Portal talk:History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
To-do list for Portal:History:

December selections need to be made:

  • Selected article
  • Selected picture
Priority 1 (top) 
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 360 days are automatically archived to Portal talk:History/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.


[edit] Incorrect Definition of History

The 'interpretation of records' is Historiography, not History. History is the interpretation of past events. Could an educated administrator please change it?

I just fixed it. (I had to comment out the intro from the main page to do it. Sorry about that.) --Ashfire908 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour scheme

Could we get a different colour scheme to the page? Seems a bit distasteful IMHO. Sincerely, JDR 21:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I second that notion - Ravedave 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm too in favour of a change. Any ideas on what colour should be used? Scoo 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I have no clue as to what the colour should be. I love all. 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about greenFranco 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with History of Siberia

I've extended the article, basing on Russian sourses. I make a lot of mistakes in English, and this article also needs correction. --Ъыь (mailbox)

[edit] Peer review request: History of Milton Keynes

I would welcome peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Milton Keynes/archive1, please - ideally to make FA on the History portal on 23 January 2007, 40 years after designation. --Concrete Cowboy 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes has achieved GA. Further help with copyediting and "compelling writing" to make FAC would be welcome. A History Project article assessment would also be welcome. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request: Indonesian War of Independence

I would like some advice on Wikipedia:Peer review/Indonesian War of Independence/archive1. Would like to pursue GA and then FA. Any advice would be much appreciated. --Merbabu 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Names of foreign rulers on Wilkipedia History pages I wonder why authors of history pages (in English) call many foreign rulers and warlords by English names? Even if their Christian names have English equivalent, it is proper (and probably politically correct) to give their native names. That will greatly reduce the number of Spaniards, Hungarians, Byzantines and other foreigners called John or Peter or Henry. In my humble opinion, this rule should be applied throughout Wilkipedia History section. If foreign names are not acceptable to the authors, why not call all foreigners Joe Bob or something?Vitoldus44 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review for Song Dynasty

Hello, I've recently done a lot of research and posted a lot of info to beef up the Song Dynasty of China article. If someone would like to peer review and give feedback, please do so!

Wikipedia:Peer review/Song Dynasty

Thanks, --PericlesofAthens 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Old Style and New Style dates" problem

The article on Old Style and New Style dates seems quite a problem at the moment, very muddled, awkward and biased. Since it is a ref point for many other history articles, it might be worth improving as a priority. --mervyn 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point...I agree. Jmlk17 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Development in the Ameran West

I have been considering creating one or more articles about the development of infrastructure and industry in the colonizing period of the American West, ie bridges, roads, mills, mining, lumber, production of goods and textiles. Very broad topic. Can someone point me to existing articles/categories that may be related? Anyone have any other approach to this info? Best wishes. WBardwin 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew! That is quite a potential workload. You might want to narrow it down a bit first. For example, try manufacturing first, followed by factories and then production of goods and textiles. try and keep them connected so it stays in a pretty decent lineup, and pretty close. It's late at night here, and I hope that is making sense! Jmlk17 08:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Are there any special guidelines on how the first sentence of an article called "History of ..." should be written? I would be very grateful for any indications. Itsmejudith 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a common sense sort of thing. I may be wrong however. I think that if the article gets its point across and is well-written, it is all okay. Jmlk17 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History

Just wanted to post a comment here about Wikipedia:WikiProject History. J. D. Redding 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you a historian, i.e. one who studies and writes history, and who has a keen interest in writing outstanding articles? Join our fine group by adding the following:

[[Category:Wikipedian historians]] for the bottom of your user page.

Ancheta Wis 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Edict of Worms" article deletion?

The article "Edict of Worms" has, for the most part, been merged with the articles "Martin Luther" and "Diet of Worms." I believe it should be nominated for deletion or substantially added on to. Franco 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it :). Be bold!!! Jmlk17 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This merge has been done, yet still appears in the "Things you can do" box. Can someone tell a newcomer: a) how the to-do suggestions are updated in this box? and b) where can be found a longer list of history-related merges? (I know where the comprehensive merge list is.) Hoping to help more if I can be pointed in the right direction. Hult041956 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Go to the Portal:History/Things you can do. If there isn't a link to the subpage in question, the easiest way to find out the specific title is to hit the "edit" button, and just remove the editing-related bits of the url. I'd remove the completed task it myself, but I don't want to steal your thunder :) Parsecboy 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Parsec. Hult041956 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on a content dispute in History section of the India page

Hi, This probably isn't the right place to advertise this RfC, but since we haven't had too many responses, I am posting on more distant sites. The RfC itself is posted here. Since both statements, the original poster's and mine, in response, are long, you might want to skim through them first. Any help, by way of comments, will be appreciated. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declarations of war during World War II

Declaration_of_war#Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II is very faulty (the UK hardly declared war on Finland twice [December 6/7 1941], Nazi Germany did not declare war on the Soviet Union...). Can someone overhaul the entire list pls? --KnightMove 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed with Rosewood massacre sources

I recently worked on the Rosewood massacre article. I rewrote much of it based on two sources, which I know is not enough. However, in this instance when survivors of a violent and intimidating act did not have their stories recorded until 75 years later, it is difficult to find sources at all. One of the sources is actually the most conclusive study done on the topic, and I leaned on that very heavily. If not for lack of sources, I think the article could reach at least a B class status, and probably should be rated much higher, or featured. Any tips you can give me or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Moni3 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

[edit] Expert editors for a content dispute in history

Hi, I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one will help.

