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

From WWII Archives

Browse history interactively
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Welcome to the official WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to 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 third
Welcome to the official WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to 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.
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:


===1 - Keep the conversation civil===
=== 1 - Keep the conversation civil ===
In focusing with achieving the goal of the WWII Archives, everyone must debate and speak in a peaceful, civil, and respectful manor. Even if you strongly disagree with the opposing side's point of your, you must still speak respectfully, no throwing insults its just a waste of time
Even if you disagree with them, speak and debate peacefully, civilly, and respectfully to one another.


===2 - Remember, history changes!===
=== 2 - Our understanding of history changes ===
The study of history has constantly changed throughout time. It is through this reinterpretations, new evidence, questioning of the accepted view, and much more that has brought us to our interpretations today. Therefore to be a historian is to be a revisionist (unlike denialists and distortionists). If not, you're not doing history right, and we will never know the truth. The following are a list of useful pieces of advice for trying to get to what really happened.
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


==== 2-1 - We all are biased ====
=== 3 - We are all biased ===
Every single person has bias. The human brain isn't perfect, no matter how neutral a perspective tries or claims to be, they are limited to what they had observed, their life experiences, how well they remember things, their upbringing, their environment, and their state of being. Even a video recording is biased. You can't see whats behind the camera, or behind that wall. The cameraman is also choosing what to look at. This extends beyond the sources. The people interpreting them are biased as well. This includes you, your parents, your friends, everyone you know, a genealogist, archeologist, historians, even a group of experts who have a consensus on a subject are biased. None of this means that everything we know is entirely incorrect, it just means that it is something we need to understand when interpreting or reading others' interpretations. Therefore:
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!


# Consensuses aren't always correct
=== 4 - Question things ===
# You must recognize the potential and general bias you or others have when interpreting something
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.


==== 2-2 - Use the right question to question things ====
=== 5 - Be skeptical about sources and interpret them ===
Among all the great questions you could ask that will get us closer to the truth, ''But is this actually true?'' is the most important. Whenever you hear a claim about something, whether from an interpretation of events or from primary sources themselves, that question is always the best thing to first ask. If you have a certain belief about something, ask yourself that question. It is by first asking this question that we could begin overcoming a myth, a falsehood, dogma, and other kinds of things that we get wrong.  
[[File:Text document with red question mark.svg|right|frameless|98x98px]]
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.  


==== 2-3 - Being skeptical about sources and interpreting them ====
=== 6 - Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning ===
[[File:Text document with red question mark.svg|right|150px]]
When using sources to back up your claim, it is good to provide reasoning as to why the source supports your claim.  
While you are interpreting any source, and especially having asked the aforementioned question, it is important to be critical about the sources you are reading. You need to put the source under scrutiny before you truly can begin to understand them. Before going over some of these questions, you need to understand what each type of source is.  


===== Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources =====
=== 7 - Acknowledge contradictions ===
There are generally three types of sources, which will be used in any claim, interpretation, etc to back up an argument.  
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.  


First there are primary sources. A primary source is a source of info that was created by a witness and/or someone involved in the event or subject you're studying. For example a primary source for an individual soldier would be letters to him and from him, photographs and film of him, a journal or diary written by him, an interview of him or of someone who he told his story to or witnessed what he did, among many other things.  
=== 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.  


A secondary source is a source that interprets and analyzes the sources (primary or secondary) about the subject it is studying. This could include books, documentaries, etc. Normally, the WWII Archives would be considered a secondary source, because a big part of it is writing interpretations of events in the articles. However it could also be a primary source, if you are citing a digitized document, photograph, etc or an interview.  
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.  


Tertiary sources are not that all important, it is just an index or consolidation of primary and secondary sources that doesn't add any more interpretations or analysis. Wikipedia among other encyclopedias fall into this category. Do not think that the WWII Archives is such though.  
=== 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


===== Context =====
=== 10 - Make sure the sources support your claim ===
One other thing that is important to understand of any source is its context that it was written in. This corroborates with the author(s)'s /source's bias. You will be able to understand the context by asking the questions below.
Make sure that the sources themselves that you're citing actually back up your claim and aren't just a bad misinterpretation


===== Critiquing the sources with these questions =====
=== 11 - Reach a compromise to see which argument is best ===
The following are the kinds of questions that you should ask when interpreting, analyzing, and evaluating any source. They are important to try and figure out what the context, bias, etc of the source in question is.  
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.  


For primary sources these could be.
==Writing articles==
*Who authored/created this source?
This section deals with how articles are to be written.
*When and where did they create/author it?
*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.
 
For secondary sources:
*Who authored it?
*When or where was it written?
*What is the context (good in some cases)?
*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.
 
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.
 
=== 3 - Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning ===
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.
 
=== 4 - Be open-minded and willing to listen and accept the other side's arguments ===
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. 
 
==== Be neutral ====
Although as mentioned you and every other human being has some sort of bias, it is important to recognize that bias and try to view things from all perspectives and to question everything. 
 
=== 5 - Be clear about your argument/message ===
If you're going to write anything that will 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. Make sure that you don't have contradictions or other errors as well.
 
===6 - A good claim should be able to withstand going back through the sources===
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.
 
===7 - Reach a compromise and see which argument is the best===
History is not black and white, and often neither do absolutes actually work. Almost always is the true answer somewhere in the middle. You need to take the pros and cons among other things, making concessions and compromises, and taking what each side of the argument got right and try to form a new argument. People need to get out of the idea that one thing was absolutely true or wasn't true. 
 
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.  


