Talk:Historiography/Archive 1

Extraneous Material

There were two sections of material that were completely extraneous, and thus cluttered the article. I cut them.

The first was a random discussion of the definition of historiography, that made no sense.

The second was a section defining possible questions pertaining to historiography. The problem was, those questions were almost all either concerning Philosophy of History and thus not properly concerning historiography, or were questions that were properly concerning [[history++ and the historical method (for instance, one question concerned how to evaluate a primary from a secondary source—clearly not an issue related to historiography, properly speaking).

The historiography article has a veneer of gobbledy-gook that I hope to remove, so long as people hoping to maintain that gobbledy-gook get out of my way. --TallulahBelle 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult and not very pleasant working with someone whose attitude is "get out of my way". -- Stbalbach 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking of extraneous material, the bibliography was getting rather bloated with what was quite frankly irrelevant material. It was also organised in an incredibly haphazard manner. It has been cut down now, and needs to be cut down more.

The same is true of the section on the foundation of important historical journals, as there are a good number there which really aren't very important. 195.92.40.49 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I've been reverting the edits, because there is no ambiguity as to what historiography is, which is what is being implied by Stbalbach.

Also, Stbalbach's edits are not clear, concise and to the point. Furthermore, in the introductory paragraph, s/he is referencing Carr, et al., which is inappropriate, as it is an introductory paragraph, and Carr, et al., did not invent the subject. --TallulahBelle 04:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TallulahBelle, I've been watching this article for three years and the definition of historiography has changed about 6 to 10 times in that period. I don't expect your definition will last very long either, because the next person who comes along will just change it, again. The way to handle this problem is to move a "ridged definition" out of the WP:LEAD paragraph into a separate section which lists the various definitions so that more than one can be listed. I realize you may think there is only one definition and one way to say it, but obviously not everyone else agrees, and this is a community project, and unless you want to get into edit wars and watch this article every day for the rest of your life, it is the only way to ensure that your definition has any staying power. I'm not saying what I wrote in the intro is the perfect end product, but at least it is an attempt to abide by WP:LEAD (have you read it? Please do so). Carr, et al., is simply an example picked from the list, you can change that example if you want, but it reflects what is actually in our article in summary format. -- Stbalbach 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting well thought-out material while simultaneously putting in nonsensical, obnoxious blather is vandalism. Hence I am reverting vandalism. --TallulahBelle 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

obnoxious blather = Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Nothing was "cut out", it was moved to the section "Definition of historiography" with a {{fact}} tag. -- Stbalbach 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section

I added a new section, "A simple example of historiography". As i said in my summary of the changes I made, i thought it might be useful to readers to see an example of how widely interpretations can differ on the same event, and how these different views can be used in writing your own historiography piece. I've done a lot of study on the February Revolution, and I'm aware that some of what I've written may not make sense to those who haven't. I made an effort to be succinct and not delve too deeply into an issue some might not know about, but feel free to add explanations or remove jargon if need be. Hope my contribution was useful- Guest (13/03/07)

It's really not a good idea. This article is about the general term. For specific historiographies we have 100's of articles. In fact what you wrote should be moved into the article on the Revolution - is there any historical article on Wikipedia that can't have a historiography section. Also it encourages other people to add more "examples" and pretty soon this article becomes a long list of specific historiographies which we want to avoid. Speak of it in general terms here but for specific historiographies create new articles or sub-sections in existing articles. -- Stbalbach 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The study of history has emerged independently in civilisations around the world."

Who says that? Actually all Western and much of Eastern historiography comes from the Greek tradition. The only independent historiographical tradition may be the Chinese, and even there it is a curious coincidence that Chinese historiography began with Sima Qian just two decades after the silk road to the Hellenistic West was opened and very soon after Chinese armies had raided the strongly Greek influenced Sogdiana. What we need here are facts and fact-based arguments and not politically correct opinions which constitute often enough just the opposite. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And the oral histories of sub-Saharan Africa? The historical records of pre-Columban America? Not to mention the inherent post hoc ergo propter hoc basis of the above argument. No, it's safe to say that an idea of history has emerged independently in civilisations around the world. 195.92.40.49 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking here about written study of history, I assume. We have to differ between 'written' and 'oral' and 'history telling' and 'the study of history'. The study of history in its written, scientific form was definitely an invention first made by the Greeks. Gun Powder Ma 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Read the article. "Understanding the past appears to be a universal human need..." That's not really open to question. A wish to understand the past is universal. This universal need is what leads to the development of formal history. This emerges in Europe, India and China. There is no reason to believe that there is any connection between these emergences. 82.18.198.91 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not with the first part, which is as correct as trivial, but with what the title above claims. Such a cocksure statement should not be given as a fact, since we cannot exclude the possibility that the historiography of the Indians or Cchinese was not influenced by the Greek. And even if these two rose independently, this hardly amounts to a wide-sweeping claim of "civilisations around the world". Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand the problem. It just seems like the statement is a rhetorical lead-in and is common sense. The Inca's had a string-knot system to record history, the Maya had stone reliefs from which we have learned about Mayan history. The Egyptians also have recorded history. If you have reason to believe that the Indians and Chinese were influenced by the Greeks, and did not independently create their own histories, can you provide a source - but still, there is plenty of evidence of civilizations recording history independently of the Greeks. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Maya had more than just "stone reliefs", they had a writing system and history books to record their history (even though the Spanish tried their worst to cover up this fact)... This was not known to be dependent on Greeks... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

