WWII Archives:WWII Archives Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

From WWII Archives

Browse history interactively
VisualWikitext
(Created page with "Welcome to the official full-length version of the WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to WAMoS), which is comparative to the short version that was required for everyone to read while creating their account. This includes many of the specifics to the things mentioned in the short version, as well as describing technical things that the short version called for people to see this version to learn about. The WAMoS is divided into different sections, the first being...")
 
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Welcome to the official full-length version of the WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to WAMoS), which is comparative to the short version that was required for everyone to read while creating their account. This includes many of the specifics to the things mentioned in the short version, as well as describing technical things that the short version called for people to see this version to learn about.  
Welcome to the official '''WWII Archives Editing Guide''' (formerly called WWII Archives Manual of Style or WAMoS). The WAMoS is divided into different sections, the first being about the proper mentality of historical analysis, the second being about sources and citing them.
 
The WAMoS is divided into different sections, the first being about the proper mentality of historical analysis, the second being about sources and citing them, the third


For anything that has to do with Multimedia (uploaded files), see the Multimedia Guide.
For anything that has to do with Multimedia (uploaded files), see the Multimedia Guide.


== Principles of the historical process and debating on the WWII Archives ==
==Principles of the historical process and debating on the WWII Archives==
In order to participate in a history project of this magnitude, it will be required to have at least a basic understanding of the historical method, having debates, discussions, arguments, how to analyze sources, how to think critically, asking questions, and more. This is especially for those who just readily accept claims and sources as fact without questioning the source, where it came from, who created it, etc. Therefore it is vitally important to read this part of this article carefully, so as to fulfill the goal and philosophy of the WWII Archives. This not only applies to writing about historical events, but every kind of subject out there that could be written about on the Archives, such as your ancestors, places, other people, etc.
In order to participate on this project, the reader must at least have a basic understanding of the historical method, mindset, and debates. Therefore read and understand this carefully. This applies to writing about and doing anything on the site. Here are the rules:
 
=== Keep the conversation civil ===
In order to remain as much on focus to achieving the goal of the WWII Archives, everyone must participate and debate peacefully and in a civil manor. Even if you disagree with the the opposing side's point of view or world view, you must debate and speak to them respectfully. Throwing around insults just wastes time and is counterproductive.
 
=== Remember, history changes! ===
The study of history has been changing and been revised to for thousands of years. This is due to the process of bringing to light new evidence, reasoning, interpretations, challenges to the consensus, new arguments, counterarguments, etc. This cycle of questioning, interpreting, and debating has brought to us our interpretations of history today. But, just as in the past, our interpretations of history aren’t perfect, and so history is constantly in need of changing and revising, and therefore a historian, is always a revisionist (unlike those who wish to distort or deny history, referred to as denialists or distortionists). If they aren’t, then we won’t get closer to that correct interpretation and knowledge of what happened and what is true. That is why the following must be followed and read carefully.
 
==== Consensuses aren't always correct ====
Consensuses aren't always correct. Just because an "expert" or multiple experts (such as historians) of a subject say something, or a consensus is made about a subject, doesn't make it true. Everyone is a human, and so everyone has a bias in some way. The experts who claim the consensus to be true might be limited in some way, which could include their bias, not having access to the right materials, might not have looked at the other side's arguments, not having come up with the right interpretation, have a bias towards one side, or at worst, having an agenda and distort facts and information, or outright deny things to suit their agenda and world view. Therefore you always need to have people challenging and questioning that consensus, with sources, evidence, and reasoning. When this happens, a debate is created, where ideally the best argument with the best interpretations of sources and reasoning come out on top.
 
This doesn't mean though that consensuses are always not correct, thats far from it. Most of the time, historians and other researchers spend hours, days, weeks, months, and years studying things and trying to come to the right conclusion, and so much of the time they're at least right about most things. However it is still a good exercise to think critically and for yourself, as well as to question things.
 
==== Asking the right question and question your beliefs ====
In order to properly conduct the historical method to contribute on this site, you must not only question the consensus, but also other claims that you hear, and even your beliefs. One of the best questions you can ask when hearing any claim is to ask: "But is that actually true?". Here are some examples:
 
* The German Wehrmacht was the best army in the world, and could defeat anyone!
** But is this actually true?
* The French were a bunch of cowards during the war
** But is this actually true?
* The Battle of Midway was a decisive battle that turned the tide of the Pacific War
** But is this actually true?
* The Germans used a brand new tactic called "Blitzkrieg" that no one could match
** But is this actually true?
* The Soviets invasion of Manchuria was the only true reason that Japan surrendered
** But is this actually true?
 
Once you get into the habbit of constantly asking this question, you will be brought to trying to discover the real truth.
 
==== Sources, sources, sources! ====
Of course, when making historical arguments or participating in a historical debate, one cannot go without sources. These are important as you need them to back up what you're saying. The following is information about different types of sources, how to contextualize them, question them, evaluate them, and interpret them.
 
===== Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources =====
Generally, there are three types of sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (usually you don't need to worry about tertiary sources and will almost always have to deal with the primary and secondary).
 
A Primary source is a source of information (such as an artifact, photograph, document, memoir, diary, journal, letter, speech, drawing, film, vital record, etc) of the event that you are studying. For example, if you're writing about Operation Neptune, some primary sources would be memoirs, journals letters, documents, photographs, official orders, maps, items, and others from both German and Allied soldiers, officers, commanders, and leaders, as well as from members of the French resistance, and even from Norman civilian eyewitnesses. If you're looking at the life of a particular individual, personal items, letters, documents, photographs, journals, interviews from them, interviews from people around them that talk about them, census records, and much more. These are used to try to reconstruct and know what happened of a given event or time period. A source can become either a primary or secondary source depending on how its cited. For example if there was a newspaper opinion piece complaining about a certain event happening at the time, then on its own its a secondary source, because it wasn't an account of the event its talking about. However If you cite that opinion piece to make an argument about what kinds of sentiments there were about an event, then that would become a primary source, since it is an original account of the sentiments towards a certain event at the time.
 