Could someone please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture

Given that "This week's featured picture" has been up for a month now, do you think someone could go ahead and change it? I would myself, but I don't know if there's already a designated replacement, or a formal selection process, or anything like that. Parsecboy 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that this is a weekly picture (and article) is brand new, from a very recent edit. Until then, it had just been "Featured picture". Is there a shared committment to changing these more often? Question to long-standing contributors: where is this discussion (i.e., selection of featured article and picture) held? Hult041956 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that since the subpage stated it was a weekly picture, then it would be changed weekly. I could be wrong. If it is decided to not change it, then the subpage needs to be fixed so it doesn't give that false impression. Parsecboy 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I don't know either. It does appear we've missed the schedule in any case. Perhaps some long-time contributors can educate us on what's intended or conventional for this portal page. Hult041956 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the featured picture archives, there actually doesn't seem to be a problem. It's got images scheduled through December. I guess all that needs to be done is change it from weekly image to monthly. Case closed, it seems. Parsecboy 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I just changed these back to "Featured article" and "Featured picture". Let's leave them like that (non-committed) till there's a recurring (monthly, weekly, fortnightly, semi-annually) process that stays on schedule. Hult041956 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I made changed them to "weekly". How about this; on Monday 22 I'll change the pic and article and I'll change the heading to "weekly" every Monday me or someone else will change the pic and article--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been suggestions on the correct page for suggestions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:History/Featured_picture/Suggest) for a long time now, and nobody seems to comment or anything. I am adding a great picture to at least change it. I figured that it could remain for November as there are only 5 days left in October. Monsieurdl 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cash and carry

The article on Cash and carry covers both the economic wholesale term and the Cash & carry program used by FDR to placate isolationists while helping Britain and France in WWII. These are totally different concepts yet on they are on the same article. I was wondering if anyone could split them and make a disambiguation page? I don't know how disambiguation pages work. Konamaiki 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture for November

We have a suggestion page for a featured picture, and yet nobody utilizes it. Nobody posted anything with regards to comments, nobody had anything to say here about my addition, and then all of a sudden like a shot the picture dissapears after almost 2 weeks. No wonder no one regularly contributes here- I find it to be very odd behavior. Does anyone even care to discuss anything around here? Monsieurdl 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems featured pictures and featured articles get queued up on the "Archive" page rather than the "Suggest" page. Odd, as the word archive doesn't suggest the future, at least to me. But that seems to be the case. Also, it looks like your fenestration pic is due to come up in Nov. (That's any minute now.) Hult041956 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a suggest page, always has been, and yet nobody bothers to suggest anything or respond to anything posted there. It seems Feydey just puts all these pictures in slots and never says word one about them or acknowledges any talk page entries. That doesn't seem to me like an effort at collaboration... at least others like Phoenix-wiki and John Carter talk to people. Monsieurdl 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A) There are hardly any suggestions over the years, b) the suggestions given are not actually "Featured pictures" c) in October - December 2006 no one changed the FP and I stepped in and started adding new pics to avoid red links. Suggestions are of course always welcome. P.S. I have 2,469 pages on my watchlist and cannot check every new discussion on article talk pages, the best way to reach me is my talk page. Best, feydey 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't understand because if you had taken the time to change the picture, I thought you would have checked the Talk page. I can understand avoiding the red links, which makes sense, but I can't understand why my suggestion is out to February, 2008 instead of just moving the others back another month. I'll just chalk this one up as a futile effort and aid elsewhere, no problem. I'm not going to get too worked up about it as Wikipedia is a very, very large place. Good luck. Monsieurdl 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favourite

All help with this new article appreciated Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated help

Hello i am a fellow historian and i have recently been in an edit war on the psychohistory page because i believe the single person who is watching over the page really is not allowing the page to express exactly how far out of the mainstream and unpopular psychohistory is, in other words he is presenting it as an established well thought of science. one look at the graph on the page should show you how wrong he is. -ishmaelblues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaelblues (talkcontribs) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History vs. genealogy

I have written an essay titled History vs. genealogy, dealing with what I believe to be one of the great problems with how history is dealt with on Wikipedia. I would very much appreciate comments. Lampman Talk to me! 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)