This 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!
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)
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)
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.
Hi everyone. The goal of this project is to serve as an active resource, where other editors can seek help or get questions answered, or get help with any topical efforts they may be working on. and also, at some point, we will try to resume various basic wikiproject tasks such as article assessment, working on group projects, etc etc
to that end, we may create some sort of list here of active volunteers, or editors, or just anyone who can occasionally take a little time to answer questions, help with various tasks and efforts, etc etc
we do have a list of members already, which includes several hundred names. however, right now we need to do more to identify who is actually still here and still able to occasionally be involved with various things that may come up.
you are welcome to add any comments, or to write any time for any reason. Please feel free to add any comments or replies. we appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sm8900, I'm keen to participate in history of anatomy type articles. Also having been involved in something similar for WikiProject Anatomy I do also have some advice for you which I will leave on your talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Tom (LT), that sounds really good. I have read your ideas at my talk page, and hope to give them some thought, and discuss in the future. I'm really glad that you wrote. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Tom (LT), just writing again, re your ideas above. would you like to start your own task force here, based on your ideas and topics stated above? if so, please let me know. we can get one set up for you, on our main page. we will be glad to help with this. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Great to see your enthusiasm, but please no task force for me. I am looking to collaborate so happy if someone else is interested to collaborate. As I mentioned on that post in your talk page there is no point in all this infrastructure if nobody is doing any editing. If 10 active anatomical history editors pop up out of the woodwork then I will be certain to move that discussion to a task force subpage. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Tom (LT), okay thanks for your ideas. However, I can recruit some anatomists to come here and to help out, if to comes to that. can you please give me a better idea of what you have in mind? what do you consider to be the topic of "history of anatomy" i.e. what historical topics and events do you picture focussing on? Please feel free to let me know. thanks!!--Sm8900 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have updated this page to reflect that this WikiProject is not fully active. I have added data to highlight the automated features and resources on this page that are fully available to provide information; for example, "Article Alerts" remain here as an automated feature, and are highly useful to anyone visiting this page.
I will be glad to assist anyone here in any way. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to write any time. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: Use whatever title you want. I think you are being overly modest, and I would support you using any title which you think helps newcomers find their way in these articles.
At quarry's query on most active WikiProjects anyone can see which English Wikipedia WikiProjects have the most engagement. Almost none of these projects have a strong hierarchy or place any obligation on anyone to do any of that organization or labor commitment in the task list you just made. Honestly, I would rather have a friendly space and a few people here to answer questions more than I would want any individual dedicating lots of time, because to me, a WikiProject is more about being able to rely on quick responses from a community than it is having someone offer scheduled tasks.
If you decide to take on a portfolio of responsibility, I suggest neglecting every commitment except being there to support others. If a project fails to respond on its talk page then it can build no community. If everything else is progressing but the talk page is not a community space, then the project will not grow. For this reason, I recommend that chief organizers have no time commitments other than being a friendly and welcoming host, then delegate anything else to new members when that community base for casual conversation is solid. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:, thank you!! bless your heart. it is always nice to be appreciated. I truly appreciate your very encouraging, uplifting, and positive note to me. I will give your ideas some thought. it is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you, and with everyone else here. I do appreciate the ideas and input in your note, and from everyone else here as well. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:, okay, now I think I may have this page somewhat fully revised, formatted and tightened up, organizationally, format-wise, and otherwise. feel free to take a look. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:, okay, I agree with your point above. I have consolidated the roles again. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us) should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full consultation with the community consensus.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.
Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. We must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way.
@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)
Hi all. I have just seen a post at the Teahouse regarding this project being revitalised (not really the right venue to promote stuff, but never mind). Although I am unlikely to participate in this Project myself, I am involved in a couple of other very small Projects, and might offer you some feedback as you get to grips with running it.
First off, the Project page is overly detailed and rather offputting. I might suggest trimming it down, and collapsing sections such as the Members list. I was surprised the article quality assessment table wasn't visible on the main Project page until I got right to the bottom - this is one of the key elements that can motivate people, either by finding unassessed articles, working on important articles, or improving stubs. It's also a way to encourage editors to Add the WikiProject template to talk pages.
