The New Talossan History ProjectA proposal humbly submitted to become part of the Royal SocietyOUTLINE: A collaborative effort to revise and expand
@Gödafrïeu Valcádac'h's
A Very Short History of Talossa (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVv7xfw_kLFyniSIRdefoXJ_ftP-61IF/view) ("AVSHT"), using all the historical resources contained in the Royal Archives, the official Kingdom websites, existing books on Talossan history such as
Ár Päts or
A Nation Sundered, periodicals such as
Qator Itrìns and the personal archives and memories of Talossans and former Talossans.
METHOD:
- "AVSHT" transformed into a TalossaWiki page with access granted only to members of this Project (http://wiki.talossa.com/Historyproject:A_very_short_history_of_Talossa).
- The initial members of the Project shall be @GV, @myself, @Glüc da Dhi, @Eovart Andrinescù and @ESB (EDIT: also @Sir Cresti Sierviciül and @Ián Plätschisch), being the people who've previously expressed interested in being part of such a project.
- Further members may be added by majority support of existing members and removed the same way.
AIM: to create a History of Talossa which is at least as comprehensive, and less politically tendentious and slanderous, as
Ár Päts for the years 1996-2020, being "living memory" for existing Talossan citizens.
===
Questions? Comment?
You've got yourself a proofreader.
A dream come true, really...
This project will not be a short-term thing, of course. Indeed, I see it lasting forever with the bulk of its work being done in the next three years or so.
Can you start by putting your Very Short History into the form of a Wiki page?
It might be worthwhile to just start with a copy of the history timeline that already exists:
http://wiki.talossa.com/History
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 06, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
It might be worthwhile to just start with a copy of the history timeline that already exists:
http://wiki.talossa.com/History
I want people's own takes. AD, you have as great a perspective on 2005-2011 as anyone, and I fully expect from you a big, huge, book. lolz
Okay, this is getting away from the project that I envisaged. I don't want "multiple takes". I want GV's AVSHT as the basis for a document which all members of the project can freely edit. If people want to edit the history timeline as well, I'm happy.
GV, please make your document into a wiki page.
Quote from: GV on August 06, 2020, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 06, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
It might be worthwhile to just start with a copy of the history timeline that already exists:
http://wiki.talossa.com/History
I want people's own takes. AD, you have as great a perspective on 2005-2011 as anyone, and I fully expect from you a big, huge, book. lolz
Hey man, you always just get out there and do stuff, and I have utmost respect for it. This is a great thing you've started. I do actually have a book in progress on this, based on my early research, but so far I've only got up to 1994 or 1995 (I can't remember). I'd love to help with some sort of project like this. Maybe we can try to put together an anodyne narrative, intercut with takes like yours and mine from our lived experiences. We should probably also try to contact Ben and get his version of a few things, too, if he's willing (I bet he will be).
I started to put some of it up online. I'll clean it up soon and add the rest when I have a chance: http://wiki.talossa.com/History_Project
CCX wrote a great thing about the culture, government, and history of the Republic which we can use. Unfortunately, it ends in 2009, so it will need some additions. I'll dig up the document (it was in my Citaxhienità: Manual of Talossan Citizenship).
Alex, I regard you swooping into take the term "History Project" as either incredibly rude or deliberately malicious. The New Talossan History Project has already set its agenda and GV has put his own document up as the basis for it. If you want to, feel free to apply for membership of the NTHP, and it will be discussed according to the rules set out above. Or keep your competing document and we may or may not use it, with attribution. (I should also note that the term "Talossan History Project" does not originate with me: the original was a project carried out in the early years of the Republic by Sir Tamorán dal Nava and J. K. Kelley, but I doubt they're happy with your biting their style either.)
In the meantime, can you please rename your document to anything not including the term "History Project"? Otherwise an administrator will do it for you. Thanks!
This is kinda reminding of me that time where AD tried to steal the thunder on the OrgLaw reform committee.
Not cool, man.
Okey-dokey skips, GV's wiki version of AVSHT is now write-protected to members of the NTHP (http://wiki.talossa.com/Historyproject:A_very_short_history_of_Talossa).
I've given everyone who's asked for it so far write permission - except for Eovart A. and ESB, whose Wiki accounts I'm not sure of.
Okay... Well, I deleted it and the space is blank, so go nuts with it. I was just enthused about the project after GV asked me to contribute. I'll continue privately, I guess. Best of luck to you.
