Wikipedia talk:History vs. genealogy

I agree with this essay. I have similar views, which I expressed here.--Michael WhiteT·C 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there I go for not doing my research properly. Good to know I'm not alone, and I like your essay, it is much more concrete than mine. If a wide consensus is reached we could perhaps merge them somehow. For the moment, however, I have three concrete suggestions to improve the situation:
  1. Agree on some sort of guidelines that would steer focus away from genealogy towards biography and historical context (Michael's essay could be a good starting point here.)
  2. Curb the proliferation of endless, repetitive genealogical infoboxes, tables and sections.
  3. Create a cleanup template to be attached to pages that read more like genealogical directories than biographies. Lampman Talk to me! 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this essay. My experience has been with articles on the Ernestine duchies. There seem to be editors who feel that the most important thing in history is lists of rulers (and of pretenders to extinct seats). It is relevant to cover how Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II and King George V could fondly call each other cousin, but do we really need an article on Andreas, "head of the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and titular Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha since 1998"? -- Donald Albury 10:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay brings up an issue that annoys many of us, yet is important to a number of readers & editors because it is their chance to have a connection to a notable person. (And it does crop up in my corner of Wikipedia --Ethiopia-realted articles -- because the Amhara people take great care to know their ancestry 7 generations back.) And for this second reason, I doubt this annoying tendency can ever be legislated away -- although I wouldn't be surprised if, a few years down the road, some misguided Wikipedians will argue that articles like Sally Hemings are not notable. Wikipedians tend to take any reasonable idea & push it to its most unreasonable extremes. -- llywrch (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we can ever entirely get rid of the problem, but I do believe that some sort of official sanction - like guidelines and a template - can be useful tools to those of us trying to clean up this mess. And we certainly shouldn't go too far to the other extreme, Michael's essay does a good job at pointing out the cases where genealogical information is relevant, and when it's not. Lampman Talk to me! 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what this essay regards as "the problem". Yes there is significant duplication in the info boxes for Edward I, but one of the boxes with genealogical information is hidden. The article has a lot of non-genealogical information, and does not seem (to me) to be unbalanced. The second article mentioned in the essay has three sentences of genealogy in a relatively short article and would be improved by more information. However, history is often improved by knowledge of genealogy. Two examples: Understanding the wars of the roses requires knowledge of the descent of the protagonists. Similalarly, the fact that Cromwell was related to many members of the rump parliament is historically significant. Where articles are unbalanced by the amount of genealogy, it is probably because of the interests of the editors who worked on them. If a task force is set up to improve articles by adding non-genealogical information then I applaud. But if the object is to delete anything genealogical then I don't believe this would be an improvement. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think wikipedia is hurting itself by spending so much time removing people's work through out of control legalization. This alienates casual users and creates an editor aristocrasy. If an article is unbalanced, it's easy to delete information, but it's much better to add what's missing. If an article gets to big, break it up. I disagree with the insinuation that wikipedia should be bound by traditional encyclopedia rules. It is boundless. Isn't that what you like about wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.231 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To Rjm) Absolutely, as I mentioned in the essay, genealogy is essential to an understanding of history. By no means do I suggest deleting anything genealogical; if you read Michael's essay you see that he outlines cases where that information is relevant, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is when undue weight is given to a particular topic, because that can be an impediment to understanding of the subject.
I'm glad you mention the Wars of the Roses, as this is a particularly good example. It used to be held that the WotR resulted from the dynastic policies of Edward III towards his sons, but modern scholarship has shown that the failure of Henry VI was the main reason behind the conflict. The old misconception still prevails in the popular imagination though. I personally worked on bringing the article on Edward III up to FA status, and in the process I had to clean up sections that took up almost half the article space, linking the king to the WotR. The problem, of course, was that a reader could be left with the impression that this was his main contribution to history, which is not the case at all. I agree with you when you say that "Understanding the wars of the roses requires knowledge of the descent of the protagonists", but we have to avoid the impression that dynastic struggle was the cause of the conflict. This is how undue weight can get in the way of understanding.
(To anon) Am I to understand that you are in disagreement with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (directory and indiscriminate collection of information)? This is pretty well established policy. As for separating information into new article – genealogical information as stand-alone lists – I would absolutely support this (I did this on the E III article, actually), but normal notability criteria would have to apply, of course. Lampman Talk to me! 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]