A Secondary source is a source that usually discusses and interprets primary sources, and can even do so for secondary sources. This can come in the form of history books by historians, historical journals, documentaries, presentations, videos on the subject, etc. For this site, this will also include articles (from the website), discussions/arguments making claims and backing them with evidence, among others. Typically for secondary sources they will make a claim, and use evidence and sources to try and support that claim, along with interpretations of those sources and evidence. When beginning your journey of research, it is always best to look at the newest Secondary sources to see what the current consensus is and/or what current historians and researchers are saying about that topic. This is important because it is better to stand on the shoulders of giants instead of starting from square one. Current researchers and historians have already navigated the whole field of primary sources as well as previous secondary sources. This is why going for older secondary sources isn't as good because more modern arguments aren't as much accounted for. One other thing to account for is how narrow it is. Try to get sources that narrow down their study. This is in contrast to works that are incredibly broad such as the entire history of a region. They should be considered as bad for use to ok for starting points for research. Lastly, one good way to
 
Lastly, and probably least importantly, you have tertiary sources. A tertiary source is a source that indexes, compiles, and consolidates information or data on a topic, but don't actually do the interpreting, discussing, debating, etc that secondary sources do. The biggest examples of tertiary sources are encyclopedias, especially one like Wikipedia.
 
The WWII Archives can either be considered a primary or secondary source, depending on what you're citing from here. If it's an article or a post analyzing or participating in a debate, then it would be considered as a secondary source. If it's a file of an original object, document, photograph, film, etc, then it is a primary source. For interviews, it could be either one depending on what is being talked about at the moment.
 
===== Context required =====
When evaluating sources, it is critical to know the context behind the source. You should know where it comes from, what time period it came from, who the author was, what was happening at that time period, as well as what was happening at the time in the place it was happening, etc. Asking the questions for these is explained more in depth in the next section. Doing this will give you the ability to put the source exactly in its correct place.


===== Be skeptical about sources, how to interpret sources =====
=== 1 - Keep the conversation civil ===
When analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating sources, it is important to be skeptical about them. This not only goes for primary, but also secondary sources as well. Every source was created by one or more human beings. Every person (including experts) have their own biases, because every human being is brought up in a certain time period, place, have a certain personality, experiences, opinions, perspectives, etc. Therefore all primary and secondary sources should be put under the same scrutiny. In order to find what these biases, perspectives, opinions, etc are, you need to ask yourself some helpful questions (including the "But is that actually true" question). For primary sources these can include:
Even if you disagree with them, speak and debate peacefully, civilly, and respectfully to one another.  


* Who authored/created this source?
=== 2 - Our understanding of history changes ===
* When and where did they create/author it?
Through new interpretations, questioning, and new evidence, we have arrived at the current consensuses in history today. However it isn't perfect, so history will keep changing
* Who was their intended audience?
* Why did they create it?
* What are their perspectives and biases?
* What are they saying?
* What is the surrounding context behind this document and person?
* What possible motives did they have?
* How does it stand up to other sources, does it contradict them?
* How did they create it?
* How authentic is this source? is it the original or faithful copy?
* How valuable is its content?


etc.
=== 3 - We are all biased ===
Every person who has ever lived is biased. Therefore every human record and artifact is biased. So also are interpretations/history books biased. You must also take your own bias into account!


For secondary sources:
=== 4 - Question things ===
The best way to find the truth and get around dogmas and such is to ask, ''is this true?'' Whenever you hear a claim, interpretation, etc it is good to ask yourself this question to never get stuck in a certain way of thinking.


* Who authored it?
=== 5 - Be skeptical about sources and interpret them ===
* When or where was it written?
[[File:Text document with red question mark.svg|right|frameless|98x98px]]
* What is the context (good in some cases)?
Following the previous point, you must be skeptical and critical about the sources you read, no matter how true they sound. Ask questions about their origin, motivation for being created, what they don't depict, its context, what was their audience, what was its purpose, what is their bias, etc.
* What sorts of perspectives or biases do they have? How do they try to mitigate that bias and be objective?
* Are they trying to push a certain agenda?
* What evidence do they use?
* Is their evidence contextualized and represented well?
* Is there evidence that they are leaving out?
* Are there any contradictions in their argument?
* Have anyone else, especially other researchers, scholars, and academics, said or peer reviewed their works and/or their argument?
* Does their evidence support their claim?


etc.
=== 6 - Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning ===
When using sources to back up your claim, it is good to provide reasoning as to why the source supports your claim.  


With these kinds of questions, instead of just taking what you hear at face value, and question what you hear or read, you will be able to get on the path to finding truth. This is one of the principles that the WWII Archives and the fields of studies such as history, genealogy, etc are built upon, so learn it, and cherish it.
=== 7 - Acknowledge contradictions ===
You must acknowledge contradictions within what you're reading and what you are saying. Is there evidence against your/their claim? You must acknowledge the contradictions, sources going against your claim, etc and provide why they might be at least somewhat right, or totally wrong, no matter how "bad" the source is.  


===== Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning =====
=== 8 - Be open-minded, willing to listen, and neutral ===
When you've gathered your sources, you will begin to interpret them and use them to back up your claims. You must provide reasoning as to why your or others' certain interpretation of the sources is the correct one. Make sure as well, that there aren't other sources, evidence, and arguments that contradict or go against your claims and arguments, this isn't about winning the argument, its about advancing our knowledge.  
To not get into dogmas and get stuck on an idea, you have to be willing to be open minded and willing to listen and potentially accept at least some of the opposition's arguments and criticisms.  