I recently added a WP:Hot articles chart to a couple of Projects, and I find this a very good way to visibly highlight which articles are currently being edited (or vandalised) the most. Put this right up at the top of the page, and it brightens up the inevitable walls of text with something really useful and eye catching. Finally, I suggest someone goes through the 'Articles for Improvement' section and updates the entries. Quite a few pages listed as Stubs have since been reassessed. e.g. History of East Asia (C-class). For anyone interested in that side of the Project, the tool WP:RATER is very quick and easy to install and use. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
these are good ideas, Nick Moyes. thanks for posting these here. i am going to look over the suggestions you made, and then look at ways to implement them and improve this page. I appreciate your ideas. glad that the notice at that page was able to bring you here. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes re your idea to collapse the Members section, this is now done. Done. good idea! will keep you posted on other edits, as we make them here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, re your idea to add WP:Hot articles, this is now basically Done done, as I have submitted a request at the talk page there. I will keep you posted on this item as well. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. We are inaugurating a new role for Task Forces. We will be providing Task Forces for all topical areas of interest that editors might wish to work on. If you are a new member, or if you have been here for a while, this is your chance to let us know what you might like to work on, and also to help others with similar interests to find new areas to work together.
Below are the new task forces that have been set up here. In addition, I am also including some ideas we have for new task forces that have not been formally set up on the WikiProject page, but which anyone is free to set up any time. and if you don't see your favorite area of interest shown here, then feel free to add it as a new task force.
We hope that everyone finds this helpful. We welcome everyone's participation, input and activity here. Please feel free to any input, ideas, or information, that you may wish. Thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
IDEAS for Task Forces; not listed on main page, pending expressions of editor interest:
Mercantile or commercial history
History of science
History of inventions
History of Asia
History of Europe
By issue, or political movement, or agenda:
History of political activism
History of women's rights
History of civil rights
By major historical event
History of the Napoleonic Era
History of the French Revolution
History of the Industrial Revolution
By field of thought, or intellectual and political movements
History of philosophy
History of science
History of communism
feel free to add any others. this is your canvas, and history is our art form. let's work together, to build up group's topics and ideas here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m interested in the following: Industrial history, History of science, History of the French Revolution, History of the Industrial Revolution, History of science, History of communism. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Bumping threadfor 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)
Note from Coordinator:
Welcome, to all new members!!
If you are a new member here, then we would like to hear from you!! I see we have some new members who have just joined our WikiProject. to all new members, welcome!!!
We would like to invite you to please post an initial message. If you wish, please indicate which topical areas you wish to work on, or which areas of history you are most interested in, or simply to say hello. We welcome any input or ideas. please feel free to write any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Note from Lead Coordinator: Co-pilots needed!!!Edit
Hi everyone. to all our new members, all our existing members, and anyone else, welcome!!!
I am writing to let you know, we need some more folks in the cockpit for this WikiProject. (or, if you prefer, the wheelhouse, the bridge, the command center, the CIC, Mission Control, or any metaphor that you may wish)!! So if you came here to get involved, or to be active, or just because of your general interests, then this is your lucky day!! feel free to write back; if you want, we will willingly add anyone who replies here, to our main page, in any role, any position, or any project group, that you may wish.
We appreciate your help, and we thank you for being here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm Iazyges. I mostly edit in the realm of Military History and have served as a coordinator on the WP:MILHIST project since 2016. User:Sm8900 has made me aware of his attempts to revive this wiki project, with one project being the integration of coordinator roles, seemingly similar to that of MILHIST. While MILHIST has an election structure set up, that's not exactly plausible to set up on a semi-active project. I would like to take up a position as a coordinator on this project unless there is opposition to such. Thank you. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Sounds fine to me. yes, I suggested to User:Iazyges that they join this WikiProject as a Coordinator. They have a wealth of experience, knowledge, and skills in editing historical articles, which will enable them to play a useful and valuable role in making this WikiProject more of a general resource and more of an active group center, for the whole community. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* Approved. Okay, the period for discussion of this proposal has now elapsed. We will be adding Iazyges as a coordinator for WP:History. Congratulations!! and we are glad to have you here at the project. to all members here, you are welcome to address any comments or questions that you may have to our new coordinator. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
update on project; new coordinator, and some ideas for projectEdit
Hi everyone. Today, we are pleased to announce an editor who will be joining as a new coordinator for this WikiProject. User:Iazyges has extensive experience in topics relating to ancient history, particularly various leaders of ancient Rome. they have extensive experience with assessing articles, reviewing them, improving them, and bringing them up to GA or FA status. they will fulfil a valuable need here at this WikiProject.
