Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

Main pageDiscussion pageSub-pages indexArticle
AlertsAssessmentReviewCollaborationTask ForcesOutreachMembersPopular pages

WikiProject Announcements

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

WikiProject History needs you!!!!

Hi everyone. I am writing to ask for any volunteers who might like to get more involved here at WikiProject History. Right now, we would like to get WikiProject History up and running again. A number of people have signed up in the past, and indicated their willingness to be involved. If you're still here, feel free to reply here. You can reply here in this section, even if it's just to say hello. If you want, you can simply let me know what you are personally working on right now. or also, if you want, you can let me know what your interests are, what topics you find interesting, what you;d like to do, or how you'd like to be involved. whatever it may be, we'd like to hear from you. we appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting and calling out. Community building can be a challenge. My view is that if a WikiProject manages to attract 3 people who post once a month, then that is the foundation for being ready for newcomer comments and engagement. All this works better if none of those three go far out of their usual routine and if they also watch for comments. I am unable to be around regularly myself, but I will be a sport and post a challenge for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, that's terrific. thanks for your reply. yes, that's totally fine. a little interaction is all we need to keep things moving along here. it is great to hear from you. whatever frequency is feasible for individuals is totally fine here. our main goal is simply to get different views over time. your note is very helpful. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a while, and it's nice to see a little activity around here – it has been seeming a little moribund lately. I agree with Blue Raspberry – you don't need that many posts for a project to reach a critical mass of activity where people start looking at it regularly. Take WP:CGR – there are only about 5 new discussions posted on the talk page per month, but while a few of those are notices of discussions elsewhere, most of them do actually lead to discussion on the talk page itself. And if you hang about there, you will notice the same names coming up again and again in discussions. I suspect the same is true of other active wikiprojects – there are a few regular contributors who keep discussions going, which makes anyone else who looks in feel as though it's worth watching the page. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto those are great points. I appreciate your ideas and input here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see the initiative and jumping in to say that this talk page is now on my watchlist too. I do not have much experience with article assessment or other WikiProject-specific tasks, but history is one of my areas of interest, and I do work on a lot of history-related articles, so it's good to know that this space can possibly be used as a resource/sounding board for related questions when/if they come up.--MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been lurking around here for a bit now. I have some older accounts that apparently weren't linked to my email, hence why my account says it was created today. I would personally love to contribute, but I frankly have no idea where to start. Any pointers would be appreciated! If it helps, I am most interested in the period from roughly 1800 onward. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Developing a canon of culture to translate

In a few months there will be an LGBT+ Wiki conference as described at meta:Queering Wikipedia. This will be the first global gathering of LGBT+ Wikipedia editors to develop LGBT+ content.

Telling the story of the history of the LGBT+ movement is a challenge. We have cultural diversity, as every culture has an LGBT+ history with events. We also have many time periods to cover, as over the centuries, some cultures had more or less activity with records to mention. There is no canon of most popular or recommended events or topics in LGBT+ global history.

As with all Wikipedia development projects we have limited volunteer labor. There are thousands of English language topics, but if the goal is to promote global education and culture, then we should focus on a subset of these articles and stage that subset for translation. I guessed that 100 articles would be a good number, and documented this concept at meta:Wiki99.

Here is my question for WikiProject History: suppose that a group wants to promote global multilingual education in a field, and that group decides to develop about 100 Wikipedia articles in that field for translation and cultural exchange. How should we determine the weight of how many of those articles should be from one country, and from what time period?

Some cases where people have asked about this are religion, architecture, science, women's history, medicine, and other similar broad fields which have their own regional and global culture and history. Any brief thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I am wary of efforts like this and WiR because it starts with a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS premise. The meta page you linked lists people of other ideologies as "barriers" which seems needlessly hostile and would otherwise be considered a personal attack. That said, I think that the content developed should be driven by available source material, not arbitrary quotas. While English-language articles can be translated with their English-language citations to other wikis, compliance with WP:V as it exists in other wikis is best accomplished locally with source material from those languages. I would hope translators would be searching for those en-wp articles that are also supported in the target language's literature thereby enabling editors in other languages to discover sources they can read directly rather than reply upon machine translation. There's also a neo-Colonial edge to the project which I find problematic. Shouldn't we let the foreign-language readership determine which articles they desire rather than have articles chosen by first-world editors? I would start in the target-language wikis looking for requested articles and preponderant red links. Our biases as editors shouldn't determine what happens outside our home wiki under the guise of "diversity." Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: If there is hostility then it is an error and either you or anyone else could remove it. I am not immediately sure what seems negative here.