==== Recognize your Bias ====
Therefore the best way to do this is to try and be neutral and mitigate your bias, viewing things from different perspectives and questioning yourself.  
Of course when trying to interpret and read sources, and debate, you must also recognize that not only does everyone else have a bias, but that you as well have one. Because of the way you are, you see the world and things a certain way compared to others, and especially past peoples. Therefore one must recognize this and their limitations of knowledge and sight over everything when participating in the historical process on the Archives.


=== Be open-minded and willing to listen and accept the other side's arguments ===
=== 9 - Be clear about your argument/message ===
In a historical debate it is always great to keep an open mind to other ideas instead of just clinging to one point of view. This is so that if a better interpretation of sources and evidence comes up on top over the other ones that you didn't believe before, it will be easier to accept them. Too often do people want for their point of view to be the truth, but its uncommon for people to actually be willing to accept that they might have been wrong. In that case, you must be willing to look at other arguments and viewpoints and consider them (but also apply those questions mentioned earlier to those arguments but also yours as well). You might go into a debate/argument thinking that the other side is absolutely wrong, but before you dismiss their argument out of hand, try and actually listen to them, and determine if they're right or wrong in the end. Another thing to note is to not dismiss their arguments because you think they're wrong about something else. If they have some sort of world view or points of view on other things that you disagree with, it doesn't matter, as long as they've created an argument and claim that they back up with evidence, sources, interpretations, and reasoning, it must be addressed before you can for sure conclude that they're wrong.
Try to be clear and concise when making your arguments/claims and citing your sources. Read before you publish


==== Be neutral ====
=== 10 - Make sure the sources support your claim ===
Make sure that the sources themselves that you're citing actually back up your claim and aren't just a bad misinterpretation


=== Be clear about your argument/message ===
=== 11 - Reach a compromise to see which argument is best ===
If you're going to create an argument and claim to be backed up by evidence, you need to be clear about what you're saying and actually arguing. Read through what you've written before it is published. This goes for not only posting in discussion sections but also articles as well. Make sure that you don't have contradictions or other errors as well.  
The goal of the historical process is to see which interpretation of the historical subject in question is the best. Through these mentioned ideas, analyzing arguments, claims, contradictions, sources, evidence, etc, the people doing such will have to reach a compromise to see the best interpretation with the least contradictions and problems.  


=== A good claim should be able to withstand going back through the sources ===
==Writing articles==
When making a claim, you must make sure that it can withstand going back through the sources, evidence, and context. You must look out for contradictions and address them if they don't agree with your argument or claims.  
This section deals with how articles are to be written.


A good claim should be able to withstand going back through the primary sources and historical context without any presumptions
=== How to edit an article ===
In order to start editing, you either need to click "Edit" or "Edit source". "Edit source" will bring you to the wikitext editor to edit the article or page manually. It is suggested not to use this for most cases but instead the "Edit" option. This option brings you to the VisualEditor to edit or create the article, which visually shows how the article looks before publishing.


=== Reach a compromise and see which argument is the best ===
===How articles should be written===
History is not black and white, and often neither do absolutes actually work. Almost always is the true answer somewhere in the middle. You may claim that the Panther tank was absolutely the best tank in the world at the time, "but is that actually true?" Sure it may have had big heavy sloped frontal armor and a big gun, but it also had its downsides. Its side armor was thin compared to the front, its engine often got stressed, its interlocking wheels would get full of mud and get stuck, etc. So, it was good in some ways, and bad in others, whereas some other tanks at the time had good things in the aspects that the Panther was bad and bad things in the things it was good at. The same goes for battles, "Side A absolutely won this battle!", "but is that actually true?" Side A might have had a tactical victory, but side B might've won a strategic one in the end in the battle.


This is why taking the pros and cons, making concessions and compromises, and taking what each side of the argument got right and trying to form a new argument, is best. People need to get out of the idea that one thing was absolutely true or wasn't true. History doesn't work that way.  
# '''Write about every detail that could be found about the subject in question.'''
# <u>'''''Write in a chronological order kind of matter'''''</u>. Unlike an encyclopedia, articles on the Archives will be written chronologically how the subject of the article existed.  
# '''Write in an objective manner with the least amount of bias'''. '''Also write in a neutral language'''. That is, do not use "you", "I", "me", etc unless if you are quoting something that uses those kinds of pronouns in reference to you or you and a group. Instead use things such as "He", "she", "they", "It is __ that…", "One might __ that…", etc, or just use names.


In doing this, the goal is to see which argument gets to the top or is the best of all of the interpretations of the sources. Unless if that argument is challenged, then the best argument has been reached.
===General structure of an article===
 
For the general article layout:
== Writing articles ==
This section deals with how articles are to be written.
 
=== How articles should be written ===
 
# Be objective as possible. It is important to try and be objective as possible while writing a history, although it must be recognized that every writer has biases and therefore nothing written is neutral. However, it is still important to try and be objective and to try and fit yourself into the shoes of the person being written about or the situation.
# <u>'''''Write in a chronological order kind of matter'''''</u>. This is not an encyclopedia, almost everything about a subject will be written out chronologically through the Background, event, Aftermath, Legacy, etc sections of each article, and each individual part will be written out as it develops, instead of the different aspects of the subject. For example, if you're writing an article about the life of a politician, you won't write in separate sections his  public and private life, they will be written out chronologically when each part occurs. Conclusions/claims about a subject will be written at the point it happens, but why and when that conclusion was made will be written when it was made. An example is if there is a dispute of the casualty numbers of a certain unit, then the developments of the dispute will be written out when that dispute began to rise. The conclusion will be written when those casualties happened. The same goes for the historiography.
# Write in neutral language. That is, do not use "you", "I", "me", etc unless if you are quoting something that uses those kinds of pronouns in reference to you or you and a group. Instead use things such as "He", "she", "they", "It is __ that…", "One might __ that…", etc, or just use names.
 
