Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

Add topic
Active discussions
Main pageDiscussion pageArticle
AssessmentReviewCollaborationTask ForcesOutreachMembers
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
WikiProject Announcements

WikiProject History (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject History needs you!!!!Edit

Hi everyone. I am writing to ask for any volunteers who might like to get more involved here at WikiProject History. Right now, we would like to get WikiProject History up and running again. A number of people have signed up in the past, and indicated their willingness to be involved. If you're still here, feel free to reply here. You can reply here in this section, even if it's just to say hello. If you want, you can simply let me know what you are personally working on right now. or also, if you want, you can let me know what your interests are, what topics you find interesting, what you;d like to do, or how you'd like to be involved. whatever it may be, we'd like to hear from you. we appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting and calling out. Community building can be a challenge. My view is that if a WikiProject manages to attract 3 people who post once a month, then that is the foundation for being ready for newcomer comments and engagement. All this works better if none of those three go far out of their usual routine and if they also watch for comments. I am unable to be around regularly myself, but I will be a sport and post a challenge for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, that's terrific. thanks for your reply. yes, that's totally fine. a little interaction is all we need to keep things moving along here. it is great to hear from you. whatever frequency is feasible for individuals is totally fine here. our main goal is simply to get different views over time. your note is very helpful. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a while, and it's nice to see a little activity around here – it has been seeming a little moribund lately. I agree with Blue Raspberry – you don't need that many posts for a project to reach a critical mass of activity where people start looking at it regularly. Take WP:CGR – there are only about 5 new discussions posted on the talk page per month, but while a few of those are notices of discussions elsewhere, most of them do actually lead to discussion on the talk page itself. And if you hang about there, you will notice the same names coming up again and again in discussions. I suspect the same is true of other active wikiprojects – there are a few regular contributors who keep discussions going, which makes anyone else who looks in feel as though it's worth watching the page. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto those are great points. I appreciate your ideas and input here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see the initiative and jumping in to say that this talk page is now on my watchlist too. I do not have much experience with article assessment or other WikiProject-specific tasks, but history is one of my areas of interest, and I do work on a lot of history-related articles, so it's good to know that this space can possibly be used as a resource/sounding board for related questions when/if they come up.--MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been lurking around here for a bit now. I have some older accounts that apparently weren't linked to my email, hence why my account says it was created today. I would personally love to contribute, but I frankly have no idea where to start. Any pointers would be appreciated! If it helps, I am most interested in the period from roughly 1800 onward. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Developing a canon of culture to translateEdit

In a few months there will be an LGBT+ Wiki conference as described at meta:Queering Wikipedia. This will be the first global gathering of LGBT+ Wikipedia editors to develop LGBT+ content.

Telling the story of the history of the LGBT+ movement is a challenge. We have cultural diversity, as every culture has an LGBT+ history with events. We also have many time periods to cover, as over the centuries, some cultures had more or less activity with records to mention. There is no canon of most popular or recommended events or topics in LGBT+ global history.

As with all Wikipedia development projects we have limited volunteer labor. There are thousands of English language topics, but if the goal is to promote global education and culture, then we should focus on a subset of these articles and stage that subset for translation. I guessed that 100 articles would be a good number, and documented this concept at meta:Wiki99.

Here is my question for WikiProject History: suppose that a group wants to promote global multilingual education in a field, and that group decides to develop about 100 Wikipedia articles in that field for translation and cultural exchange. How should we determine the weight of how many of those articles should be from one country, and from what time period?

Some cases where people have asked about this are religion, architecture, science, women's history, medicine, and other similar broad fields which have their own regional and global culture and history. Any brief thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I am wary of efforts like this and WiR because it starts with a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS premise. The meta page you linked lists people of other ideologies as "barriers" which seems needlessly hostile and would otherwise be considered a personal attack. That said, I think that the content developed should be driven by available source material, not arbitrary quotas. While English-language articles can be translated with their English-language citations to other wikis, compliance with WP:V as it exists in other wikis is best accomplished locally with source material from those languages. I would hope translators would be searching for those en-wp articles that are also supported in the target language's literature thereby enabling editors in other languages to discover sources they can read directly rather than reply upon machine translation. There's also a neo-Colonial edge to the project which I find problematic. Shouldn't we let the foreign-language readership determine which articles they desire rather than have articles chosen by first-world editors? I would start in the target-language wikis looking for requested articles and preponderant red links. Our biases as editors shouldn't determine what happens outside our home wiki under the guise of "diversity." Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: If there is hostility then it is an error and either you or anyone else could remove it. I am not immediately sure what seems negative here.
Wikipedia does not have a philosophy or culture of translation right now. I am not aware of any systematic effort to choose what to translate or how to pass content around.
My objective in encouraging a little translation is to encourage yet more editing and cultural exchange. When there is little content on a subject in any language Wikipedia, then few people want to start engaging. After there is a little information, even if it is low quality, then more people will engage to make that better.
Of course English language Wikipedia is dominant and I do not want that forever. However, Wikipedia is having its 19th birthday this week and still we have major content gaps in many languages with no plan to fix that. Somehow in some way we should plan to get more content into more languages and improve cultural exchange. I am not sure what that looks like, but curating a little content for translation seems like a safe enough low-labor, low-cost initiative for some people to try.
If you have an idea to do things differently then suggest an alternative. Any other options are helpful. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to side-step the LGBTQ topic, & address the more general issue: where should we encourage article development between Wikipedias of different languages? My answer is that we should encourage articles in a given Wikipedia to give preference to sources in its native language. That is, German Wikipedia articles should prefer sources in German, Russian Wikipedia articles in Russian, etc. I base my answer on finding far too often that instead of researching a given topic -- which means the author will look at materials in their own native language -- the equivalent English Wikipedia article is translated without concern about its quality. I first noticed this problem several years ago when I was working on articles about the Empire of Trebizond, where the most recent work has been published in Modern Greek & Russian. When I looked at the corresponding articles in those languages -- hoping to save myself some time finding & translating sources -- I was surprised to find these articles were translations of the en.wikipedia articles, which at the time was based on a book written in 1926! (Even more depressing was the fact that when I looked at corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias, every one was a translation of the same en.wikipedia article, with little attempt to expand on the material!)

I don't know if this answers your question, Bluerasberry, but I feel if speakers of non-English languages were a little more chauvinistic about their mother tongues, Wikipedia as a whole would be stronger in every topic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki99 for world historyEdit

I gave a go at compiling ~99 articles as an attempt at a canon of world history.

Suppose that we imagine a class of educated people who receive a bachelor's degree or equivalent from a university and who have some liberal arts training. This class of people intends to participate in the globalized workforce, with many individuals having a career which includes international collaboration with at least one foreign culture and the collective cohort including individuals who collaborate with every major culture on earth. What 100 topics are useful for such people to know globally? Are there topics which we should expect 95%+ of all such people to know?

For example, can a person be university educated, and traveling around the world doing business or work projects, and participate fully in society if they are completely ignorant that certain classical civilizations ever existed, or that there was a time of colonization, and an age of slavery, and international relations through history? In compiling this list, I attempted to choose topics which both are part of multiple cultures' histories, and which represent most people on earth the most often, and which track the chain of progress through history.

It is not easy to compile lists of this sort and I am sure many people could criticize it. If anyone has criticism, then I would especially like feedback on who has also compiled such a list, if anyone can identify any such similar project for global translation of a canon, and how anyone balanced the representation of the list.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

note re wiki itemEdit

hey @Bluerasberry:, @Llywrch:, here's a little template that I made up. do you like this? this is my first time at playing around with templates. just thought it'd be nice to work on. feel free to let me know what you think. maybe this might be helpful occasionally, now and then. thanks!!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Talking about principles like this is not usually a part of WikiProject discussion, but if you have interest in this, and you can rally WikiProject contributors to engage with such things, then we are in a strange and appropriate time right now to seek community comment.

Regarding what you wrote, all of this is still part of Wikipedia best practices and I still agree with all of it. These are all great things to say and can inspire people. These are the best we have now, and I am not sure what comes next, but it happens that in a few days there will be a major publication recommending Wikimedia Movement best practices and changes.

If you are interested in strategy and statements of purpose, then I encourage you to watch meta:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations from 20 January 2020 and to comment on it within 5 weeks. This strategy discussion has been in process for 4 years and this is the last phase for comment before the next phase of the process, which is implementation of the recommendations. Many people are anxious about this short comment period, which came to be because of past delays and already planned future deadlines which should not move. If you find an angle in the strategic planning to advocate for the interests of the many history WikiProjects in many languages, then please speak out in comment on the meta page after 20 January and encourage others to do the same.