Wikipedia does not have a philosophy or culture of translation right now. I am not aware of any systematic effort to choose what to translate or how to pass content around.

My objective in encouraging a little translation is to encourage yet more editing and cultural exchange. When there is little content on a subject in any language Wikipedia, then few people want to start engaging. After there is a little information, even if it is low quality, then more people will engage to make that better.

Of course English language Wikipedia is dominant and I do not want that forever. However, Wikipedia is having its 19th birthday this week and still we have major content gaps in many languages with no plan to fix that. Somehow in some way we should plan to get more content into more languages and improve cultural exchange. I am not sure what that looks like, but curating a little content for translation seems like a safe enough low-labor, low-cost initiative for some people to try.

If you have an idea to do things differently then suggest an alternative. Any other options are helpful. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:VITAL? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 13 November 2022 (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)

Wiki99 for world history

I gave a go at compiling ~99 articles as an attempt at a canon of world history.

• meta:Wiki99/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)

@Bluerasberry Not bad. Of course I'd nitpick some stuff. history of Tonga, Thailand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Ethipia, West Africa, seem way too minor to include (one article for history by continent would be best, there is history of Europe but not history of Asia?? Also history of Africa, Middle East, Americas...). History of slavery is a minor topic that represents recent Western bias, same for genocides in history (I'd rather go with history of war, history of crime), similar issues I'd see with feminism and human sexuality (human rights too - but I'd keep the latter one as an overarching topic here). History of religion is fine, but dedicating 9 articles to this, probably too much by half if not eight. Listing Native American religion which doesn't exist is a clear evidence of bias (it's a very minor topic for everyone except some American historians); history of United States is much more important and not listed (?). I am not an American but let's face it, US is one of the most important country in the world's history. To have history of China and Russian Empire but not history of US, well, this is a history as endorsed by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin :P On a side note, take a look at Western canon, very interesting topic, very biased - and then note we don't have an article on world canon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

note re wiki item

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)

Anent Wikimedia Movement strategy/best practices: my concern all along has not been about the basic principles or guiding ideals, but about the proposals of how to apply them. I suspect some are using the current exercise to fashion iron rice bowls for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

hi folks. thanks for your replies here. Bluerasberry, that is really fascinating to know. I will take a look at that page. thanks!!

Llywrch, you make some valid points as well. it is totally valid to think about and to wonder where this will take us. i suggest we all try to look at this, and see what we can glean from there, and also what we can offer or discuss.

this is an interesting topic. i had totally known about this before. now I'm doubly glad that I posted that template above, just as food for thought. thanks for the great info, again, Bluerasberry! I will take a look there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael E Nolan take a look at the replies above, especially the comment from Bluerasberry about the discussions currently in process, interesting, isn't it?

everyone, I initially posted this template on my own talk-page, then tagged Michael E Nolan to give him a little look-see at this. we both liked it, but we weren't really sure where we could use it. glad that this could lead unexpectedly to some new and interesting topics! thanks for your replies here. let's keep the discussions going. maybe over a nice cup of coffee, too! thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New member introductions

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)

Hi! I'm a new member. I joined because I have an interest in improving the religion section, particularly when it comes to including old/lesser-known religions in the religion tree/template. Glad to be here! ArcticSolstice (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add your introductory comments below

• Hi I’m interested in history of all places and periods. The areas I’m most keen to work in are Middle Eastern history and European colonial history. I’m very interested in China and Japan and can help tidy up articles about them, but can’t read Chinese or Japanese sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Hi there, I'm most interested in New Zealand history, however, I also have a general interest in French and premodern history. --Violetnights (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Skateboarding Digital History Project

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

1. The SBDHP plans to host more edit-a-thons in 2020.
2. The SBDHP plans to continue publishing and facilitating donations of skateboard photography to Wikimedia Commons.
3. The SBDHP dreams to translate articles about skateboarding/skateboarders to other languages.

