Talk:List of historians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does 'This is a list of historians.', at the start of the article, contain a link to the same page?

When one of the titles is "ancient historians" this is confusing, because someone like Moses Finley can be called an ancient historian, whilst here it seems to mean people who were historians in ancient times. Could i suggest a change to "Historians of the Ancient Period" or "Ancient Sources" or something? Any good suggestions? Pjmc 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see two useful ways to annotate the historians in this list; one is to clone the notes from list of people ("US historian" etc), the other is to annotate with historical specialties/notable works. The first doesn't look right, since by definition, almost all entries here will say "historian", so I'm inclined to advocate the second, as more useful when the reader is looking for "Gib-somebody who wrote about the Roman Empire". As with other lists, linking years and annotation terms is sort of useless, since those will be in the historians' articles themselves, and there is no value in having a "list of" show up in every year's and topic's "what links here". Stan 18:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That seems very sensible - no description as historian, no linking dates, and a brief note as to the historian's field of interest, eg, Burckhardt...Renaissance. Also, are we keeping to what seems to have emerged as a policy of having pre 20th century historians in date order, and modern historians in alphabetical order? Djnjwd 01:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That was somebody's idea, don't remember who. Given that prior to the 20th century, there are relatively few and so it's reasonable to scan the whole list, plus the birth order is an interesting way to view, I'm willing to give it a spin, see how it works for lookups. Stan 04:15, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since the list of modern historians seemed to be getting gigantic I started to break it down by category of history, alphabetized within the categories. Any objections? Thoughts? Alex S 15:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. However, traditional categories such as "Military History", "Naval History" or "History of France" alone just won't suffice, but it's a start. It will be a tough job though to label all those unspecified historians. --KF 15:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bad idea. As you can see from a first pass, only a minority of modern historians are so neatly categorized, and even the ones that were categorized are mistaken. For instance, just to pick one off the top of my head, Samuel Eliot Morison could be categorized under history of exploration, naval history, maritime history, and general American history. The list really would be gigantic if every historian had to be listed on it in a half-dozen different places. It would be better to attach lists of notables within a specialty directly to the article about the specialty, or to make separate lists - list of naval historians etc - if there are more than a dozen notables for the specialty. This list is more of a generic "given a partial name, find the person" index. (It's also not really that long; it ain't a "long" list until it has a thousand entries or more!) Stan 18:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I like the idea of a separate page for historians sorted by categories. I think I'll move it into "List of historians by area of study." Is there any way to just role back the page to before I started sorting, or will it have to be done manually?Alex S 01:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bring up page history, click on the date string corresponding to the version you want to roll back to, click on the edit button (you'll get a warning at this point, expected), and click on the save button. The summary line should mention that you're reverting your own change. Stan 13:56, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The modern historians are listed alphabetically while the historians of other periods are listed chronologically. Do you guys think that this is the best way to do this or should this article hold to something consistent? I think, maybe, if we have more historians in the previous periods they could be divided up into centuries alphabetically which might be more appealing. Adam Faanes 06:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is inconsistent, but I found it an interesting scheme. The purpose of alphabetization is to speed visual searches, but there are relatively few premoderns, so that consideration is less important, while early vs late middle ages is more important. By century seem artificially fine-grained, given that many lives cross century boundaries, but I could see adding late antiquity/dark ages/renaissance subdivisions, and sorting alphabetically within those. it occurs to me that premoderns will probably have to be alphabetized once all the missing people are added (1911EB lifts often don't get an entry added here, for instance). Stan 17:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

• Who is Florin Mirghesiu? I've never heard of him, and neither Google nor Teoma suggest any notable historian by that name. This looks like a vanity addition or joke. Average Earthman 11:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Just an small point. The Gordon Craig listed previously was the British actor and producer, not the American historian and so has been removed. The Gordon A. Craig now posted leads to the historian. However, just for future clarification, the father of historian was also named Gordon Craig, but I don't believe anybody posted an article on him.

Contents 1 Perry Miller 2 Jung Chang 3 church historians 4 This list is too long 5 David Irving 6 Shiono Nanami 7 Neocorus (medieval, Germany) 8 Deletions

[edit] Perry Miller

How could anyone leave off one of the great historians of the 20th Century??? Worse still, why is there no article for him? Oh dear, I hope I don't have to write one about him. --SkeeloBob 21:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jung Chang

Jung Chang's not a trained historian, but an author writing about her life. Her husband is.

http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2005/06/26/mao_the_unknown_story/

This is a tour-de-force of reporting by Jung Chang and her husband, Jon Halliday. Weighing in at 832 pages, it is rivetingly told and voluminously documented. Professional historians (Jung Chang is not) will find details to pick over, and will challenge all that is speculative, but if half of the story that is told here holds up to scrutiny — and it is difficult to imagine the contrary — this book will dramatically change the way we see Mao. Anyone who has read Philip Short, or a host of other works on Mao will already be familiar with his penchant for self-absorption and often disastrous self-assuredness. “The Unkown Story” leaves the reader with an unblinking portrait of a megalomaniac monster.