History telling over the campfire is not history recording in a scientific sense, which was very clearly first introduced by the Greeks who already had several premium historians (Herodot, Xenophon, Thukydides, Polybios) before any other people even started to begin writing history in a similar way. Macedonian armies invaded NW India in the late 4th century BC, when the utmost most part of India was still illiterate (see Megasthenes). At the same time, the sea trade routes were opened between Egypt and India. Strabo records in the first century BC that whole fleets of Roman vessels made their way over the India ocean to the West Indian ports year in, year out. Who can say in such a situation of intensive military and trade contacts with certainty, that Indian historiography was NOT influenced by the prior Greek tradition? As for possible Greek influences on China, again, Sima Qian wrote his history around 100 BC. Only thirty years earlier, the silk road had been opened up by a Chinese envoy who had been to Bactria. Bactria had been a Greek kingdom from about 260-140 BC, and Bactria was due to Alexander's settlements the most heavily Greek influenced region east of the Tigris. Also, Chinese armies raided between 110 and 100 BC Sogdiana, the region next to Bactria and itself influenced by Greek culture. Who can say in such a situation of intensive military and trade contacts with certainty, that Chinese historiography was NOT influenced by the prior Greek tradition? I am not saying they both necessarily were, but to claim the opposite as fact is not correct, either. Actually, the situation is that Indian and Chinese historiography may or may not have been influenced by the Greek tradition. We just do not know for sure, and most probably never will, and that state of uncertainty has to be reflected appropiately in the article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Still POV, and even wrong in places (the "idea of historiography" is very modern, even if the Greeks were making historiographical judgements in the fifth century BC). There is no evidence that Greek history writing influenced China, and no particular reason for believing that it did. However, it's certainly true that Greek history writing was an important influence on later history writing elsewhere in the world, and this has been retained and stressed. 62.25.106.209 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not more POV than your standpoint which just lives from shifting the burden of proof on no particular grounds. There is also no evidence that Greek history writing did NOT influence China or India, which given the temporal priority of Greek historiography will always remain a logical possibility, and, given and the expansionism of Greek culture at the time, possibly to probably more than that. The only fact is that we do not know for sure whether Greek historiography influenced others or not, and that uncertainty has to be voiced in the article if it should provide a really balanced view. But for the time being, the intro does look much better now that "study" has been replaced with "telling". Regards Gun Powder Ma 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. The burden of proof lies with those making a claim. -- Stbalbach 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, right now the claim is that there was no Greek influence on Far Eastern historiography, so for a start feel free to back that up. I already gave positive evidence (intensive military and trade contacts) that a Greek impact cannot be ruled out altogether. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you give any source where you got this opinion? Or are you the first person to theorize that Greeks influenced the Chinese? The burden of proof is on the more extraordinary claim, and not to prove that it didn't happen that way...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the opposite claim? And to decide which claim has to be regarded as "more extraordinary" is just as shifting the burden of proof on others not something which is within your authority (or of any other individual). It solves no issue anyway, since shifting the burden of proof has been exposed in innumerable discussions to be a sterile and fruitless enterprise.

Actually, to ask for a source would be IMO the worst thing we can do, because we are all aware that for every imaginable scenario a publicized opinion can be found to represent it. If you feel like a source makes all the difference, I will have a closer look, although I am very aware that there are counter-opinions. In the end, we will come again to the point I have been trying to make all the time: That no opinion can claim to be definitive - one way or the other. That also means that there is no justification to rule out the possibility of a Greek impact.

Either, we reflect that knowledge based on common sense and what I said above in the article now, or we do that with whatever "sources" we have gathered in the meantime. But then, I fear, the quality of the article will degenerate to an exchange of dubious opinions. Because, I hope you are aware that both positions are and will remain speculation whatever any given authority in the field may say, it is only yours which tries to be absolute and with that I do not agree. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time telling if you are actually being serious or playing some kind of a joke. Please do not waste our time. If you have read WP:NOR, you should know that we can't write something like the Chinese got the idea from the Greeks, on only your say-so. We need a published opinion that says this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely must be a joke with lines like "Actually, to ask for a source would be IMO the worst thing we can do, because we are all aware that for every imaginable scenario a publicized opinion can be found to represent it." Even if a published source is fabricated, giving a source allows the reader to investigate this (and, for your claim, most likely reject it). 195.92.40.49 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as published sources go, its important to note that we aren't looking for just any source, but a reliable source for the information, as per WP:RS. While crackpot theories are fine, publishing them in a blog doesn't make them reliable, and thus they are not eligible for inclusion. This is a page about the study of history, it should be accurate and follow Wikipedia's doctrine. Cantankrus 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Western?!

The section from the article below is neither historical, nor factual, not even logical!

"Early Western historiography Written history appeared first with the ancient Greeks, whose historians greatly contributed to the development of historical methodology. The very first historical work were the The Histories composed by Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 BC–ca.425 BC), who became later known as the 'father of history'. Herodotus personally conducted research into the history of various Mediterranean cultures, and attempted to distinguish between more and less reliable accounts. His research confirmed for him the belief that divinity plays a crucial role in the determination of historical events. Thucydides, on the other hand, largely eliminated divine causality from his account of the war between Athens and Sparta, and the same holds true for his successors, such as Xenophon and Polybius."

• In Europe the 'West' did not become such until the Cold War! Prior to that the parts of Europe were called by their nations.

• If anything, 'Greeks' are part of the East Europe, or more properly the Mediterranean North-East to be exact. However the term 'Greek' is also a relatively new one (see arricle on this in Wikipedia).

• The very first historical document was the Torah (Hebrew name of the five books of Moses) which provides significant historical detail of the region within which the 'Greeks' later evolved their literary activity after borrowing phoenician alephbet that is identical to Hebrew.

• Who named Herodotus 'father of history'?

• Please note excerpt from Wikipedia article on Herodotus "At some point, Herodotus became a logios—a reciter of logoi or stories, written in prose. (It is important to emphasize that his work was originally presented orally, and was designed to have an almost theatrical element to it). His subject matter often encompassed battles, other political incidents of note, and, especially, the marvels of foreign lands. He made tours of the Greek cities and the major religious and athletic festivals, where he offered performances and expected payment."

Please note that he completely ignored recording Oral tradition in Israel which existed prior to and during his lifetime in Israel! This alone would make him less then a historian even in the ancient meaning of the word as a recorder of stories since he ignored an alternative practice. His own expectation of payment for the 'performances' and the fact that they primarily concern Greece suggests a less then bias-free record, never mind that it is clearly not Western. --Mrg3105 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think "the west" here means modern Western Civilization, and not the political division that occured post WW2. It is in contrast to Asian/Eastern civilization, or mid-eastern. In that context, much of Europe including Greece would be considered "western".

While some parts of the Bible have history related content, I think it should be considered a "document of historical importance". Even if it were devoid of history, as the foundations of several religions it would be significant for just that.

As far as Herodotus, I'm not sure we can entirely fault him for being ethno-centric. We have to be very aware of that even today. (It's not that this isn't a fault -- it is -- but one that survives until today. Cantankrus 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First

"A person living at a time witnesses events. If she writes about the events she witnessed she has created a primary source. When a historian uses the primary source (to discuss events witnessed) in another text we now have a secondary source. When another historian argues that the secondary source misuses (or correctly uses) the primary source, we have historiography."

This example may be potentially confusing. A lot of historians would not automatically list memoirs and autobiographies as primary sources. Even diaries can be suspect, especially when there is a prospect of future publication at the time of writing. The potential for distortion can override the validity of the source. Is there a better way to phrase the above paragraph? Timrollpickering 23:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, there can always be distortion, but I think most historians would agree that, if someone witnesses something and writes about it, it can't be classified as a secondary source. Primary source doesn't mean it's accurate. It just means it's from an actual participant or direct observer. Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I think many would be dubious about later accounts, especially those printed after some of the best known secondary sources. The use of the term "primary source" has resulted in an irritating tendency of many students to assume that it is automatically more accurate when it isn't.

