Talk:Historian/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

General comments

It used to be very common for clubs and organizations to have an office called "Historian" along side "Secretary" and "Treasurer."

An example of this is the following description from the Merced County (CA) 4-H website:

Club Historian Preserves the Present for the Future

General Duties The club historian is the custodian of the club’s past, gathering and recording the present to preserve it for the future. The historian maintains a club scrapbook to document important events in the life of its members. The scrapbook provides a look into the past and illustrates the growth and accomplishments achieved in the 4-H club work. Adding names, dates and short descriptions to scrapbook entries helps future members know what took place. During Club Year • Create and maintain a club scrapbook. • Keep complete and accurate records illustrating the club’s activities. • Take pictures or collect member photos illustrating club activities. • Collect newspaper articles, thank-you notes, club certificates, and awards. • Collect 4-H event programs and souvenirs. • Provide recognition of individual member achievements. • Label and date all scrapbook entries. At End of Year • Turn in historian’s book for county level judging. NOTE: In clubs that do not elect a historian, these duties are done by the reporter. Past years’ historian books can be stored at the 4-H (http://clubs.ca4h.org/merced/resources/forms/leadership.htm)

The interpretive skills are somewhat different, and the practical skills and tasks are very different. This person doesn't as much dig up the past through research and deductive reasoning as record the events of the present for posterity, actually creating the documents and evidence that academic historians rely upon for their bread and butter. must have been yummy

Actually thinking about why I am an, albeit amateur, historian is very interesting. I think we might have some nice additions under Wikipedia commentary from the historians among us which quantify the whys and wherefores of being a historian. I'm starting to write mine already... sjc

I am not at all sure anyone wants to know what historians are like ; ) MichaelTinkler

I think the list should have been left here. It's not much of an article without it :-)

--- The separation of historian from History is not going to result in more or better information for a reader. Is carpenter sensibly removed from carpentry? Wetman 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "neutrality" bit is fishy... the idea of trying to be a neutral observer/give a neutral version of events is very much in dispute within the profession, many historians disavow it outright.

Removed cleanup tags, as I think the article is in plain English now.

However, the following discusses the academic discipline of history more than the Historian's job, and I propose it be moved to a different article (perhaps history). Avocado 00:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Since the 1960s the academic discipline has undergone multiple revolutions in which the number of areas commonly recognized as worthy of historical analysis in academia have increased enormously. Whereas previously western history had often focused on the history of great men, wars, diplomacy, large ideas/science, and politics, from the 1960s onward topics such as popular culture, mass culture, and the lives of ordinary people.

Historians have also begun to investigate histories of ideas surrounding various categories of people, such as women, racial minorities, or disabled people (for instance, a historian might study the construction of ideas about disabled people, and the results thereof, perhaps in a specific historical setting, such as Nazi Germany).

There is currently a great deal of controversy within the western academic discipline of history regarding the possibility and desirability of neutrality in historical scholarship.

Like Wetman pointed out, why should we keep the profession separate from the discipline? There's really no valid reason to keep them separate in an encyclopedia. It makes for completely arbitrary divisions of information and really doesn't help anyone find information on history as a science. Please merge and redirect the article with history.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm a historian by education, and a typesetter by trade. But it does not make me history or typesetting, respectively. --Barbatus 01:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're applying the logic of language usage to a discussion about encyclopedic articles, which is not valid. Keeping articles on individuals that are historians or typesetters is ok, but not to have an article about the profession itself. Again, the distinction between profession and discipline is one a dictionary makes. In an encyclopedia, there is no difference, unless you're making a list of historians, which this clearly isn't. There is no logical way of separating what information should go into history and what should go into historian unless you make one up, i.e. make a completely arbitrary decision. As pointed out before, this will only make it harder for people to find the information they're looking for, because encyclopedias simply don't keep articles on the entire community of individuals that deal with a certain profession.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good reason to keep professions and disciplines separate---because in many cases, to put them together would result in giant 100K+ articles. We have articles on lawyers and law, on medicine and physicians, on architects and architecture, and so on. No one has a problem with that (except user Karmosin, I suppose).

