Talk:Q1066186

Alias

FYI, I'm aware of the separate (umbrella) term of history, but I'm adding the word "history" as an alias here because of the vernacular indicating this subject when pursuing it in an education: One could easily just as well say "I study history" as "I study the science of history". Fred Johansen (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Johansen.fred and SzMithrandir, I wonder whether we could create clearer descriptions for this and the related items. The difference between history (Q309) ("past events and their tracks or records, studied by various branches of human sciences of history") and this item ("methodically secured exploration of past human actions based on critical-tested tradition under a specific question") appears to be primarily the level of jargon involved, and historiography (Q50675)'s "the history of historical writing" seems ...not quite right, somehow. That description makes me wonder if "historiography" will turn out to be related to someone's thesis about fiction/novels written in the 20th century about the 14th century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:Happy New Year. I don't mind if you guys add language-specific descriptions. It's those wrong cross-wiki (or called inter-wiki) links that mess things up. -- SzMithrandir (Talk) 04:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to write for the descriptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@SzMithrandir, is this item supposed to be more like "History of science" (except "history of historians learning about what happened in the past"), or more like "the academic discipline of history" (≠ what happened in the past)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Should be the latter (history as the discipline). But I'm bit confused with your "history of science" --- do you mean "science of history"? If so, well, "discipline of" and "science of" don't really have any different, do they? -- SzMithrandir (Talk) 03:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I gave "history of science" as an example, because there is a sub-field of history dedicated exploring what happened in the past in chemistry, physics, etc. If "history of science" would answer a question like "what factors does a modern historian believe led to Einstein formulating his famous equations?" then "history of history" could be "what factors does a modern historian believe led Gottschalk to writing his famous book about the historical method?".

I am not sure which items are for what. Q309 appears to be "what happened in the past". What is the difference between the other two? Could one of them be "a method for deciding what happened in the past"? Or "a history of the academic discipline that studies what happened in the past"? Or something else?

Unless you are prepared to call subjects like dance "a science" (which, as a native English speaker, I am not), then it is not true that "an academic discipline" is "a science". IMO fine arts are never sciences, history and language are not sciences, economics and sociology might be sciences (or, as with engineering and medicine, they are partially scientific), and chemistry and physics are definitely sciences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @WhatamIdoing, SzMithrandir: history (Q309) is what happened in the past, study of history (Q1066186) is the discipline which studies what happened in the past, history of historiography (Q2699662) is the discipline which studies how "history" was written in the past (the label of this entity is quite confusing I think), historiography (Q30277550) refers to a work of historical research, and historiography (Q50675) is the umbrella item which refers to the last two terms (necessary because some wikipedia articles are about both historiography (Q30277550) and history of historiography (Q2699662)). CaLéValab (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @CaLéValab. I've tried to adjust the description here. Please revert me if I got it wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

regarding historiography (Q50675) and science-of-history (Q1066186)

See also: Talk:Q50675

Hi, I made some decisions between the two, particularly settling for the Chinese and Japanese articles. I have elaborated this issue at w:Talk:Historiography (newest section) on enwiki. Please take a look.
If anyone wants to modify this, please notify me by leaving msg on my Talk page. Thank you! -- SzMithrandir (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)