This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjensen (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 27 November 2015 (this article follows the RS approach). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:46, 27 November 2015 by Rjensen (talk | contribs) (this article follows the RS approach)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | British Empire Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Untitled
Canada has been added to this article but others are still missing, such as Australia. Qexigator proposes that the "See also" section includes one or more of
Qexigator (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- good idea--i will do it now. Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ummm, why is there no Africa section in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.150.218 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Major issues
There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion. If it stays it needs to be about Historiography in respect of the British Empire not about the British Empire ----Snowded 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- OR means somerthing is not footnoted--and just what is that? Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Read WP:OR it has nothing to do with footnoting. Please address the issues raised and you might want to read WP:OWN while you are at it ----Snowded 18:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- the rule is The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Which statement is not sourced to a RS??? The paragraphs are summaries of what specified RS actually say. Rjensen (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- It can also apply to a synthesis of material, however well sourced, which represents a particular opinion or perspective. You are still not addressing the main issue here. The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire. ----Snowded 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Historiography is about the different topics and methods historians use who write about the British Empire....Each paragraph is about different approaches or topics historians have examined and how they differed. Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not really and that is the problem, most paragraphs are actually written as objective history. Neither is there any source which supports the main subject headings chosen. You really need a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire. A less attractive option would be a source which defines historiography and then applies that to work on the British Empire. That could be problematic but at least there would be some justification for the subject headings and structure of the article. The individual sections may be valid and referenced but the overall structure and selection is still a personal synthesis without a third party source ----Snowded 19:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree with @Snowded: Most of the sections do a good job describing historiographies, but the focus/landscape is much too limited: each section, could be the foundation for a whole article (most of these topics, have huge, complex histriographies). I would imagine the reading list to adequetly research any one of those articles, would be a fairly substantial phd-style reading list.... The article needs to stay, and provides a good foundation, but the foundational work by @Rjensen: is only scratching the surface of these topics - and we need an expert (or panel of experts) systematically identify gaps/weaknesses in the coverage. Sadads (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Snowded seems to not understand the difference between history and historiography. Obviously he never studied it at university. He instead pontificates about, "a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire" That has been done at great length in the Oxford History vol 5 which is explicitly all about historiography. (and there are many journal articles and a few books on historiography of Brit Empire.) This article resembles vol 5. All of the sections deal exclusively with how historians of the Empire have been doing the job--and where they disagree (as on slavery for example). The "History of the BE" article has almost nothing on historians. Not one is named in the text. And it stumbles badly when historians disagree, ignoring the whole issue of the role of slavery, as debated by Eric Williams and many others. Not a single 'native' is mentioned, not even Gandhi! Sadads is right about coverage. This is an encyclopedia and we're dealing with hundreds of books and articles in a short space. So we give the ideas in a nutshell. Each section can someday be a full article, but we have to start somewhere and I think many of the key issues are indicated, albeit briefly. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you think there is something wrong or missing with the BE article then you should make changes there. The fact you emphasise criticism of that article here reinforces my concern that this is at least intended in part as a coatrack article for material you suspect will be rejected in the main article. If you have material in the Oxford History which supports your structure then please share it rather than trying to claim the right to assert expertise; you should know that is not the way wikipedia works. Too be clear, if you can show a third party source that supports the overall structure fine, but without that it is simply your synthesis. To request a third party source is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and the use of 'pontificate' aside from breaking wikipedia protocols seems to indicate an unwillingness to work with other editors. I suggest you stop that before your behaviour becomes the issue. The article needs to talk about approaches taken by historians (and be clear as such to non-historians who read it) not present itself as a history. That means that it needs to talk about the methodology of historiansin tackling a subject and use material to illustrate those different methods. Given a third party source for the structure the lede would then need to summarise the various approaches/schools etc to provide proper context . @Sadads: - I couldn't find a tag for synthesis so used the OR one, but I'm happy (and just have) to use the coatrack one instead. That probably better makes my point.----Snowded 03:48, 25 November 2015
- the BE article is full of low grade middle school history--it misses the main new themes of the last 30 years--it suppresses the native viewpoint --not even Gandhi gets a mention!!--and skips all the debates by historians. This article is about historians -- just about every paragraph makes that clear. It covers themes in the standard books on historiography (not yet all of the themes because it's still incomplete). "Coatrack" articles = content is about a different subject. Not true here. In style & substance & topics this this article complies well--its sections topics follow the chapters of Winks' "Historiography book & the Stockwell book. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2015
- If you have concerns about the BE article then raise them on that article. Everytime you protest it here it further confirms by suspicion that you intend it as an alternative history not an article about historians. You assert it follows a structure but won't share that structure. Please supply supporting material, we cannot rely on your assertions alone. If I look at the Stockwell book outline, it presents a thematic history rather than one based on a timeline. Now the fact she does that is historigraphy, but the thematic history is history. So presenting that seems to me taking a different approach to the main article, here the criticism. Now you might want to propose a thematic approach on the main article. Or there might be a case for an article on her book that can summarise the approach. I am less sure it provides an authoritative source for the structure of this article given its title ----Snowded 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources. User:Rjensen contends that it resembles the structure of Vol 5 of the OHBE, but acknowledges that it is "incomplete". I guess that's one way of putting it - if that's the aim then it has a long way to go. He also contends that this article is "about historians". I would challenge him to explain why large chunks are not about historians (e.g. mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control) and make no mention of them.
- So in terms of structure should we be copying the OHBE or Stockwell or some other work? Probably not. This should be an introduction to the topic, not a comprehensive survey. User:Rjensen is critical of the BE article because he thinks it is "full of low grade middle school history". I see from his own article that he has suffered some criticism from middle-school students, so I can understand why there might be some antipathy, but ultimately we should be writing articles in such a way that people at that age can understand and use them. "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics" The article on the British Empire touches on a massive range of social, economic and political issues across a 500 year period. There is NO way that any of them can be examined in academic detail. Likewise, this article is an overview, so it should be explaining the broad approaches that historians have taken and summarising, briefly, the key themes. What it should NOT be doing is judging the merits of different arguments with one-sided commentary. So, for example, the section on "First" and "Second" Empires glibly supports the period-based approach (Parsons, Jackson, bit of Marshall), but makes no mention of historians who refute it (Judd) or completely ignore it (e.g. Lawrence, Ferguson) with a narrative.
- Way forward In my view the introduction and the final section (which I see is being edited even as we discuss the article) ought to be merged and expanded. A history of the historiography would provide our hypothetical (middle school level) reader with an understanding of the scope of the topic and how it has evolved over time. We can then talk about different approaches (narrative overviews, period-specific, thematic etc) and then branch off and summarise some of the broader areas (perhaps in line with, but not identical to) the OHBE. Existing sections should be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV (where necessary) to reflect the range of different views. We should have more links to topic-specific articles - many issues are covered in detail elsewhere. Commentary on the quality of sources should be removed from the "Further Reading" list. I'm not sure about listing primary sources - why are these here? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about the BE article then raise them on that article. Everytime you protest it here it further confirms by suspicion that you intend it as an alternative history not an article about historians. You assert it follows a structure but won't share that structure. Please supply supporting material, we cannot rely on your assertions alone. If I look at the Stockwell book outline, it presents a thematic history rather than one based on a timeline. Now the fact she does that is historigraphy, but the thematic history is history. So presenting that seems to me taking a different approach to the main article, here the criticism. Now you might want to propose a thematic approach on the main article. Or there might be a case for an article on her book that can summarise the approach. I am less sure it provides an authoritative source for the structure of this article given its title ----Snowded 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- the BE article is full of low grade middle school history--it misses the main new themes of the last 30 years--it suppresses the native viewpoint --not even Gandhi gets a mention!!--and skips all the debates by historians. This article is about historians -- just about every paragraph makes that clear. It covers themes in the standard books on historiography (not yet all of the themes because it's still incomplete). "Coatrack" articles = content is about a different subject. Not true here. In style & substance & topics this this article complies well--its sections topics follow the chapters of Winks' "Historiography book & the Stockwell book. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2015
- If you think there is something wrong or missing with the BE article then you should make changes there. The fact you emphasise criticism of that article here reinforces my concern that this is at least intended in part as a coatrack article for material you suspect will be rejected in the main article. If you have material in the Oxford History which supports your structure then please share it rather than trying to claim the right to assert expertise; you should know that is not the way wikipedia works. Too be clear, if you can show a third party source that supports the overall structure fine, but without that it is simply your synthesis. To request a third party source is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and the use of 'pontificate' aside from breaking wikipedia protocols seems to indicate an unwillingness to work with other editors. I suggest you stop that before your behaviour becomes the issue. The article needs to talk about approaches taken by historians (and be clear as such to non-historians who read it) not present itself as a history. That means that it needs to talk about the methodology of historiansin tackling a subject and use material to illustrate those different methods. Given a third party source for the structure the lede would then need to summarise the various approaches/schools etc to provide proper context . @Sadads: - I couldn't find a tag for synthesis so used the OR one, but I'm happy (and just have) to use the coatrack one instead. That probably better makes my point.----Snowded 03:48, 25 November 2015
