Main page | Discussion page | Sub-pages index |
Article Alerts | Assessment | Review | Collaboration | Task Forces | Outreach | Members | Popular pages | History cafe .. ]] |
WikiProject Announcements
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please be sure to check the section for "Article Alerts" at
Wikipedia:WikiProject History#Article Alerts, for useful automated updates on various articles that pertain to topics within history. To watch the page for Article Alerts, please add this page to your watchlist: Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Article alerts |
History Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject History was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 March 2014. |
WikiProject History was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 November 2007. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
"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)
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
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
Please reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions on the talk page or you can email us at: skateboardingDHP@gmail.com.
Follow the SBDHP on instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/sbdhp/
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Note by Lead Coordinator:
Please see this discussion regarding what to do about a botched merge at Monarchism in France. Thanks,
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The articles early modern period, modern era and late modern period cover very similar topics, but all are in a very bad state. All three are trying to simultaneously cover the periodization of (mostly) Europe-centered history and covering virtually all history within the timeframe of about 1500 until today, including the history of regions that aren't actually included in the concept of post-medieval history and modernity. The latter article is also quite a mess that confuses the idea of modernity with the historical period.
There's also the glaring problem that "late modern period" is what most historians describe as the "modern period". The concept of the modern era encompassing the entirety of post-medieval history pre-dates the concept of the "early modern". Other than Wikipedia, I've never seen historical works that describe the period of 1800 to today as "late modern", and the article late modern period doesn't actually have any references supporting the use of the term.
All of these articles need some serious attention because as they are right now, they are mostly just coatracks for any and all historical events that happen to have occurred between 1500 and today, regardless if they are relevant to the concept of periodization relating to modernity. All three articles need to be seriously overhauled based on sources that focus on the periods as a whole, not just any random source that happen to include "modern" in the title. Peter Isotalo 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I seem to be late to this party, but I strongly agree with a lot of points made by Peter Isotalo, particularly with regards to the article Late modern period. It is an WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FAIL WP:COATRACK mess that probably fails WP:GNG. I've done some initial cleanups, but I'm afraid we should either:
As noted by Peter and others, so far, none of the sources actually mentions late modern period, nor the subject of periodisation more generally. It just provides confirmation of specific, but otherwise trivial claims made in the article that event X happened in year Y (e.g. the Soviet Union disintegrating in 1991), but we know all that. What is missing here is any RS from a historiographer arguing why that should be demarcate the end of this so-called late modern period or not. Just saying one could take 1991 as some sort of turning point is plain WP:OR, and referring to a source that only confirms the USSR fell in 1991 is committing WP:SYNTH. (How synthful! Joke).
Phil Bridger's suggestion to do a search on Google Scholar for RS is a good one. I've done two, with a variation in spelling, limited to sources from onwards per WP:AGEMATTERS:
The results are underwhelming. I'm a historian by training, and I've never really heard of the term late modern period before stumbling upon the article Late modern period today, but I expected at least some decent sources in Google Scholar. Instead, what I'm getting is a majority of articles, papers or book chapters that are mostly about linguistics of the English, Scottish and Irish English languages; it seems that the term late modern period is only common in that field, not in historiography. There are also sporadic mentions in other fields like literature, urban planning, art, religious studies, and military analysis, but again only in passing. Only a casual observer, a non-scholar, might look at a commonly-used term like early modern period, and therefore conclude there must also be a late modern period, regardless of whether that is a term actually commonly used in historiography (or any other field) as well. As Peter said: It might seem logical that "early modern" and "late modern" are used the same way as, say, Early Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, but that's not the case. (...). What's sorely lacking is content on scholarly discussions about periodization as such. That's why we've wound up with our own definitions.
That said, I agree with
SnowFire and
Sm8900 that, unlike late modern period, the term early modern period is commonly used and accepted (including during my history studies).
Early modern period easily passes
WP:GNG. But for
late modern period, that is not so clear-cut. As
Thebiguglyalien suggested, it should have
WP:NOPAGE if there aren't enough
WP:RS, because then it is considered
WP:OR: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.
All the results I got did not treat late modern period as a topic in its own right, but rather mentioned it in passing, which is not
WP:SIGCOV. Even for pure English linguistics, which about half of the search results are about, late modern period seems not enough to merit its own article, as
Late Modern English simply redirects to
Modern English.