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/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil540 art (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Application for WikiProject History Coordinator: Vami_IV

Grüß Gott,

I am Vami_IV (call me Vami), an editor of seven years and some change with a few Featured Articles to show for it. At time of writing, all of these are architecture articles in Germany and the United States; that's a pretty good summation of my area of most competent interest. That said, I've been awarded a Quarter-Million Award for American military history and am currently working on Simón Bolívar, so history interests me generally. I am also a semi-active member of Women in Red, where I primarily translate articles for Latin American women. To wit, the extent of my WP:HIST-related editing spans from the Early Middle Ages to the present, and mostly in the Americas and Europe.

At Sm8900 (talk)'s request, I'm here to volunteer my time as a Project Coordinator here at WP:HIST. As an acting Coordinator over at WP:MILHIST like Iazyges (talk) (courtesy ping) and Key Editor Gog the Mild (talk) (ditto), I believe I'll make a good fit here. As an added bonus, I have now plenty of experience collaborating with editors on-wiki and on the Discord server to compile research and improve articles. As a Coordinator and a member of the Collaboration Group, I'd be focusing my efforts there and with busywork like assessing articles. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Although actually you are a bit too modest. take a look at this, folks! User:Vami IV/Awards. well done. glad to have you here!!! Sm8900 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Note by Lead Coordinator:

• APPROVED. Congrats, and welcome @Vami IV:. looking forward to having your valued input here. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Monarchism in France

Please see this discussion regarding what to do about a botched merge at Monarchism in France. Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Modernity articles are a hot mess

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)

Section break 1

Maybe we could start by looking at the Google Books and Google Scholar results on searching for "late modern". Those are usually good starting points in looking for reliable academic sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Scholar might turn up some relevant sources, but Google Books is frankly nothing but a liability. There's too many unreliable or irrelevant sources, everything from self-published crap to hopelessly outdated 19th century works. It's much better to search relevant collections through the Wikipedia Library. There's a search function for all collections which is pretty decent. Specifically, JSTOR, SAGE, Brill, De Gruyter, Cambridge Core, Oxford Reference, Oxford Academic, Oxford Research Encyclopedias and MUSE have plenty of historical research.

The issue here isn't "late modern period" either, because it's simply not a common term. If it was, there would be plenty of sources. 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. Just search any major library catalog for books or articles with "late modern period" in the title and compare with how many there are with "early modern period" or just "modern period".

What's sorely lacking is content on scholarly discussions about periodization as such. That's why we've wound up with our own definitions. Peter ^Isotalo 00:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, the search bar at TWL doesn't search all publishers (for example, it cannot search Brill or Springer). Folly Mox (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, Google Books is a good starting point: of course we have to look at each individual potential source. The first 10 books it shows for me are from Polity Press (x2), Edinburgh University Press, John Benjamins, Academy Editions, NSU press, Peter Lang, and Routledge (x3), none older than 1980 and eight from the 21st century. By dismissing Google Books as a liability you are depriving yourself of many academic sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound crass. People are of course free to search wherever they like. For myself, I just don't think Google Books is useful in a case like this where people have clearly built up an article without actually verifying the scope of the article content properly.

Do you think there are any specific that we should look closer at in this case? Peter ^Isotalo 22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Something similar happens at the national level, where we have things like History of the United States (1789–1849) and History of Australia (1788–1850). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be very arbitrary in their cut-off points. Anyone who wants to write about the history of the uS or Australia is effectively going to be forced to conform to that periodization and that's effectively a form of forced POV.

Would you consider it relevant to discuss a proposal for some sort of content guideline regarding periodization? Peter ^Isotalo 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would love some sort of standardization here. I've brought History of the United States (1776–1789) to GA because that's a fairly concrete periodization that was easy to work with ("Revolutionary US"), but I stopped after that because it's just too arbitrary. I'd gladly continue in this area if the cutoff problem was solved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Historical periods are almost always somewhat fuzzy around the edges. There are very few clean breaks, except for maybe when a state or organization simply stops existing, like the Soviet Union.

Overall, I think the only workable solution that wouldn't result in Wikipedia deciding it's own periodization schemes would be to follow the most common periodizations used by historians for a certain topic. So for China or Ancient Egypt, this would be various dynasties.

For the 1776-89 US history article, maybe it would be more accurate to simply call it United States during the Revolutionary War, or something that doesn't abruptly start and stop on specific dates. Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• The word "modern" means of the present time but this is not a stable way of referring to historical periods because the present keeps moving. We should stick to more specific, stable terminology such as the Renaissance and Age of Discovery. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're referring to one of the common everyday definitions of the term "modern". That's not the definition used by historians and it's no less precise than most other periodizations. Think of this as the difference between how the word "gas" in everyday conversation compared to how it's defined in, say, chemistry or physics.