After considering it for a while, I have decided that it is reasonable to call Jung Chang a biographer. Although your point about her not being a trained historian is irrelevant, as the same applies to Iris Chang, a book on a single person is a biography. In this case it is a historical work, so there's a bit of ambiguity. But Iris Chang wrote on an event, so if you really want to I think it's acceptable to make the distinction. John Smith's 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

[edit] church historians

I see Eusebius of Caesarea is not on the list, but curiously, my recent 1911 EB Dietrich of Nieheim is. A separate category "Category:church historians" or the such is probably in order, as well as a distinct list. Bede would be another candidate. Luidprand of Cremona, who documented much of the pornocracy period of the Papacy would be another.

You are welcome to add any missing historians to this list. Adam Bishop 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This list is too long

Too long for one page. Too hard to use. george 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work, but we should organize this using categories. With categories, the list would build itself. --Metzenberg 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. It said: "It is incorrect to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author." Ingram, Richard. "Irving was the author of his own downfall", The Independent, February 25, 2006. The same point was made during Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books: "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ‘historian’ to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ‘historical writer’ instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian." Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, "Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge", 2000, Chapter 6. During Irving's criminal trial in Austria, State Prosecutor Michael Klackl said: "He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history." Traynor, Ian. "Irving jailed for denying Holocaust", The Guardian, February 21, 2006.

Can people please stop trying to deny, err, "revise" the truth by adding Irving to this list? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So long as Irving is referred to as a "revisionist historian" with a link to Holocaust Denial we are not giving him unwarranted credibility. Philip Cross 21:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a "revisionist historian", he's a Holocaust denier, and you sully the names of legitimate revisionist historians when you associate Irving's denial with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that, as far as I am aware, he holds no degree in history, nor has he taught history at any university, nor has he published any articles in peer-reviewed journals. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All quite true as far as your second contribution is concerned, though "nor has he taught history at any university" would exclude Andrew Roberts, and many others, from the list.

Irving is a repulsive and sinister figure, but his early books did acquire a legitimate reputation (according to the profiles), and he is occasionally described as knowing more about Nazi Germany than anyone alive, despite the obvious caveat, by serious people: he is defended by the military historian John Keegan. Justifiably losing a libel action against Deborah Lipstadt does not change these facts.

I am mildly nauseous whenever I hear Irving's voice, and do not defend him, but am merely arguing for the legitimacy of including him on this list. I am not saying that "British histoian", the iniial tag for Irving on the list, would be a satisfactory description of him because that would not acknowledge his ambivalence presence on the list. Philip Cross 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philip, maybe we need a section for discredited historians but I think it would be dishonest not to include him at all, while understanding that some people think someone who fakes history to fit their ideological viewpoint isnt a historian it just isnt that straightforward. As Eric Hobsbawm said, hsitorian have more responsibility than nuclear physicists to promote good or evil, and while Irving's views on rascism are criminal his making history fit his ideology is very common amongst historains and I need tio be convinced their are reasons other than his beliefs to preclude him from this list, SqueakBox 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to keep repeating this old memo ad nauseam, regardless of this, the same Telegraph calls Irving "controversial historian" as of 2006 [1]. As somebody already said, the term "historian" is not a badge of honour that can be given and taken away. Irving will not be first nor last who has manipulated historical evidence to suit his views. Hell, whole generations have done just that. --Magabund 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Late to the debate, but Irving absolutely must be included in this list. Anything else would be adishonest form of censorship, and wikipedia does not censor - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shiono Nanami

I think the article should add Nanami Shiono, a Japanese female historian, in the list. She is a highly influential Romanian historian in Asia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.146.196.241 (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neocorus (medieval, Germany)

Hi, here's a potential addition to the medieval section: Neocorus (real name: Johann Adolf Köster/Johannes Adolph Köster), ca. 1550-1630, pastor and teacher in Büsum, Germany, who chronicled the medieval history of Dithmarschen during the late 16th century. tameeria 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

The list of contemporary historians of Germany and modern Europe is quite idiosyncratic. Why does it include a complete non-entity, such as Jeffrey Herf, who aside from self-promotion has written a few second-rate books and has had no substantial effect on the field?