Talk:Local history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local history (via WP:PROD on 22 September 2007) Deleted after transwiki to Wiktionary

WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history[edit]

I found this page looking for the WikiProject named in the title, just serving notice it exists; it has no templates to place here as yet; I'll look for it at the list of WikiProjects.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been giving this article, and the should-be-associated WikiProject named in this section, in teh last while. A lot of what I'm doing on Wiki has to do with small communities and local histories in British Columbia and adjacent parts of the Pacific Northwest; the crossovers to the Indigenous peoples of North America WikiProject are many, partly because that's what that group is about, natives being about as local as you can get, although in a more general sense it's because most of the small, near neraly all of the very small, towns in BC are aboriginal at least in part. butt there's also "settler histories" as one of my indigenous friends puts it/calls u; the equivlaent of tribal history of the many small towns across the continent and elsewhere; detailed local history is possible in Wiki like nowhere else, able to integrate all the little odd local publications with intercepting inrformation from other articles and areas....this has been the case for instance with articles pinning off {{Columbia River steamboats}} and its relations. it's also been the case with tiny localities that some lenience on WP:COI and WP:AUTO has to be made, as the only people to write some articles are those who are there, provided they're nursed along NPOV/encyclopedia-style wise. Not quite sure what to say further except if we had a template (for the WP:Local history not-quite-wikiproject) I'd be putting it on various articles, also a "welcome" tmplate as an invitation to remote-area and rural contributors, and smalltown contributors, to coach them along tas to how to write up the articles on their area, and deal with photo licensing and all...; a similar welcome template I've considered creating for the Indigenous peoples project. Also thought of letters to the editor in various smalltown papers inviting amateur auuthors to hlep write up their town/locality. The need for citation, citation, citation has to be relaxed in many of these places/instances, also....anyway just some thoughts ;if other editors find this intriguing please get back to me.Skookum1 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Im thinking of changing this like suggested in the wikiproject history request, if you think I've done it badly please revert changes, thanks Xhavnak (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalize tag[edit]

"The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page." - yet there are examples/perspective from quite a range of countries - the UK, the USA and Russia, and there's nothing location-specific about the introduction. Also there's no discussion of the template here with specifics about what needs to be improved. I therefore suggest that the {{globalize}} tag is removed - any objections? waggers (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to have lodged an objection so I'll do it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Several points . . .[edit]

Judging by the lead paragraph, there seems to be some uncertainty as to what "local history" actually consists of. It's a great deal more than commemorative plaques on old buildings and little old ladies at the historical society. Studying the history of a small, or at least limited, geographical area is simply focusing on micro-history in the hope that the results will lead one to broader macro-historical conclusions. I did an M.A. thesis years ago on the history of an early Texas county just before and after the Civil War, which led me to broader conclusions about Texas as a whole during that period. It's just that this isn't "Great Men"-type national history (that sort of "if they aren't famous it isn't really history" approach is very outdated in any case), but grass-roots social history, as most of us have lived it.

It's also incorrect to say that local history is "less documented." If anything, there are far more documents available at the local level, as any courthouse-explorer can tell you -- land records, court dockets, military muster rolls, you name it. And that's not to mention family letters and diaries, newspaper archives, and the old records of local businesses and fraternal organizations.

The paragraph on local history in the U.S. concentrates on landmark buildings and on the American Local History Network -- which, frankly, has no cachet whatever among working historians that I've ever noticed (and I say that as a genealogist of 50+ years' experience. OTOH, there's no mention at all of the American Association for State and Local History, which has long been the key organization in this field (est. 1940). Although, from the material in the paragraph on the U.K., and from the exernal links noted, I suspect this page was written mostly by a British editor, which probably explains some of the lacks regarding local history in the U.S.

This page needs considerable work and I'll put it on my list, but it's going to take awhile. --Michael K SmithTalk 02:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Many ideas of local?[edit]

Local history goes beyond the Australian / UK / USA / Slavic basis in the current text. Do you think that including these very specific contexts might be leaving out other contexts? I would suggest removing the detail from these sections unless we can add detail from other major world regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB2007 (talkcontribs) 06:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that the English Wikipedia has more on Australian, UK and US contexts for local history than, say, Brazilian or Chinese contexts. I don't think it's necessary to get rid of what we have because it currently isn't all-encompassing. In fact, I would assume it's very difficult to exhaustively cover all possible contexts; that's no reason not to start somewhere. You're welcome to improve the article with other world regions, of course. Huon (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I am new here but I encourage those with specific local history experience to add to the article. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB2007 (talkcontribs) 07:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)