Historical Events Database - History

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

Since we have started this project, I've not made the effort to keep up with all the discussions about the contents, authors and books. I've rather focussed on providing the technical infrastructure. Now I realize that I should have focussed more on the content, in order to be able to oversee things better and provide a tight feedback loop about the quality and content of the entries.

But, maybe that is a good thing because now I can be in the role of a reader who is unexperienced and clueless about the historical matters which we have added to the database. Like a reader, I also don't have all reference books to check entries myself. So apologies if I'm going to ask a lot of random, rapid-fire, OCD and 'stupid' questions from now on, of which some might have been answered before, or might have been answered implicitly. For all responses, maybe we can be super clear so that even those who haven't yet been contributing to this project will understand.

Asking naive questions will maybe also show where we have to work on in the database entries, or provide hints about what we should include in a "preface" or "notes about sources". We'll see where it goes.

My first questions are about Shijing's entry ID 926 (randomly picked):

In the field Author ancient there is

[Zhou shu: Wudi ji] ch. 5

Why square brackets?
What is

Zhou shu

and

Wudi ji

?
What is

ch.5

?

In the Derived from field: What signifies the number in

Ho 228

?

In the Quote field: What is (a), (b), and (c)?

The date you chose for this event was Aug 9, however, in the text we repeatedly find Sep 3. Maybe you can add into the Notes field the reason why you (as the editor) chose Aug 9. Maybe we can prefix our comments as "Editors note:".

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Historical Events Database

Data mentioned the following in Reply #910:

I'm beginning to think that we ought not to include anything from Josephus at all.

Laura, I checked my entries and they amount to 15 in total from all the works of Josephus.

Would you definitely decide they're not worth mentioning in the final publication, then maybe they would still be useful for demonstration purposes about how exactly to finally edit any other entry from different writers. Just a thought. FWIW.

I would appreciate it if you could make your decision before the final editing really starts off to avoid unnecessary work.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

You can replace all the Chinese stuff from the archaeoastronomy book. It's not helpful at all.

OK, I'll begin deleting the entries wherever they're duplicated by Kronk's material. The archaeoastronomy book is actually divided into two sections -- the first is 'comets', which is all covered in Kronk, so that can be done away with; the second is 'meteor showers', which is not duplicated by Kronk (or Yeomans) -- would you like that included eventually, or do you prefer that it be left out? And speaking of Yeomans, do you want his material which duplicates Kronk's deleted as well, or shall we leave it as is even though it's redundant?

If the meteor shower is significant and there are sources mentioning it, include it. But only if the sources are western.

No dupes. One or the other may have more data, if so, include it in the text box as an additional source in the same entry.

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

No dupes. One or the other may have more data, if so, include it in the text box as an additional source in the same entry.

I don't think we have any separate duplicate entries at this point (to the best of my knowledge), but there are several where there are entries from two or three sources in the same text box. To clarify before I start deleting, here's an example from the text box of Event ID 65:

Kronk (1999):

This comet may have been one of the most spectacular of ancient times, with an extremely long tail and a brilliant maximum brightness. It was observed from China and Rome, and was apparently considered a portent of two events reported by writers in the latter country.

The Chinese text Han shu (100) is our primary source of dating for this "long-tailed" star. It says the comet was seen "in the east" sometime during the month of -124 August 31 to September 29, with a tail "stretching across the heavens." It remained visible for 30 days. A more contemporary source, the Shih chi (-90) did not give details of the comet, but did note the reign period changed in -133 because of the appearance of a comet. A more recent Chinese text, the T'ung chien kang mu (1189), incorrectly claims the "long-tailed star" was seen in -133. It is possible that the "sparkling star" reported in the Han shu as seen in the north sometime during the month of -124 July 3 to August 1 might have been an earlier observation of this comet.

The Roman historians Lucius Annaeus Seneca and Marcus Junianus Justinus independently noted the appearance of a great comet as a portent to events discussed in their books. Seneca finished Quaestiones Naturales around 63 and at one point noted that during the reign of Attalus III, king of Pergamum, "a comet appeared, of moderate size at first. Then it rose up and spread out and went all the way to the equator, so that its vast extent equaled the region of the sky which is called the Milky Way." Justinus wrote his abridgment of the earlier written Historiae Philippicae during the 3rd century. He said that when Mithradates VI Eupator was born "a comet burned so brightly for 70 days that the entire sky seemed to be on fire. In its greatness it filled a quarter of the heavens, and with its brilliance it outshone the sun, while its rising and setting each took a period of four hours."

