Timeline for Should I ever repeat the affiliation of a person?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2015 at 11:12 | vote | accept | rigor | ||
| Mar 23, 2015 at 8:41 | comment | added | user5645 | I'm totally with Matthew Brown on this one. What you may want to mention is both (a) what a person is today known for and (b) whatever is relevant to your "story". For example, Kepler of course wasn't only a physicist, but also a theologian, mathematics teacher, etc. So if you are discussing maths education during his time, then you might introduce him as the "physicist Kepler" (what we know him for today), but should later, after you have explained that he was a teacher, call him the "maths teacher Kepler" (to make it clear that you are talking about that aspect of his person and life). | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 6:37 | history | edited | hildred | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
location sounded wrong.
|
| Mar 23, 2015 at 6:31 | comment | added | rigor | Good answer! I've searched the most relevant style manuals (Chicaco, Oxford, MHRA) but found nothing. I suppose it's one of those unwritten rules. | |
| Mar 22, 2015 at 19:22 | history | answered | Matthew Brown aka Lord Matt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |