4

Regarding What is the basis of Russian criticism of Antony Beevor's work? I feel that the closure fails to appropriately read what good subjective is in terms of historiography. The question asks for the basis (ie: the historiographical methodology) behind the criticism by historians of the work of a historian.

I am only and specifically taking up the listed reason for the closure in relation to "OPINION." Issues regarding poor community response to certain kinds of question, or questions elicited to encourage discussion—even if they are well formed "Good Subjective" questions—aren't part of this question.

Where does Good Subjective end and Bad Subjective begin in relation to the analysis of historiographical criticism?

3

The closure of What is the basis of Russian criticism of Antony Beevor's work? for the given reason of "opinion" was grossly incorrect as the question lay well within the boundaries of "good subjective" in relation to history: the demonstrable scholarly opinion of historians regarding the work of another historian.

Other reasons for closure or halting comments may have been worthy to consider, but I haven't considered those.

6
  • 1
    I suspect the extended discussions that broke out under the question and the one answer did more to lead to the closure than the question itself. I wouldn't mind voting to re-open it, but I'd prefer all comments purged first (they are either pointless bickering, or obsolete).
    – yannis
    Jul 1 '13 at 11:03
  • 1
    I think you misunderstand the explanation. "Good subjective" questions are not acceptable. The bottom line is that this type of question cannot be answered without introducing opinion or speculation, and that is what makes it inappropriate. Jul 1 '13 at 12:30
  • 1
    "Even the definition of what is too subjective on Stack Exchange is somewhat … subjective. But we can provide a set of guidelines that help you determine what a good subjective question is. It’s akin to determining what is fair use, and what is not — a multi-factor test where you attempt to fit a few guidelines to the specifics of your situation." GSBS makes it sound like good subjective is acceptable. I'm not arguing the point, merely the optics.
    – MCW Mod
    Jul 1 '13 at 14:15
  • 2
    Well, if history is just one damn thing that happened after another, then acceptable answers are only those that list one damn fact or several of them -- and nothing else. But if there is more to what historians do, then it is inevitable that opinion creeps in one way or another. Spolsky says that SE is a place where you go to find expert answers. But an expert can hardly operate without giving his or her opinion. Jul 1 '13 at 14:24
  • 1
    @StevenDrennon while Mark has provided a partial answer here: historiography is fundamentally subjective due to the reading problem (see post-modernism or any post Hume account of empirical reality). More, due to the subject of historiography being human societies, and the primary methodology being the close reading of texts for complexes of meanings, all work will involve the subjective judgement of a historian within disciplinary limits. No historical question can be factual or objective because the expert opinion is: objective facts do not exist for history. Jul 1 '13 at 22:43
  • 1
    I think the question could better read as "what tricks Beevor uses to manipulate the facts and references and push his point of view on the reader?" The answer is not subjective.
    – Anixx
    Jul 5 '13 at 17:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .