Talk:Timeline of Kansas history
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Tags
[edit]I'll remove the inline tag after a bit if no one put some refs in (such as by the person who 1st put the referece tag in the articl in the 1st place) ... as this timeline was gotten from public domain sources. J. D. Redding 23:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
... oh yes .. this is just basically a stripped down history article ... so, the tag should go there in the real "history of" if there is a concern. J. D. Redding 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Dust Bowl/ Great Depression?????
[edit]I saw no mention of the Dust Bowl or Great Depression whatsoever. These are major, important events in Kansas history. This directly influenced Kansas as a modern state, and it is not mentioned. Yet there are mentions of Native American battles and moves. Yes, these are important, but if you are going to leave out the Dust Bowl and Great Depression you may as well leave them out as well.
Also, it mentions the Populist's revolt in the shortened timeline, but not in the long one. The only way to find out what it is was to follow the link, which was about the People's Party. It took a lot of scrolling to reach where it talked about it.
Next revisions should certainly add these in. --Brainybrack (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources?
[edit]Three citations for 500+ years of history? That means nothing can be verified. It also means any editor who wants to can remove what's here. So, consider this: if you add to the timeline without a source to point to, your work will most likely be replaced in the future because there's nothing to indicate it's worth anything. Allreet (talk)
- No, it just means that there needs to be significant editing. For example, the bullet point "1830: Indian Removal Act expedites the process of Indian removal." links to the article Indian Removal Act which is abundantly sourced. There's also a good references section. It would be nice if inline sources were added. This is an editing issue, not a deletion issue and certainly not one that should be preceded with a threat.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- And exactly which of these sources applies to which "fact"? How can anything be verified without citations using this approach? What "guideline" says this is acceptable? I'm not suggesting deleting. Wouldn't think of it. I'm suggesting that editors abide by our values and in so doing, serve our readers and Wikipedia better.
- With those thoughts in mind I'm considering adding a {{Refimprove}} template, but I am completely open to suggestions. Allreet (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. What I said was not a threat. I was pointing out that editors could well be wasting their time because more diligent future editors are likely to replace their well-intentioned unsourced work. Allreet (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- And I just realized I had already added the template and then saw your comment. To tell you the truth, I hate these templates. But they do serve a good purpose. Seldom does anyone clean up an entire article, but at least future editors are discouraged from adding material without a source. Allreet (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The policy Verifiability states "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It further states "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." All are basically editing issues. The header tag should be sufficient as there is no deadline. I'll put a note on the WikiProject Kansas page for help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. And fair enough, Paul. Honestly, I'm appalled by the lack of citations and believe this is Wikipedia's greatest weakness. Much of what's entered without citations is accurate, I have no doubt. I'm also convinced that too much is unsourced and is less than accurate. And then decades go by without anybody doing anything about it. Take care. Allreet (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a couple myself and will try to do one or two a day.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. And fair enough, Paul. Honestly, I'm appalled by the lack of citations and believe this is Wikipedia's greatest weakness. Much of what's entered without citations is accurate, I have no doubt. I'm also convinced that too much is unsourced and is less than accurate. And then decades go by without anybody doing anything about it. Take care. Allreet (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The policy Verifiability states "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It further states "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." All are basically editing issues. The header tag should be sufficient as there is no deadline. I'll put a note on the WikiProject Kansas page for help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
What about the Great Depression?
[edit]I was wondering why they didn't have the great depression on here the 20s was a big era of all of america. Why didn't this show information about how Kansas went through with the GD. 2600:1702:4640:2D70:B5C5:85E3:30F2:334B (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)