=== General structure of an article ===
There are multiple different types of articles, but an article always follows this layout:


# Summary
# Summary
# Index table
# Index table (automatically created)
# Main information template box to the right
# Main information template box to the right
# Article content
# Article content
Line 135: Line 66:
## Other Sources (if necessary)
## Other Sources (if necessary)


=== Types of articles ===
===Types of articles===
There are eight different types of articles. Each one's content is specific to its own type of article because of its subject. Theres Event, Biography, Geographic Location, Group, Technology, Work, Idea, and Other. The structure of these articles should be followed exactly as stated, unless if the editor is in a unique situation and sees something better as fit. Under are a list of the different types of articles, with an explanation about each one. Under is a table listing each type of article, and each section of the article that should be used or recommended to be used in order. On the side of each list of each type, are notes for each section. If there are no sections listed under one of the types of articles, then it means that it is up to the editors to decide how it will be exactly structured.
 
==== Event ====
An event article will describe a certain event that happened. Examples range from the 1929 Stock Market Crash, the Nuremberg trails, the Holocaust, the Battle of Kursk, Operation U-Go, etc.
 
==== Biography ====
Biographical articles are articles of biographies of an individual people. There can also be biographical articles on individual animals, and maybe insects.
 
==== Geographic Location ====
These types of articles describe a geographical location. These can range from a city, specific forest, country, state (US state but also the main definition of a state), village, town, specific building, house, street, mountain range, continent, ocean, planet, moon, and all others that weren't mentioned. The scope of this type of article is so broad that the structure is up to the writer on what the exact structure of their article will be.
 
==== Group ====
This type of article is incredibly broad. The types of groups of people it encompasses are:  People/Ethnic people, Government/state (not to be confused with a Geographic location. For example, the article for "France", the geographic location and country will not be the same as the article for the "Fifth French Republic",  the governmental body), Organization, Governmental group, organization, agency, branch of government, Business organization, Community, Race, Political party, Collective, Group, Military unit, and more that weren't mentioned.


==== Technology ====
{{col-begin|class=mp-navigation}}
This is a very broad category that includes things such as tools, vehicles, machines, electronics, etc, and can be defined as something that serves a functionality
{{col-3}}
<div style="background:#4a5e1b; padding: 5px; border:1px solid #4a5e1b; border-radius:6px; color:#000; width: 270px; float: right;">
<div style="background:#fff8ef; height:520px;">[[File:Main Page Categories Image.png|x270px|center|class=nomobile|link=]]
<div style="background:#4a5e1b; text-align:center; color:#FFF; font-weight:bold; font-size: 14px;">Category Navigation</div><div style="padding: 2px 4px; text-align:left;">
*[[Special:Categories|Categories]]
*[[Special:CategoryTree|Category Tree]]
*[[:Category:Multimedia|Multimedia]]
*[[:Category:Biographical_Articles|Biographical Articles]]
*[[:Category:Event_Articles|Event Articles]]
*[[:Category:Geographical_Location Articles|Geographical Location Articles]]
*[[:Category:Group_Articles|Group Articles]]
*[[:Category:Technology_Articles|Technology Articles]]
*[[:Category:Work_Articles|Work Articles]]
*[[:Category:Idea_Articles|Idea Articles]]
*[[:Category:Other_Articles|Other Articles]]
</div></div></div>


==== Work ====
There are eight different article types. Each type has its own category, and each article with a specific article type will go into that category page. For example every "Event" article will go into "[[:Category:Event Articles]]". To attach an article to a category, you can either add it under the three bars next to the "Save changes..." button, or can go to the top under "More options" and click on "Insert Category".
This is another broad category as well that includes famous works of art, books, manuscripts, films, photographs, and other types of works that are well known enough publicly that they are worth an article, but would also have a Multimedia Page for it linked to it (depending if there is only one of that work, or multiple copies of it, to which if there are multiple copies of a book for example, then there would be an article, but with no specific Multimedia (File) Page attached to it. However if it is a single painting for example, then there would be an article that is linked to a Multimedia Page on the same subject). Otherwise the topic of the work of art would be written on just the Multimedia Page. The structure shown for the Work articles should be generally followed, but can be modified and done differently based on your decision.  
The following are the different types of articles, what they are, and how they are generally structured:
# '''[[:Category:Event Articles|Event]]''' - Describing historical event
# '''[[:Category:Biographical Articles|Biographical]]''' - Biographies of an individual person, animal, etc (note that for the title of the article for people, you must put their full name but not titles. For example John Edward James Doe Jr. If there is part of the name denoted only by a letter that you can't find that full part of the name, then just put the letter and then a "." like John E. Doe. If the letter isn't a shortened thing like "Harry S Truman" then don't put the "."
# '''[[:Category:Geographical Location Articles|Geographic Location]]''' - Describe geographical locations such as a town, city, ocean, mountain, country, house, specific place, etc, explain history in chronological order
# '''[[:Category:Group Articles|Group]]''' - Broad, about the history of a particular group. It could be a political party, a resistance, music, or ethnic group, government, organization, branch of government, business, military unit, etc.
# '''[[:Category:Technology Articles|Technology]]''' - Something that serves a functionality built by humans like vehicles, machines, tools, weapons, electronics, etc
# '''[[:Category:Work Articles|Work]]''' - Broad, usually includes a work of art, literature, etc. It could also be a famous scientific publication or some political manifesto. Generally if it is known enough to not just be a Multimedia Page then it deserves to be an article. Generally a Work article should be linked to one or more Multimedia Pages if possible.
# '''[[:Category:Idea Articles|Idea Articles]]''' - The last kind which is also broad. This category fits things such as political, economic, scientific, mathematical, philosophical, religious, etc theories, concepts, ideas, laws, ideologies, beliefs, etc.
# '''[[:Category:Other Articles|Other Articles]]''' - If the thing you are writing about fits into none of the categories then it could be considered another type of article or miscellaneous.