  To give just one example, there's a fairly recent work called What is Early Modern History?[1] dedicated entirely to describing how the "early modern" became a subset of "modern". It's part of a larger series focused on defining all sorts of historical disciplines and concepts like cultural history, global history, etc.

  The modern period not as strictly defined as gases are in physics, but to professional historians, it doesn't simply mean "the past X number of years". Peter ^Isotalo 09:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Formally naming anything (a historical period, an art movement, etc) "modern" is silly. Either 1) you eventually have to come up with a term for a later period, in which case "modern" is no longer modern, or 2) the "modern" period keeps growing and growing until it becomes unwieldy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  It might be silly, but it's often done. We even have the rather vaguely defined term "post-modern". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure why you're bringing up your personal views about the word "modern". What you're both saying here is a bit like saying that scientists are "silly" for using the term "gas" to mean something other than petrol.

  Periodization is a serious and important aspect of historical research and isn't just arbitrary, regardless what words might mean in completely different contexts. Peter ^Isotalo 19:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, what I am saying is more like saying Americans are silly for using the word "gas" for petrol. Any definition of "modern art" that doesn't include art produced this year, but stops some time in the 1970s is a definition that can only serve to confuse the student for no good reason. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are mixing several completely different definitions of the term "modern" and just giving your personal views about it. It's not helping in this case. Peter ^Isotalo 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sometimes history articles need to be split simply because of size rather than on any external basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The issue of when an article "needs" to be split is a whole separate can of worms. Even so, a split should respect accepted periodization schemes, not merely what this or that Wikipedian think looks good. Peter ^Isotalo 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Section break 2

• First off, there is a problem here, and the problem is that the articles are in rough shape. I don't think it's an easily fixable problem because the core question is inclusion / due weight. Almost anything important enough to even consider discussing in a top-level world history article has copious references, but the real question is whether to mention it at all, whether it gets one sentence or one paragraph, and so on. Encyclopedia articles already greatly compress other works like books, even general overview texts. So... there's going to be a decent amount of editorial difference between just how much to talk about the French Revolution or the like. But "doing it right" would involve finding scholarly sources explicitly covering huge time periods and comparing them to see what they most often have in common or the like to make sure the due weight is covered.
• That said, I disagree with Peter Isotalo's idea that the articles are a COATRACK, or original research, or something. Wikipedia is explicitly allowed to arbitrarily subdivide topics however it likes - this is not "original research" but rather content organization no different from what editors do all the time. It's trivial to show historians using the term "Early modern" (a gazillion hits on Google Books - saying that you don't like Google Books misses the point, it being used in less prestigious books still says something important), and the reason "Late modern" doesn't come up that often is that the era is usually referred to more specifically. But its meaning is clear enough. If you consider that this topic really is something like Modern era, except split across year boundaries, the articles really mean Modern era (1500-1800), Modern era (1800-1945), and Modern era (1945-present). Which is fine.
• To the extent there is an issue, I'd say that Late modern period should just explicitly say it really means, for Wikipedia purposes, World history from 1800-1945 and more decisively cut out anything post WW2. SnowFire (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • More productively, what exactly is the call to action here? I have too many unfinished projects sitting around in Google Docs for rewrites, but the content of the articles (aka the history) is the important thing, not how they're split up. If someone wants to do some deep analysis of what reliable sources consider the most important things to cover in very general history-of-these-eras overviews, that'd be cool, and then rewrite some of these articles by that. But I'm not sure what Peter Isotalo is asking for here - a Requested Move to some new title for these articles? Splitting on different dates? To what dates and what titles if so? I think this is way less important than the content myself, but let's hear it. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Peter Isotalo: You've continued to insist on adding your original research cleanup banner despite the fact I'm not really seeing a consensus here that this is an OR problem, the status quo being no tag, and claiming I did not explain myself on a talk page when what I wrote was right there. I'd rather focus on the actual changes you want, but if you'd rather talk about procedure... WP:OR is a policy about content. Suppose there's 30 paragraphs of history that are unquestionably "good" - well referenced, etc. It would not matter if the article containing them was titled something completely insane like "Broccoli era" or if the 30 paragraphs were split in an awkward spot historians don't generally use. Those are problems, yes, but they aren't violations of original research - they're fixed by rearranging the content or filing WP:RM requests. Original research would be someone adding to the article something like "Based on my analysis of Kennedy's speeches, he was secretly a communist agent of the USSR" or the like. I believe the OR banners should be removed (and replaced with, if you insist, RM requests or merge requests, which seems to be the actual call to action here - but feel free to enlighten me if you're actually proposing something else). SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

    I find this comment concerning: "Wikipedia is explicitly allowed to arbitrarily subdivide topics however it likes".