How about using an example of a newspaper report or something similarly prepared for instant publication? That might square the circle. Timrollpickering 09:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you could possible not consider a diary a primary source. Can you give an example of a diary entry which would be a secondary source? Primary/secondary have no comment on validity, of course. And they don't have comment on primacy to the event -- Joe Schmoe writing in his diary about his feelings about CNN's coverage of the 2000 Elections is still a primary source, even if it is itself writing about a primary source. It's his feelings that make it primary -- it is reflective of one moment in time. Personally I think primary/secondary depends on how you use a source to construct your argument (a historian writing about historiography is actually using what are normally secondary sources as primary sources -- works of history become evidences in a historical argument), but I think it's a one-way street: I can see how to transform what were originally secondary sources into primary sources, but I can't see how you can turn what was originally a primary source (an original document) into a secondary source. And I don't see how you can define a diary as anything other than a primary source, unless, of course, it is a pretty amazing and brilliant diary -- a historical manuscript in diary form. But I've never heard of such a thing. --Fastfission 02:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting boldfacing of single letters there, folks. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

REdefine the use

A primary source is an account of a first hand witness. If I was to say I witnessed Pearl Harbor and then I wrote about my experiences using other Primary sources that would be a Secondary source. Right? So if then someone went ahead and wrote on my book or what ever I wrote and said I was wrong for using certain things then that would be Historiography. Well to write any secondary source or Historiography you must be able to use Diaries or Memoirs as well as Historically written Documents as Primary sources. The word and Definition of Historiography should be amended to create room for using many different sources. All of these sources must be direct accounts of what happened from people who lived through the event. I know for a fact that Letters and Diaries can be some of the Best sources around. During a School Project I used the letters form my Dads Mother and relatives as they lived through the Holocaust and the other horrors of WWII. These letters were sent out after the war, along with many others from her relatives talking about their experiences and of trying to locate her two brothers who were missing during the Horror. These letters created a very solid background to the report and added an element of realism. Should those be regarded as Primary Sources? I think so the criticism if someone used the info provided in them wrongly then I think that should be pointed out and the work corrected. Ghostrider

-Hello, Ghostrider. Please forgive me, but my computer cannot, at this time, support an online account to Wikipedia.org. This means I need to use your entry in order to make one of my own. I'll try not to do this in the future. Plus, I'm hoping you read the dislclaimer at the bottom of the page, and therefore know the "consequences" of submitting your work. However, I will not, in any way skew your original text. Anyway, I agree with most of the previous statements about primary and secondary sources. If I were a survivor of the Hindinburgh disaster, I'd certainly write a first-hand account of what I went through. This would probably result in some exaggeration upon mundane details of the incident. An example would be a Journal entry similar to this: "I can remember the floorboards shreiking and bending all around me as the hull ruptured with demonic flames. I was so frightened that I leapt 12 feet up to the celing of the cabin, and grabbed onto a pipeline that hung parallel to the walkway below me." In reality, there is almost no way that I would leap 12 feet up. But this does not change the fact that, it is still a first hand account, however innacurate it is. And a first hand accound becomes a primary source once written.

Emerald Monarch

Hello Emerald Monarch Yes your account of the Hindinburgh disaster may be more exciting telling your story with exaggerations about you, but the question are you still giving an exact account of what happened to the airship or what happened to you during the accident. If you were just telling your story then I would take your account as a Primary source but with a grain of Salt. It would still count as a Primary source due to the fact that you were there to witness the accident. But I would take the facts from a actual book written for a historical reference by a survivor as more trustful, wouldn't you? My question is though would most people consider something written after the fact say after a war that lasted for 6 years but written maybe the year afterward. This account would bring to play their specific memories but it would not have been a direct account written while memory was fresh. Would you consider this a Primary source? if not what is your definition of a Primary source? Ghostrider

Kieran26

i think that although a memory of an event, may not be as accurate as a primary source, (someone who survived or a person's diary entry) and others may argue this point futher that sometimes a person's memories of an event can be just as accurate as those who survived the event or wrote in a journal. I don't know how you would determine the difference, but I think a lot would have to do with a person's character. most people will naturally exaggerate the truth to make a point or to gain sypathy. Where as few others (those I think can be used as a primary source) who do not exaggerate (all that much or at all) or who are easy to determine that they are, can and should be used. I think that it's important to understand what people are going through during wars. Most of the history I've learned has been all facts, which is great, but I always wondered what the people were going through when their brother was sent off to war, and then found MIA and then they had to evacuate their homes. Or when families had to start rationing things, it's fun to hear what my dad remembers from his childhood living through wars and such. So I'm not sure what should or should not be considered a primary source, but I think that history should include some people's accounts/stories/memories of what happened when....

Primary sources

Primary sources are any documents which are regarded as artifacts in and of themselves. Secondary sources are works which use or comment on primary sources. Neither primary nor secondary sources are necessarily more or less accurate than one another, indeed most historians regard primary sources with more suspicion than secondary sources (at least a secondary source has passed through the hands of a professional with access to many different primary sources and a reputation to maintain). Historiography, in general, is methodology of history (how researching and writing history is done), and it is also more broadly when one uses secondary sources as primary sources: commenting on and using existing written histories to derive meaning (or criticize how the history has been done). A lot of critical historiography in the 1960s focused, for example, on the exclusion of the role of women, minorities, and labor from written histories of the USA, and thus instructed historians to "errors" they were making in their construction of the past. Hopefully this will clear up some confusion over the terminology in here... --Fastfission 14:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A primary source must also be considered in its context. Is it a document like a letter, diary, newsarticle incidental to the times or event, or is it intended to be a written preserved record of sorts for use at some future time. Nobs 03:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Meta-level analysis, not meta-analysis

Meta-analysis, a technical statistical term, was used erroneously in the header. I have changed "meta-analysis" to "meta-level analysis," and removed the intra-link. I also do not see fit to set up a dismabiguation page. The only other purpose that I can see for it would be in the casual sense applied here, and that's not deserving of anything more substantial than a Wiktionary entry, if even that. Vorpal Suds 03:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) 03:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Historiography or literally historical writing" is what I propose for the opener. Nobs 03:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Meta-level analysis" is more precise, sure. The word "meta-analysis" is thrown around a lot casually but only in a vulgar (and often unconscious) reference to the statistical term. As for the opener... historiography means more then "historical writing" even if it that is what it "literally" translates to. Historiography is writing about historical writing. Anyway, nobody will ever search for "historical writing" and hope to find "historiography". At least, that's how I consider it. --Fastfission 04:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fastfission. Historiography is more complex than a literal interpretation of its etymology ("historical writing") would suggest. It is the study of history as a discipline—the history of history, or the philosophy of history. It is the study of the norms, assumptions, methodologies, and source materials of historical scholarship. It is a theoretical endeavour, and "historical writing" in no way captures that.