This is part of a transition. Jimbo had some guiding ideas in the beginning but he has regularly divested responsibility and advocated for more Wikimedia community leadership and control over the movement. If WikiProject history found it meaningful to do so, as a community you could set your own goals and principles, perhaps in the context of these recommendations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Anent Wikimedia Movement strategy/best practices: my concern all along has not been about the basic principles or guiding ideals, but about the proposals of how to apply them. I suspect some are using the current exercise to fashion iron rice bowls for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
hi folks. thanks for your replies here. Bluerasberry, that is really fascinating to know. I will take a look at that page. thanks!!
Llywrch, you make some valid points as well. it is totally valid to think about and to wonder where this will take us. i suggest we all try to look at this, and see what we can glean from there, and also what we can offer or discuss.
this is an interesting topic. i had totally known about this before. now I'm doubly glad that I posted that template above, just as food for thought. thanks for the great info, again, Bluerasberry! I will take a look there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Michael E Nolan take a look at the replies above, especially the comment from Bluerasberry about the discussions currently in process, interesting, isn't it?
everyone, I initially posted this template on my own talk-page, then tagged Michael E Nolan to give him a little look-see at this. we both liked it, but we weren't really sure where we could use it. glad that this could lead unexpectedly to some new and interesting topics! thanks for your replies here. let's keep the discussions going. maybe over a nice cup of coffee, too!   thanks!   --Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New member introductionsEdit

  Bumping thread for 3560 days. Keeping this section here, as a general resource for new member intros and comments. thanks! .Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add your introductory comments belowEdit

  • Hi I’m interested in history of all places and periods. The areas I’m most keen to work in are Middle Eastern history and European colonial history. I’m very interested in China and Japan and can help tidy up articles about them, but can’t read Chinese or Japanese sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi there, I'm most interested in New Zealand history, however, I also have a general interest in French and premodern history. --Violetnights (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Skateboarding Digital History ProjectEdit

The Skateboarding Digital History Project (SBDHP), founded in 2018 by wil540, is a research and publishing initiative promoting the digitization of skateboarding history. The goal of the SBDHP is to create and promote the creation of accessible skateboard history online. The project currently focuses on writing wikipedia articles for notable skateboarders and skateboard related items; as well as, leading skateboarding themed edit-a-thons. In October 2019, the Skateboarding Digital History Project and Wikipedia for Educators at Fordham hosted its first edit-a-thon, a Latinx-American Skateboarding themed edit-a-thon, that took place in the Bronx, New York. Articles for Jaime Reyes & Ben Sanchez were written at this edit-a-thon.

Goals for the future

  1. The SBDHP plans to host more edit-a-thons in 2020.
  2. The SBDHP plans to continue publishing and facilitating donations of skateboard photography to Wikimedia Commons.
  3. The SBDHP dreams to translate articles about skateboarding/skateboarders to other languages.

Please reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions on the talk page or you can email us at:

Follow the SBDHP on instagram at:

Spice TradeEdit

I've been considering making some updates to the article on the Spice Trade. I was wondering if its assessment as a B-class article is still correct, and if anyone would have some general pointers for me. Cheers, --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

First things I notice are that the lead is super long relative to the body, and the article doesn't really discuss the spice trade after about 1600, which seems like a major omission. No mention of the East India Company? No discussion of the modern spice trade? There are also a few relevant cleanup tags, and the prose could do with a thorough copyedit. It's not the worst article, but there's plenty to improve! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Guess it's a good thing that most of my knowledge regarding the spice trade is related to the East India Company. I'll get to work on a section for that sometime soon. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Just want to say, it is terrific to see this interesting topic and this joint editing effort being discussed here. please feel free to keep us posted!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I am happy to report that i’ve finally picked up the work, and am currently assessing and reevaluating the article as it stands now. I just posted an edit marking all the pieces of text requiring citations with the proper markers, and will hopefully be rewriting the lead soon as i don’t think it’s up to standard. I’ll be sure to keep you all up to date! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with author pageEdit

Hi all - I got my first page declined (Draft:Harrison Christian) due to a lack of secondary sources. I've now added five secondary sources about the subject and am wondering if that's enough. Any help appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenechu (talkcontribs) 19:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Darlenechu if you add two square brackets on each side of the name of a wikipedia page it creates a link to that page (e.g. [[Draft:Harrison Christian]] creates Draft:Harrison Christian). A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
A._C._Santacruz Thank you! User talk:Darlenechu

