Historian

===Among historians===
====Ancient historians====
In the 19th century scholars used to study ancient Greek and Roman historians to see how generally reliable they were. In recent decades, however, scholars have focused more on the constructions, genres, and meanings that ancient historians sought to convey to their audiences.<ref name="Marincola">{{cite journal |last1=Marincola |first1=John  |title=Introduction |journal=A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |date=September 2007 |pages=xvii-xix, xxiii}}</ref> History is always written with contemporary concerns and ancient historians wrote their histories in response to the needs of their times.<ref name="Marincola" /> Out of thousands of Greek and Roman historians, only the tiniest fraction's works survive and it is out of this small pool that ancient historians and ancient historiography are analyzed today.<ref name="Marincola" /> Historians of the ancient world have to deal with diverse types of evidence, which are debated more today than in the 19th century due to innovations in the field.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Finley |first1=M.I. |title=Ancient History: Evidence and Models |date=2008 |publisher=ACLS History |isbn=978-1597405348 |page=7|quote=I believe the nature and uses of the evidence about antiquity are being debated more widely and determinedly today than at any time since...the early nineteenth century. Partly this is a consequence of the exponential increase in the quantity of available archaeological information and in the quantity of publications generally in ancient studies, and partly it reflects new approaches to the study of history, new interests and the formulation of new questions.}}</ref>

Ancient historians were very different from modern historians in terms of goals, documentation, sources, and methods.<ref name="Nicolai">{{cite journal |last1=Nicolai |first1=Roberto |title=The Place of History in the Ancient World |journal=A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |date=September 2007 |pages=3–5, 7|doi=10.1002/9781405185110.ch1|isbn=978-1-4051-0216-2 }}</ref> For instance, chronological systems were not widely used, their sources were often absorbed (traceability of such sources usually disappeared), and the goal of an ancient work was often to create political or military paradigms. It was only after the emergence of Christianity that philosophies of history grew in prominence due to the destiny of man from the Christian account.<ref name="Nicolai" /> Epics such as [[Homer]]'s works were used by historians and considered history even by [[Thucydides]].<ref name="Nicolai" />

====Modern historians====
In the 19th-century historical studies became professionalized at universities and research centers along with a belief that history was a type of science.<ref name="iggers">Georg G. Iggers, ''Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge'', 1-4. {{ISBN|978-0819567666}}</ref> However, in the 20th century historians incorporated social science dimensions like politics, economy, and culture in their historiography, including postmodernism.<ref name="iggers" /> Since the 1980s there has been a special interest in the memories and commemoration of past events.<ref>David Glassberg, "Public history and the study of memory." ''The Public Historian'' 18.2 (1996): 7–23 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3377910 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200213101636/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3377910 |date=2020-02-13 }}.</ref>

History by its nature is prone to continuous debate, and historians tend to be divided.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gilderhus |first1=Mark |title=History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction |date=2009 |publisher=Pearson |isbn=9780205687534 |page=81 |quote=Even so, what critics might regard as disorder and disarray, historians would view as a sign of intellectual vitality. The body of literature on almost any historical subject takes the form of an ongoing debate.... After all, historians traditionally have investigated all sorts of human matters charged by passion and emotion. By the very nature of the subject, history tends to divide scholars and set them at odds.}}</ref> There is no past that is commonly agreed upon, since there are competing histories (e.g., of elites, non-elites, men, women, races, etc.).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gilderhus |first1=Mark |title=History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction |date=2009 |publisher=Pearson |isbn=9780205687534 |page=107 |quote=We no longer possess a past commonly agreed upon.  Indeed, we have a multiplicity of versions competing for attention and emphasizing alternatively elites and nonelites, men and women, whites and persons of color, and no good way of reconciling all the differences.}}</ref> It is widely accepted that "strict objectivity is epistemologically unattainable for historians".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Førland |first1=Tor Egil |title=Values, Objectivity, and Explanation in Historiography |date=2017 |page=87|publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9781315470979 |quote=It is widely accepted that strict objectivity is epistemologically unattainable for historians, no matter how conscientious they are. I shall not contest this basic philosophical tenet, the implication of which is that all historiography is to some extent political in a wide sense of the term, taken to include (moral) values and worldviews.}}</ref> Historians rarely articulate their conception of objectivity or discuss it in detail.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Novick |first1=Peter |title=That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession |date=1990 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780521357456 |page=11}}</ref> And like in other professions, historians rarely analyze themselves or their activity.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Finley |first1=M.I. |title=Ancient History: Evidence and Models |date=2008 |publisher=ACLS History |isbn=978-1597405348 |pages=1–2}}</ref> In practice, "specific canons of historical proof are neither widely observed nor generally agreed upon" among professional historians.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fischer |first1=David Hackett |title=Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought |date=1970 |publisher=Harper Perennial |location=New York |isbn=9780061315459 |page=62}}</ref> Though objectivity is often seen as the goal of those who work on history, in practice there is no convergence on anything in particular.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Novick |first1=Peter |title=That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession |date=1990 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780521357456 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/That_Noble_Dream/b42WRrk0-rEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA628 |page=628|quote=As a broad community of discourse, as a community of scholars united by common aims, common standards, and common purposes, the discipline of history had ceased to exist. Convergence on anything, let alone a subject as highly charged as "the objectivity question," was out of the question. The profession was as described in the last verse of the Book of Judges. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." How long "those days" will continue is anyone's guess.}}</ref> Historical scholarship is never value free since historian's writings are impacted by the frameworks of their times.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iggers |first1=Georg G. |title=Historiography in the Twentieth Century |journal=History and Theory |date=October 2005 |volume=44 |issue=3 |page=475 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00337.x|quote= Historical scholarship is never value-free and historians not  only  hold  political  ideas  that  color  their  writing,  but  also  work  within the framework of institutions that affect the ways in which they write history.}}</ref> Some scholars of history have observed that there are no particular standards for historical fields such as religion, art, science, democracy, and social justice as these are by their nature 'essentially contested' fields, such that they require diverse tools particular to each field beforehand in order to interpret topics from those fields.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McCullagh |first1=C. Behan |title=Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation |journal=History and Theory |date=2000 |volume=39 |issue=1 |page=47|jstor=2677997 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2677997 |issn=0018-2656 |quote=W. B. Gallie argued that some concepts in history are "essentially contested," namely "religion," "art," "science," "democracy," and "social justice." These are concepts for which "there is no one use of any of them which can be set up as its generally accepted and therefore correct or standard use. When historians write the history of these subjects, they must choose an interpretation of the subject to guide them. For instance, in deciding what Art is, historians can choose between "configurationist theories, theories of aesthetic contemplation and response .. ., theories of art as expression, theories emphasizing traditional artistic aims and standards, and communication theories.}}</ref>