Also, looking over the opener again, that first sentence really ought to be re-written to something clearer; there is little or no meaningful distinction between the two prepositions 'of' and 'about'. I tried rewriting it myself, but I'm not in any mood for it right now. Maybe later, unless someone else gets to it first. Vorpal Suds 06:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

How would such a policy affect insertion of valid historical documents? Would such a policy either mandate alteration of historic materials, or require some sort of disclaimer that the reference is counter of a Wikipedia policy. Nobs 16:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

New article on related subject

Perhaps the editors here will feel like folding the new article I just created, Historiography and nationalism, into this article. If so, that's fine. I'd collected material arguing over the Elamite Empire and it was broader than the subject in question. Since I am still exploring this topic, there is probably much more to be added. Zora 09:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

I think this section is a bit inflammatory and exaggerated and probably isn't the best example for use here. Tfine80 18:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of historiography

I feel a large part of the sense of historiography is ignored in the descriptive parts of the entry. In particular I refer to the way in which historiography can be seen to exist as a semi-independent discipline, in particular as demonstrated in the birth of specifically historiographical journals and with the popularity of historiography modules in most university history courses. To put it another way, this is historiography as a form of intellectual history and distinct from the single-issue historiography that can be equated (as in the article) with historical revisionism. This approach considers not only single-issue historical debates but also how methodological, epistemological and philosophical debates about the "correct" approach to history are related to institutional and academic issues, not to mention cultural trends in general. It is also this kind of historiography that develops ideas about specific groups of historians working towards similar intellectual goals - be they Nationalist, Annaliste, Marxist, Subaltern, Postmodern, or whatever. I believe the entry would benefit enormously from a recognition of the alternative conceptions of historiography and a description of the approaches that both suggest.(Mattcole)

POV-check

I put it on for the same reasons that i add one on historical revisionism and historical revisionism (politic). There is no such distinction, historical revisionism is historically linked to denial of the Holocaust and others genocides. Changes in the contents or the way history is written is a historiographic matter, not a subject of revisionism. Revisionism is outlawed in most countries, except where the state itself has a revisionist policy (as in the Japanese denial of WW II crimes). A such blatant fact that history as a discourse evolve does not justify to call this "revisionism" (this is a POV definition). Kaliz 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your simply wrong. Historical revisionism is a perfectly accepted and used term in the historical profession. This is the American/English Wikipedia, not the German/Japanese Wikipedia. Removing POV tag. --Stbalbach 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Made some changes

I deleted the example and the section on historical revisionism. I tried to make clear that the earlier author's comments about "The origions of historiography" were only his opinion, and I cleaned up the text generally. I think the lists are somewhat irrelevant but they're potentially useful info, so I left them. Whatever one thinks about "historical revisionism", its a different topic and it already has TWO articles. It doesn't need to be here as well. Can we remove the NPOV tag now? Lampros 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Comment

Chronology of journals: Rather then censoring this international chronology one should enhance it by complementing it!

(someone left this comment at the top of the page, I'm moving it down here.) Lampros 22:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange vandalism or Policy?

Someone at IP 62.25.106.209 just removed the names of publishers from a number of items under Relevant Literature. Is that policy to not include the names of publishers as part of citations? If so, it strikes me as a stupid policy. -- TheMightyQuill 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism or sincere mistake. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, where editors are encouraged to follow the conventions of the discipline most relevant to the article. For history, that is usually Chicago, though some sub-disciplines may pick up their own arcane styles. Wikipedia also encourages editors to follow the format in existing articles, under the presumption that the earliest editors will be in-the-know. Doesn't always work, but in this case it applies. Katherine Tredwell 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History of History merger

There has been a lengthy discussion on Talk:History of science about whether a new section on History of History belonged in History of Science. It was suggested that it should be merged into the article Historiography. Are there any comments from regular users of the Historiography article? --SteveMcCluskey 12:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Well, of course there are people who consider history a science, but I think they are generally a minority, at least in the English Speaking world. You might want to keep a See Also link to Historiography, but a merger is fine. It's tricky since Historiography is both the study of the history of historical study (this article) and the actual history of historical study (your section). That's confusing, so hopefully it will make sense if you read it twice. I don't believe History already has a section on the actual history of field of history, so it should probably go here. -- TheMightyQuill 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with merger. Every article on Wikipedia (that has a historical tradition) could have its own historiography section. This article is for general overview, not for every specific historiography. -- Stbalbach 16:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify a possible misunderstanding. The section proposed for merger is a general essay on the History of history, not a historiography of science (in fact there already is a lengthy article on the Historiography of science). The reason for the proposed move is that the History of history seems to be part of general Historiography, not part of the History of science. --SteveMcCluskey 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. Ok.. I have not read it closely but that is what historiography is so it would belong here. -- Stbalbach 04:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support the merge or putting the section somewhere other than where it is. In the English-speaking world, history is not a science, even though history departments tend to be filed with the social sciences. Katherine Tredwell 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SupportI support the merger of course. As noted here, and noted in the article, historiography is both the study of historical methodology as well as the history of historical writing. There is no better article to have a section relating to the history of historical writing. --Fastfission 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the face of overwhelming support, I just completed the merger. The only problem is, the merged section is really poor. If people could help improve it, I would feel a lot better about moving it over. -- TheMightyQuill 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section

Re: Stbalbach's reversion of my edit,

Wikipedia:Lead section doesn't say anything about lead sections being in simple paragraph form, but it does suggest that lead sections should provide context, summarize the article, be accessible.

The lead section I wrote is far more accessible than the prior one, and explains the existence of the recently merged 'history of history' section.

If you want me to turn it into a paragraph, that's fine.

Historiography can refer to three things: The history of historical study, its methodology and practices (the history of history); a body of historical writing (for example, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" means "medieval history written during the 1960s");or historical theory, the study of history as an academic discipline, to better understand the nature of history and historical writing. As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this third conception can relate to the first two in that the analysis usually focuses on the narratives, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians.

Personally, I think the list looks better. --TheMightyQuill 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, it should have no original ideas, is should repeat whats in the body of the article in a high-level summary format so the reader can decide if the article contains what they are looking for and drill down into more detail like peeling an onion. I don't think it does that at all currently. There is no reason to have a list, that just shows the lead section is not being used correctly. -- Stbalbach 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. The list contains no original ideas, but it clearly describes what is in the body. The current lead...

Historiography is the study of the way history is and has been written. In a broad sense, historiography refers to the methodology and practices of writing history. In a more specific sense, it can refer to writing about rather than of history. As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this latter conception can relate to the former in that the analysis usually focuses on the narrative, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. The term can also describe a body of historical writing. For example, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" means "medieval history written during the 1960s".

a)is confusing: The relationship between the "methodology and practices of writing history" and the "writing about rather than of history" is not one of broad vs. specific. That's the a rephrasing of the same sentence. Historiographis is not just the

b) doesn't clearly descripe historiography in its main senses (both a history, and a field)

Historiography is not just the study of the way history is and has been written. It is also simply what history has been written.

c) introduces new ideas, ie. the relationship between meta-analysis and meta-description. I think this is relevant to show the connection between the two meanings of historiography, but since the current lead doesn't describe the two types, it is confusing, and extra information.

