Talk:List of historians by area of study
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 'By historical viewpoint'
Shouldn't Whig historians be added in this section?--Johnbull 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] '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)