I think we should seriously discuss which of the three options I mentioned above (1 AFD, 2 DP, 3 strict limitation to historiography, throwing everything else out) is the best to follow here. I tagged most users in the previous discussions that I found to have valuable comments and insights (I hope you don't mind me doing so, but otherwise you might not notice my comment after this discussion has gone dormant for several months) to ask your thoughts on these options. The status quo is evidently untenable, but the discussions above and the state of the article itself also show we've got some unfinished business here. If nobody responds, I'll just WP:BOLDly gradually start throwing more irrelevant unsourced or synth stuff out according to option 3. We could always decide to go for 1 or 2 with what remains. Good day to everyone. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
with respect, the burden is _not_ on me to explain why we should _not_ have bulk removals here with no discussion first on talk page. and also Wikipedia is _full_ of Passages that are technically "unsourced." if I wrote that "Shakespeare wrote Hamlet," then no one would ask me for a source. most world history topics similary do not have a source for every fact stated.. thanks.
I think it's appropriate to start dealing with the content of specific articles covering modernity. The best place to start would be early modern period and modern period. Currently, both articles are mostly a dumping ground for "early modern X" or "X in the modern era" which effectively makes them more like verbose lists than cohesive articles. Both of these topics need to be written with a focus on what distinguishes the period as a whole. One way to more effectively deal with the problem coat rack facts about specific regions or themes (politics, economy, culture, etc) would be to be much stricter about which sources should be allowed. Any source used in, say, early modern period must explicitly try to define the distinguishing aspects of this period. It can't just be about historical events that happen to have occurred some time between 1500 and 1800.
The use of sources here really is key because currently, both article are quite a mess with a mixed use of borderline unreliable works like Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies or content from known purveyors of pseudoscience and serious historical works like Indonesia's History Between the Myths: Essays in Legal History and Historical Theory (bu which don't appear to contain any period-specific analysis). Unless a source is explicitly attempting to describe how a certain aspect of history related to the concept of the modern or early modern, that source is most likely not relevant and shouldn't be used. Above all, we as editors have to understand that the concept of modernity isn't simply "stuff that people started doing after 1500". Peter Isotalo 11:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, |
There is a Merge discussion at Talk:Racism#Merge from Racial discrimination that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HudecEmil ( talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Guru Tegh Bahadur involving a "Historiography" section. I'd like a member of this Wikiproject to weigh in on the matter. Thanks for any help! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to propose merging the following inactive WikiProjects categorised under history into Wikipedia:WikiProject History:
The process is outlined here but basically amounts to converting the inactive WikiProjects to task forces of WP History one and merging/moving all of its templates and categories accordingly.
Hopefully this would bring a bit more life into these subjects and direct editors interested in them to an active group of editors rather than a moribund talk page. It could also help drive more traffic to this project. – Joe ( talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This issue was discussed at Talk:Outline of the history of the United States#Move. I think the standard formatting of titles for these articles and categories should be "Outline/Timeline of the history of [country]". The standard title for history articles is "History of [country]", so for consistency, timeline/outline articles naturally should be an extension of said titles, so they are easier to find. It also avoids demonym ambiguity. But a large number of articles currently have the demonym formatted title; see Category:Timelines by country. We should establish consensus here to put in the edit summary of all page moves, before I start moving a large number of pages. HertzDonuts ( talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is pretty messy and needs more people to look at it and work on it. More high quality and hopefully academic sources are needed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated The Slave Community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, |
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that History of the United States (1776–1789) be moved to History of the United States from 1776 to 1789, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. CMD ( talk) 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a draft at Draft:Economic imperialism as this seems to be a big omission in wikipedia's coverage, and was wondering whether anyone would be interested in collaborating to write and structure it, including defining scope and gathering sources. Economic imperialism currently links to Theory of imperialism. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka ( talk) 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
We are proud to introduce a new page for collaboration, brainstorming, and various collective activity. we call it: the History Cafe.
this new page is to potentially serve as a place for deeper discussions about history topics, efforts, and creative ideas, and possibly discussions to include editors from multiple wikiprojects, and perhaps topical areas that relate to the historical topics being discussed.
please note some of the core reasons for this new cafe, and some of the potential roles:
Please note: a tab for this "cafe" has been added to the tab header for pages at WikiProject History.
we welcome your comments. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
comments welcome below.