==== Idea ====
This is also another very broad category. This category fits things such as political, economic, scientific, mathematical, philosophical, religious, etc theories, concepts, ideas, laws, ideologies, beliefs, etc. This can range from National Socialism, Communism, libertarianism, to Einstein’s theory of Relativity. This one's structure also could be followed, but that's up to the judgement of the authors.
==== Other ====
If no other type of article fits the category that your article is about, then you are free to choose who the article is structured (but still chronological)
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+Types of articles and their sections in order
|+
!
!
!Event
!Event
!
!Biography
!Biography
!
!Geographic Location
!Geographic Location
!
!Group
!Group
!
!Technology
!Technology
!
!Work
!Work
!
!Idea
!Idea
!
!Other
!Other
|-
|-
|'''1'''
|1
|Background
|'''Background''': Context, what
|Context, what was happening
happened before event
before the event
|'''Before birth''': All
|Before birth
these self-explanatory
|
|'''Background'''
|
|'''Background'''
|
|'''Background''': These
|Background
can be modified to need
|
|'''Background'''
|Background  
|'''Background'''
|Not used if not
necessary         
|Background
|
|Background
|
|
|
|-
|-
|'''2'''
|2
|Prelude
|'''Prelude''': Just before the event
|Just before the event
|'''Childhood'''
|Childhood
|'''Formation and'''
|
'''history'''
|
|'''Beginning/creation/formation''':
|
One of these
|Beginning/Creation/Formation
|'''Development''':
|Can be one
|'''Creation'''
of these  
|'''Conceptualization'''
options
|Development  
|May go with
development header
|Creation
|Can be rewritten as
The writing of …, The painting of …, etc
|Conceptualization  
|
|
|
|-
|-
|'''3'''
|3
|Event
|'''Event''': Named depending on event
|This section can
|'''Adulthood'''
be named whatever
depending on the situation
|Adulthood
|
|
|
|Fall/Dissolution/Destruction
|Can be
one of these
options
|Production
|Can be renamed,
reused, and split
into many different ways
|Use
|If necessary
|Legacy
|
|
|'''Fall/Dissolution/Destruction''':
Choose name
|'''Production''':
|'''Use'''
|'''Legacy'''
|
|
|-
|-
|'''4'''
|4
|Aftermath
|'''Aftermath''': After event
|
|'''After death'''
|After death
|
|
|
|Aftermath
|Only if
group no
longer exists
|Use
|Can also be renamed,
reused, and split
into many different ways,
unless if it is still used
|Reaction/
Reception
|
|
|
|'''Aftermath''': If group no longer
exists
|'''Use''':
|'''Reaction/Reception'''
|
|
|
|
|-
|-
|'''5'''
|5
|Long term effects
|'''Long term effects''': Optional
|Optional
|'''Legacy'''
|Legacy
|
|
|
|Legacy
|
|Discontinuance
|
|Legacy
|
|
|
|'''Legacy'''
|'''Discontiuation''':
|'''Legacy'''
|
|
|
|
|-
|-
|'''6'''
|6
|Legacy
|'''Legacy''': Optional
|Can be merged with Long term effects
Also optional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|'''Legacy''':
|Legacy
|Only if necessary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Line 302: Line 177:
|}
|}


=== Units of Measurement ===
===Warnings/notes in articles===
When putting units of measurement, the metric system will always be either the only one used, or used with another system of measurement (especially imperial). For the latter case, you will have one unit being presented, with the other in conversion in parenthesis. For example, "Exactly 270 miles (434.5229 km)." Whichever way that the source or context you are dealing with presents a system of measurement, will be presented first, with the conversion presented in parenthesis. For the context, if it is a country or group that uses a particular system of measurement (such as the US, Canada, UK, etc with the Imperial system) then the measurement will be presented in Imperial first. If the context is one that uses both metric and another system (for example in a battle in Europe that involved the US against the Germans and others), then metric will be presented first in metric then in imperial.
The following are warnings/notes for readers/future editors of an article to notify them of something
 
Different systems of measurement that will be commonly used include:


* Distance and length
====Hidden comments====
* Mass
Hidden comments are only displayed when you're editing a page. To use them
* Time
* Temperature


When dealing with time, the same applies as with the metric vs other systems of measurement. This time the 24-hour clock (whether its military or non-military using the : or not) in place of metric and 12-hour clock in place of the imperial system. <!-- Try implementing indicating timezones later. Man this is gonna be hard to figure out -->
====Source dump articles====
A Source dump articles is an article where you don't really have the time to fully develop an article that is related to the one that you're working on, so you dump all the sources that relate to that subject for the next person to find. Try not to do this excessively, and at least try to develop some of the article so it makes it easier for future users to flesh out. In any case you are to use the "Source dump" template:
{{Source dump}}


Other systems of measurement for scientific purposes can also be used.


=== Using the conditional perfect conjugation ===
On the WWII Archives, the conditional perfect conjugation (would have + simple past tense verb, such as would have had, would have wanted, would have walked), as well as the conditional perfect continuous (would have been + simple past) serves almost a second purpose other than its normal use. On the Archives it is also used to indicate something that can be guessed to be true, but no source has ever directly said it. For example, if you are writing about an individual soldier who arrived to a snowy front, and you know his unit began wearing winter clothes after arriving, then you would say "After getting off the train, he would have been given winter clothing, which his unit was given." Because the sources never directly say that he in particular got winter clothing, you have to use one of those conjugations. You can also use words to indicate possibility, such as "probably", "possibly", "likely", "unlikely", etc. An example of this is "The family, or at least some of the family, probably would have seen the tornado in the distance." Of course you will need to cite evidence as to why you think this is, so almost always will it be citing a section of another article. See the sections below.


=== Sources, citing, quoting, and linking ===
===Names of people===
This section described how to cite, quote, and link.  
For Biographical articles, when putting the name in the title of the article as well as the beginning of the summary section, put the full name of the person without their nickname inside quotations in the name. For example, ''''John Edward Doe''', nicknamed '''"Bolts",''' was...' instead of ' '''John "Bolts" Edward Doe''' was...'


