Talk:History/Catalogs/Historians by area of study: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis m (Talk:List of historians by area of study moved to Talk:History/Catalogs/List of historians by area of study: per editor and EIC) |
imported>Richard Jensen (needs fixing) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Francis Fukuyama ? == | == Francis Fukuyama ? == | ||
| Line 8: | Line 6: | ||
Agreed, unless you have a [[historiography]] article, or a [[historian]] article. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:22, 5 November 2007 (CST) | Agreed, unless you have a [[historiography]] article, or a [[historian]] article. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:22, 5 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Moved to [[History/Catalogs/List of historians by area of study]]. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 15:06, 5 November 2007 (CST) | |||
== Popular writers? == | |||
I just took John Keay out of the list of writers of Indian history, because John Keay is more a journalist than a professional historian. As I look over the current list, though, I do see a number of writers who are popular writers and not professional historians. Do we want to keep them on the list? | |||
The non-specialist reader is served if we restrict our list to professional historians, but then I suppose that it is just as well to mark popular writers in some way, or put them in a different part of the list. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 10:08, 4 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
::yes the popularizers should have their own section. (They are leftovers from Wikipedia....just goes to show we should have started the article from scratch) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:18, 4 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
== Oddities in outline of this subsubpage == | |||
(The following refers to the catalog of historians by area of study, which is a subsubpage, or something, of the "History" article.) | |||
Why does "Modern History" contain only Western Hemisphere continents? And why is "Europe" on the same level of the outline as "Modern History"? And why is "Asian History" a subdivision of "Europe"? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:47, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
::well some of it is sloppiness (as "Asian History" a subdivision of "Europe"--that's wrong). Some comes from putting the list together one part at a time without paying much attention to other parts or the overall structure (which was borrowed from Wikipedia--another mistake). Please help fix. :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:16, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:16, 17 June 2008
Francis Fukuyama ?
Thanks for this great page, but I just can't understand how does Francis Fukuyama fit any of these categories... Political scientist and philosopher, for sure, but he's not an historian, so I delete his name. --Corentin 16:55, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
Move to History subpage
Let's move this to a subpage of History. Richard Jensen 14:18, 5 November 2007 (CST)
Agreed, unless you have a historiography article, or a historian article. --Larry Sanger 14:22, 5 November 2007 (CST)
Moved to History/Catalogs/List of historians by area of study. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:06, 5 November 2007 (CST)
Popular writers?
I just took John Keay out of the list of writers of Indian history, because John Keay is more a journalist than a professional historian. As I look over the current list, though, I do see a number of writers who are popular writers and not professional historians. Do we want to keep them on the list?
The non-specialist reader is served if we restrict our list to professional historians, but then I suppose that it is just as well to mark popular writers in some way, or put them in a different part of the list. Thanks, Brian P. Long 10:08, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
- yes the popularizers should have their own section. (They are leftovers from Wikipedia....just goes to show we should have started the article from scratch) Richard Jensen 18:18, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
Oddities in outline of this subsubpage
(The following refers to the catalog of historians by area of study, which is a subsubpage, or something, of the "History" article.)
Why does "Modern History" contain only Western Hemisphere continents? And why is "Europe" on the same level of the outline as "Modern History"? And why is "Asian History" a subdivision of "Europe"? Bruce M.Tindall 21:47, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- well some of it is sloppiness (as "Asian History" a subdivision of "Europe"--that's wrong). Some comes from putting the list together one part at a time without paying much attention to other parts or the overall structure (which was borrowed from Wikipedia--another mistake). Please help fix. :) Richard Jensen 22:16, 17 June 2008 (CDT)