-- TheMightyQuill 11:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's what I said, the lead doesnt do a good job. But there is no reason to turn the lead section into a list! --Stbalbach 13:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay.. no list. =) How do you like this new change? -- TheMightyQuill 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better. Thanks for keeping it as a paragraph. --Stbalbach 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Styles of history writing

This list does suffer from regular spurious entries. The two problem ones right now are:

• Whig school of history. There is no such thing as a "Whig school of history". The use of the word "school" implies a formal tradition, which certainly doesn't exist and the phrase is not used by proper historians. A rough indication of usage is the fact that "Whig school of history" gets approximately 200 hits on Google, whereas the more accurate and academically meaningful "Whig history" gets over 30,000. At the very least the common formulation should be used.

• Communist school of history. Again, there is no such thing as a "Communist school of history". Again, the term implies a formal tradition which doesn't actually exist. The academic term would be Marxist history, which is a clearly defined and definable historiographic approach, which already has its own page and a link on the list. 62.25.106.209 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Buber's view

Nonsense is nonsense. The history of nonsense is scholarship.

oldest historical work of mainstream of Western culture

An anon recently added a new section saying:

The Bible is the oldest historical work to have entered the mainstream of Western culture.

This is a straw man statement, since many do not consider it to be a historical document. Also it did not enter "mainstream" until the 4th century at the earliest, so it's not the oldest. -- Stbalbach 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is certainly a historical document in being a document that contains historical accounts. The controversy is about whether or not the Bible is history-writing like that done by the Greeks, and is part of a larger question on whether or not historical accounts written in the Ancient Near East as a whole (including, in addition to the Bible, Hittite annals) can be considered as history-writing. The most repeated answer is apparently "sort of." These texts are clearly a step above raw king lists and annals and the propoganda inscriptions of Near Eastern monarchs in that they attempt to address questions of causation and do not necessarily tow the "official party line" of the government-i.e. the Book of Kings criticizes almost all past Israelite monarchs and maintains that the king's legitimacy is dependent on his fidelity to Yahweh alone; the Hittite annals and the Book of Kings both make use of both human and divine causation. However these texts lack the critical attitude of the Greek historians. Herodotus will take several differing accounts of how an event happened and tell you which one he believes is most plausible, but will not simply present the narrative from as if he is an omniscent narrator. Consider the difference between these two texts:

Herodotus:Now the Nile, when it overflows, floods not only the Delta, but also the tracts of country on both sides the stream which are thought to belong to Libya and Arabia, in some places reaching to the extent of two days' journey from its banks, in some even exceeding that distance, but in others falling short of it.

Concerning the nature of the river, I was not able to gain any information either from the priests or from others. I was particularly anxious to learn from them why the Nile, at the commencement of the summer solstice, begins to rise, and continues to increase for a hundred days- and why, as soon as that number is past, it forthwith retires and contracts its stream, continuing low during the whole of the winter until the summer solstice comes round again. On none of these points could I obtain any explanation from the inhabitants, though I made every inquiry, wishing to know what was commonly reported- they could neither tell me what special virtue the Nile has which makes it so opposite in its nature to all other streams, nor why, unlike every other river, it gives forth no breezes from its surface.

Some of the Greeks, however, wishing to get a reputation for cleverness, have offered explanations of the phenomena of the river, for which they have accounted in three different ways. Two of these I do not think it worth while to speak of, further than simply to mention what they are. One pretends that the Etesian winds cause the rise of the river by preventing the Nile-water from running off into the sea. But in the first place it has often happened, when the Etesian winds did not blow, that the Nile has risen according to its usual wont; and further, if the Etesian winds produced the effect, the other rivers which flow in a direction opposite to those winds ought to present the same phenomena as the Nile, and the more so as they are all smaller streams, and have a weaker current. But these rivers, of which there are many both in Syria and Libya, are entirely unlike the Nile in this respect.

The second opinion is even more unscientific than the one just mentioned, and also, if I may so say, more marvellous. It is that the Nile acts so strangely, because it flows from the ocean, and that the ocean flows all round the earth.

The third explanation, which is very much more plausible than either of the others, is positively the furthest from the truth; for there is really nothing in what it says, any more than in the other theories. It is, that the inundation of the Nile is caused by the melting of snows. Now, as the Nile flows out of Libya, through Ethiopia, into Egypt, how is it possible that it can be formed of melted snow, running, as it does, from the hottest regions of the world into cooler countries? Many are the proofs whereby any one capable of reasoning on the subject may be convinced that it is most unlikely this should be the case. The first and strongest argument is furnished by the winds, which always blow hot from these regions. The second is that rain and frost are unknown there. Now whenever snow falls, it must of necessity rain within five days;.so that, if there were snow, there must be rain also in those parts. Thirdly, it is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat, that the kites and the swallows remain there the whole year, and that the cranes, when they fly from the rigours of a Scythian winter, flock thither to pass the cold season. If then, in the country whence the Nile has its source, or in that through which it flows, there fell ever so little snow, it is absolutely impossible that any of these circumstances could take place.

As for the writer who attributes the phenomenon to the ocean, his account is involved in such obscurity that it is impossible to disprove it by argument. For my part I know of no river called Ocean, and I think that Homer, or one of the earlier poets, invented the name, and introduced it into his poetry.

Perhaps, after censuring all the opinions that have been put forward on this obscure subject, one ought to propose some theory of one's own. I will therefore proceed to explain what I think to be the reason of the Nile's swelling in the summer time. During the winter, the sun is driven out of his usual course by the storms, and removes to the upper parts of Libya. This is the whole secret in the fewest possible words; for it stands to reason that the country to which the Sun-god approaches the nearest, and which he passes most directly over, will be scantest of water, and that there the streams which feed the rivers will shrink the most.

To explain, however, more at length, the case is this. The sun, in his passage across the upper parts of Libya, affects them in the following way. As the air in those regions is constantly clear, and the country warm through the absence of cold winds, the sun in his passage across them acts upon them exactly as he wont to act elsewhere in summer, when his path is in the middle of heaven- that is, he attracts the water. After attracting it, he again repels it into the upper regions, where the winds lay hold of it, scatter it, and reduce it to a vapour, whence it naturally enough comes to pass that the winds which blow from this quarter- the south and south-west- are of all winds the most rainy. And my own opinion is that the sun does not get rid of all the water which he draws year by year from the Nile, but retains some about him. When the winter begins to soften, the sun goes back again to his old place in the middle of the heaven, and proceeds to attract water equally from all countries. Till then the other rivers run big, from the quantity of rain-water which they bring down from countries where so much moisture falls that all the land is cut into gullies; but in summer, when the showers fail, and the sun attracts their water, they become low. The Nile, on the contrary, not deriving any of its bulk from rains, and being in winter subject to the attraction of the sun, naturally runs at that season, unlike all other streams, with a less burthen of water than in the summer time. For in summer it is exposed to attraction equally with all other rivers, but in winter it suffers alone. The sun, therefore, I regard as the sole cause of the phenomenon.