    Are you seriously saying that it's both NPOV and verifiable for Wikipedia to choose it's own periodization schemes for history topics? Peter ^Isotalo 20:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

    • It's not me. It's Wikipedia policy. Which is fine to disagree with, but this isn't me going off the grid. See Wikipedia:Summary style - an article on "Modern era" is too long, so we split off sections by date. Which is allowed per the cited policy. And of course it's better to go with what sources use when possible, but you aren't exactly making a strong case for yourself by saying that you think we should ignore Google Books suggests and go with your own personal vibes. That's the reverse of doing what the sources suggest.

      I note that you haven't responded to everything else I've written. Do you understand what WP:OR is, and why the OR tag is inappropriate here? SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

      WP:SS is a guideline, not a policy.

      What you're arguing for here is the equivalent of splitting up the animal kingdom into arbitrarily defined clades when someone thinks an article about a certain phylum, order, family, etc. is too long.

      What you're arguing for here is that periodization isn't a serious academic topic and that Wikipedia should ignore research in that field because it's convenient.

      It's technically more about ignorance than anything else, but it amounts of original research nevertheless. Your approach to this ignores history as an academic discipline. Choosing your own preferred periodization is not in the least neutral. Peter ^Isotalo 19:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    Per WP:OR: 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)

    • That is definitely not a problem on a topic as wide as the modern era! SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

      Contemporary history and late modern period are definitely engaged in at least some OR. The latter term doesn't actually exist among historians since the modern period is today usually defined as the period from about 1800 until today.

      The late modern article is mostly a result of Wikipedians drawing their own conclusion instead of consulting sources. Peter ^Isotalo 20:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    these articles are all stable and all have community support. this is simply how Wikipedia works. I don't see any problems with these articles.

    one area where Wikipedia shines is its coverage and inclusion of history. obviously I have a major interest in this academic field. I'm not against a surplus of large articles covering major perioods like these.

    if you want to know, one concern of mine is that sometimes Wikipedia has too many articles for different events within a single topic, which perhaps had been notable for a while, but then declined in significance. so I'm fine with articles which seek to cover larger periods. in the case of these articles, they have been stable for a while. Sm8900 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    "Stable" and "community support" does not alone trump WP:V; we don't vote about facts nor do apply grandfather rules to keep unverifiable content.

    Consensus and verifiability are two issues that need to be balanced and in the case of the modernity articles, people have chosen to pretty much completely ignore the verifiability. Periodization is pretty complicated and highly contextual but users seem mostly unaware of this issue, even to the extent of raising concerns about WP:GLOBAL when, say, the history of Japan 1500-1800 isn't fully included in the early modern period. As if Japan or East Asia had a historical development completely in sync with that of most of Europe. Peter ^Isotalo 19:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

    Numerous reliable academic sources assert the "early Modern Period" and place it between 1500 and 1800, with some minor variations. Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Section break 3

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:

1. WP:TNT this at WP:AFD; or
2. make it a disambiguation page; or
3. strictly limit it to pure historiographical discussions on periodisation, in which every single source should be an WP:RS from a historiographer, and not just some author who happens to mention late modern in passing (WP:SIGCOV). All content discussing events or developments which happened in this purely theoretical periodisation should be thrown out (if practical recycled to some other article like 19th century or 20th century). I've already thrown out the "Significant events" section as complete and utter WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, and am tempted to do the same with the rest of the article that does not say a word about late modern period, or about periodisation.

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!).

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:

• "late modern period" "periodization" from 2000 to 2024: 173 results.
• "late modern period" "periodisation" from 2000 to 2024: 70 results.

