms. When I log on to this forum, I do not. I see it as a free-time means of escapism, and am surprised that anyone would expect anything more of it.

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings rather than the usual infantile prattle and empty-headed escapism? But, then again, as your response indicates, the internet has become such a brain-use-free zone that perhaps it is, indeed, folly to expect much when no one wishes to be bothered with having to actually think. Point noted and acknowledged.

[BDunnell]

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings rather than the usual infantile prattle and empty-headed escapism? But, then again, as your response indicates, the internet has become such a brain-use-free zone that perhaps it is, indeed, folly to expect much when no one wishes to be bothered with having to actually think. Point noted and acknowledged.

As someone who has himself undertaken what I, and maybe even you, would consider serious historical research on a regular basis in my day job, I find your attitude more than a little insulting. Different websites have different purposes, just as different books have different purposes — some to entertain, some to inform. Why should every forum be a tool for research? I wouldn't expect this to be the case at all. Indeed, researching historical matters relating to the subject in which I specialise, not once have I ever made use of information read on an internet forum. In no way does this upset or concern me, in much the same way as it neither upsets nor concerns me that some moments of my life may have been devoted to escapism rather than the enhancement of my knowledge, no matter how brain-use-free these pursuits may have been.

I would also say, with respect, that you are slightly ignorant of what goes on in every part of these forums. The 'Rally History' thread, for example, has certainly enhanced the knowledge that's out there with regard to rallying results, and furthered the development of authoritative results sources such as forum member kabouter's Rallybase website. It has certainly added to my knowledge no end.

[SGWilko]

So, then why is it a surprise that some would expect that there could be the possibility that this format could also be a useful tool for collobration or discussion of findings.

Surprise to whom? I'm intrigued.