CZ:Classics Workgroup Guidelines/Section about original sources: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''This is a proposal by L. Sanger, a non-classicist. Please discuss below. If classicists go for it, we can move the discussion to the talk page and put a more formal policy proposal here.'' | ''This is a proposal by L. Sanger, a non-classicist. Please discuss below. If classicists go for it, we can move the discussion to the talk page and put a more formal policy proposal here.'' | ||
For articles about Classics (and about ancient philosophy), I propose that we require or strongly encourage an annotated list of classical sources. Actually, I am not so much interested in having a briefly annotated list of classical sources, as a full-bodied prose discussion of ''where'' in each source one can find ''what'' details contained in the article. This is supplied by footnotes, obviously, with many classical topics, it's just one or two sources, ultimately, that are summed up. It seems to me (a nonspecialist) that when | For articles about Classics (and about ancient philosophy), I propose that we require or strongly encourage an annotated list of classical sources. Actually, I am not so much interested in having a briefly annotated list of classical sources, as a full-bodied prose discussion of ''where'' in each source one can find ''what'' details contained in the article. This is supplied by footnotes, obviously, with many classical topics, it's just one or two sources, ultimately, that are summed up. It seems to me (a nonspecialist) that when reading about [[Boudica]], for instance, it's just as interesting to any reader interested in the historical personage to know what the source of the info is, what chapters of what book, how much info there is, whether the writer is considered a biased source, etc. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:13, 15 April 2007
This is a proposal by L. Sanger, a non-classicist. Please discuss below. If classicists go for it, we can move the discussion to the talk page and put a more formal policy proposal here.
For articles about Classics (and about ancient philosophy), I propose that we require or strongly encourage an annotated list of classical sources. Actually, I am not so much interested in having a briefly annotated list of classical sources, as a full-bodied prose discussion of where in each source one can find what details contained in the article. This is supplied by footnotes, obviously, with many classical topics, it's just one or two sources, ultimately, that are summed up. It seems to me (a nonspecialist) that when reading about Boudica, for instance, it's just as interesting to any reader interested in the historical personage to know what the source of the info is, what chapters of what book, how much info there is, whether the writer is considered a biased source, etc. --Larry Sanger 17:12, 15 April 2007 (CDT)