==== Citing ====
===Units of Measurement===
In order to cite a source, you must click on the "Cite" option in the toolbar which will give you a list of options. You will have multiple options from books, journals, websites, the Archives, etc. When citing any source that has a url, you must always archive that url in an archiving website such as web.archive.org. The archived url will then be added to the "archive" field in the citation options.
When putting units of measurement, SI (the metric system) is preferred. However, if the sources use a particular measurement system (such as Imperial), then when mentioned that measurement will go first, followed by metric in parenthesis. For example, "Exactly 270 miles (434.5229 km)."  


===== Citing claims made by others and ones only made users on the Archives' Discussion Pages =====
When dealing with time, the same applies as with the metric vs other systems of measurement. This time the 24-hour clock (whether its military or non-military using the : or not) in place of metric and 12-hour clock in place of the imperial system.<!--Try implementing indicating timezones later. Man this is gonna be hard to figure out-->Other systems of measurement for scientific purposes can also be used.
Generally if there has been someone, some researcher, historian, scholar, academic, genealogist, etc that has made a claim about something somewhere, and is accepted, it should be the thing that is cited along with the sections later in the article or in other articles (see the next section) that produce the evidence to back up that claim. If someone else had already produced a claim and the evidence to support that claim before you or others did, then they should be the ones given credit for it.  


However at some point (usually coming up when writing about small subjects), there will be times when only someone or some people on the WWII Archives Discussion Pages have made a certain argument, claim, or point that you’d like to cite, that hasn't been made anywhere else. In this instance it is best to use neutral language when referring to them mentioned in the "How articles should be written" section. However, it is possible to use names as well. Otherwise if there isn’t any person that has made an argument or claim that you are making, it isn’t necessary to put it all down in the Discussion Page if it is a small subject. However if it is a larger or broader subject it is suggested that you do put your claim down in the Discussion Page (on something like a larger battle, war, a large unit, theatre of war, leader, etc).
===Using probability===
When making assumptions about what happened in a specific event that aren't directly mentioned in the sources, generally use the conditional perfect conjugation or some other indication of probability. For example, if a person was in point A in one source and then at point B in the next, but the only way to get from A to B was to walk (and wasn't directly mentioned how they got there), then you would write, "this person went from point A to point B and would have walked to get there." Then there are words to indicate possibility, such as "probably", "possibly", "likely", "unlikely", etc. A lot of the time you will need to explain why it would have happened or probably or unlikely happened if it isn't absolutely evident.  


===== Citing other articles =====
===Sources, citing, quoting, and linking===
At first to the reader this may sound like a bad idea, "why would you cite yourself?" In truth, this isn't a site like Wikipedia. In some aspects it may be a little like it, but on a fundamental level isn't the same thing. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but the Archives isn't, it is different secondary sources that use evidence to make claims and conclusions on the most detailed article about a subject. Each article is written by one or multiple users using multiple sources, therefore it isn't something "citing itself". The reason why we are actively encouraging the citing of other articles, other sections of articles, and other sections of the same article, is because it serves as making articles more organized, the process of writing articles more efficient, and access to the full list of detailed evidence and explanations more accessible and easier to find.  
[[File:CitationExampleForWAMoS.png|right|400x400px]]
This section described how to cite, quote, and link.


As stated before, the goal of the WWII Archives is to have the most detailed articles about the subject they are talking about, with the most evidence, sources, data, analyzations, interpretations, arguments, counterarguments, information, etc. This means that it would be less efficient to try to find external secondary and primary sources to back up a claim, when that has already been done on the Archives which goes into a lot more detail and has even more evidence. For example, lets say you were writing an article about an individual soldier that you don't have that many sources from him to go on, and you were describing a battle him and his unit went through. If you made the statement that "The members of the unit going into the battle, didn't have a very high morale.", you would go to the article about that unit that makes that claim, which uses as much primary evidence, interpretations, other sources, etc to back it up. This is much better than trying to find a secondary source somewhere, and trying to find that claim with cited evidence (if they directly cite it), because it is easier to verify and check the evidence and interpretations, partially because the WWII Archives uses a lot of crowd sourcing to bring to light new primary evidence and data.  
==== Types of sources: ====
There are generally 3 types of sources (only the first two really important). These are:


This is why this is also beneficial for data and numbers as well. If you make the claim of a casualty number of a certain division during a battle, ideally the goal is to be able to count up the known casualties of each unit in that division. So you add up the casualties of each platoon of a company, which the total will be displayed on the article for that company (by citing the numbers of each platoon from each article of each platoon). This will be repeated for each platoon of each company. Then the totals of each company will be added up, cited, and displayed on the articles of each regiment. Then the same process will be repeated for each regiment to the division's article. On the division's article this total could be added alongside the estimations that were made of the casualties. This in the end creates a sort of tree, where each citation links back to the main source of where each piece of information came from, and can be checked and verified. This also applies to stuff other than data. If for example, an article about a battle said that many companies of a certain division suffered many casualties, then that would cite the section of the article of that division that talks about the division's part in the battle. It will mention which companies suffered what casualties, each statement of which will link to the individual sections of the articles of those companies, which can either go even further or just provide the full explanation of the casualties of those companies during the battle there.
# Primary sources: These sources are original sources pertaining to the original event. These include photographs, memoirs, videos, letters, documents, interviews, birth records, reports, etc. Physical objects too would be classed as primary sources that are from the period
# Secondary sources: These are any sources analyzing primary sources or other secondary sources. These are in the form of history books, published papers, documentaries,  


A general rule of thumb is that the broader subject articles, the more they'll link to articles on smaller subjects that provide the most details about that subject. However this ultimately depends on the situation, and the editors must decide what they cite for what claim.  
====Citing====
While creating an article, to have a citation list, put under the "Citation" header a "Reference list", which can be found under the "Insert" dropdown. To cite a source in the article, click "Cite" in the toolbar order to cite a source, you must click on the "Cite" option in the toolbar which will give you a list of options. You will then have to add a new template (the cite templates always start with the word "cite"). When citing any source that has a url, you must always archive that url in an archiving website such as web.archive.org. The archived url will then be added to the "archive" field in the citation options.