Sm8900 (
talk)
13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization to be moved to Analysis of European colonialism and colonization. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 ( talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Significant Lifeforms about changes to per-year articles made by another editor, which has not had any third-party response. Perhaps this WikiProject is more active. Walsh90210 ( talk) 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a two-person discussion of the lead sentence at Talk:Colonization. It could use some additional eyes (and fingers). Zero talk 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions on whether the lede meets sourcing requirements. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 23:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the human history article needs more attention. I've been engaging with the article for almost two weeks now, and I it's been receiving treatment that is much too superficial. Above all, it needs a much more consistent academic perspective, or at least feedback that's based on high-quality sources dealing with world history as a discipline.
From what I can see, feedback on factual accuracy and balance has been focused almost exclusively on very personal opinions about what which history is "important" enough for inclusion which is just not working out. The feedback regarding periodization and structure of the article has in my view been especially lacking. If there's anyone with any kind of experience with academic history, especially world history, please chip in. It's an extremely important article but also very difficult to work with because how vast the scope is. Peter Isotalo 22:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've been preparing for a re-write of the Mfecane article and would really appreciate some feedback at the talk page. Thanks in advance! Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 12 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that human history has become a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history. The article itself (at least the recorded history part) is mostly just a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion by individual editors. The view of professional historians is being toned down, ignored or selectively presented to fit individual opinions. Several users also appear to be engaging in some sort of campaign against the validity of the entire sub-discipline of world history. The impression I'm getting is of openly disparaging and hostile view of academic historians to an extent that in other fields of research would be considered fringe.
This is a serious, systemic problem that needs attention. Peter Isotalo 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusionsounds like... exactly what it should be? I've raised issues with its coverage of prehistory (my area of expertise) in the past and they've always been promptly and amicably addressed; I've seen plenty of others have the same experience on the talk page. In contrast, what I see in recent discussions is multiple editors trying really hard to understand your quite unfocused feedback and in return getting this escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy. – Joe ( talk) 15:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Main page | Discussion page | Sub-pages index |
Article Alerts | Assessment | Review | Collaboration | Task Forces | Outreach | Members | Popular pages | History cafe .. ]] |
WikiProject Announcements
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please be sure to check the section for "Article Alerts" at
Wikipedia:WikiProject History#Article Alerts, for useful automated updates on various articles that pertain to topics within history. To watch the page for Article Alerts, please add this page to your watchlist: Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Article alerts |
History Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject History was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 March 2014. |
WikiProject History was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 November 2007. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
"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)
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
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
Please reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions on the talk page or you can email us at: skateboardingDHP@gmail.com.
Follow the SBDHP on instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/sbdhp/
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Note by Lead Coordinator:
Please see this discussion regarding what to do about a botched merge at Monarchism in France. Thanks,
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The articles early modern period, modern era and late modern period cover very similar topics, but all are in a very bad state. All three are trying to simultaneously cover the periodization of (mostly) Europe-centered history and covering virtually all history within the timeframe of about 1500 until today, including the history of regions that aren't actually included in the concept of post-medieval history and modernity. The latter article is also quite a mess that confuses the idea of modernity with the historical period.
There's also the glaring problem that "late modern period" is what most historians describe as the "modern period". The concept of the modern era encompassing the entirety of post-medieval history pre-dates the concept of the "early modern". Other than Wikipedia, I've never seen historical works that describe the period of 1800 to today as "late modern", and the article late modern period doesn't actually have any references supporting the use of the term.
All of these articles need some serious attention because as they are right now, they are mostly just coatracks for any and all historical events that happen to have occurred between 1500 and today, regardless if they are relevant to the concept of periodization relating to modernity. All three articles need to be seriously overhauled based on sources that focus on the periods as a whole, not just any random source that happen to include "modern" in the title. Peter Isotalo 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I seem to be late to this party, but I strongly agree with a lot of points made by Peter Isotalo, particularly with regards to the article Late modern period. It is an WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FAIL WP:COATRACK mess that probably fails WP:GNG. I've done some initial cleanups, but I'm afraid we should either:
As noted by Peter and others, so far, none of the sources actually mentions late modern period, nor the subject of periodisation more generally. It just provides confirmation of specific, but otherwise trivial claims made in the article that event X happened in year Y (e.g. the Soviet Union disintegrating in 1991), but we know all that. What is missing here is any RS from a historiographer arguing why that should be demarcate the end of this so-called late modern period or not. Just saying one could take 1991 as some sort of turning point is plain WP:OR, and referring to a source that only confirms the USSR fell in 1991 is committing WP:SYNTH. (How synthful! Joke).