I am amazed by the erudition and detail of the articles here on these areas, and I am glad that Wikipedia has editors who are able to address this important area. so we are glad to have Iazyges here, to help us increase our understanding and broaden our approach to earlier areas of history.
I have some ideas on how this project can proceed. This WikiProject is not necessarily needed to handle every historical era or topic in detail; for that, there are multiple existing history-related WikiProjects for specific topics, eras, countries, continents, cultures, etc; in the aggregate, all of these WikiProjects together already handle all of the subtopics within the broad field of history.
However, what if this WikiProject could serve as an introduction, for any editors who wish to edit in specialized areas of history, but are not sure of the ways to do so? for those editors, we can play a valuable role, in providing useful basic information on some of the methods needed to edit these topical areas. to that end, we hope to set up a few resources, tutorials, FAQs, etc etc, in the near future, to be of some help to editors who wish to learn more about the basic process for editing advanced historical topics.
User:Iazyges has broad experience as a coordinator at WP:Milhist. they have a broad knowledge and experience that will be helpful. and also, they have real experience with editing and reviewing multiple articles for ancient history topics. based on that, I have already added them as the initial member for two of our renewed Working Groups; i.e., for Article Assessment and for Article Review.
I hope everyone will find this wikiproject helpful as a resource. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, comments, or ideas, that you may have. I look forward to discussions here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900 and Iazyges: Thanks Sm8900 and Iazyges for your efforts to organize this. You both are experienced enough to know the challenges in front of you, which is that lots of people care about history but that this WikiProject is so general that many regular editors prefer to find some smaller more specific place to post for collaboration. I agree, this project could be a hub for pulling out experienced people from elsewhere to support newer users or anyone who wants an orientation. Best wishes Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. this is your friendly neighborhood WikiProject Lead Coordinator. I have an idea. upon looking up and down this talk page, I see a number of inquiries, notices, requests for input, etc etc, with no replies. Okay, I have an idea.
I would like to request, that anyone who posts an inquiry here, should post at least one reply to at least one of the inquiries above.
that way, we can promote and foster the kind of dialogue that can make this a real and useful resources.
Please note, I do not claim to have universal expertise or experience with all fields of history. for that reason, i have recruited two highly-experienced editors to help out here. one is User:Iazyges, who joined us some time ago. the other is User:Gog the Mild who has just come aboard. Welcome, User:Gog the Mild! both of them have extensive experience with many core processes, where my own experience is somewhat limited in scope. so their presence can help to enrich and expand the dialogue and reach of our wikiproject.
I appreciate all who visit here to lend their thoughts, notices, and questions. Together, we can build this into a resource which will be genuinely useful to our community. I look forward to hearing all of your ideas and input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Some of the articles on Vietnamese history have been recently re-organized by Laska666: each dynasty article was changed to be about the family, rather than as if it was a state (e.g. Lê dynastybefore and after); the "country" article was then shifted to the name Đại Việt (before and after).
This change deviates from how the articles for other East Asian dynastic countries are organized, such as China (e.g. Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty) and Korea (e.g. Goguryeo, Goryeo, Joseon), where the ruling family and legal frameworks both change. On the other hand, it is more consistent with how European dynasties are organized (e.g. Kingdom of England and House of Tudor), where the ruling family changes but the legal framework does not.
Both systems make sense, but for different situations. Is there an more formal existing consensus for how the articles on Vietnam are organized? Any thoughts on how it should be organized moving forward?