==== Linking ====
=====Citing claims made by others and ones only made users on the Archives' Discussion Pages=====
One of the main purposes of linking on the WWII Archives is linking to other articles. Any type of subject can range from any of the types of articles. This includes Geographic Location, an individual you mention (biographical), an idea, technology, event, etc. If there is a topic or subject that you mention, it should be linked to some sort of article on the Archives. The general rule of thumb is that the first time that thing is mentioned on the Summary section, or the first time mentioned in the Content part of the article, is when you link to that article. Notice how for both the Summary and the Content parts of the article, they're different. So if you mention WWII for the first time in the Summary, and link to the main article on WWII, then you will have to do it again if you first mention it in the content part. After that, for both sections, you won't have to link to those articles again.  
Generally if someone made a claim somewhere about something and is accepted as fact or likely, it should be the thing cited in sections later in the article. If no one can be found anywhere else having made this claim outside the Archives, then if the claim is made on the Archives like a discussion page, then cite it from there. This only really happens on discussion pages for more major stuff that would be debated upon, but can happen for smaller things as well.  


There are two ways of linking. In both ways you click on the link button in the toolbar. The first is linking to an article on the Archives. You can either search for the article, or paste in the url (especially if it is a Multimedia or something else, although usually for those you'd cite them). The other is to link to an external site if needed.  
=====Citing other articles=====
The general idea behind citing other articles is that each article is focused on one subject in particular. Therefore in each article there will be more information pertaining to one article that will be less written about in another related one. For example, if you have an article on a unit that someone served in, you would cite sources that mainly pertain to the unit as a whole. Then if you were writing an article about someone in that unit, you cite specific sections from the unit article to detail what he was doing in the unit or potentially did. You can also cross-cite where there is the same situation but instead the person did an interview that described some general things about the people in the unit, so you would cite that section of the person's article on the unit's article. This would also work for many pieces of data and statistics, such as with casualties for whole divisions and such.  


==== Quoting ====
This method organizes things better rather than having to just cite the same source over and over again across articles. It makes things easier by making a "link chain" to the original source with more details than on the article on the end has.
When quoting something, you are usually quoting one of the following:


* Quoting someone saying something, or a short message
====Linking====
* Quoting a document, letter, message, speech, something written, etc
To make navigation and connecting the whole Archives together, we use linking. To link to another article or page, you click on the chain icon in the toolbar, and then put the name of the page in the box. For wikitext you use <code>[[]]</code> for Archives pages and <code>[]</code>for external pages. You will almost always be linking internally. Linking is used for linking to other articles or pages of note, such as any name, place, event, etc, that might be an article. Even if the article doesn't exist for it, link to what its article might be. This is in order for it to make it easier for the person interested in starting the articles on that to start them. For example if a source in your article mentions someone, and you are able to find their full name, then put that in the link, like [[John Edward Doe|John E. Doe]] for example (click on the link). Leave enough information behind for the next person to pick it up and start from there.


For the first situation, you will use the "Block Quote" option in the dropdown menu on the left side of the toolbar. Every time someone speaks, it will be put in block quote. If you are quoting someone saying something in a foreign language, then you will put whatever was said in the original language, then press return, and then provide the translation.  
Also of note that you put the link once within the summary and then once within the main section, and not again.  


For the second option, you will click on the "Insert" dropdown, then "Template". If you are quoting something in English, then you will search for the "Doc_quote_single_lang", to which then a template with an input field to type out what the document says will be given. Generally the text of a document should already be written on its Multimedia page, and you should just be able to copy it from there.Then there is the time when you have writing in a foreign language. In this case the template that you will be searching for is called "Doc_quote_multi_lang". For both the first and second templates, to insert text into the first section, search for the "content1" field. Then for the second template, search for "content2" as well. Unfortunately you cannot use the toolbar from the editor and so will have to use sets of symbols and other html tags to format the text. These include:
====Quoting====
When quoting something, you are quoting someone or something saying something. Instead of using any kind of quotation marks (" "), you will use a block quote. To do this you go under the drop-down menu for the headings and paragraphs in the toolbar. Select "Block quote", and type your quote. For each quote you must cite where it came from. Before the block quote you will say "this person said this:" and before the colon will insert the citation.  


* : - indentation (the tab button)
=== Transcribing ===
* <nowiki><b></b></nowiki> - '''Bold'''
Transcribing is for copying down anything that is written on something. This includes documents, written things on photographs, and even during an interview when the person mentions that there was something written on a sign for example. There are two types of transcribing templates. The first is "[[Template:Single language document quote|Single_language_document_quote]]", for content only in English, and "[[Template:Double language document quote|Double_language_document_quote]]", when the document is in another language. To insert these, click the "Insert" dropdown, and then "Template", to search for one of them. Unfortunately you can't use the toolbar, so here are the notable html/wikitext formatting:
* <nowiki><i></i></nowiki> - ''Italic''
* : - indentation (the colon turning into a "tab")
* <nowiki><b></b></nowiki> or <nowiki>'''</nowiki> <nowiki>'''</nowiki> - '''Bold'''
* <nowiki><i></i></nowiki> or <nowiki>''</nowiki> <nowiki>''</nowiki> - ''Italic (double apostrophes not quotes)''  
* <nowiki><sup></sup></nowiki> - <sup>Superscript</sup>
* <nowiki><sup></sup></nowiki> - <sup>Superscript</sup>
* <nowiki><sub></sub></nowiki> - <sub>Subscript</sub>
* <nowiki><sub></sub></nowiki> - <sub>Subscript</sub>
Line 362: Line 239:
* <nowiki><s></s></nowiki> - <s>Strikethrough</s>
* <nowiki><s></s></nowiki> - <s>Strikethrough</s>


There are other tags that you could find and use if you need. Finally you can combine the tags (put one set into another) to form a combination, like "<nowiki><b><s>Hello</s></nowiki><nowiki></b></nowiki>" for '''<s>Hello</s>'''.  
There's other tags you can use as well. You can also combine tags (put one into another) like "<nowiki><b><s>Hello</s></nowiki><nowiki></b></nowiki>" for '''<s>Hello</s>'''.  