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)

Per above comments, I am not too fussed on the whole matter of periodization. We already have the ability to subdivide topics however we like, hence articles like History of the United States (1815–1849). If people are very uncomfortable with "Late modern period" since that term doesn't come up very often in sources, then I'd say we should just move the article to Modern period, 1800–1945, or maybe even something like World history, 1800–1945. Then chop down the contents of Modern period to only include periodization and historiography topics, and leave all of the "actual" history to the child articles Early modern period, Modern period, 1800–1945, and Contemporary history (or even move that to Modern period, 1945–present if desired). SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the other articles at the moment, just late modern period.

My question is whether we can justify a stand-alone article about the term late modern period under that name, fullstop. I do not see any reason to keep it as it is, or to recycle its contents by renaming. For its contents, we've already got far better articles, namely 19th century and 20th century, without arbitrary boundaries that we can't justify. For explaining what the term means, in terms of definitions given by actual scholars, I have not found a single proper source that deals with that question as a matter of historiographical periodisation. (By comparison, for early modern period, such sources exist, e.g. Justus Nipperdey, Inventing “Early Modern” Europe: Fashioning a New Historical Period in American Historiography 1880–1945. (July 2022). Journal of Early Modern History). NLeeuw (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"Late modern" is not a thing among historians. In my experience, the most common term in the last few decades is to use "modern" to denote the period ca 1800 until today (where applicable). We have essentially zero sources supporting the notability of "late modern" as a standalone term or topic and we're better of simply redirecting it to modern era.

The notability and recognition of the early modern period isn't something I've questioned, only that editors are choosing to make their own interpretations of it by applying the Western calendar years of 1500-1800 globally. It makes no more sense than detailing the Classic Maya collapse or the Ghana Empire in the article about the Middle Ages.

Sub-dividing global history is fraught with difficulties and we should simply not do it the way you're suggesting here. It's actually problematic enough that we chop up US history by arbitrary dates purely for convenience. "We already do it" is not a strong reason to keep doing it. Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with Peter. A redirect to modern era is even better than any of the 3 options that I proposed (although it is close to a dp, option 2). NLeeuw (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly removed all WP:UNSOURCED claims about events before 1800 and after 1945, since there is no agreement on whether these should be included in the concept of late modern period, and they had no sources which might have backed that up anyway. I've tagged most other unsourced statements as well, which may help raise our awareness just how much of this article is currently failing WP:V. Some sourced content might still be recycled into other articles, particularly those that have been identified as "Main articles". I've also restructured the article so that it now has just 4 main sections: Definition; Industrial revolutions; 19th century; and 20th century. The latter two already identified 19th century and 20th century as "Main articles" anyway, and it becomes ever clearer that these sections amount to little more than WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.

Even if periodisation of late modern period might merit a stand-alone article, we do not need to rehash all the content from other articles about which events might hypothecally be included in that concept. It's a bit like writing an article about a hypothetical Central Asian federation (which might possibly pass WP:GNG), and then listing all villages in Karakalpakstan that would exist in this federation if it were ever possibly maybe hypothetically theoretically potentially would-be in spe TBD deo volente inshallah to be established. Thus, this article would be using this purely hypothetical future federation as a WP:COATRACK to talk about the rather tangentially-related urban geography of a present-day region that the editor seems to be mostly interested in. Adding lots of (reliable) sources to support claims that villages A, B and C are indeed located in Karakalpakstan today, is

• irrelevant for their inclusion into the article, especially if the sources do not even explicitly mention the article's topic (and pretty much none of the sources in late modern period mentions late modern period);
• irrelevant for establishing the notability of the topic; and
• irrelevant for determining whether it merits a stand-alone page or WP:NOPAGE. NLeeuw (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

section break for comments

I suggest that you make a summary of as a follow-up at Talk:Late_modern_period#Sources_for_the_term. Fair warning has been given regarding the lack of sources justifying the source.