- Snowded seems to not understand the difference between history and historiography. Obviously he never studied it at university. He instead pontificates about, "a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire" That has been done at great length in the Oxford History vol 5 which is explicitly all about historiography. (and there are many journal articles and a few books on historiography of Brit Empire.) This article resembles vol 5. All of the sections deal exclusively with how historians of the Empire have been doing the job--and where they disagree (as on slavery for example). The "History of the BE" article has almost nothing on historians. Not one is named in the text. And it stumbles badly when historians disagree, ignoring the whole issue of the role of slavery, as debated by Eric Williams and many others. Not a single 'native' is mentioned, not even Gandhi! Sadads is right about coverage. This is an encyclopedia and we're dealing with hundreds of books and articles in a short space. So we give the ideas in a nutshell. Each section can someday be a full article, but we have to start somewhere and I think many of the key issues are indicated, albeit briefly. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree with @Snowded: Most of the sections do a good job describing historiographies, but the focus/landscape is much too limited: each section, could be the foundation for a whole article (most of these topics, have huge, complex histriographies). I would imagine the reading list to adequetly research any one of those articles, would be a fairly substantial phd-style reading list.... The article needs to stay, and provides a good foundation, but the foundational work by @Rjensen: is only scratching the surface of these topics - and we need an expert (or panel of experts) systematically identify gaps/weaknesses in the coverage. Sadads (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not really and that is the problem, most paragraphs are actually written as objective history. Neither is there any source which supports the main subject headings chosen. You really need a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire. A less attractive option would be a source which defines historiography and then applies that to work on the British Empire. That could be problematic but at least there would be some justification for the subject headings and structure of the article. The individual sections may be valid and referenced but the overall structure and selection is still a personal synthesis without a third party source ----Snowded 19:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Historiography is about the different topics and methods historians use who write about the British Empire....Each paragraph is about different approaches or topics historians have examined and how they differed. Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- It can also apply to a synthesis of material, however well sourced, which represents a particular opinion or perspective. You are still not addressing the main issue here. The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire. ----Snowded 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- the rule is The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Which statement is not sourced to a RS??? The paragraphs are summaries of what specified RS actually say. Rjensen (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Read WP:OR it has nothing to do with footnoting. Please address the issues raised and you might want to read WP:OWN while you are at it ----Snowded 18:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- many students are required to use primary sources and they can be hard to locate, so we have a very short guide. Annotations are helpful and they are explicitly allowed in the wiki rules about further reading. As for NPOV if they are major opposing views not mentioned they should be added to the views already covered. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I want to +1 on the @Wiki-Ed: way forward: and emphasize a contention I have with Rjensen's last statement: historiography needs to deal with both the key critical concepts AND the authors/works that propose them, else we are doing the academic slight of hand, where the authority of the writer, allows them to make wide (and sometimes wild) claims about what "historians" as a group are thinking. Sadads (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- OR means somerthing is not footnoted--and just what is that? Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree, User:Rjensen are you prepared to work with us on this? ----Snowded 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes I can work with anyone in adding new material here. this article is about the historians' interpretations of the history of the british empire. Every paragraph is about the ideas & empire-wide themes that historians have explored including mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control, etc. That is historiography and the topics are not covered in the Hist of Br Emp article. If someone wants to rework the lede, then let's try that. as for topics, we have 41 chapters in the Winks vol 5, plus 20 in Stockwell --versus 13 sections here. so that's a huge amount to summarize. The target audience should be university students who are able to handle ideas at this level and some will be writing class papers. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in that statement which accepts that the article needs substantial change to be about historiography not an alternative history. As to target audience, sorry that is not correct. if you want something for that group write a book or an article. It really is im.portant that you take on board and respond to the points above. Ignoring them or being dismissive of other editors (you reaction so far) will just end up with conflict, ANI referrals and all that jazz. You are an experienced editor so you do know how things work around here. So can I ask the question again ----Snowded 06:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I also am strongly opposed to including any "alternative history." "alternative history" is fiction in which the author imagines what happens if say Washington loses the American Revolution. Which section in your opinion commits "alternative history"??? Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- With caveats, I agree with Rjensen's points. This article is distinctly about historiography which is not history and certainly not alternative history. In American historiography such an article would treat say historians' evolving viewpoints re schools of Manifest Destiny, New Frontier or Lost Cause. Sometimes it sounds like those that disagree with him either do not understand the distinction between history and historiography or feel perhaps that historiography is not a suitable subject for WP. If the latter well say so. Juan Riley (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wiki-ed makes false charges: large chunks are not about historians (e.g. mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control) and make no mention of them. these sections all deal with the concepts developed by two dozen scholars, all cites in the footnotes: Hecksher, LaHaye, Hansen, Hill, Nester, Stout, Savelle, Frieden, Marrison, Howe, Etherington, Bell, Gilbert, Tiffin, Peckham, Worboys, Farley. etc. etc. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well if it was an article on historiography then it would include summary of the various approaches over the ages. What it actually does is summarise only one of those, namely a thematic approach; which is why several of us are concerned that it is simply (or at least in part) an alternative to the British Empire article. The selection of sources seems to come from Rjensen as well. I'm picking the Oxford reference from the bookshop tomorrow and will see what that actually provides by way of a possible metastructure. ----Snowded 00:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Historiography is usually done topic by topic instead of looking at the books of 1910s on all topics, then the books in 1920s onm all topics, etc to 2010s. the standard RS = the two books edited by Winks on the Historiog of the Brit Empire and they are organized by themes. So we follow the RS here but Snowded rejects the RS method. The overlap here with the BE article is minimal (the First-Second Empire topic is the only overlap) otherwise the BE article has very little historiography. Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography. Maybe he will get enlightened tomorrow. The topic sections are mostly chronological by the way--look at "Theories of imperialism" "Slavery " "13 American colonies" "India" -- ie by chronology inside the topic. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well if it was an article on historiography then it would include summary of the various approaches over the ages. What it actually does is summarise only one of those, namely a thematic approach; which is why several of us are concerned that it is simply (or at least in part) an alternative to the British Empire article. The selection of sources seems to come from Rjensen as well. I'm picking the Oxford reference from the bookshop tomorrow and will see what that actually provides by way of a possible metastructure. ----Snowded 00:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wiki-ed makes false charges: large chunks are not about historians (e.g. mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control) and make no mention of them. these sections all deal with the concepts developed by two dozen scholars, all cites in the footnotes: Hecksher, LaHaye, Hansen, Hill, Nester, Stout, Savelle, Frieden, Marrison, Howe, Etherington, Bell, Gilbert, Tiffin, Peckham, Worboys, Farley. etc. etc. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- With caveats, I agree with Rjensen's points. This article is distinctly about historiography which is not history and certainly not alternative history. In American historiography such an article would treat say historians' evolving viewpoints re schools of Manifest Destiny, New Frontier or Lost Cause. Sometimes it sounds like those that disagree with him either do not understand the distinction between history and historiography or feel perhaps that historiography is not a suitable subject for WP. If the latter well say so. Juan Riley (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I also am strongly opposed to including any "alternative history." "alternative history" is fiction in which the author imagines what happens if say Washington loses the American Revolution. Which section in your opinion commits "alternative history"??? Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in that statement which accepts that the article needs substantial change to be about historiography not an alternative history. As to target audience, sorry that is not correct. if you want something for that group write a book or an article. It really is im.portant that you take on board and respond to the points above. Ignoring them or being dismissive of other editors (you reaction so far) will just end up with conflict, ANI referrals and all that jazz. You are an experienced editor so you do know how things work around here. So can I ask the question again ----Snowded 06:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)