Another thing about quoting is the use of specific characters. If in a text a specific character is uesd, it should be represented as such. If in the case where you have someone who writes their i's without the dot like this: ı, then you have the choice to write either way, such as "lıfted", or "lifted".
When transcribing, '''<u>''write out exactly as the original document/written piece is written''</u>'''. Therefore "sic" is already assumed and isn't necessary. For any potential misunderstandings, write in the commentary after transcribing.  


== Submitting articles ==
==Submitting articles==
To submit an new article or an edit, you must click on the "Save changes..." or "Save page..." button, which will bring a pop-up. This will include a text box where you can detail the edits you have made. If you are saving changes to an edit, this will include an option in the pop-up to indicate that this edit was a "Minor edit". A minor edit is an edit that doesn’t really change the debate of the subject, such as a grammatical or spelling error, or in some cases rewording something (where it doesn’t change the meaning but makes more sense). However if a change becomes long enough it should not count as a minor edit.
To create an article or submit an edit, click "Save changes..." or "Save page..." Then a prompt will pop up where you can put down notes for modifications. Generally you won't need to select "Minor edit" unless if the edit is fixing grammar, spelling, formatting, or anything that isn't worth dispute, as the name implies.

Latest revision as of 14:22, 27 May 2024

Welcome to the official WWII Archives Editing Guide (formerly called WWII Archives Manual of Style or WAMoS). The WAMoS is divided into different sections, the first being about the proper mentality of historical analysis, the second being about sources and citing them.

For anything that has to do with Multimedia (uploaded files), see the Multimedia Guide.

Principles of the historical process and debating on the WWII Archives

In order to participate on this project, the reader must at least have a basic understanding of the historical method, mindset, and debates. Therefore read and understand this carefully. This applies to writing about and doing anything on the site. Here are the rules:

1 - Keep the conversation civil

Even if you disagree with them, speak and debate peacefully, civilly, and respectfully to one another.

2 - Our understanding of history changes

Through new interpretations, questioning, and new evidence, we have arrived at the current consensuses in history today. However it isn't perfect, so history will keep changing

3 - We are all biased

Every person who has ever lived is biased. Therefore every human record and artifact is biased. So also are interpretations/history books biased. You must also take your own bias into account!

4 - Question things

The best way to find the truth and get around dogmas and such is to ask, is this true? Whenever you hear a claim, interpretation, etc it is good to ask yourself this question to never get stuck in a certain way of thinking.

5 - Be skeptical about sources and interpret them

Following the previous point, you must be skeptical and critical about the sources you read, no matter how true they sound. Ask questions about their origin, motivation for being created, what they don't depict, its context, what was their audience, what was its purpose, what is their bias, etc.

6 - Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning

When using sources to back up your claim, it is good to provide reasoning as to why the source supports your claim.

7 - Acknowledge contradictions

You must acknowledge contradictions within what you're reading and what you are saying. Is there evidence against your/their claim? You must acknowledge the contradictions, sources going against your claim, etc and provide why they might be at least somewhat right, or totally wrong, no matter how "bad" the source is.

8 - Be open-minded, willing to listen, and neutral

To not get into dogmas and get stuck on an idea, you have to be willing to be open minded and willing to listen and potentially accept at least some of the opposition's arguments and criticisms.

Therefore the best way to do this is to try and be neutral and mitigate your bias, viewing things from different perspectives and questioning yourself.

9 - Be clear about your argument/message

Try to be clear and concise when making your arguments/claims and citing your sources. Read before you publish

10 - Make sure the sources support your claim

Make sure that the sources themselves that you're citing actually back up your claim and aren't just a bad misinterpretation

11 - Reach a compromise to see which argument is best

The goal of the historical process is to see which interpretation of the historical subject in question is the best. Through these mentioned ideas, analyzing arguments, claims, contradictions, sources, evidence, etc, the people doing such will have to reach a compromise to see the best interpretation with the least contradictions and problems.

Writing articles

This section deals with how articles are to be written.

How to edit an article

In order to start editing, you either need to click "Edit" or "Edit source". "Edit source" will bring you to the wikitext editor to edit the article or page manually. It is suggested not to use this for most cases but instead the "Edit" option. This option brings you to the VisualEditor to edit or create the article, which visually shows how the article looks before publishing.

How articles should be written

  1. Write about every detail that could be found about the subject in question.
  2. Write in a chronological order kind of matter. Unlike an encyclopedia, articles on the Archives will be written chronologically how the subject of the article existed.
  3. Write in an objective manner with the least amount of bias. Also write in a neutral language. That is, do not use "you", "I", "me", etc unless if you are quoting something that uses those kinds of pronouns in reference to you or you and a group. Instead use things such as "He", "she", "they", "It is __ that…", "One might __ that…", etc, or just use names.

General structure of an article

For the general article layout:

  1. Summary
  2. Index table (automatically created)
  3. Main information template box to the right
  4. Article content
  5. Citations
  6. Bibliography
    1. Works Cited
    2. Other Sources (if necessary)

Types of articles

Retrieved from "https://wwii-archives.org/index.php?title=WWII_Archives:WWII_Archives_Manual_of_Style&oldid=18932"