History & Heritage, or not?

ejmaztec

I'm a little puzzled as to the way things seem to be going in the History & Heritage forum.

For example, I was always under the impression that the WW2 forum was set up so that it could cater for all WW2 topics, and that they would no longer appear in the H&H forum (the same for WW1 and the Cold War fora.)

I was also under the impression that anyone starting a WW2 thread in the H&H forum, did so because they didn't realise that a WW2 forum existed.

Recently however, Jonniebgood1, one of the history mods, has started three WW2 threads in the H&H forum. And all are pure WW2, with no relevance to anything other than WW2 (unless they get get side-tracked by people with a beef related to one of the participating nations)::pac:

Most significant battle of WW2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056664897

Why were the French so ineffective in 1940?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056686894

When I queried the first one “in thread” some time ago, saying "Shouldn't this be in the WW2 forum?", JBG1 replied as follows:

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Not necessarily. I also use the WWII forum and there tends to be slightly different focus there.

It is history after all and thus is relevant to both fora (there is a crossover).

It seems to me that the only difference in focus is that the WW2 forum is supposed to contain WW2 topics, and the H&H forum isn't.

As for “crossover”, I can't see any of this in any of the threads mentioned. The threads are no different to most of the threads already in the WW2 forum.

... and this one, about nazi war criminals:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056707268

... and on the very same day, someone else has started one on Allied Atrocities during the Second World War. This poster, being new, probably doesn't know that there is a WW2 forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056707287

If everyone decided to ignore the WW1, WW2 or even the Cold War forum, those fora would be redundant in no time, and I would imagine that the people involved in setting them up would be more than miffed if the plug were pulled on them through lack of traffic.

Am I wrong in my assumptions, and just being a pernickety sod who missed something in translation, or am I justified in bringing this up?

Morlar

You are not the only person to notice that. Somewhere in the middle of this thread here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

The h&h moderator reveals their intent to gain control of the WW2 forum.

You will note that all of the above WW2 specific threads in h&h began after that date.

The intent I believe is to give the artificial appearance of a lot of overlap between h&h & WW2. All part of laying the ground work for a future move by the mod of H&H to gain control of WW2 forum in particular.

ejmaztec

Morlar wrote: »

You are not the only person to notice that. Somewhere in the middle of this thread here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

The h&h moderator reveals their intent to gain control of the WW2 forum.

You will note that all of the above WW2 specific threads in h&h began after that date.

The intent I believe is to give the artificial appearance of a lot of overlap between h&h & WW2. All part of laying the ground work for a future move by the mod of H&H to gain control of WW2 forum in particular.

I did imagine the possibility of some "game" being played, and immediately discounted the idea as slightly off the wall, but reading that thread is making me think again.

As far as I'm concerned, although the three fora that I mentioned are military sub-fora, I would never start a thread in H&H on anything to do with them, of a military nature, or otherwise.

Wibbs

Now I'm probably missing something here, but the two world wars are heavy duty and popular subjects for history buffs. It would be kinda odd to not have them in a history forum, no? It's hardly an "artificial connection" I would have thought?

Morlar

Wibbs wrote: »

Now I'm probably missing something here, but the two world wars are heavy duty and popular subjects for history buffs. It would be kinda odd to not have them in a history forum, no? It's hardly an "artificial connection" I would have thought?

Do you think the h&h mod's comments in this thread :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

immediately preceding his creating multiple WW2 specific threads in h&h is a coincidence ?

ejmaztec

Wibbs wrote: »

Now I'm probably missing something here, but the two world wars are heavy duty and popular subjects for history buffs. It would be kinda odd to not have them in a history forum, no? It's hardly an "artificial connection" I would have thought?

The WW2 forum was given the go-ahead back in April 2008, and at that point, all WW2 matters were to be discussed in that forum.

Since then, except for the reasons mentioned in my first post, all WW2 matters have been discussed there.

I expected noobies to start WW1, WW2 and Cold War threads in H&H, but not mods, because I assumed they knew better, hence my confusion.

Wibbs

Sorry seems terribly anal to me. One of the examples where Boards has too many forums IMHO*. Hell if you took various Irish revolutions, the two world wars and whatever other historical period where military forces were involved(pretty much all of them) and said these weren't subjects for the history forum why have the forum at all? Also seems personality driven too, in that the history mod and one or both of ye don't get on or something. I dunno could be waaaay off there and apologies if I am, but that's the feeling I'm getting.

Fact is WW2 was an historical event, one of the largest historical events in history, so I don't see why the subject can't be in the history forum or for that matter the ww2 forum seeing as it exists. TBH I'd be putting WW1 and 2 under the H&H banner rather than military. Actually what JB said works for me as a browser is the slightly different focus of both.




*or forums in odd cats.

ejmaztec

Wibbs wrote: »

Sorry seems terribly anal to me. One of the examples where Boards has too many forums IMHO*. Hell if you took various Irish revolutions, the two world wars and whatever other historical period where military forces were involved(pretty much all of them) and said these weren't subjects for the history forum why have the forum at all? Also seems personality driven too, in that the history mod and one or both of ye don't get on or something. I dunno could be waaaay off there and apologies if I am, but that's the feeling I'm getting.

Fact is WW2 was an historical event, one of the largest historical events in history, so I don't see why the subject can't be in the history forum or for that matter the ww2 forum seeing as it exists. TBH I'd be putting WW1 and 2 under the H&H banner rather than military. Actually what JB said works for me as a browser is the slightly different focus of both.




*or forums in odd cats.

But as far as I can see, the focus of the posts is identical, which leads me to wonder why the WW1, WW2 and Cold War fora were set up in the first place.

If they get swallowed up into the H&H forum, I can see a lot of posters no longer contributing, in the same way that some posters no longer, or very rarely, contribute to H&H now, for whatever reason.

P. Breathnach

ejmaztec wrote: »

... I can see a lot of posters no longer contributing, in the same way that some posters no longer, or very rarely, contribute to H&H now, for whatever reason.

The use of "for whatever reason" strikes me as being disingenuous.

We don't need proxy wars when we discuss how boards is, or should be, run.

ejmaztec

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The use of "for whatever reason" strikes me as being disingenuous.

We don't need proxy wars when we discuss how boards is, or should be, run.

It's not meant to be disingenuous. I phrased it that way so's not to bring any possible reasons into this thread.

I'm not involved in any proxy wars, why on earth would I be? I've no axe to grind with any party.

Have you any comments on my first post?

P. Breathnach

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's not meant to be disingenuous. I phrased it that way so's not to bring any possible reasons into this thread.

I'm not involved in any proxy wars, why on earth would I be? I've no axe to grind with any party.

There is disagreement on the method of history that should be expected or tolerated in the forum, and a number of people converted that into a crusade. This thread illustrates the conflict: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056490777. As you posted in the thread, I infer that you have some awareness of the positions taken by people.

Have you any comments on my first post?

Yes, a very simple one: it's no big deal, and I don't see much point in getting exercised about it. The world cannot conveniently be sliced up to match the forum structure on boards, which has evolved in something of a happenstance way.

Dades

I'm with Wibbs on this one. I think people are seeing Black Helicopters ("a move by the mod of H&H to gain control of WW2 forum"?) where there are none.

Like many forums on Boards, there's obvious overlap. If a poster (even a mod) feels more comfortable starting a thread a certain forum (where it is relevant) - then fine. It doesn't matter that there's another forum it would fit into. Just because a Military forum exists shouldn't preclude anything relating to war from being discussed in History.

If it was the case that the mod in question was moving everyone else's WW threads into the Military sub-forums there would be an issue. Is this the case?

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

You are not the only person to notice that. Somewhere in the middle of this thread here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

The h&h moderator reveals their intent to gain control of the WW2 forum.

<<<http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576



I can't believe I have been found out!
I thought my intention to pretend that WW2 was an historical topic as well as one of military importance was secret.

Anyway, After I take over the WW2 forum I will then unveil my plan to become a moderator of all the Soc forums. That will take approx 6 months and when that is complete I intend to sack all the Soc category moderators and invent a new role titled king moderator for myself. After approximately 12 more months I will then notify all site administrators that their services are not required any more as the king moderator role is a higher role than site administrator. Once that is in place the administrators will fight back- that will become known as WWIII and it will be discussed in years to come in the history forum.
I still can't believe that I have been found out though.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

....
It seems to me that the only difference in focus is that the WW2 forum is supposed to contain WW2 topics, and the H&H forum isn't.

As for “crossover”, I can't see any of this in any of the threads mentioned. The threads are no different to most of the threads already in the WW2 forum.
.....

If everyone decided to ignore the WW1, WW2 or even the Cold War forum, those fora would be redundant in no time, and I would imagine that the people involved in setting them up would be more than miffed if the plug were pulled on them through lack of traffic.

Am I wrong in my assumptions, and just being a pernickety sod who missed something in translation, or am I justified in bringing this up?

I think its a fair query ejmaztec but as I said before there is a natural crossover between the topics. The discussions sometimes have a common line but my understanding is that the WW2 forum has a more Militaristic line (given it is a sub-forum of Military) whilst the History forum generally has a wider spectrum (political crossover also) as well as a greater need for primary sourcing to substantiate views as per the forums charter. I post quite regularly on the WW2 forum and less regularly on the WW1 and Cold war forums and I enjoy the slightly different perspectives on these and think there is a place for both. As far as I am concerned if a thread on WWII is opened in the history forum I will let it stay there unless I see a reason that it is better suited to the military>WWII section, for example this thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565694&page=2 was moved by me to the Military WWII forum as it was better suited there. There are many other history forum WWII threads by a wide range of posters that are not moved, I don't see much point in linking them all here. I read quite alot of history and probably over one third of this is in regard of the world wars so I post on these topic wherever the threads are located.

EDIT> Just a further add on for what its worth. On checking my posting history 15% of my posts have been on the WWII forum, 2nd after the history forum just to re-iterate my support for that forum.

P. Breathnach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

... 15% of my posts have been on the WWII forum...

It's called entryism.

ejmaztec

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is disagreement on the method of history that should be expected or tolerated in the forum, and a number of people converted that into a crusade. This thread illustrates the conflict:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056490777.As you posted in the thread, I infer that you have some awareness of the positions taken by people.

I posted early on in that thread and never gave it a second thought, and certainly didn't involve myself in anything after my contribution. I can see that there were personality clashes and squabbles going on before the thread fizzled out. Since then, it seems to me that anyone starting H&H related threads in Feedback is immediately seen as “out to get someone”. In that thread, I had the same opinion as JBG1. I made my contribution, didn't criticise anyone, and stepped out of it.

I know exactly what's been going on, and still going on, but none of that had anything to do with the genuine query in the opening post of this particular thread, despite what you or anyone else happens to think. I stopped taking part in petty squabbles decades ago, and I've no time for game-players and misery-merchants. I actually stopped contributing to the H&H forum because of the atmosphere which prevailed, there's enough crap in real life without volunteering to put up with it on the internet.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, a very simpleone: it's no big deal, and I don't see much point in getting exercised about it. The world cannot conveniently be sliced up to match the forum structure on boards, which has evolved in something of a happenstance way.

It would only be a big deal were the other three fora to disappear as a result.

I think the Boards system is a more honed than you give it credit for in respect of the mechanics of what goes where.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think its a fair query ejmaztec but as I said before there is a natural crossover between the topics. The discussions sometimes have a common line but my understanding is that the WW2 forum has a more Militaristic line(given it is a sub-forum of Military) whilst the History forum generally has a wider spectrum (political crossover also) as well as a greater need for primary sourcing to substantiate views as per the forums charter. I post quite regularly on the WW2 forum and less regularly on the WW1 and Cold war forums and I enjoy the slightly different perspectives on these and think there is a place for both. As far as I am concerned if a thread on WWII is opened in the history forum I will let it stay there unless I see a reason that it is better suited to the military>WWII section, for example this thread herehttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565694&page=2was moved by me to the Military WWII forum as it was better suited there. There are many other history forum WWII threads by a wide range of posters that are not moved, I don't see much point in linking them all here. I read quite a lot of history and probably over one third of this is in regard of the world wars so I post on these topic wherever the threads are located.

EDIT> Just a further add on for what its worth.On checking my posting history 15% of my posts have been on the WWII forum, 2nd after the history forum just to re-iterate my support for that forum.

As I've already mentioned, the focus of the WW2 H&H threads is identical to those in the WW2 forum, and the designation of the WW2 forum as a military sub-forum doesn't seem to be relevant to the focus of the existing WW2 forum threads.

I know that there have been WW2 threads in the H&H forum, and I always wondered why they never got moved. The thread to which you refer looks like it was moved because the "moaning" started and you took action accordingly.

As for the 15% posts, I'd say that 99.999999% of them were made before you decided to start WW2 threads in H&H which, with exception of a couple of recent posts, looks like a conscious decision was made to no longer start WW2 threads in the WW2 forum.

It's probably my fault that I'm always looking for rules, and people probably think that I'm being petty, but mine was a simple query, and as yet there hasn't been anything to change it from grey to black or white.

I'm obviously not going to get a definitive answer and will not waste any more of my time on this.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's probably my fault that I'm always looking for rules, and people probably think that I'm being petty, but mine was a simple query, and as yet there hasn't been anything to change it from grey to black or white.

I'm obviously not going to get a definitive answer and will not waste any more of my time on this.

I wouldnt drop it yet ejmaztec. I have PM'd the 3 military forum moderators to get their opinion on it here if they wish to express it. I've given my view on it but if a different consensus is reached I will implement it. I'll discuss WWII history with anyone who wants to do so in a reasonable manner (meaning based on facts/ sources rather than conspiracy type stuff) on any forum.

Poccington

To be completely honest, with discussions of WW2, WW1 etc. they're such major events in history and with so many different topics for discussion concerning events from back then, you're always gonna get crossover in different forum's(Or is it fora?)

Different users frequent different parts of boards and in turn, you're gonna have discussions pop up in different parts.

Realistically, you're never gonna be able to limit all discussion of topics as vast as WW1, WW2, Nazi war criminals etc. into one specific forum. Military forum users may have no interest in visiting the H&H forum, the same way some H&H users may have no interest in visiting the Military forum. They're huge topics, with a crazy amount of discussion to be had. Trying to force it all somewhere wouldn't work and would probably result in some users just deciding not to contribute.