It is the sun also, in my opinion, which, by heating the space through which it passes, makes the air in Egypt so dry. There is thus perpetual summer in the upper parts of Libya. Were the position of the heavenly regions reversed, so that the place where now the north wind and the winter have their dwelling became the station of the south wind and of the noon-day, while, on the other hand, the station of the south wind became that of the north, the consequence would be that the sun, driven from the mid-heaven by the winter and the northern gales, would betake himself to the upper parts of Europe, as he now does to those of Libya, and then I believe his passage across Europe would affect the Ister exactly as the Nile is affected at the present day.

And with respect to the fact that no breeze blows from the Nile, I am of opinion that no wind is likely to arise in very hot countries, for breezes love to blow from some cold quarter.

2 Kings 1: "After Ahab's death, Moab rebelled against Israel. Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his roof terrace at Samaria and had been injured. So he sent out messengers with the instructions: "Go and inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury." Meanwhile, the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite: "Go, intercept the messengers of Samaria's king, and ask them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron?' For this, the LORD says: 'You shall not leave the bed upon which you lie; instead, you shall die.'" And with that, Elijah departed. The messengers then returned to Ahaziah, who asked them. "Why have you returned?" "A man came up to us," they answered, "who said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you and tell him: The LORD says, Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron? For this you shall not leave the bed upon which you lie; instead, you shall die.'" The king asked them, "What was the man like who came up to you and said these things to you?" "Wearing a hairy garment," they replied, "with a leather girdle about his loins." "It is Elijah the Tishbite!" he exclaimed. Then the king sent a captain with his company of fifty men after Elijah. The prophet was seated on a hilltop when he found him. "Man of God," he ordered, "the king commands you to come down." "If I am a man of God," Elijah answered the captain, "may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men." And fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men. Ahaziah sent another captain with his company of fifty men after Elijah. "Man of God," he called out to Elijah, "the king commands you to come down immediately." "If I am a man of God," Elijah answered him, "may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men." And divine fire came down from heaven, consuming him and his fifty men. Again, for the third time, Ahaziah sent a captain with his company of fifty men. When the third captain arrived, he fell to his knees before Elijah, pleading with him. "Man of God," he implored him, "let my life and the lives of these fifty men, your servants, count for something in your sight! Already fire has come down from heaven, consuming two captains with their companies of fifty men. But now, let my life mean something to you!" Then the angel of the LORD said to Elijah, "Go down with him; you need not be afraid of him." So Elijah left and went down with him and stated to the king: "Thus says the LORD: 'Because you sent messengers to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, you shall not leave the bed upon which you lie; instead you shall die.'" Ahaziah died in fulfillment of the prophecy of the LORD spoken by Elijah. Since he had no son, his brother Joram succeeded him as king, in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. The rest of the acts of Ahaziah are recorded in the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel."

Note that the biblical author just recounts the event and his interpretation of it. Although the source indicates that he wasn't free to just make up his own facts, he does not explain his reasoning or give alternative views- basically he sticks to established tradition and his own interpretation of it. Baruch Halpern book The First Historians is supposedly a very good book on this topic (I haven't read it yet, but I plan to).--Rob117 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rise of the professional historian

The "rise of the professional historian" in the 19th C is common knowledge, the very phrase can be found many places: [1][2][3]. I'd hate to clutter up the article with meaningless sources since that is not really what the main point of the sentence is about, but if you want, pick any number from the Google and I'll add them, otherwise I'd rather just remove any need for a cite tag since its common knowledge. -- Stbalbach 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That link only produced 13 google hits for me. But more importantly, What exactly was different that makes all the historians who got paid for their work before 1800, not "professional" or not "academic"? There has to be some clearer way of explaining what you're really trying to say here...? "Professional" means it was their job, which can certainly be said of most historians before 1800, and "academic" means they were scholars,maybe they did not adhere to the same rigorous standards, but we do speak of scholars before 1800, don't we? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened was that universities (esp Berlin, Johns Hopkins) and academies were established that set out career paths-- like PhD, assistant professor, promotion depending on publication, 2) also appearance of first academic journals ("American Historical Review" about 1890) and historical societies, with conventions, papers and 3) appearance of archives and research libraries. Before it was pretty random and depended on a patron or a gentleman scholar that depended on a market (like Hume, Gibbon, Macaulay). By 1850-1880 the new system was dominant and pretty much is the same today. Rjensen 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are three links there, the first Google, is probably the least important, the second and third are better. In any case, being "paid" for something does not make a professional (you can write something for free and still be a professional, and you can write something for pay and not be a professional). As Rjensen said the historical profession is a lot more than just being paid, that is not what professional means. There are entire books written on this, about the rise of the professional classes in the 19th and 20th centuries, the historical profession is just one example. -- Stbalbach 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad editing

This article is immeasurably worse than it was, say, six weeks ago. Would it be a radical suggestion to point out that perhaps editors should actually discuss their changes on the talk page? 62.25.106.209 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography: why needed

Historiography of the whole world for the last thousand years--perhaps we need a few books here. Chronicle reported recently that history departments distrust Wiki for students use, except they love out bibliographies. So let's go with our strengths. Thus we have 9 items on British Empire, India, Canada, Persia, Africa & Australia. that's one or two per topic, covering areas where Wiki has many users. Likewise teaching history is a big deal and needs coverage (note that many items are online). One item on world history, let's not delete it. Two items are in French--ok they can be dropped but not the two volume Thompson book, which is the best coverage of European historians. Preventing users from seeing this is unlikely to help them, and with the listings at the end of the article nobody will be distracted (unless, like me, they start at the end and check the notes first!) Rjensen 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

Firstly, much of the categorisation is fairly random and just plain wrong. Putting, say, In Defence of History in a Methods section just shows that whoever did that has no idea about the books they are categorising.

Secondly, more does not necessarily mean better. Just chucking a large amounts of random junk (that the editor seemingly hasn't read) into a bibliography does not make a good bibliography. The section should be targetted at giving the reader useful information and not stuff that is, frankly, irrelevant. 62.25.106.209 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

alas User:62.25.106.209 is a well known vandal who has not read any historiography, Will he please leave serious articles alone! Rjensen 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an IP address used by several hundred thousand people in Britain. Accusing someone of vandalism, just because you disagree with them, is pretty low. 62.25.106.209 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to register plus a long history of vandalism is a grave cause for concern, especially when one make no positive edits but only erases other people's hard work. Rjensen 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit about several hundred thousand people? Moreover, editing does not just mean adding information (which means that the more meaningful information gets quickly swamped) but also removing information. Currently this is a pretty bad article, since lots of information has been added to it over the last few years without much of an attempt to edit it into any meaningful shape. It currently needs heavy editing and, I would suggest, heavy cuts. 195.92.40.49 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey look, another IP from the same place, what a coincidence. As Rjensen said, refusal to sign in with a userid is a problem. -- Stbalbach 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, several hundred thousand Brits have been causing trouble here. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are helpful and some are not. Sometimes they all look alike. Rjensen 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

This article is currently being edited heavily by two anon IPs, both of which belong to the same company, located in England ,and both of which have a recent history of being blocked for disruptive edits. User talk:62.25.106.209 and User talk:195.92.40.49. At the first sign of edit war I will be make a request for this article to be semi-protected to force users to log in with their real account instead of hiding behind anon IPs and what looks like sock puppetry. -- Stbalbach 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

yes these two jokers apparently are playing around with Wiki. Keep watch on them. Rjensen 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian and Medieval Historiography

I feel that if we are going to include Islamic Historiography, we should have a short write up on both Christian and Medieval Historiographies. I would not mind volunteering in this matter. Ematta 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for more text

The section on approaches is just an ugly WP:LIST. I came to this article specifically to understand the morphology of various historiographical approaches, only to find I'll have to read 32 separate articles to get an overview of the subject.