Previous treatments of the Roman comets were never truly decisive on the dates, mainly as a result of Seneca and Justinus not providing a definitive dating of the events described in their books. Historians have established the reign of Attalus III as extending from -137 to -132, while the probable date of the birth of Mithradates VI Eupator has been given as between -133 and -131. Although previous astronomers have listed the Roman comets separately from the Chinese comets, the Author believes that the descriptions are too similar to be ignored.

Full moon: July 17, August 15, September 14

Yeomans (1991):

135 BC, September, China, a tailed star comet appeared in the east stretching across the heavens. It lasted 30 days before leaving. (Ho, 39)

Pankenier, Xu, & Jiang (2008):

(a) 6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a star became fuzzy in the east that stretched across the sky.

(b) 6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed.

NB: Ho (1962) lacked (b).

In this case, the latter two sources don't contribute any new information that isn't already in Kronk, so should these be deleted even though they are part of the same event ID (my understanding is that they should be, but I just want to make sure)?

If the meteor shower is significant and there are sources mentioning it, include it. But only if the sources are western.

None of the sources will be western -- however, that's also true of the majority of Kronk's data (he occasionally includes western sources, especially for the Halley entries, but most of his data comes from Chinese/Japanese/Korean texts). So I just want to clarify this as well, since limiting the source material to western texts would technically exclude many of Kronk's entries too.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

No dupes. One or the other may have more data, if so, include it in the text box as an additional source in the same entry.

I don't think we have any separate duplicate entries at this point (to the best of my knowledge), but there are several where there are entries from two or three sources in the same text box. To clarify before I start deleting, here's an example from the text box of Event ID 65:

Kronk (1999):

This comet may have been one of the most spectacular of ancient times, with an extremely long tail and a brilliant maximum brightness. It was observed from China and Rome, and was apparently considered a portent of two events reported by writers in the latter country.

The Chinese text Han shu (100) is our primary source of dating for this "long-tailed" star. It says the comet was seen "in the east" sometime during the month of -124 August 31 to September 29, with a tail "stretching across the heavens." It remained visible for 30 days. A more contemporary source, the Shih chi (-90) did not give details of the comet, but did note the reign period changed in -133 because of the appearance of a comet. A more recent Chinese text, the T'ung chien kang mu (1189), incorrectly claims the "long-tailed star" was seen in -133. It is possible that the "sparkling star" reported in the Han shu as seen in the north sometime during the month of -124 July 3 to August 1 might have been an earlier observation of this comet.

The Roman historians Lucius Annaeus Seneca and Marcus Junianus Justinus independently noted the appearance of a great comet as a portent to events discussed in their books. Seneca finished Quaestiones Naturales around 63 and at one point noted that during the reign of Attalus III, king of Pergamum, "a comet appeared, of moderate size at first. Then it rose up and spread out and went all the way to the equator, so that its vast extent equaled the region of the sky which is called the Milky Way." Justinus wrote his abridgment of the earlier written Historiae Philippicae during the 3rd century. He said that when Mithradates VI Eupator was born "a comet burned so brightly for 70 days that the entire sky seemed to be on fire. In its greatness it filled a quarter of the heavens, and with its brilliance it outshone the sun, while its rising and setting each took a period of four hours."

Previous treatments of the Roman comets were never truly decisive on the dates, mainly as a result of Seneca and Justinus not providing a definitive dating of the events described in their books. Historians have established the reign of Attalus III as extending from -137 to -132, while the probable date of the birth of Mithradates VI Eupator has been given as between -133 and -131. Although previous astronomers have listed the Roman comets separately from the Chinese comets, the Author believes that the descriptions are too similar to be ignored.

Full moon: July 17, August 15, September 14

Yeomans (1991):

135 BC, September, China, a tailed star comet appeared in the east stretching across the heavens. It lasted 30 days before leaving. (Ho, 39)

Pankenier, Xu, & Jiang (2008):

(a) 6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a star became fuzzy in the east that stretched across the sky.

(b) 6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed.

NB: Ho (1962) lacked (b).

In this case, the latter two sources don't contribute any new information that isn't already in Kronk, so should these be deleted even though they are part of the same event ID (my understanding is that they should be, but I just want to make sure)?

Well, I'd like to keep the additional source cites even if we delete the extra material. Like maybe we should put them in notes with "see also...."

If the meteor shower is significant and there are sources mentioning it, include it. But only if the sources are western.

None of the sources will be western -- however, that's also true of the majority of Kronk's data (he occasionally includes western sources, especially for the Halley entries, but most of his data comes from Chinese/Japanese/Korean texts). So I just want to clarify this as well, since limiting the source material to western texts would technically exclude many of Kronk's entries too.

You aren't understanding me. I don't want all the Chinese/Korean names and such. Like: "6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed."

I want it given in Western terms, months, constellations, etc. SEE?

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

Well, I'd like to keep the additional source cites even if we delete the extra material. Like maybe we should put them in notes with "see also...."

OK -- I can begin moving the additional (non-Kronk) source material out of the main text box and into the notes field. Is there any reason for me to hold off on deleting the text of the additional entries, or do you want to make a definitive decision now to delete the text and leave only the references?

You aren't understanding me. I don't want all the Chinese/Korean names and such. Like: "6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed."

I want it given in Western terms, months, constellations, etc. SEE?

Yes, I see what you mean now. I think what I'll need to do is create a separate document listing the conversions from the original eastern dates and constellations to western ones, using Kronk as a model so that they can be plugged in to the other sources. This will take awhile at first, but when it's done I'm hoping the conversion will be pretty straightforward. Using your example above, we could insert the western material in brackets like this (which would also be used to fill in the separate date fields):

6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty [-135 BC], 8th month [August 31 to September 29]; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed

Would that be a good way to do it, or is there another format you would prefer?

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

Well, I'd like to keep the additional source cites even if we delete the extra material. Like maybe we should put them in notes with "see also...."

OK -- I can begin moving the additional (non-Kronk) source material out of the main text box and into the notes field. Is there any reason for me to hold off on deleting the text of the additional entries, or do you want to make a definitive decision now to delete the text and leave only the references?

I guess I wasn't very clear.

1) Delete the additional text that is repeated (assuming that it is just a repeat - make sure).

2) move the source citation of the additional text to the notes. Like "See also: this book and that book by so and so"

You aren't understanding me. I don't want all the Chinese/Korean names and such. Like: "6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, 8th month; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed."

I want it given in Western terms, months, constellations, etc. SEE?

Yes, I see what you mean now. I think what I'll need to do is create a separate document listing the conversions from the original eastern dates and constellations to western ones, using Kronk as a model so that they can be plugged in to the other sources. This will take awhile at first, but when it's done I'm hoping the conversion will be pretty straightforward. Using your example above, we could insert the western material in brackets like this (which would also be used to fill in the separate date fields):

That's pretty much already done in Kronk. I'm just trying to make clear why I don't like the text from the Archaeoastronomy book which presents the material in those terms.

6th year of the Jianyuan reign period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty [-135 BC], 8th month [August 31 to September 29]; a long star emerged in the east, so long that it stretched across the sky; after 30 days, it departed

Would that be a good way to do it, or is there another format you would prefer?

No. Just get rid of all of it and leave the Kronk material and maybe put in the notes: See also "whatever the title of the book".
[/quote]

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

I guess I wasn't very clear.

1) Delete the additional text that is repeated (assuming that it is just a repeat - make sure).

2) move the source citation of the additional text to the notes. Like "See also: this book and that book by so and so"

OK, that makes sense. I'll make sure there's no novel information in the secondary sources before deleting the text, but will otherwise edit as you describe above.

That's pretty much already done in Kronk. I'm just trying to make clear why I don't like the text from the Archaeoastronomy book which presents the material in those terms [...] Just get rid of all of it and leave the Kronk material and maybe put in the notes: See also "whatever the title of the book".

I was asking about this in reference to the 'meteor showers' section in the Archaeoastronomy book, which has no equivalent in Kronk (or Yeomans). The dates/constellations in those entries would need to be converted if you want them to follow the Kronk format. Sorry about the confusion, but once we decide how to manage this material I think everything else will be straightforward.

 

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

I inspected a number of entries in the database, and wrote up the following guidelines for the usage of the input fields. It's more or less what we have done until now, but the requirements are now a bit more strict, to ensure a certain quality of our planned publication. Also, having a uniform method of entering information across all entries will allow us to write small computer scripts -- if the need arises -- which can automatically 'parse' and 'transform' the information.

What I've written below is open to discussion, and I think I'll edit this post repeatedly as we discover more issues. It is not yet complete, so please hang on a couple more days before we focus on editing all the entries. Please read the requirements carefully and ask questions when something is not clear, or not feasible. By now all contributors should have a good 'feeling' about the process, which details are available, etc.

Summary field:

The Summary field should contain the most relevant information about this event. It should be a catchy, simple and short sentence (think of how Sott.net headings are written). After reading the Summary, the readers should know enough so that it is not necessary to read the entire text. The Summary field will be used as a heading for each event. I've copied everything from the previous Keywords field (which no longer exists) into the Summary field, because the usage of the Keywords field was sometimes not precise/uniform enough to generate a good index from it (see next section).

I think the summary should be a complete sentence with a verb. E.g. instead of "Small globes around the sun" you should write "Small globes seen around the sun".

Index field:

This is a new field, and currently it is empty for all events. It has the same purpose as the old Keywords field (which no longer exists). I chose the name "Index" to make it clear that it has to be filled in a more precise way than the old Keywords field. Write into this field those terms which should be added to the Index at the end of the book. Enter all relevant and related words which might be used by a reader to look up an event (re-read Laura's notes on proper use of keywords a few posts back). You should never add a whole sentence. Use phrases (even short ones) only when absolutely necessary. Aim at single words only. To enter a simple phrase which contains a space, type quotation marks. You can specify term hierarchies/groupings by typing >. Use the autocomplete suggestions as much as possible to have uniform spelling/capitalization. Do NOT enter categories, event types, locations, authors, year numbers etc. because this would be information duplication.

Good Examples:

volcano
"Mount Etna"
eclipse>total
eclipse>partial
eclipse>solar>total

Bad Examples:

"first predicted eclipse" (too long, and would be listed under 'F', readers probably won't look up the word 'first')

rather write:

"eclipse>first predicted"


Author field:

First name(s) come first (abbreviations are possible), then a blank space, then the last name at the end. Optionally add an academic title without comma after the last name. Separate authors by a comma plus white space. Do not use "and" or "&". If the author is unknown (rare cases), type "unknown".

Good Example:

John Doe, Jane Doe PhD, Jim Doe

Bad Examples:

John Doe and Jane Doe
Doe, John
John Doe, PhD. & Doe Jane



Source Type field:

This is a new field, and it has 3 options: "book", "article" and "web". Since this is a new field, it has to be set for all events. Set "book" when you are quoting from a book or book series, "article" when quoting from a published (on paper or PDF) article, or "web" when you are quoting from a regular web page. This info will be used to properly typeset the main citations.

If you select "web", paste the link/URL into the new Link field. Up until now, links have been pasted into various other fields. This has to be corrected.


Volume field:

This field is optional. You can enter here 'Volume', 'Book', 'Part' or 'Chapter', followed by roman or latin numerals, as it is traditionally given for this source. Do NOT use abbreviations for 'Volume', 'Book', 'Part' or 'Chapter' like 'Vol.', 'Bk.' etc. If several apply, separate with a comma and a blank space. Links, Translators, Editors etc. do NOT go here. Instead, use the new Editor and Translator fields.

Good Examples:

Book IV, Chapter 1
Volume 2
Book 2, Part II, Chapters 3-6

Bad Examples:

Vol.3
Book X -- Chapter 3
IIICh2


Page field:

Enter a single page number, or if it is a page range, specify it with a single dash. If it is a page 'and from here on', use 'ff.' Do not use abbreaviations like 'p.' or 'pp.'. The system will add that automatically later.

Good Examples:

100
150-155
100 ff.

Bad Examples:

Page 32
p. 32
pp.33-100


Publisher and Published at field:

Usage should be self-explanatory, don't misuse the field by pasting other details.


Link field:

Use this only when the Source type field is set to "Web".


Editor and Translator field:

Usage should be self-explanatory, don't misuse the field by pasting other details.


Quote field:

Here you should especially pay attention to good text formatting. Please adhere to the following rules:

1. Use English punctuation (no spaces in front of punctuation, like in French)
2. If you use any kind of abbreviations which are not known by a layperson (anything more fancy than i.e. and e.g.), record and explain them in a Word document. We may include your explanations in a preface.
3. The text inserted here is already implicitly quoted, so do not put quotation marks around the entire text.
4. Do not type a citation here, because the citation is already defined through the Author/Title/Volume/Publisher etc. fields. (Secondary sources go into the Notes field, see below)
5. Make sure you don't have any hard hyphens in the text (especially when copied from a PDF or a badly formatted web page). Hard hyphens like in "atmo-sphere" should be removed.
6. Make sure that every paragraph is separated by an empty line. You can achieve an empty line by pressing the enter key twice. Especially when you copy-pasted the text, you often will have paragraphs without an empty line in between. You have to train your eye to spot that.
7. Spot and fix any typos and grammar mistakes. If they are your mistakes, fix them. If they are part of the original, leave them and add [sic] right after it. It helps when you copy-paste the text into your Word application and run a spelling check.
8. The date and duration given in the text should be entered into the available date fields. If possible, also extract uncertainties for date and duration, and enter them into the corresponding fields! If you have evidence that the date given in the primary source is wrong, and you decide to set a date and duration different from that, you have to explain your reasoning in the Notes field.



Notes field:

This is for

1. quoting secondary sources (subsequent to the original source which is quoted in the Quote field above) of the same event (see 1.)
2. additional generic information (see 2.),
3. editorial notes (see 3.).

It can be left empty. In any case you have to provide one citation per quotation. Don't leave any personal comments here like "I'm not sure about this" etc. The contents of this field will be published! If you use any kind of abbreviations which are not known by a layperson (anything more fancy than i.e. and e.g.), record and explain them in a Word document. We may include your explanations in a preface.


1. Quotation of a secondary source

If the secondary source text is different from the primary one (pasted into the Quote field above), include it because as Laura said, it's interesting how things get changed. Cite according to the APA style for Long Quotations. Write it like this:

Jones (1998) wrote:

> Students often had difficulty using APA style, especially when it was their first time citing  sources.
>
> This difficulty could be attributed to the fact that many students failed to purchase a style manual or to ask their teacher for help. (p. 199)

Note the empty line between the citation and the actual quotation. Note the > arrow in front of every paragraph/line of the quotation, even empty lines. Do not use quotation marks around quotation blocks which have the > arrow. Note the page reference at the end of the quotation in round brackets. More info on the APA citation style here: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/

Collect as much details as possible about the quoted work (here this would be by Jones 1998, you also need Publisher info etc.) into a Word document. We need those infos to compile a reference list at the end of the book!

2. Additional generic information

You can include relevant and helpful snippets from Wikipedia or from other web articles or regular books. If you're citing Wikipedia, do it in the following way:

"Plagiarism". In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism:

> Students often had difficulty using APA style, especially when it was their first time citing  sources.

3. Editorial notes

These are YOUR/OUR notes. Cite them in the following way:

Editor's note:

> My note goes here

Prefix and Postfix fields:

This is intended to be 'connecting' text between events. Leave empty for now. We can decide later what do with it.

 

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

Here are 2 images that show what I mean with paragraph breaks that should consist of an empty line. The red arrow points to a location where there is a line break, but which needs a paragraph break.

Basically, it's like writing here in the forum: paragraphs are separated by an empty line.

 

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

I added a better change tracking feature (see first screenshot below). On the main listing screen you now have a button "Recent changes". From now on, all of the contributors should check this page regularly and review changes made by others. This way, we can give each other better feedback here in this thread.

Or, instead of just writing here in the thread, if you use the "Publication Preview" feature, you also can give feedback to the user who created an event. Use the "F" (Feedback) buttons, which are placed next to each field (see second screenshot below). The user who created this event then will see a feedback listing on his "Publication Preview" screen. It's an experimental feature, and I don't know how useful it will be in practice, but if you feel like it, try it!

 

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

Here is a list of all contributors, and the number of events filed:

zadig 2130
laura 392
dirgni 229
shijing 225
seek10 143 - still interested in editing your events?
zadiussky 55
gaby 46
eboard10 19 - still interested in editing your events?
palinurus 14
seekintruth 12 - still interested in editing your events?
alana 4 - still interested in editing your events?
renaissance 1 - still interested in editing your events?

 

[eleusis]

Re: Historical Events Database

Wow, great job everyone from the research, to how to input it, to the various fields and the tech support etc. The way you are organizing this and figuring it out is beyond commendable. It is a true scholarly resource and example for others to follow.

 

[Eboard10]

Re: Historical Events Database

Here is a list of all contributors, and the number of events filed:

zadig 2130
laura 392
dirgni 229
shijing 225
seek10 143 - still interested in editing your events?
zadiussky 55
gaby 46
eboard10 19 - still interested in editing your events?
palinurus 14
seekintruth 12 - still interested in editing your events?
alana 4 - still interested in editing your events?
renaissance 1 - still interested in editing your events?

Nope, fine from my side.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database


I'm going to try to overcome the pain I still have when sitting too long and get Tacitus and Dio Cassius input as quickly as possible.