Talk:List of historians by area of study

Proposed format
Name (Date of birth-Date of Death, Nationality) - Summary of focus, contributions, etc.

Thoughts? Objections? Comments? --Alex S 21:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Area" or "Field"?
There is nothing wrong with current title, and area of study is perfectly acceptable, but there is a category of historians by field of study, and (I've googled it) it seems that the latter is more common. If no objections, I'll rename this List to historians by field of study. --Barbatus 01:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I've always heard historians refer to their colleagues as working in this or that field, not area. -- Muffuletta 04:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me either way. We should try to be consistent with the category and the list in any event. --Fastfission 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

'By historical viewpoint'
Shouldn't Whig historians be added in this section?--Johnbull 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

'By time period' and 'By nation or geographical area'
Both of these sections need to be expanded to include those who have been publishing for the last two or three decades in their respected fields. Let's not have a list of "Barnes & Noble" historians but instead opt for the names of people whose work is influencing younger generations of scholars. Also, can one please shy away from the large "Western" influence that dominates this page? Not all historians follow Western epocs, calendars, events, themes, etc., and I think that Wikipedia needs to reflect this in its article. I am going to augment the section concerning the history of Spain by providing names of historians who currently work and publish in this field, as well as others who have in the past. --Retroandi 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I was surprised to see Hungary missing from the list. What could the reason for that be? Cheers vitéz vitéz 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

This list vs. Categories
Is this list entirely hand-maintained? How does it function in relation to the various categories of historians? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wide open to pranksters
Some sections of this list are becoming cluttered with "red links", notably "History of Italy". Without a Wiki link or a reference there is no way of telling whether the people listed exist or not - we are leaving ourselves wide open to pranksters. I would suggest storing ALL red-link entries on the Talk page until such time as Wikipedia pages are done for them or identified as theirs. Bmcln1 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Popular Historians?
Should non-academic historians, such as David McCullough and Shelby Foote, appear on this list? Neither has an academic background in history. I think they should be removed, but I wanted to discuss it here first and gauge whether or not there would be consensus.--MattMauler (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * David McCullough and Shelby Foote are very influential nonacademic historians--they are both professionals and certainly belong. Not many on the list got here because of their PhD dissertations or their teaching undergrads--it's influential books that matter. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Leo Niehorster" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Leo Niehorster. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Add an "intellectual history" sub-entry?
Presumably to be based on Category:Intellectual historians Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)