Could someone who knows about this please write a 2 or 3 paragraph overview to introduce and outline the section before that huge list of see alsos? I think it would help a lot, and I'd do it myself, but I'm obviously unqualified. Eaglizard 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

historiography of historiography

This article seems mainly to focus on summarizing what historiography as a discipline finds (e.g. the sections summarizing historiography of Islam, of the Roman world, etc.), but it'd be useful if it also gave information on what historiography itself is, and in particular what it has been. The article does discuss some recent historiography (e.g. E.H. Carr and Hayden White), but it completely omits earlier historiography, e.g. Renaissance works like Lancelot de la Popelinière's L'Histoire des histoires (1599). Of course pre-modern historiography often overlaps with pre-modern philosophy of history, but they aren't quite the same, and I think it's worth discussing. Unfortunately however I only know of some of its existence, not really enough to write a section myself. --Delirium 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the historiography of history itself has a historiography means that this article is at risk of being POV, because the practice of historiography is not necessarily neutral. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Postmodern(ism)?

Has anyone thought of including a quick little bit on this page referring to Hayden White and his challenges to history? This seems like an interesting historiographic subject that people might be interested in. Also, why has nobody filled in poststructuralism yet? Come on people! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.64.230 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article includes tirades against postmodernism but postmodernist approaches are conspicuously absent. Benedetto Croce and Hayden White are a glaring omissions (neither is even mentioned in the text). Other postmodernist historiographers such as Jacques Rancière and Alun Munslow, Keith Jenkins, Frank Ankersmit also seem to be missing. Not to mention Foucault.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Giambattista Vico is also not mentioned. Something is amiss.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Roman historiography

I've re-inserted the information about Roman historiography so that there is a summary of the topic in the article and linked to the main Roman historiography. This fits in the summary style although the section may need revising to reflect the main Roman historiography article. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"What History Is Good For "

I find it odd (to be generous) that the first line is footnoted to a newspaper article: "What History Is Good For" book review by David M. Kennedy in The New York Times July 16, 2009. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"It supports this opening:

    Historiography is the aspect of history, and of semiotics,
    that considers how knowledge of the past, recent or distant, is obtained and transmitted;
    simply put, historiography is the history of history.

• Can we do better than that? --Ludvikus (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, OK, see my comment on semiotics. The word, like many others in the lead, is not even in that source.131.96.89.161 (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiotics?

Yeah, yeah, I get it, but it seems kind of clunky for the lead paragraph. And it's kind of fringe, anyway, to lump all historiography together with a theory-laden word that reflects the point of view of a subset of historiography associated with some types of structuralism and post-structuralism. Many historians and even historiographic theories (Marxism, for instance) happily ignore semiotic theory, and thus semiotics, even if they're studying written texts.131.96.89.161 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Header

I am not really involved in this article and since there has obviously been much discussion I don't want to come in rashly, even if being bold is a wiki virtue. However, I really don't think the following sentences belong in the head: "In recent decades there has been a shift away from diplomatic, economic and political history toward social and cultural studies. In two decades from 1975 to 1995, the proportion of professors of history in American universities identifying with social history rose from 31% to 41%, while the proportion of political historians fell from 40% to 30%.[1] In the history departments of British universities in 2007, of the 5723 faculty members, 1644 (29%) identified themselves with social history while political history came next with 1425 (25%).[2]" Those are interesting facts about changes in the focus of historical study, but they don't help define historiography, and by themselves they don't communicate anything relevant. So the balance between social and political historians has changed, but since both groups (and many others too) are involved in historiography, that observation is not really relevant to the reader wanting a first statement of what historiography is. I suggest you look at this again. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the lede identifies--with specific evidence from US and Britain--the shift in recent historiography (the is 1975 to 2007) from an emphasis on the political to an emphasis on social themes. As far as a student is concerned, it describes what has been happening in most history departments. That seems quite relevantRjensen (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't show a shift in historiography, it shows a shift in the object of historical investigation. Whether political and social historians have different historiographies would have to be demonstrated. Secondly, it is not contextualized, so the reader has no idea how these facts relate to the topic. If you had a sentence saying, "one (entirely random) example of a change in the fashion of historiography is..." then the connection might be made. But you have to make it. The point is, anyone coming here wondering what historiography is and reading that lede will think that historiography has something to do with the difference between political and social questions. Sorry, I know it is irritating to work on an article and have a newcomer tell you something is not good, but if you are too deeply in a text you can completely miss how it reads to someone looking at it for the frist time. I repeat, I suggest you look at this again. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough I will look at it and revise it now. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Cultural Patrimony, and Historiography

Shouldn't that twelve volume set of books by James Bridle also be referenced here? It's a study of the Historiography the Iraq War article on Wikipedia complete with edit wars.[4] [5] [6] --Xero (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New article on related subject

Perhaps the editors here will find useful the new article I just created, Nationalization of history for using in this article. I propose to expand subtitle "Modern era" with text that will inform readers that starting from 19th century nationalism started to significantly influence history work by adding following sentence:

"Starting from 19^th century and national revival projects, nationalism was so much taken for granted as the "proper" way to organize states and view history that nationalization of history (nationalistic interpretation of past) was essentially invisible to historians until fairly recently (the 1980s or 1990s)."

like it was already stated here (I only added term nationalization of history ant timetable).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would object to the addition of that sentence, since it seems to be very generalising at best, not taking into account the diversity of historiography especially from the early 20th century onward, and it contains several claims that I think very dubious. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think that it is wrong not to mention in this article that there was process of nationalization of history that was part of process of national revivals that culminated in 19th century and resulted with national histories. Therefore I propose "softer" way to introduce this information to the article after following sentence:

"Former historians had focused on cyclical events of the rise and decline of rulers and nations." to put this sentence:

"Process of nationalization of history, as part of national revivals in 19^th century, resulted with separation of "one's own" history from common universal history by such way of perceiving, understanding and treating the past that constructed history as history of a nation. Reference

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Historiography in Chinese

If a user were to click on "Chinese" on the English version of the "Historiography" page, they would be led to the page in Chinese which corresponds to "History". "History" is the study of events during a period of time (The point of course is not the debating of this definition). Yet "Historiography" is the history of the discipline of History; how History has changed in analysis, opinion, and presentation over time. Can we possibly address this differentiation in translation?

I will translate the above into Chinese.

英文的 "Historiography" 页面的中文版会指向”历史学“。 但是， ”Historiography" 所指的不是历史学，而是历史编纂学。历史学是学习过去在某时间段咯中所发生的事件。 而历史编纂学所指的是历史学的历史；人类对历史学的看法，写法，以及观点因时间进展的变化。 不知可否修改一下这个翻译？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.208.183 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Julius Ceasar's Gallic Wars

When "The book is on the table. She took the red ball." lessons in high school Latin class end, Ceasar's Gallic Wars is the first literary/historical work that beginning students deal with. It has been so for several hundred years, and in many countries. {citation needed} It has been so for a reason. It is clear simple Latin. This clarity and simplicity is general knowledge among educated people and among millions of high school graduates who took Latin. However, if the standard is that something must be general knowledge among U.S.citizens as opposed to educated people, then every sentence in every article would require a source. {citation needed}

98.169.71.227 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC) AllOfGaulIsDividedIntoThreeParts

Do you have a point that is related to the improvement of this article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by banned user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 107 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Narrative section

The narrative section is really bad based on ideas by one single historian who is not among the ones primarily associated with the study of narrative in historiography. This section cannot be written without mention of Hayden White and his metahistorical approach. Also much stronger than Stones idea that narrative is "the main approach" other historiographers would consider narrativity a defining trait of history, as opposed to other textual genres. They might not agree with Stones definition of narrative though, they would consider that even statistical or wide scale histories have to emplot their data into a narrative structure for it to make sense as history. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice: wikidata link change of 歷史學

Hi, everyone:

I just moved the Chinese (together with Bân-lâm-gú) and Japanese page of zh:歷史學/ja:歴史学 from this d:Q50675 into a smaller d:Q1066186, and added 史學史 to here, solving the long-time dispute. My considerations are:

1. Historiography is (in modern sense) defined as "the study of the way history has been and is written – the history of historical writing... you study... the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians"—this is exactly what 史學史 (lit. history of study of history) means! (I have linked it hither, welcome!) And I have of courses kicked out 歷史學.

   P.S. However, it should be noticed that, traditionally speaking, "historiography" also refers to the collection of historic writings/works, or say the abstract concept of "writing history" as a behaviour, especially when talking about ancient times, such as Chinese historiography. This makes things very complicated, and I'm not sure how to address this issue.

2. In re 歷史學 (lit. study of history, science of history) itself, the linking is quite tricky—primarily because as a zh-wiki editor, I/we really want 歷史學 to be link'd to a big article. As part of our nomenclature convention, 歷史學 is quite a big umbrella term, covering everything concerning study and research of history, or say "History as the subject/discipline". Just imagine in English-speaking world you split up "history" as history concept-proper, istoire, storeys, stories and as history the discipline—and you'll see that, the former is 歷史, and the latter 歷史學. Unfortunately, there is no such latter article in English and many other major (fr, es, ru ..) languages; so I have to grudge 歷史學 (Chinese+Japanese) into "Geschichtswissenschaft", which is "history-science" in German. The German article should be the principal article of this Q-item.
3. Beware that the word 史學史 is a little bit recursive: here 史學 actually means 歷史學. More seriously, 史學史 is either a branch of 歷史學 (inside it), or actually the history of 歷史學 (outside it). Which one do you think it should be (regardless of wikidata link issues which I already settled)? I just point this out, so that you guys can appreciate the subtle relation between the two, and understand why it's so hard to do the wikidata link, for such a long time.

Gees Christ, man, WikiData need us, the humans... bots simply can't do this! Hope I explain'd it clear! -- SzMithrandir (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Structure and content

Currently the main body of this article is chronologically structured (broadly). I'm not sure whether it's entirely balanced, but I'll have to leave that to editors who know the subject better in their area. However, without a better explanation of the scope of the subject (before it leaps straight into recounting its evolution) it is guiding the reader in a particular way.

The introduction needs to be clear, neutral and should summarise the most important points. The first two sentences are fine and then it asserts that historiography is by "topic" or "approach"; general narrative is only mentioned at the bottom of the page. Trends and evolution are touched on, but this doesn't seem balanced insofar as it does not reflect what the body text itself covers. There is also relatively little on what the subject involves. However, there is a section on "Topics studied" (again, hidden at the bottom), the content of which should be in the introduction. Some of the 'evidence' supporting an assertion should be a footnote.

Unless anyone objects I propose to improve the introduction to address these issues. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is a "historiograph"?

The term redirects here. Equinox (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please find both my upblications in the field of Historiography

Please find both my upblications in the field of Historiography

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sujay_Rao_Mandavilli/stats

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.84.194 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Medieval historiography?

I wonder why there is no section about medieval historiography in the article?--Hubon (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links section needs careful review

Starting with the list of journals, which is WP:SOAP. While they might be good resources for expansion and verification of this C-class article, they don't belong in the External links section. --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

OK wait a sec...you agree there valuable for our readers but don't like the section there in? So if we move them out of the EL section and add them to the body of the article with the many many other EL links you would be OK with that?--Moxy (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

They're valuable for our editors to find new references. They don't belong in the External links section in part because links to the main journal websites have very little value to our readers.

Absolutely, they should be used as references. Again, not simply the website of the journal, but links to specific published articles in the journals. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly journals that focus on historiography are of obvious value to readers interested in this topic. Disputes belong at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree great for research.....We should move the whole bibliography further reading section to its own bibliography article and update the journal entries. ....will ping a few people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies see what they think.--Moxy (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC).

Yikes. I didn't look at that. I assumed the Bibliography section was for the references, but it's a further reading section...

It could work with good inclusion criteria and independent references. Take care to avoid original research by working from others' lists rather than creating one from scratch, and/or have very good inclusion criteria that avoids POV/SOAP problems. --Ronz (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ronz is inventing rules on a topic he has never commented upon before. In this case I take responsibility for the selection per WP:EL guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and reconsider my comment User_talk:Rjensen#I_think_there_are_better_ways_to_address_this. --Ronz (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

British Teachers of History list

The breakdown of types of historian in British universities at the end of the second para of the lede refers to 2007 figures; but (in n3) the original link is now dead, and the archived link leads to a 2004 list (with a 2006 accessdate). It would be good if someone could sort this out. The most recent listing, from 2017 (which also includes Ireland, but is no longer being updated) is available here GrindtXX (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dating of Zuo Zhuan

This article has Zuo Zhuan being composed rather earlier than the evidence for dating suggests in the actual article about Zuo Zhuan, which - not being an expert in the area - seems more accurate. Should we er...up date the dates in this article?