Article has been tagged for several months with no one stepping up to address the problems. Peter ^Isotalo 22:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo I don't understand. A summary of what? A lack of sources justifying what source? Do you mean justifying a stand-alone article? NLeeuw (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've BOLDly removed more UNSOURCED stuff. As long as nobody objects, or tries to salvage this mess, I'll gradually go on with cleaning up. There might still be material worth recycling. NLeeuw (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

i think any removals should be discussed and agreed upon in advance, on the talk page for the article itself. Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

tagging @Peter Isotalo, @SnowFire, for their input. Sm8900 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We have been discussing it here (because discussion had been centralised since December 2023) for over a week. (I tagged all of you; you said nothing). But ok, why do you think we should keep this stuff? (For everyone's information, my rationale was WP:BOLD removal of more WP:UNSOURCED claims as their relevance to this article is tenuous at best (mostly using the barely used term "late modern period" as a WP:COATRACK), and WP:OVERLAPping and duplicative of 19th century and 20th century at worst (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). These issues are nothing new, they have been identified ever since December 2023, and I summarised them again 5 days ago). NLeeuw (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You're definitely allowed to remove unsourced content, and anyone restoring it is responsible for adding sources before they do so. Also, reverting solely because there was no discussion is poor etiquette. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Removed again for now, until WP:RS are added to all content that was WP:UNSOURCED. NLeeuw (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

quote from comment i posted on that talk page: as stated in this edit, please discuss any major removals or deletions here before doing them. here is my comment on the recent edit to undo: 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.

Also, this discussion did occur in a limited form on WP:HIST talk page. the actual specific material to remove was not discussed there, however. let me say publicly that these removals were in fact in good faith, and this editor has certain specific reasons for these edits. i would encourage a constructive discussion here, to clarify and resolve this issue. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

the burden is _not_ on me to explain why we should _not_ have bulk removals here. That's not what Thebiguglyalien or I said.

• Thebiguglyalien said: anyone restoring it is responsible for adding sources before they do so.
• I said: If you want to keep WP:UNSOURCED content, the WP:BURDEN is on you.

Wikipedia is _full_ of Passages that are technically "unsourced" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. NLeeuw (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw i do appreciate your willingness to reply, and to discuss here. however, the proper place to discuss such a large deletion would be the talk page of the article itself. could you please initiate a discussion there, of the changes that you propose? thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw and let me just add that it is quite possible that you may find consensus to your proposal. so I do not see any reason to decline to open this topic for discussion, on the talk page for this specific article. Sm8900 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

actually, the rule states that it is bad etiquette to revert solely because there was no discussion, if the revert does not include a substantive edit summary. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Copies made. Invited editors to continue discussing the fate of late modern period at Talk:Late modern period. NLeeuw (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I saw the ping. I feel like we're talking in circles, though. I agree that the late modern period article needs cleanup and it's great if Nederlandse Leeuw wants to take a look, but I deeply fundamentally disagree on the logic that Peter Isotalo raises (and NLeeuw says he agrees with?) that there shouldn't be an article (= there shouldn't be some sort of article on history from 1800-1945?). This is very basic, very accepted WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Imagine we were writing on Wikibooks some 1 million word treatise on a topic. We need zero justification - none - to subdivide such a giant chunk of text into whatever chapters we thought best displayed the material. An article on all the "modern era" is far too large to be a single article, so it gets split up into parts, the same way a book is split into chapters. That's literally all that is happening here. The way forward is to find, say, 4 decent history-of-the-modern-era textbooks and try to match up the important bits of history all of them cover, if we want to do this "For real", and worry about the article title later. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire, I totally agree with your comment above. Agree Sm8900 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I provided a pretty detailed explanation earlier in the thread why what you're arguing for is just OR since it boils down to making up article topics for the sake of convenience. Why do you feel that WP:SS should trump WP:OR? Peter ^Isotalo 09:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Improving articles through proper use of sources

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)

I strongly support this approach. Justus Nipperdey approved my request for a copy of his 2022 article Inventing “Early Modern” Europe: Fashioning a New Historical Period in American Historiography 1880–1945; perhaps he might be as courteous to other Wikipedians as well. I've not read it in its entirety yet, but it is exactly the kind of reliable source we need for fixing lots of issues with these articles.

It is a Begriffsgeschichte, a conceptual history, which goes into elaborate detail of how the term "early modern" was used from 1800 to 1950, how its meaning changed and why, and just how often it has been misinterpreted after 1950 because authors didn't bother to do what Nipperdey did, namely to examine how others really used the term instead of just associating it with various ideas and views and events and developments without proper research. (On the other hand, they didn't have JSTOR so unlike Nipperdey they couldn't easily do a quantitative analysis back in the pre-digital age.) It is fascinating and well-written, although not all assertions are directly backed up by evidence, but his own reasoning based on several examples that may or may not be representative. Still, nobody appears to have examined the terms "early modern" and "modern" this thoroughly.

