Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

History Noticeboard Skip to Table of Contents
Working Groups at WikiProject History: Assessment · Collaboration · Review · Outreach · Task forces
Talk page This is the central discussion area for WikiProject History. Feel free discuss any topics relating to history here. It is recommended that members watchlist this page Collaboration of the month The collaboration of the month for October is List of history topics.	Peer review Current peer review requests: Rogers Act History of Anatolia 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla A-Class review Current A-class review nominations: History of Indonesia

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of history is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 01:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Historical revisionism relevant to this project

There is an ongoing discussion regarding Historical revisionism at Talk:Historical revisionism, also relevant are the articles on Historical revisionism (negationism) and Denialism. Paul foord (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy assassinations

Do members here feel that articles such as Robert F. Kennedy assassination actually fall under the purview of this project. It is currently listed as a biographical article, but I'm not certain that this is appropriate in of itself Fritzpoll (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the banners for US presidential elections and US history, which are probably appropriate in this case. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fritzpoll (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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!} 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for "child project" status

WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies was proposed for creation as a potential "child project" of WikiProject History. The proposal received enough signatures, and the project has been set up. We would like to list WikiProject History as our "parent project", and have WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies listed as a "child project" of WikiProject History. Thanks. —Aryaman (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about 13th century Europe? - was the Battle of Grobnik field a battle or just a 19th century poem?

I'd like to know if anyone can help with Battle of Grobnik field - 2 of us have now searched (see the Talk Page) and come to the conclusion that there probably was no such battle, just a 19th century poem. I'm probably going to take it to AfD unless someone can convince me it was real. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia would probably know better about the alleged battle. But I myself might question deleting it, as it does seem to have been the subject of the epic poem; it's probably notable as a work of fiction, even if it isn't historically accurate. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor who created it will do his best to stop that from happening. And there are no English language sources for the poem either that I can find. Thanks for the suggestions about other projects. --Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorting out priorities

Is there a reason why the History of Sheffield merits the same level of importance as the History of China and the Maya Civilization? There doesn't seem to be, so unless anyone objects (and I'm fairly certain nobody will), I will set about lowering the article's Importance to something more appropriate. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Restyle

Does anybody have any objections to be restyling the project page so that it looks more current? The Quill (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope everybody likes the restyling I gave the page I just thought it needed to be a bit more modern. Any complaints or problems with the new design should be placed here and not on my talk page if a problem arrises. The Quill (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I think that to comlete the new look we need to replace our logo. While it is very nice it just doesn't look proffesional enough. I think that we should stick with the time/clock theme but I can't find many images on wikipedia to help us out so far I can only find which isn't that great. I will try to construct my own clock image but if anybody has anyother logo suggestions once agai please place them here. Thanks. The Quill (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The old image on the banner was chosen as being an indication of history, being the first page of a very old historical document. There was an earlier idea of using the image already used by Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design, but having two groups use the same image would be confusing. Which is unfortuante, because it is a great image. Maybe an image showing both a clock and a bookshelf might be best. John Carter (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the image of the prject to look modern! I'd like it to look, well, historical.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean but I'm not sure are you saying you want an old image or the you want an image which is modern which shows something lookin old?The Quill (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, a portal look is not good IMO. I like the new grey/silver colour, but it was like this before and it wasn't nice. I'm going to return it to the other format, but i'll keep the cahnges I think.--Phoenix-wiki 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if the image is old, but it needs to show something looking old (IMHO). Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Any particular suggestions? John Carter (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's been a bit of an edit war regarding the style. We'lll just leave it as it is for now, and discuss here. I'm strongly against the new look, because I think it looks rather unproffesional, and also makes us look like a portal, which we aren't. If most of you like it though, we'll leave it, what ae your opinions?--Phoenix-wiki 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Aztec/Maya/Inca

The names of the articles about these civilisations are confusing to me. There is an article Incas, Aztec and Maya civilization. I think that it should be harmonized to Inca, Aztec and Maya or Incas, Aztecs and Mayas, or Inca civilization, Aztec civilization and Maya civilization, but not the way it is now. Any ideas?  LYKANTROP  21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am quite keen on Inca civilization, Aztec civilization and Maya civilization however I do feel that for many people having to spell civilization out every time they want to look at the page is going to be differcult and unless we have loads of redirects they will keep on missing what they are looking for. I think that Incas, Aztecs and Mayas is probably the best choice if you take my point about civilization becasue Aztec suggests that they weren't plural becsaue you have one Aztec, many Aztecs. Anyway those are my thoughts. The Quill (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconf for "X civilization". Thats got a nice ring to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As "X civilization" seems to be the favourite choice (I know only two people have said it but hey we need to vote on something) I propose a vote supporting "X civilization" being used for the presaid civilizations. If you support the ammendament please write agree if you don't please write disagree either way the vote goes explanation should be given about why it was chosen. The Quill (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree for foresaid reasons above.The Quill (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree as per The Quill. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This is a tough one. I can see having separate the terms Incas, Aztecs, and Mayas to describe those specific ethnic groups, and Inca civilization, Aztec civilization, and Maya civilization to describe those historical societies. But I can also see not wanting to repeat "civilization" when describing all three. Maybe a phrase like "indigenous Mesoamerican civilizations" or "classical Mesoamerican civilizations" could be used as a collective term to describe all three when such is desired? John Carter (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - We aren't talking about how to group them as a compined group but just how to name them. If you wanted to you colud chuck in Ancient Greek Civilization. The Quill (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A couple of things. First, the Incas were not located in Mesoamerica but in the Andes so they are not a "Mesoamerican civilization". Second, in the case of the Incas we currently have two articles Incas and Inca Empire. It seems to me it would be a good idea to merge both under Inca civilization. --Victor12 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Comment - I reacon we should to. If we do this then I say that both Aztec and Maya pages are also named Aztec Civilization and Maya Civilization accordinly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Quill (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with renaming Incas to Inca civilization, Aztec to Aztec civilization, and Maya civilization is already. But Inca Empire can not be merged with Incas (later Inca civilization) because they are two diferent things. See this example. Ancient Rome is a "parallel" to Inca civilization and Roman Empire is a "parallel" to Inca Empire. A "disambiguation" page can be made for Inca:

Inca or Incas may refer to:

• Inca civilization (xxth century BC – yyth century AD)
  • Kingdom of Cusco (1197 to 1438)
  • Inca Empire (1438 to 1533)
  • Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (16th-century)
  • etc.  LYKANTROP  00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester needs cites

Article on Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (favorite of Elizabeth I of England) has been tagged "This article needs additional citations for verification" since June 2007 (actually has no inline cites). -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Roosevelt able to ignore the Neutrality acts?

Our article about the Neutrality acts basically states that the acts only applied when the president found that a state of war existed between two nations; by refusing to issue such a finding, Roosevelt was able to avoid hurting allied nations. However I found that the current Encyclopaedia Britannica gives a very different account, and never mentions this option. The details are at Talk:Neutrality Acts#Was Roosevelt free to ignore the Neutrality acts?. Maybe an expert could look into this. Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)