You know you didn't have to do that; what I saw of your document was useful; and please feel free to apply for NTHP membership. There's no point in writing a "secret history", you're not Procopius.
Okay guys, I have edited the absolute hell out of GV's text (http://wiki.talossa.com/Historyproject:A_very_short_history_of_Talossa) and added my own thoughts in several places. Feel free to make your own edits, or discuss what you see here, or on the talk page.
Given how my initial efforts to contribute were received as an attack or attempt to take control of what seems to be a specific vision of this project's outcome, I think it would be best if you guys did your own thing. No judgment... Just think this is for the best.
Is there a copy of the Talossan Book of Names anywhere?
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on August 07, 2020, 07:31:13 AM
Is there a copy of the Talossan Book of Names anywhere?
For obvious reasons it's not online, I'm sure
@GV has one.
I encourage everyone to read through what GV and I (with a little help from Sir Tamorán dal Nava) have nailed together so far (http://wiki.talossa.com/Historyproject:The_New_Talossan_History_Project). The problem is that several vitally important and/or hilarious events in our history have not been included yet - for example, the ESB affair. Who better to write about that than
@ESB himself?
Perhaps the best way in which non-members of the Project can contribute is: what event in history, or aspect of Talossan history, are you particularly intrigued about, that you've heard others discussed, but you don't know the real story on?
A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:
* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?
* I've done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a "neutral point of view" rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?
* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?
Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on August 09, 2020, 08:34:24 AM
A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:
I've actually discussed these issues to some extent on the NTHP talk page (http://wiki.talossa.com/Historyproject_talk:The_New_Talossan_History_Project). My basic arguments are:
Quote* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?
I am following GV's lead for now, on the basis of the right to privacy of especially ex-Talossans.
Quote* I've done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a "neutral point of view" rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?
I would say "to the greatest extent possible" - the biggest problem with former Talossan history has been partisan bias. I have tried to move GV's value judgements and personal reflections into quotations, or removed them altogether when they seem irrelevant to the broader story. I do recognize that the current text is slightly politically tendentious, as it tends to reflect something of a "Republican Whig" notion of Talossan history, i.e. that it's just gotten better and better since Ben left and the National Schism ended; but that's why we need a whole range of editors of differing politics who can correct such bias.
Quote* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?
As far as possible. The current document has personal reflections from both GV and myself (and Sir T. dal Nava) which should be dated, I suppose.
I should add that GV's "Talossan names only" policy, including editing classic Talossan history texts, has some negative consequences. One is that GV's scanned and name-replaced version of the 1992 Big History is not searchable, whereas the earlier scanned version with "street names" is. (I found this out when I was searching for a source on D. Lauriér calling himself "the gadfly".)
I also found out that the two versions have different paginations, GV's being more faithful to the print version, so my references based on the earlier are probably inoperative, lol.
Seriously,
@Eiric: are you interested in writing an account of the ESB Affair for this project?
I'd prefer you please not use my writing for your project, Miestra and GV, if you don't mind.
Thanks for confirming you only ever wanted to be involved in this project to derail it and spoil our initiative.
I was interested by the idea and began to enthusiastically contribute some of what I'd written already. You said I was trying to take over, so I immediately stopped. Because I'm not involved, I'd prefer you not use my writing. I worked hard on it for my book, which I have resumed and intend to publish. While I suppose it is possible to read malice into these things, none was intended. Thank you.
Yeah, keep going with the justifications for why you stopped being involved when we said you couldn't take over. Makes you look really good. Totally owns the rest of us.
AD, did you not lead a heavy handed campaign and win a court case that set precedent that said once you put something on the Wiki that it stopped being yours? (I can't remember the specifics.. please remind me
@Viteu )
And for any naive onlookers; it was not a case of AD being accused of taking over the project, rather he tried starting his own alternative and competing project. He had zero interest in rolling up his sleeves and taking part in the history project that's going on, instead opting to start his own in an attempt to derail GV and Miestra's project.
Here's an idea, AD. Why don't you just stop playing the 'hard done by' game, apply for membership in the history project then take part and contribute? I predict you won't though, because it seems you are only interested in taking part in projects when your name is attached to the front cover.
Prove me wrong. Please. Prove that it's really not a case of you only being interested in participating in things where personal glory and political gain is the driving factor and that you are actually interested in the building up and betterment of the community.
Yes, Etho. The first excerpt I put up was submitted by me to the wiki, which means that I voluntarily ceded copyright restrictions to my own work to the extent that it can be uploaded to the wiki. So while you could not take that text and put it somewhere else, such as a PDF or other book, without my permission, you could legally use any portion of that text in whatever article you plan or any other article on the wiki. The case isn't exactly the same, but most of the basic principles are very similar to the extent that that case established the force of copyright law in our country. :-). That's why I could not, for example, simply forbid you to use that first chunk of text, but rather was politely asking.
I recognize that you guys think I was in some way trying to sabotage the project by jumping right in and creating an associated page and getting to work by contributing some of my own writing. I'm not entirely sure how that would have seized control or prevented you from setting up the stuff you wanted to set up -- to structure it around GV's perspective -- but I think the idea is that I was trying to get other people interested and involved before you had set up that structure, thereby undermining you? Or something along those lines. Couldn't you have just said, hold on, please wait to start contributing until we all agree on a framework? Or something else along those lines, rather than immediately jumping to accusations that I was sabotaging you? I don't really know how to convince you that that wasn't my intent. Honestly, it doesn't make much sense for me to start irrevocably contributing the product of a considerable amount of effort on my part to your project if I wasn't interested in helping.
I'm a doer. If I am interested in a project, I leap right in with both feet and start getting it done. in my experience, that's the best way to actually get a large initiative all the way done... Get enthused and get into it immediately, and let your momentum carry you forward and interest others in the cause. I have completed several enormous projects in my time here, so I think I can speak from considerable experience on that front.
Since my first contribution was met with accusations that I was trying to undermine the project by contributing enormous chunks of well-researched history, I honestly don't think it would be possible to work together with you guys. I mean, how would that even work, given how even this extremely minor dispute is playing out? Like, I understand the "I bet your ego is too big for you to rejoin us" taunt, but I think in practical terms this wouldn't work. I would do too much and hijack it or do too little and drag my feet, or whatever the problem might be. Not to mention that we haven't even started discussing content disputes. I'm just not interested in nasty fights or being called names because I have a different opinion about some historical event, and you just know that's going to happen. I don't even know why you would want to urge me to rejoin you, for that matter... Why not recruit other people who you don't personally despise quite so much?
While I appreciate the thoughts and wish you nothing but the best success, I think it would be best if we went our own separate ways on this one. Thank you.
Keep going, AD. Just one more post, and you'll convince someone that you didn't pull out of the project in a huff when we didn't let you take over.
Just leave me alone -- and don't use my writing, please.
(https://i.imgflip.com/4cf1kj.jpg)
So if no-one has any objections, the Government is seriously considering making the current version of the project Required Reading for all new citizens. Thoughts?
First of all, forgive me if I'm sticking my nose someplace I don't belong, given that I'm not associated with the project, nor a member of the College at all for that matter. I've got a few thoughts as one of those new citizens.
I read through it once, and I likely will have to again so I don't miss anything. It was quite eye-opening with regards to what I've missed during my time away, and it sheds a lot of light on why things are the way they are, post-Reunison.
My only concerns are that it may be information overload for those uninitiated, and I'd be cautious of scaring people away with some of the more, shall we say, unpleasant parts.
Like I said, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with Talossan history and politics, and there's still a lot that's incredibly confusing. Also, while I know that a lot of stuff happened back then, a lot of it bad, I also understand that behavior like that isn't acceptable anymore and never was in the first place. The person who discovers the Kingdom via Wikipedia might not.
I'm not going to say I don't recommend people read it. It might be worth adding a summary and a disclaimer, or something similar though.
Just my two bence.
Well, that is an eye-opening reaction, considering I personally thought it was too short and leaves too much out! ;D Can I ask you what parts you found confusing? Because those parts should be expanded/explained, which would of course make it longer.
This is the summary version, but I don't think at this stage we should do as they used to in King Robert I's day and make all newbies pass a multiple-choice open book test on Talossan history...
RESEARCH REQUEST: can someone please go through the Digest of Laws (https://wiki.talossa.com/Digest_of_Laws) for 1998-9 and find out which one was King Robert's failed bill to make it illegal for any Talossan to speak to any Penguinean?
https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Diplomacy_With_Penguinea_Act is the closest thing I could find by way of a Wiki search for 'Penguinea'.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 17, 2020, 12:29:12 AM
So if no-one has any objections, the Government is seriously considering making the current version of the project Required Reading for all new citizens. Thoughts?
I feel the current version is still pretty one-sided, especially post-2005
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 17, 2020, 10:09:25 AM
I feel the current version is still pretty one-sided, especially post-2005
Then amend it. You're a member of the project (as is Sir Cresti).
I feel that once again this is a situation where we have to press on to concentrate minds. Only GV and I have been contributing so far. Of course it's got a pro-Republican tinge.
Alright, having re-read it, it makes significantly more sense the second time around. I think a lot of the confusion on my part is down to the fact that there at least looks to be a lot of nuance, and the re-read helped cement some of the smaller details, specifically names and the like. Also, it's not nearly as long as I thought, it looked a lot longer on my phone.
Now off to read A Nation Sundered...
It's a great read. GV's account is rollicking.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 17, 2020, 05:03:55 AM
RESEARCH REQUEST: can someone please go through the Digest of Laws (https://wiki.talossa.com/Digest_of_Laws) for 1998-9 and find out which one was King Robert's failed bill to make it illegal for any Talossan to speak to any Penguinean?
Another request for research: can anyone stomach reading OldWitt in 2004-2005 to see whether there's a public mention of KR1's plan to just start a new Talossan language, from scratch, that the Republic wouldn't be able to use like we used el glhetg? I know it happened, but it would be best if he'd mentioned it in public. Half the stuff Ben did you wouldn't believe until you saw the evidence. That's how narcissists work.
These don't look to be exactly what you're looking for, but they might be of use.
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/242/secretary-state-issues-language
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/295/proposal-peace
Speaking of pro-Republican tinge, I take issue with two sentences (probably the only two sentences of the whole thing I am in a position to have an opinion on at all, but no matter):
QuoteSome might even argue that "if the Kingdom won the Talossan Cold War, the Republic won the subsequent peace". This interpretation is given weight by several other democratic reforms which Reviensadeirs have successfully pushed for in the Kingdom, such as secret-ballot voting in elections.
Personal loyalties aside, I think this clearly overlooks the role of the MRPT, the entire point of which was to push for those same reforms, and which led five governments in the process.
I haven't made any changes yet because I don't want accusations that I inserted any pro-Moderate Monarchy bias, but this should be addressed.
Good point. That line was me flexing a bit, and is undignified, and is now gone.
Ian, I hope you or someone else will contribute. Currently it was written 100% by GV and Miestra and it is reflective of that fact. Not that there's anything wrong with their perspective, but it does rather leap out that it's very distinctly one viewpoint and a third of it is literally direct quotes from them.
Nearly all biographies have bias in them. Let's not lose sight of that. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that you didn't want to contribute yourself. We don't need to rehash the whys and wherefores of why you aren't contributing but I don't think you can complain about it being "one-sided" while quite literally taking yourself out of it.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 18, 2020, 05:55:27 PM
Nearly all biographies have bias in them. Let's not lose sight of that. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that you didn't want to contribute yourself. We don't need to rehash the whys and wherefores of why you aren't contributing but I don't think you can complain about it being "one-sided" while quite literally taking yourself out of it.
Of course all histories have a bias, but credible histories actively work at minimizing it (unless they're just blatant propaganda, which I don't think is the intention here). I wouldn't have commented except that one of the authors is the Seneschal and she just said she wanted to make this mandatory reading for all new immigrants. Certainly an official and mandatory
state-sponsored history should try to be unbiased.
You guys have a pretty distinct vision, but making this thing the official version of events is beyond the pale right now. It's a narrative, not really a history. Here's one paragraph as example:
QuoteIn late 2002, Cavéir and Gariçéir teamed up to form the Grey Congress Party, beating out Ben's announcement of his revival of the old Black Hand Party with Wes Aquilâ by about two days.[30] Ben's pocket-votes would go with him, and he would become the most powerful political force in the country. Gödafrïeu Valcádac'h suddenly found himself at the head of a three-way coalition. A full accounting - from GV's perspective, at least - of the years 2002-2004 in Talossa is found in his book A Nation Sundered, now in its third edition, having been republished in 2019. He gives a very quick summation of events in his own words below.
QuoteTo be succinct, the whole thing was the biggest clusterf**k in Talossan history, but can be summarized thusly:
In October 2003, I had been PM since 25 June 2002 and wanted to step down. I had been incommunicado for a week (my fault on that), and it was clear to me having Chirisch Cavéir as my Deputy Prime Minister, ready to take over when I was done as PM, was the perfect way to leave office.
What I was unaware of was when Chirisch and Queen Amadâ met at TalossaFest held a few months earlier, they haaaaaated each other. There was no way in hell Ben and Amadâ were going to be happy with Cavéir as Seneschál, and they did not accept my selection of him.[31]
This was written by GV. The first citation is this: "G. Valcádac'h, personal recollection." The second reference isn't a citation at all; it's a quote from Chirisch Cavéir explicitly disagreeing with the quote presented in the main narrative. There are no other references to support the account. No one else is quoted in the main narrative of these events, and no other perspective is even hinted-at.
In other words, this is GV's personal narrative, not a history. I'm not going to nitpick, but it's very clearly written from his perspective and centered on him. And there's nothing wrong with that -- we need those! -- but we shouldn't pretend it's some kind of objective history at this point. A large portion of an entire year of history is presented just in summary by GV in the first person. GV himself said that there should be other perspectives.
Even if we wanted to make the personal narratives of GV and Miestra -- the only contributors -- into the official state history, surely this isn't ready for primetime. The heavy reliance on their memories is a widespread problem. The references seem to be almost exclusively bits of Robert I's history right up until footnote 20 -- literally the very moment in the history when Miestra enters the picture -- and then literally 87% of the references are either GV's memory, Miestra's memory, or their side commentary. And it just plain needs more work! The first Wittenberg was created in 1996 or 1997, it says, grabbing another bit at random. Which is it? Where is the reference to support this assertion, or is it just someone's best memory? Impossible to say.
There's nothing wrong with this narrative. It's fine for what it is. But the Seneschal is pitching it as mandatory state history for new immigrants, so please take it seriously.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 18, 2020, 07:26:56 PM
You guys have a pretty distinct vision, but making this thing the official version of events is beyond the pale right now.
Everything you say is precisely right
in principle (and it seems that the ongoing proposal to make this Required Reading has done its job in concentrating minds). And you know what? You could fix it yourself if you swallowed your pride and became a member of the NTHP. You're welcome to do so.
The current text is not perfect, and should be improved; but it's IMHO good enough to start with. It gives
an overview - a partial one, granted - of Talossan history with some context. It's certainly far less tendentious and better sourced than
Ár Päts, which I needed to pass an openbook text on in 1997. It will get better, the more input it receives. But I will suggest to the Minister of the Interior that - combined with the TalossaWiki "History" page - it is now good enough to tell prospectives to read.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 19, 2020, 01:33:56 AM
Everything you say is precisely right in principle (and it seems that the ongoing proposal to make this Required Reading has done its job in concentrating minds). And you know what? You could fix it yourself if you swallowed your pride and became a member of the NTHP. You're welcome to do so.
When you announced the idea, I was enthusiastic and immediately contributed an initial large chunk of my own history. You accused me of trying to seize control. I'm not really sure about how exactly a coup of the project would work in practice, but that doesn't matter. The point is that it's very obvious that any attempt at collaboration would end badly. I'm sure you don't mean any harm, but I can't work with someone who is going to assume bad faith.
I wish you the best of luck. I will continue with my own work.
But... we'll just end up with two differently biased histories that way. What's the point of that?
(EDIT: As a tangent, I'd love to contribute if I had anything to contribute. I've only been here since 2014 and never paid much attention to the political side of things.)
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on September 19, 2020, 09:03:20 AM
But... we'll just end up with two differently biased histories that way. What's the point of that?
(EDIT: As a tangent, I'd love to contribute if I had anything to contribute. I've only been here since 2014 and never paid much attention to the political side of things.)
I intend to work hard to have the least biased history possible, and I will use multiple sources, quote from different perspectives on contentious issues, and find objective references for as much as possible. If you look at the talk page on the wiki page for this project, you can see the first third of what I had done at the time. That's about the level of quality I aim for with my history. It will be imperfect, as all histories are, but I think it will be an actually really useful good guide for what has happened in our country.
I wrote the history timeline that is currently on the wiki when I first started on the project and I am pretty proud of the quality there. That's my outline, with the end goal of fleshing out each event into a paragraph or two of solid and well-referenced prose.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 19, 2020, 09:59:07 AM
I intend to work hard to have the least biased history possible,
I encourage you to complete this work, the more Talossan literature the better - but given your previous literary achievements and other contributions to the discourse, I just can't see the above happening. I envisage a work which explains in great detail about how Sir Alexandreu Davinescù was Talossa's noblest son, who fought the long and losing fight against the malice, corruption, and sheer will to destroy Talossa of his bestial enemies.
Ár Päts with a different central character, in other words.
At least with what we have already, GV and I disagree on historical interpretations.