Indeed, the lawyer article became so insanely huge (because of the numerous differences in how lawyers are educated and in what they do, from one country to the next) that I suggested breaking it up into subarticles two months ago. Then someone went and did that---although not in the way I had expected. --Coolcaesar 11:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Peter: there is no separate article on Historian in, e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica (at least, in its on-line version). But it does not necessarily mean that there should be no "Historian" in Wikipedia. Though I agree, it should be short and definitive, with redirects to relevant topics (history, historiography, historians etc.), and the article in Wictionary (where one can find etymology and stuff like that). --Barbatus 12:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Caesar, if there's too much material for one article, then just split it off properly. I don't see how this would be a problem. And please avoid uncivil rhetorical jabs...

Barbarus, there's nothing in this article that wouldn't be better off in historiography or history. There's simply nothing worth mentioning about a group of professionals separate from the art/science/hobby except "XXX is a person who deals with XXX". Again, there's a reason that commercial encyclopedias don't have separate encyclopedic articles on these topics. It's not because they're hopelessly conservative, but because they know there's nothing more to add that can't be covered in more aptly named articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia commercial? --Barbatus 00:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What kind of reply is that? I'm very disheartened that you can't make an effort to discuss this issue properly.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see an issue here. If I'm not mistaken, Wiki is a popular encyclopedia of a sort (something of a difference with that of a commercial), and if someone had started an article on historian, or even a garbage collector, by all means ... I do myself enjoy terminological hair-splitting sometimes, but, really, this is not a problem. You've suggested to merge this with History: fine. If there will be no mucho disagreement, it will be done eventually. But there's no guarantee that the article in question will never be resurrected again, when you'll not be looking. I promise not to do it. Hope you're heartened again. --Barbatus 22:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Guys do you guys want to be or, are historians, but anyway Peter you are a very good writer and very smart! I'm doing a prodject in school and my friend and I both want to be historians can/will you guys give me some info. on them? Emily Staup,7:30,10 November 2005(Right Back)

I support keeping historian as an article of its own. Content that would not fit History or Historiography would do nicely here. Scoo 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a typo down the bottom about "various leels of US Government" but I can't seem to access it to correct it. 129.94.6.29 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was in one of the references, which despite appearing at the bottom of the page, are actually embedded in the text. - SimonP 11:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Yugoslavia?

While historian was used as the slang term for a secret policeman in Yugoslavia under Tito,

This is interesting, and could be included elsewhere, but I'm not sure the summary page is the best place for it. -- TheMightyQuill 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

wow...never knew it!

Fictional historians? is this really necessary?

Is it necessary to have a section on fictional historians? Especially if there are only two that can be listed? Besides, Indiana Jones is not a historian - he is an archaeologist. One profession studies primarily texts; the other studies primarily material culture. Both are concerned with reconstructing the past, but do so in different ways. While Indiana Jones did indeed look at printed and written primary sources, his many adventures out and about the world were as an archaeologist.

I meant to remove that, but forgot. Unless anyone has an urgent need to keep the redlinked reference to someone named Mical The Disiple... No? Okay, I'll remove the section. -- TheMightyQuill 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

oh okay sorry i have not been on my computer for awile...ok a very long time! Emily Staup 10:34, June 15, 2006

When can one say that somebody is a historian?

See Talk:Paul Rassinier. Apokrif 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... When can one say that somebody is a mathematician? or a doctor of medicine? —Barbatus 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

well... you can tell when they prove historical things/artifacts and such. Emily Staup 16:29, 11 March 2007

Being a(n) historian myself, I'd say having the formal education is a good start. ;o)
Of course history is kind of a tricky science in that respect, because everybody can look at historical sources whether they have the professional "tools" or not. Luckily, the same can't be said for doctors and lawyers.
Still, at least for modern historians I think having a university degree in the subject should be the formal requirement to be listed here. --dllu 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Never. They become an historian.

1) Please sign your comments.

2) What?!?

--dllu 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You NEED a PHD in history. I am currently in grad school and, like many of my fellow history students, avoid non-academic history whenever possible. For the most part, my professors forbid the use of books by non-academic historians.

Moved from page

==Controversy over preceding indefinite article==

The English word "historian" is derived from the French word historien, pronounced with a silent "h". For this reason, many people couple the indefinite article "an" (rather than "a") with "historian"; i.e., "Herodotus was an historian," rather than "Herodotus was a historian". However, since in English usage the "h" in "historian" is clearly pronounced, most writers and speakers prefer "a historian."

Make a etymology section and putthis back in when youdo. J. D. Redding 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)