Talk:Historiography

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)

to Anthony-I'm sorry if I sounded gruff. :) As for Doxography it's a very good topic (it's a term used only in the history of philosophy). see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. We use "historiography" to refer to studies about a historian like Herodotus or Arthur Schlesinger, or to approaches to history such as history of science. (Thus we can say, "Peter Green has a new historiographical approach to the problem of how the Greek historians, especially Herodotus, wrote the history of the Persian war." see his recent essay in the "New York Review" May 15, 2008) (that's a real article!) Hope this helps. :) Richard Jensen 06:45, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Suggested changes

I am not knowledgable enough to write the article, but I would suggest changes as follows: rejigging the introduction section so that it gets to the crucial definition quickly, and either removing the extended and strangely formatted quite from the footnote or incorporating it into the prose. --Tom Morris 04:04, 18 May 2008 (CDT)