==Writing articles==
=== How to edit an article ===
This section deals with how articles are to be written.  
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===
===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.
# '''Write about every detail that could be found about the subject in question.'''
#<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. Conclusions/claims about a subject will be written in two different ways. The first is when you are writing about a conclusion/claim that was made in the historiography of the subject. That will go in the Aftermath or Legacy type sections. Otherwise you can make a conclusion about something neutrally after you had just described events, sources, etc.
# <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 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.
# '''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===
===General structure of an article===
There are multiple different types of articles, but an article always follows this layout:
For the general article 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
#Citations
# Citations
#Bibliography
# Bibliography
##Works Cited
## Works Cited
##Other Sources (if necessary)
## Other Sources (if necessary)


===Types of articles===
===Types of articles===
Line 134: Line 86:
</div></div></div>
</div></div></div>


There are eight different types of articles. Each one's content is specific to its own type of article because of its subject. Each category has a category for those types of articles, and therefore whenever you are creating an article you must put it in one of these categories. 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. For more broad type of articles the editor will have more of a choice to 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. 
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".  
 
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:Event Articles|Event]]''' - An article that describes a historical event.
# '''[[: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:Biographical Articles|Biographical]]''' - Biographical articles are biographies of an individual person, or maybe even an animal or insect
# '''[[: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:Geographical_Location Articles|Geographic Location]]''' - These describe geographical locations such as a town, city, mountain, ocean, forest, country, state, house, specific spot, street, etc explaining their history in chronological order
# '''[[:Category:Technology Articles|Technology]]''' - Something that serves a functionality built by humans like vehicles, machines, tools, weapons, electronics, etc
# '''[[:Category:Group Articles|Group]]''' - Broad type of article that is about the history of a particular group. It could be a political party, a resistance group, a music group, an ethnic group, government, organization, branch of government, business, military unit, 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:Technology Articles|Technology]]''' - Another broad article type which includes things like vehicles, machines, tools, weapons, electronics, etc, something that serves a functionality built by humans.
# '''[[: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:Work Articles|Work]]''' - Another broad one that usually includes a work of art or literature. It could also be for example 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: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.
# '''[[: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.


{| 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
|Only if necessary
|
|
|
|
|'''Legacy''':
|
|
|
|
Line 289: Line 178:


===Units of Measurement===
===Units of Measurement===
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.
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)."  


Different systems of measurement that will be commonly used include:
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.


*Distance and length
===Using probability===
*Mass
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.
*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 -->
===Sources, citing, quoting, and linking===
[[File:CitationExampleForWAMoS.png|right|400x400px]]
This section described how to cite, quote, and link.


Other systems of measurement for scientific purposes can also be used.  
==== Types of sources: ====
There are generally 3 types of sources (only the first two really important). These are:


===Using the conditional perfect conjugation===
# 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
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/specifically 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. 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.
# Secondary sources: These are any sources analyzing primary sources or other secondary sources. These are in the form of history books, published papers, documentaries,  
 
===Sources, citing, quoting, and linking===
[[File:CitationExampleForWAMoS.png|right|400px]]
This section described how to cite, quote, and link.


====Citing====
====Citing====
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 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.
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.


=====Citing claims made by others and ones only made users on the Archives' Discussion Pages=====
=====Citing claims made by others and ones only made users on the Archives' Discussion Pages=====
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.
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.  
 
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, but 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).


=====Citing other articles=====
=====Citing other articles=====
At first to the reader this may sound like a bad idea, "why would you cite yourself?" In truth, un a fundamental level, this isn't a site like Wikipedia. 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.
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.  
 
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, if you were writing an article about a soldier, and you didn't have many sources about his experiences, and you have the article about his unit making claims about the general experiences of the unit in a battle, you could just cite the section of his unit's article to make a claim he went through the same experience. That would be a lot easier than having to recite the same evidence the unit's article already did which also goes into much more detail that the soldier's article will. It will be easier to also verify and check the data, claims, and evidence that is used/made.


This is why it is also great with data as well. If you knew the exact casualties of each company of a division during a battle, you can just cite from the division's article all the way through the battalions, regiments, etc down to the articles of each company that explain exactly who died and how in each company. That way anyone will be able to verify the statistics claims made in the article of the division. 
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.  
 
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.  


====Linking====
====Linking====
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.  
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.  


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.  
Also of note that you put the link once within the summary and then once within the main section, and not again.  


====Quoting====
====Quoting====
When quoting something, you are usually quoting one of the following:
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.  
 
*Quoting someone saying something, or a short message
*Quoting a document, letter, message, speech, something written, etc
 
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.  
 
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, the first text box is the "content1" field. Then for the second template, it is "content2". 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:


* : - 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><sup></sup></nowiki> - <sup>Superscript</sup>
* <nowiki><b></b></nowiki> or <nowiki>'''</nowiki> <nowiki>'''</nowiki> - '''Bold'''
*<nowiki><sub></sub></nowiki> - <sub>Subscript</sub>
* <nowiki><i></i></nowiki> or <nowiki>''</nowiki> <nowiki>''</nowiki> - ''Italic (double apostrophes not quotes)''  
*<nowiki><u></u></nowiki> - <u>Underline</u>
* <nowiki><sup></sup></nowiki> - <sup>Superscript</sup>
*<nowiki><s></s></nowiki> - <s>Strikethrough</s>
* <nowiki><sub></sub></nowiki> - <sub>Subscript</sub>
* <nowiki><u></u></nowiki> - <u>Underline</u>
* <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 a 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.

Revision as of 13:48, 17 April 2024

Welcome to the official WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to 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=18821"