Nipperdey also observes that some people, just like me above, thought that the terms "early modern" and "late modern" were coined in linguistics, but the linguistis were late to the show, although amongst the first to attach more explicit periodisations. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nipperday's article is available through the Wikipedia Library. Brill is currently not accessible for some reason, but it normally is.

I can also recommend What is Early Modern History? (Wiesner-Hanks 2021) regarding the conceptual history. I've already used it a bit for a background regarding the term itself. Peter ^Isotalo 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I tried everything to access the paper including the Wikipedia Library, but it didn't work. I'm glad Nipperdey sent it to me via Academia.edu.

An e-book edition of Wiesner-Hanks is only 17 euros, I might consider that as well, thanks! NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

FP candidate

Hi! A historic photo of Machu Picchu (one of the very first) is nominated for Featured Picture. Your support would be appreciated—feel free to vote! --JustEMV (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice picture! I can't help but mention that the name reminds me of Pikachu. Haha. NutmegCoffeeTea (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject History needs you!

Is this WikiProject still looking for any volunteers? If so in what areas? I noticed the older discussion above but didn't want to necro it. Thanks! NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. yes, we are definitely looking for volunteers! all fields, all eras, and all topics would be welcome here. please feel free, any time. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Common Era has an RfC

Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Beef#Etymology

The opinion of someone with a background in history or linguistics (particularly someone knowledgeable about English history after the Norman conquest) would be welcome at Talk:Beef#Etymology. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Input needed for consensus on two war articles

There's current discussion on Talk:War of 1812 and Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition due to disagreement with co-belligerent inclusion and the degree of relation of the two conflicts. I encourage you to pop in and join the discussion/add your input so we can reach a consensus one way or the other. Thanks! AvRand (talk) AvRand (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the discussion split between two pages? That's a little confusing. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Join Request

Hi, may I please join? TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@TeaLoverHistoryGuy, yes absolutely. welcome!! cheers!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Periodisation of African history

Hi, there's a discussion at Talk:History of Africa#Periodisation on the periodisation of African history on wiki, all input welcome Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting for investigation for Draft:Battle of Khosrek (1820)

Hello! I'm Royiswariii from AFC Reviewer, I want to fact check this draft article Draft:Battle of Khosrek (1820) because we can't determine whether it's WP:HOAX or not, please cooperate to us if we approve it or not. Thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 09:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Phoenicia#Requested move 28 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Phoenicia#Requested move 28 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Classic book#Requested move 7 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classic book#Requested move 7 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Maurya Empire#Rfc on the Map

You are welcome to participate in discussion at Talk:Maurya Empire#Rfc on the Map Edasf (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cluj-Napoca

Cluj-Napoca 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Social question

The article Social question needs some work. Beyond just kinda being written oddly, it seems conflicted on what the Social question even is. The lede states "The term social question denotes the opposition between capital and labour" while the body states "The term social question refers to the social grievances that accompanied the Industrial Revolution and the following population explosion, that is, the social problems accompanying and resulting from the transition from an agrarian to an urbanising industrial society". The latter interpretation seems to be the more well agreed upon one. The see also section also seems to have a weird focus on Catholicism and Germany. I've also noticed that some citations don't seem to back up the content they're meant to be backing up. Overall, it needs attention, it's in bad shape for a topic that seems very important MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you just mean updating the definitions? I see what you mean by the focus on Germany. It could benefit from being expanded to cover the capital-labor dynamic in some other regions as well. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Social question in the nineteenth century" and "Social question in the nineteenth century" could also be reorganized into a general "History" section maybe. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@NutmegCoffeeTea (general section "History"):

Do you know this publication (?): Alexander Fuks: Plato and the Social Question. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeia#cite_note-73
--2001:16B8:C3BE:A600:61E1:90E7:DD10:F8CE (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@MRN2electricboogaloo -- Try this to get more information about the "social question":

• https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DuckDuckGo+AI+Chat&ia=chat&duckai=1

(GPT-4o mini / Claude 3 Haiku / Llama 3.1 70B / Mixtral 8x7B)

Please enter the following task there: ==> definition "Social Question in the Twenty-First Century"
--2001:16B8:C3BE:A600:61E1:90E7:DD10:F8CE (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Title of Tenure of Mikhail Gorbachev

Should it be changed as per WP:PRECISE? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 11:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of Pittsburgh

History of Pittsburgh 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)