Talk:Historiography: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (not needed) |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (Response to Professor Jensen) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Beginning of article on [[Historiography]]. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:52, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | Beginning of article on [[Historiography]]. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:52, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::Historiography is fully covered at [[History]], so I don't see much point in a separate article. The definition used here is not at all standard. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:13, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | ::Historiography is fully covered at [[History]], so I don't see much point in a separate article. The definition used here is not at all standard. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:13, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
:::Professor Jensen: I will not proceed further with developing this article. Wrote it to try to get a firm grip on the meaning(s) of the term 'historiography', on the distinctions among the senses of the term. I thought it might help readers who, like myself, do not really appreciate those distinctions, which distinctions I do not find ''explicitly'' described in [[History]]. | |||
:::Will you point out where this description goes "not at all standard"? | |||
:::I have also given some thought about a short piece on 'doxography', mostly definitional, not presently mentioned in CZ. Do you have thoughts about that? -[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:01, 17 May 2008 (CDT) |
Revision as of 23:01, 17 May 2008
- See History
Beginning of article on Historiography. --Anthony.Sebastian 18:52, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
- Historiography is fully covered at History, so I don't see much point in a separate article. The definition used here is not at all standard. Richard Jensen 19:13, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
- Professor Jensen: I will not proceed further with developing this article. Wrote it to try to get a firm grip on the meaning(s) of the term 'historiography', on the distinctions among the senses of the term. I thought it might help readers who, like myself, do not really appreciate those distinctions, which distinctions I do not find explicitly described in History.
- Will you point out where this description goes "not at all standard"?
- I have also given some thought about a short piece on 'doxography', mostly definitional, not presently mentioned in CZ. Do you have thoughts about that? -Anthony.Sebastian 23:01, 17 May 2008 (CDT)