Talk:J. G. A. Pocock

message: -moved TOC to the right. NZ flag posted again (not sure about Maori flag).  added the required licensing symbol. kindly do not take down. the flags are classy, even if not strictly "academic".  liked your inclusions of the TOC and section headings and internal links a lot. some of the links i did away with last time and should not have. i have in mind more editing of/additions to the text, but not immediately. Stevewk 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various adjustments

message: I've corrected the bit about the Treaty of Waitangi where it said it was NZ's equivalent of the Magna Carta. Although it is sometimes known as 'the Maori Magna Carta', this is more a rhetorical device than a statement of fact, and to call the two equivalent is fairly misleading. --Helenalex 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty of Waitangi

message: Pocock actually writes "I have been asked to give this lecture in several places to audiences interested in the concept, perhaps also in the programme, known as ‘the new British history’; a name I hope it will soon shake off, now it is becoming accepted as a programme worth discussing and, more importantly, practising."  The article says "From 1975, Professor Pocock began advocating the development of a new subject which he called "British History" (or "New British History" but, in view of the established acceptance and practice of the restructured programme, Pocock prefers that "new" be discarded)."  These two do not seem to be making the same claim.  Compare the two bold highlights.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And nowhere in the now "corrected" reference  does he explicitly make this claim either.  He simply refers to it as "British history". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your losing me again - You have just provided the above reference where he refers to 'the new British history’ Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are engaging in the same logic that you did at British Isles.  He refers to NBH in the first, and BH in the second.  Fine.  But nowhere does he recommend "discarding" the "new", which is what the article is saying he said.  Do you see the problem?  It's a matter of synthesis.  It may be clear in your mind, but the references do not explicitly back up the claim made.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to my edit or to me? - If I knew where you are trying to lead me I could be of more help. It doesn't say he recommends "discarding" the "new". Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says exactly that.  (or "New British History" but, in view of the established acceptance and practice of the restructured programme, Pocock prefers that "new" be discarded).  I don't think you wrote this originally but you have been tweaking the references next to it so I presumed you were doing something deliberately here.  Nowhere does either reference explicitly support the claim that I have bolded above.  16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer a certain brand of baked beans, I don't recommend them. I remind you that it is you who have challenged my logic. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean by that.  If you don't understand why the article as it stands constitutes synthesis, I will go ahead and change it myself so that the claims made in it are explicitly the same claims made in the references.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: He did coin it.  From the cited 1995 reference, p5: "Instead, J.G.A.Pocock’s 1974 argument for a ‘new’ British history,3 covering not only England but Scotland, Wales and Ireland, together with the ‘British’ colonies, Empire and Commonwealth, has been widely accepted and even practised—as the following essays (which conclude with Pocock’s own reflections on the current state of the ‘new subject’), and the bibliographical references contained within them, make abundantly clear." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From  "Pocock initially called for a 'new subject' of British history in New zealand in 1973" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: But regardless, of that, my issue I have at the moment is your reversion of the text that he called for 'new' to be discarded.  Nowhere in the cited references is that claim made.  Nowhere.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He claimed the title "British History;" It became known as NBH (How? - I don't know -I'd like to find out). Yes he has refererred to the New British History - He may have started the study but not the label. His preference is 'British History' . Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In Pococks own words I began calling for the development of a new sub field or to be named 'British History' Ref Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discarding of "New" in "New British History" 

message: just deleted the phrase "world-renowned", as without citation it seems to be useless and only serves to inflate this man rather than act as legitimate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.24.115 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: Strange way of introducing him. If someone moves to New Zealand at 3 from the United Kingdom, they are generally considered a New Zealander (this is in fact the case with many who currently live in New Zealand, given it has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the world). Unless he has fully repudiated his New Zealand identity, and nothing points to that suggestion, he should be considered a New Zealander. I will edit accordingly. If anyone disagrees, please discuss so here. 194.105.165.178 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a New Zealander?