There are three commonly held reasons why avoiding bias is not seen as possible in historical practice: a historian's interest inevitably influences their judgement (what information to use and omit, how to present the information, etc); the sources used by historians for their history all have bias, and historians are products of their culture, concepts, and beliefs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McCullagh |first1=C. Behan |title=Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation |journal=History and Theory |date=2000 |volume=39 |issue=1 |page=52 |jstor=2677997 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2677997 |issn=0018-2656 |quote=Clearly bias in history should be avoided. But can it be? Can a historian's social responsibility of providing fair descriptions, interpretations, and explanations of social events be fulfilled? There are three commonly held reasons for denying the possibility of avoiding bias in history. The first is that historians' interests will inevitably influence their judgment in deciding how to conceive of a historical subject, in deciding what information to select for inclusion in their history of it, and in choosing words with which to present it. The second is the belief that, just as a historian's account of the past is inevitably biased, so too are the reports of events by contemporaries upon which historians rely. Some think there is no objective information about historical events which historians can use to describe them. The third is that, even if historians' individual biases can be corrected, and even if facts about the past can be known, historians are still products of their culture, of its language, concepts, beliefs, and attitudes, so that the possibility of an impartial, fair description of past events still remains unattainable.}}</ref> Racial and cultural biases can play major roles in national histories, which often ignore or downplay the roles on other groups.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Forbes |first1=Jack D. |title=The Historian and the Indian: Racial Bias in American History |journal=The Americas |date=April 1963 |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=349–362 |doi=10.2307/979504 |jstor=979504 |language=en}}</ref> Gender biases as well.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Armitage |first1=Sue |title=Are We There Yet?: Some Thoughts on the Current State of Western Women's History |journal=Montana: The Magazine of Western History |date=2009 |volume=59 |issue=3 |pages=70–96 |jstor=40543655 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40543655 |issn=0026-9891}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Coughlin |first1=Mimi |title=Women and History: Outside the Academy |journal=The History Teacher |date=2007 |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=471–479 |jstor=30037044 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30037044 |issn=0018-2745}}</ref> Moral or worldview evaluations by historians are also seen partly inevitable, causing complications for historians and their historical writings.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vann |first1=Richard T. |title=Historians and Moral Evaluations |journal=History and Theory |date=2004 |volume=43 |issue=4 |page=26 |jstor=3590633 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3590633 |issn=0018-2656 |quote=My analysis has already, I hope, established that there is an irreducible element of moral evaluation in historiography. It can be found in teaching, in all preparations for research, and finally in the finished text. It is complex, because it involves both appraisals of other historians, by standards that are generally agreed upon, yet inevitably also of the historical agents about whom they written, by standards that are eminently contestable.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gregory |first1=Brad S. |title=The Other Confessional History: On Secular Bias in the Study of Religion |journal=History and Theory |date=2006 |volume=45 |issue=4 |pages=132–149 |issn=0018-2656}}</ref> One way to deal with this is for historians to state their biases explicitly for their readers.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Williams |first1=Robert C. |title=The Historian's Toolbox: A Student's Guide to the Theory and Craft of History |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781138632172 |page=29 |edition=Fourth}}</ref> In the modern era, newspapers (which have a bias of their own) impacts historical accounts made by historians.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Muir |first1=Edward |title=Journalists and Historians |url=https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/april-2023/journalists-and-historians |website=Perspectives on History |publisher=American Historical Association |date=March 14, 2023}}</ref> Wikipedia also contributes to difficulties for historians.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bergen |first1=Sadie |title=Linking In: How Historians Are Fighting Wikipedia's Biases |url=https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/september-2016/linking-in-how-historians-are-fighting-wikipedias-biases |website=Perspectives on History |publisher=American Historical Association |date= September 1, 2016}}</ref>