Phil Bridger's suggestion to do a search on Google Scholar for RS is a good one. I've done two, with a variation in spelling, limited to sources from onwards per WP:AGEMATTERS:
The results are underwhelming. I'm a historian by training, and I've never really heard of the term late modern period before stumbling upon the article Late modern period today, but I expected at least some decent sources in Google Scholar. Instead, what I'm getting is a majority of articles, papers or book chapters that are mostly about linguistics of the English, Scottish and Irish English languages; it seems that the term late modern period is only common in that field, not in historiography. There are also sporadic mentions in other fields like literature, urban planning, art, religious studies, and military analysis, but again only in passing. Only a casual observer, a non-scholar, might look at a commonly-used term like early modern period, and therefore conclude there must also be a late modern period, regardless of whether that is a term actually commonly used in historiography (or any other field) as well. As Peter said: It might seem logical that "early modern" and "late modern" are used the same way as, say, Early Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, but that's not the case. (...). What's sorely lacking is content on scholarly discussions about periodization as such. That's why we've wound up with our own definitions.
That said, I agree with
SnowFire and
Sm8900 that, unlike late modern period, the term early modern period is commonly used and accepted (including during my history studies).
Early modern period easily passes
WP:GNG. But for
late modern period, that is not so clear-cut. As
Thebiguglyalien suggested, it should have
WP:NOPAGE if there aren't enough
WP:RS, because then it is considered
WP:OR: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.
All the results I got did not treat late modern period as a topic in its own right, but rather mentioned it in passing, which is not
WP:SIGCOV. Even for pure English linguistics, which about half of the search results are about, late modern period seems not enough to merit its own article, as
Late Modern English simply redirects to
Modern English.
I think we should seriously discuss which of the three options I mentioned above (1 AFD, 2 DP, 3 strict limitation to historiography, throwing everything else out) is the best to follow here. I tagged most users in the previous discussions that I found to have valuable comments and insights (I hope you don't mind me doing so, but otherwise you might not notice my comment after this discussion has gone dormant for several months) to ask your thoughts on these options. The status quo is evidently untenable, but the discussions above and the state of the article itself also show we've got some unfinished business here. If nobody responds, I'll just WP:BOLDly gradually start throwing more irrelevant unsourced or synth stuff out according to option 3. We could always decide to go for 1 or 2 with what remains. Good day to everyone. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
with respect, the burden is _not_ on me to explain why we should _not_ have bulk removals here with no discussion first on talk page. and also Wikipedia is _full_ of Passages that are technically "unsourced." if I wrote that "Shakespeare wrote Hamlet," then no one would ask me for a source. most world history topics similary do not have a source for every fact stated.. thanks.
I think it's appropriate to start dealing with the content of specific articles covering modernity. The best place to start would be early modern period and modern period. Currently, both articles are mostly a dumping ground for "early modern X" or "X in the modern era" which effectively makes them more like verbose lists than cohesive articles. Both of these topics need to be written with a focus on what distinguishes the period as a whole. One way to more effectively deal with the problem coat rack facts about specific regions or themes (politics, economy, culture, etc) would be to be much stricter about which sources should be allowed. Any source used in, say, early modern period must explicitly try to define the distinguishing aspects of this period. It can't just be about historical events that happen to have occurred some time between 1500 and 1800.