The historical situation with Vietnam's monarchy seems more in line with the Chinese and Korean dynasties than those in Europe. The new state of the articles on Vietnamese dynasties, like that at Lê dynasty, also provides substantially less information. — MarkH21talk 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC), changed example links & added last paragraph 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC); strike-through ambiguous "other" 04:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a precedent for a difference between how Chinese dynasties and other dynasties are organized. Chinese dynasties are not named after the ruling families. The names, in effect, served as geographical names. Han was ruled by the Liu, Tang was ruled by the Li, Ming was ruled by the Zhu, Qing was ruled by the Aisin Gioro, and so on. In Vietnam's case, I do not believe that is true, so perhaps there is precedent there to have a different naming convention, although I am not a specialist in that area. Qiushufang (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Qiushufang: The Korean dynasties are not named after the families either though. Removing information about the states during the dynasties to focus solely on the families also seems to be substantially less informative. The difference between the Lê dynastybefore and after is striking. — MarkH21talk 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC); strike-through 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that information on the overall political history of the states should not be removed from the dynastic/family articles. The comparison between Chinese/Korean dynasties and Vietnamese dynasties does not work though because Korean "dynasties" are organized in a similar fashion to China, aka the dynastic names are not the family names, whereas Vietnamese dynasties are. For example the Early Lê dynasty was founded by Lê Hoàn, but the Tang dynasty was founded by Li Yuan and Goryeo was founded by Wang Geon. The confusion comes from Chinese and Korean "dynasties" actually being state names whereas Vietnamese dynasties actually are family names, so there's a bit of inconsistency there. The equivalent of Tang or Joseon would therefore not be the Early Lê dynasty, but Dai Viet or some other Vietnamese state name. For what it's worth, I fought against the removal of information and linking to Dai Viet on the basis of providing information. It does not make much sense to me to remove the information entirely when the alternative of less or no information is obviously inferior. Qiushufang (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't mean that I disagreed with what you said about the dynasty naming. It's a valid point. But these naming difference are still just matters of naming rather than any substantive historical differences with how power was transferred.Right, and a restructure to move all of the historical information into the overarching Đại Việt article wouldn't solve that issue either, since it would lead to a bloated article that would need to be split anyways into the rule of each dynasty. — MarkH21talk 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Solution is obviously to provide enough information on each dynasty in Dai Viet so the reader can reach a working understanding of its history, but also detailed information in each dynasty page, but that would require more work than simply deleting content and repasting it in Dai Viet. Qiushufang (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree; and for the current articles on each dynasty that wouldn't really involve any changes (besides general improvements of adding referenced content, adding references to existing unreferenced material, etc.). — MarkH21talk 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarkH21 Hold on. How do East Asian countries relate to Vietnam, a southeast Asian country? Your thesis is ridiculous, because your don't have much knowledge about Southeast Asia history. I recommend you should read some Southeast Asian history books, such as The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia or Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present before involving in the cases, undoing my materials without reasons and replacing with unsourced contents. I am working on many Southeast Asian history drafts such as the Khmer-Thai wars, dynasties of Champa, House of Ly, House of Nguyen... For example, "the Nguyen dynasty was the ruling dynasty of kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1883), the French protectorate of Annam and the puppet state of Vietnam (1945)." that makes sense.
Saying Vietnam is "East Asia" is much like saying Thailand "East Asia."
