Talk:Rural history

Reading list format

I've made some additions to the article and plan to make a few more in near future, but I thought it might be worth opening a discussion here about the article's extensive reading list section. I'm a big fan of adding "Futher Reading" to articles but, to me, the current list seems excessive. What worries me is that the list does not ENTIRELY reflect the seminal works from the field but a collection of books that have "Rural" and "history" in the titles. As such, there is a real risk of falling foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as the guidance for Further Reading sections. I'm no expert in the field, but can people decide what books MUST be included and what should not? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that Margaret Spufford isn't mentioned, or The Agrarian History of England and Wales. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

the primary sources are important for the tens of millions of students who use Wikipedia--in history classes they often have to write papers based on original sources, and the ones listed are very good--I use them a lot. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)