That our on-topic indicator What topics can I ask about here? be modified to include after the dot point "Factual current political history questions"
We discuss historiography on H:SE, and the site is richer for that discussion. Google can provide trivial facts and dates; a true understanding of history requies an understanding of the "changing interpretation of those events".
Furay and Salevouris (1988) define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written – the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians." (The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide, 1988, p. 223 lifted from wikipedia
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs If we are interested in history, then it is likely that our study of history will be enriched by learning how history is written, both because it will lead us to more fruitful techniques to study history and because it will warn us about foolish, shortsighted, or just plain frustrating avenues of analysis.
Inclusion of Historiography questions will help us to self consistently and self-referentially demonstrate the scope/culture/ of this site. Some (possibly many) of the questions we must reject are rejected for reasons that they ignore assumptions and traditions of historiography.
If we continue to reject questions based on bad historiography, then I believe we're obliged to discuss historiography. This also applies to analysis of sources, bias, comparative narrative, etc.
@T.E.D's maxim ". . . those questions that belong here until a more appropriate stack can make it into beta (perhaps Earth Science )". IF the question is valid and about historiography, then it adds value to the site, and value to the SE model.
Update: We do discuss historiography here. We've got a number of questions tagged historiography.
Update: Based on the last self evaluation, I believe that H:SE has a distinct comparative advantage to other sources on the internet because we are able to employ historiography.
In response to Mr. Geerkens answer, I would argue that we must apply the same standards to historiography questions that we do to all others.
Questions must be answerable.
Question should not promote discussion except within very narrow and culturally defined limits.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Geerkens; although it is possible to treat historiography as a discursive drinking game, I belive it can also provide objective answers. For example, the analysis of the Donation of Constantine. Historiography can also be used to discuss questions where there is no provable answer, but where all participants agree (e.g. there is no formal, legal definition of "hot", but if we all agree that it is hot, then it is safe to proceed on the assumption that it is hot.).
Historiography has been added to the list of appropriate questions here. Additionally, I included a link to a decent academic page defining historiography broadly, because I know it is not a terribly well-known term. As Mark C. Wallace pointed out, there are two very key components to asking these questions, just like any others:
I am quite skeptical about this addition to the allowed topics. I may be wrong and will entertain arguments to the contrary, but my initial impression is that the addition of historiography as an allowed topic is an excuse to open the site to discussions on the methods of history.
Note that I am not quite content to make a case-by-case exception for historiography questions that actually have a clearly correct answer.
What if we explicitly included historiography in Chat only for 6 months and revisited this question in the summer? At that time the community should have a clear idea of the consequences of such inclusion.