Standardization of US Presidency timelinesEdit

The formatting of the US presidency timelines is inconsistent. Some of the lists are all on a single page (Harding), some are split by year (Obama), and Trump and Biden are split by quarter. The latter two are also using a table format where every single day has its own row. It's clear that the lists get more and more granular as they get more recent in a dramatic example of WP:RECENTISM. Has there been any discussion of standardizing this series of articles? If not, how would such a process take place? I was thinking about creating some for the presidents that don't have them, but it looks like this whole series needs work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks, but actually, this is precisely where different approaches might be beneficial, based on the evolution of the approach to capturing history, and encompassing historical detail and information, as it occurs. we have a task force here for Contemporary History, which views this as its own notable area of history.
the use of different approaches, whether based on recent eras or some other basis, will actually help Wikipedia to capture a broader amount of facts and information, for use in later article research, and also to expand our usefulness as an encyclopedic resource, on these topics. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
also, since this is one of the new types of contemporary history articles that I did not originate, I would be fully inclined to let that type of quarterly article stand. you are correct to say that it seems increasingly "granular." however since it did emerge on its own, from the general editing community, it seems valid to continue in that form. and basically, going forward, one of the best things Wikipedia can do is to serve more and more as a respository for information on current history, as it is happening.
there are basically no drawbacks to doing so; since we do already have articles for every major sitcom, every major video game, every movie, every commerical musical recording, etc etc..... prodividng individual articles for time periods within a presidency, seems fine, based on the wide scope that is utilized in order to include articles on many, many diverse topics here.
by the way, @Thebiguglyalien:, I do appreciate your comments on this topics, and your actions in opening this area for discussion here on this page. I wellcome any other input you may have. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Since I made that initial post, I reworked the Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency by searching through newspaper records in the Library of Congress. I came up with hundreds of entries, and now most of them link to a contemporary paper in the LoC archive. I just want a second opinion, do you think this is a good strategy to build up a timeline like this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

cleanup of the members listEdit

I've implemented User:Yapperbot/Pruner/use on Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants as editors will start and stop. Generally, I'm against having a members list, at all, but this way we won't have an out-dated list. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I think that sounds fine. I appreciate you letting all of us here know about that. what would be some of the general parameters and criteria that you will use in doing this cleanup? I am open to any approach at all on this; I simply would like to clarify. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sm8900: The bot runs every Monday and is currently set to remove editors who haven't edited for six months, as well as indefinitely blocked editors. Last Monday it cleaned up 136 inactive editors and another 18 blocked editors, while also correcting 17 editors who had since renamed themselves. The bot also delivered notices to those inactive editors should they return to editing and want to re-add themselves. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
that sounds great. thanks for your help with that. great work! Sm8900 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Faxian's quote on vegetarianism in ancient IndiaEdit

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the relevance of Faxian's quote on vegetarianism in ancient India. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone up for summarising Ukraine?Edit

As discussed here the history section of Ukraine needs to be shortened, which is obviously a tough job so I did not volunteer. Maybe you? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1:, I appreciate your note and your heads-up. currently, I am getting more involved with the main article for the 2022 invasion; so I can try to take a look at the history section in the entry for Ukraine at some point, as well. anyone else here is welcome to do so, as well. also, please feel free to use this section to discuss further efforts and editing in this area, if you wish. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine#History is 75% the length of History of Ukraine, so I suspect there's a lot of material that could be shifted to more appropriate articles. CMD (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Continental AssociationEdit

There is a Request for Comments active at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States on whether signers of the Continental Association should be considered Founding Fathers. Participation in the RFC is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Invite to join task force WP:CONTEMPORARYEdit

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

New stub Everything's Gonna Be All White createdEdit

I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 19:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupationEdit

There is a dispute over whether this article violates NPOV, and whether it reflects the mainstream scholarly opinion. It could use more attention by editors with experience editing historical articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


There is currently a discussion at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon, over whether the article in question should be in the category Pseudohistory, that may be of interest to watchers of this page. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan has an RFCEdit


Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Some new resources for current historyEdit

Hi. I have begun to set up some new resources for covering current history. I have set up a new category tree for Category:Decade overviews. Additonally, I have modified some sections of two entries for contemporary history, to add some general sections that will be structured chronologically. you can view these articles at 2020s in political history, and 2020s in United States political history. I hope to build upon these, as time goes on. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Historicity of the Book of MormonEdit

There is a RfC at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon § RfC on category inclusion/exclusion as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon should to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. ––FormalDude talk 06:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New idea for history task force that would include multiple history-related WikiProjectsEdit

Hi. I am the Lead Coordinator here at WP:HIST. I would like to form a task force for "Best Practices in History", which would be a task force to include and to benefit multiple WikiProjects that relate to history topics specifically. any interest? I'd like to get this off the ground if possible. please let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)