The use of sources here really is key because currently, both article are quite a mess with a mixed use of borderline unreliable works like Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies or content from known purveyors of pseudoscience and serious historical works like Indonesia's History Between the Myths: Essays in Legal History and Historical Theory (bu which don't appear to contain any period-specific analysis). Unless a source is explicitly attempting to describe how a certain aspect of history related to the concept of the modern or early modern, that source is most likely not relevant and shouldn't be used. Above all, we as editors have to understand that the concept of modernity isn't simply "stuff that people started doing after 1500". Peter Isotalo 11:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, |
There is a Merge discussion at Talk:Racism#Merge from Racial discrimination that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HudecEmil ( talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Guru Tegh Bahadur involving a "Historiography" section. I'd like a member of this Wikiproject to weigh in on the matter. Thanks for any help! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to propose merging the following inactive WikiProjects categorised under history into Wikipedia:WikiProject History:
The process is outlined here but basically amounts to converting the inactive WikiProjects to task forces of WP History one and merging/moving all of its templates and categories accordingly.
Hopefully this would bring a bit more life into these subjects and direct editors interested in them to an active group of editors rather than a moribund talk page. It could also help drive more traffic to this project. – Joe ( talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This issue was discussed at Talk:Outline of the history of the United States#Move. I think the standard formatting of titles for these articles and categories should be "Outline/Timeline of the history of [country]". The standard title for history articles is "History of [country]", so for consistency, timeline/outline articles naturally should be an extension of said titles, so they are easier to find. It also avoids demonym ambiguity. But a large number of articles currently have the demonym formatted title; see Category:Timelines by country. We should establish consensus here to put in the edit summary of all page moves, before I start moving a large number of pages. HertzDonuts ( talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is pretty messy and needs more people to look at it and work on it. More high quality and hopefully academic sources are needed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated The Slave Community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, |
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that History of the United States (1776–1789) be moved to History of the United States from 1776 to 1789, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. CMD ( talk) 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a draft at Draft:Economic imperialism as this seems to be a big omission in wikipedia's coverage, and was wondering whether anyone would be interested in collaborating to write and structure it, including defining scope and gathering sources. Economic imperialism currently links to Theory of imperialism. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka ( talk) 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
We are proud to introduce a new page for collaboration, brainstorming, and various collective activity. we call it: the History Cafe.
this new page is to potentially serve as a place for deeper discussions about history topics, efforts, and creative ideas, and possibly discussions to include editors from multiple wikiprojects, and perhaps topical areas that relate to the historical topics being discussed.
please note some of the core reasons for this new cafe, and some of the potential roles:
Please note: a tab for this "cafe" has been added to the tab header for pages at WikiProject History.
we welcome your comments. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
comments welcome below.
Sm8900 (
talk)
13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization to be moved to Analysis of European colonialism and colonization. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 ( talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Significant Lifeforms about changes to per-year articles made by another editor, which has not had any third-party response. Perhaps this WikiProject is more active. Walsh90210 ( talk) 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a two-person discussion of the lead sentence at Talk:Colonization. It could use some additional eyes (and fingers). Zero talk 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions on whether the lede meets sourcing requirements. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 23:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the human history article needs more attention. I've been engaging with the article for almost two weeks now, and I it's been receiving treatment that is much too superficial. Above all, it needs a much more consistent academic perspective, or at least feedback that's based on high-quality sources dealing with world history as a discipline.
From what I can see, feedback on factual accuracy and balance has been focused almost exclusively on very personal opinions about what which history is "important" enough for inclusion which is just not working out. The feedback regarding periodization and structure of the article has in my view been especially lacking. If there's anyone with any kind of experience with academic history, especially world history, please chip in. It's an extremely important article but also very difficult to work with because how vast the scope is. Peter Isotalo 22:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've been preparing for a re-write of the Mfecane article and would really appreciate some feedback at the talk page. Thanks in advance! Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 12 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that human history has become a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history. The article itself (at least the recorded history part) is mostly just a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion by individual editors. The view of professional historians is being toned down, ignored or selectively presented to fit individual opinions. Several users also appear to be engaging in some sort of campaign against the validity of the entire sub-discipline of world history. The impression I'm getting is of openly disparaging and hostile view of academic historians to an extent that in other fields of research would be considered fringe.
This is a serious, systemic problem that needs attention. Peter Isotalo 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusionsounds like... exactly what it should be? I've raised issues with its coverage of prehistory (my area of expertise) in the past and they've always been promptly and amicably addressed; I've seen plenty of others have the same experience on the talk page. In contrast, what I see in recent discussions is multiple editors trying really hard to understand your quite unfocused feedback and in return getting this escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy. – Joe ( talk) 15:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)