This MarkH21 is just confused the difference between Chinese dynasties and Southeast Asian royal houses. Laska666 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Laska666: Comment on the content, not the contributor (please see WP:NPA). I didn't say that Vietnam was in East Asia; I commented on how the dynastic articles are structured for China and Korea, which are in East Asia. But I've struck the other since that was ambiguous.Nobody is disputing that the Nguyen dynasty or any other dynasty was a ruling dynasty. It's about your mass restructuring of the articles to focus on the families by removing historical details about the state during each dynastic period, leaving articles like this. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so you need to engage in discussion about the issues raised about your proposed changes. — MarkH21talk 04:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Victor Lieberman's Strange Parallels: Integration of the Mainland Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830, Vol 1, pp. 24, 26, 29, 32 the maps show very decisively that the kingdom of Dai Viet existed until early 19th century, ie. 1802 which was replaced by the kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1883). markH21 applies the concept of "east Asian" dynastic state on a southeast Asian civilization like the Vietnamese, the Thai,... very ridiculous and nonsense, persisting against all academic historians as well. For a long time most SEA project were poorly written, and somebody wrongly applied the dynastic state concept on SEA articles. #ProjectSoutheastAsia Laska666 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I just had removed the primary and unsourced contents in articles and decided to make a draft for it. A SEA dynasty is much like a European and Delhi dynasty, which they play as the ruling royal house of the nation for a contemporary period. The Dai Viet draft article I divide its history section into classic period, early modern period and fragmentation period, using resources from history books. Laska666 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that Dai Viet existed from the 10th to 19th centuries or that these various dynasties ruled it. It's whether the reorganization to focus each dynasty article purely on the family rather than the state when it was ruled by that dynasty is beneficial to those articles. So much referenced material also shouldn't be removed entirely, as was done at Lê dynasty. If we use an alternative approach of moving the entirety of the referenced historical details to Dai Viet, that would result in a massive bloated article subject to splitting again under WP:SIZESPLIT.There are merits to the original structure and the possible re-organizations, but there are some issues that need to be worked out. By the way, the details added to Dai Viet and the creation/expansion of other articles on Southeast Asian history are much-appreciated. The concerns here are not about those contributions though and are centered around 1) the deletion of material from the dynasty articles and 2) whether / how they should be restructured to focus on the families rather than their periods of rule.You removed all content from the article body, not just primary and unsourced contents. If you're drafting articles, then use the draft space (e.g. Draft:Lê dynasty) and not mainspace. — MarkH21talk 04:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What problem with you? The Dinh was a royal family, not a state. I know you are angry guy, but did you buy and read the books I recommended? No? Pseudo enough. Laska666 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarkH21 so what stuff you had contributed to Southeast Asia topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laska666 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Note that you are accused of edit warring. If your ambition is to be accused of improper behaviour, such as personal attacks, as well, then go ahead. Quidquid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem.Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Laska666: I am not going to engage in your focus on (perceived) personal background, even if you refuse to discuss the concerns given above about different article structures. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion about how to format the articles about Vietnam's history. I will simply say that Korea's articles are not relevant to discuss about Vietnam's articles, simply because Vietnam's articles are not relevant to discuss about Korea's articles. Different countries have different traditions, different ways of doing, and different untold intents. In Korea, trying to shift the focus from the Joseon Kingdom to the Yi family is only POV pushing from a small set of remnants. In other countries, many other things can happen. In any case, mixing the Kingdom of England with the Crown family seems strange. Without talking of mixing the former Kingdom of France with the remnants of the Capet family. Pldx1 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This wouldn't be as much of an issue if it were just the above problems, but the issues with Laska's editing go far beyond just content categorization:
1 Blanking entire sections of articles without providing alternatives, or blanking sections while linking to alternative articles that do not even have the same info.
2 Creating faulty alternative articles when asked, where he couldn't even copy paste the content correctly.
3 Writing generally lackluster content with numerous grammatical errors, nearly incoherent at times, that require waves of editing to fix.
4 Listing sources in the bibliography in random order and not in alphabetical order.
5 Arguing with editors and engaging in edit warring over mundane petty points such as the name of a polity such as Dai Ngu/Dai Viet when there are multiple sources providing the info.
6 Sometimes copy pasting text from books verbatim without quotation marks. Qiushufang (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Please, can you search about the political ideas of those people during the reigns of Alexandre II, Alexandre III, and Nicholas II, and edit it? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Liberation of France is out of Draft, and there's plenty of work that still needs to be done to complete it, as well as a lot of rough edges to be smoothed. Your contributions to the article or comments at the Talk page would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello an editor is proposing to remove large amounts of information and sources about the Holodomor from Holodomor in modern politics. Interested editors can help by providing feedback on the talk page and additional references for the content. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Please, can you help me with a research about Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary? Some of Stalin's former class boys or professors were devoted zarist who became during the communist his arch-enemis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Rhodes blood libel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Welcome new member of Task Force Contemporary HistoryEdit
I would like to welcome editor @Keepcalmandchill:, who has joined the Task Force for Contemporary History. I encourage and invite any other editors here to join any task forces that correspond with their interests. if you don't see a task force for some area of interest, feel free to go right ahead and set one up. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)