Talk:Big History

Name

Shouldn't this be at Big history?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No "big history" is a general term whereas "Big History" is a discreet field of study and is a proper noun, like as in the World Wide Web or Long Tail. --Stbalbach 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a redirect from Big history, though. I hope people don't mind, it's simply quite logical that you type in big history to get this article. If there's something else that could be called big history, create a disambiguation page instead. --Sterio 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

intellectual synthesis

Works or work of intellectual synthesis, such E.O. Wilson's Consilience, might be good to link here. That's what comes to mind for me. I'll have to look (later) to see what else Wikipedia already has on such themes. Any objections or suggestions? - (a user who ought to get around to making an account)

So long as they considered "Big History" and can be cited as such. Keep in mind it is a distinct area of historiography with a distinct tradition, "Big History" is a proper noun (capitalized), not a general description. -- Stbalbach 20:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The term intellectual synthesis encompasses a larger idea here, and I made a section specifically to discuss how we might better address the hierarchy of thought in this subject and it's related subjects. I don't see much on WP relating to this general grande theme, so it deserves attention. It's an exciting trend in scholarship and study, and merits a comprehensive discussion here. Afterall, the subject itself is about being comprehensive and sweeping in its view.Thelastemperor 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the book list

I'm going to go through the book list and toss a lot of them out. Some of the books currently listed may take broad approaches to their subjects, but Big History is not a generic term, it does not apply to any wider-than-average view of history. Some of them are also just confusing, and appear to be not related by any standard (e.g., the christian theology one...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.82.126 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?

Surely there must be some criticism of the attempt to expand the discipline of "History" out until it includes everything. -- LKS 6/20/06

Eleven years later, I would second this! MAC 6/30/17

Intellectual Synthesis

A previous member cited the term "intellectual synthesis". This is a common theme. Perhaps we should create an article for that subject, so that we could relate the larger, more general topic to the related sub topics? For example: Big History is one example of intellectual synthesis, but I'm sure there are many others. This also ties into multidisciplinarianism, right? That should also be reflected.

Finally, I've heard some other terms that somewhat relate to Big History. Namely, "Historical Dynamics", "Historical Trajectory", and a few terms I can't remember which were mentioned by Jared Diamond in his work 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. This subject seems marked also by a desire to bring together the totality of human history along with the knowledge and related fields necessary to convey that knowledge. As such, it has much in common with using a systems theory approach to explore geopolitical causal chains and relationships. Thelastemperor 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please realize this article is trying to be very focused on the field of Big History - it is not an essay on "thinking big about history". It is about the discrete historical school that has specific authors and books and university classes associated with it. Just about every contributor to this article, since I first wrote it, has added information on everything *but* the field of Big History - through analogy or association - arguably original research. Also I would really rather see the terms you linked in the "See Also" have articles and not be red links. -- Stbalbach 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

elitest charade

However, whoever wrote this made such a big blunder that it's almost invisible: the blunder of assuming the reader already knows what 'Big History' is. Not all do!

Is 'Big History' a book--hundreds or thousands of books? Bill Gates mentioned on a television program that he was 'taking a course.' Is the reader to infer that one must one attend 'Big History' 101, 102, etc. at a university? If so, cite some universities offering such courses. Perhaps it is on DVDs or the Web, available only to those who know where to look? That may as well be the case, judging by the information provided herein.

You show great contempt for some readers here when you set yourself up as an expert by presuming to write on thie topic, then exclude many of them by not explaining the where/when/how to access aspects of 'Big History.' Is this the intent? Do you wish to exclude any of the unwashed masses because they are not part of your in crowd? Is the motto 'If you have to ask, then you aren't allowed to know?'

Are you like the hated individual (who shall remain unnamed) who preaches that the poor should not be on the Internet? Do you set a bar that requires those who would learn about something to already have experience in it--to exclude the poor who weren't given the luxury of advanced education, and the autodidacts who did not subject themselves to the post-secondary education process. On what grounds?

What are the practical pre-requisites for learning 'Big History?' Surely not more than a working knowledge of the English language (or other languages in which 'Big History' may be communicated).

You write about 'Big History' as if describing the Grand Canyon without telling where it is. 'Oh, here is a wonderful thing that I shall tell you all about, and extoll the many virtues thereof--but I will not tell you where to find it.' How absurd! End this elitest charade! from 70.104.101.14 (Moved from the main text of the article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

a new hope

Hello, semi literate of the aforementioned unwashed here. I was directed to this page via History. It is listed as one of the schools of thought related to history, dealing with the overall picture, or so I am lead to believe. Instead, I seem to have found an advertisement for the work of certain authors? Can somebody help me out here? Upon this realisation, I attempted to search for 'big history' (lower case), but I can see that wiki-url has already been occupied by this article. - Whatlad?! 94.172.224.195 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Annalists

How can you discuss an idea like big history without discussing the French Annales school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.49.148 (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Article good enough for revamp

Wondering if anybody has thoughts on how to improve this article. If so, please write something below. If I revamp this, I typically keep all the content (although some may be copyedited), add new references & info, and try to organize it better with pictures and diagrams.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah hold on. Please tell us what exactly you plan to change first. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking you -- how would you improve this article? I have no specific stuff as I'm writing now. I'd have to hunt for references first and see what I found; then, I'd expand what there is already since it's fairly solid stuff; I rarely discard stuff, but sometimes reorganize it so it flows better. I'd like to see more of the content of Big History -- main points from say David Christian's lecture course, or other sources. Plus more pictures and diagrams. There could be many more references; I've found adding references invariably improves an article. Some of my revamps include Wall Street, Dating, Pseudoexfoliation syndrome, College admissions in the United States. I wrote History of citizenship. And I'd run by any possible changes first with others here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I totally agree that we should have a section detailing the divisions of Big History: Cosmos, Earth, Life, Humans, etc. Well, do what you want to do. I'll try to help with the article after you're done. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok if you have other thoughts I'm interested. It would be nice to have a diagram comparing timelines. The revamp may not be for a bit since I'm busy this time of year with other stuff but if I do anything I'll post it in a sandbox first and ask for suggestions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Tentative revamp is here in this sandbox. Feedback, comments are welcome. I'd like more pictures and diagrams; would a picture of Goldilocks be possible? Wondering what people think. I still might futz with the revamp some more possibly. I pretty much kept the original material, just added, reorganized, copyedited in spots. I removed some of the red-linkings (since I thought it was so heavily red-linked -- that is, with links to to-be-written articles -- that it looked like there were errors all over the place) but these can be restored if people want them back in. I'd like to get some kind of time map in; photos of galaxies, stars; cavemen, Big Historians such as D Christian, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, nice work man. There's some minor stuff here and there (such as the part about the religion debate in the lede, which seems rather undue), but it looks good. You can post it if you want. As for the pictures and diagrams, I have experience with vector graphics and can probably make a diagram of the timeline of Universe based on this, with the addition of maybe a few pictures of stars and cells, etc. As for the pictures of people, I haven't found any free images of them, and I'm not sure if a fair use rationale would work here. We might need to send David Christian an email, asking for permission.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks; I took your suggestion and removed the religion debate from the lede. It would be really cool if you could add something like you're saying; I can do basic sketches but nothing really competent. I added photos to try to make it more appealing visually but sometimes the photos aren't right (its hard to search Wikimedia Commons by subject although the categorizing efforts help considerably), so feel free to nix ones that aren't working or use different ones. I am kind of thinking that the external links section has gotten out of control but I am not sure what the best stuff is, so if you or anybody is interested in trimming down the list to the best stuff, that might be a good idea. I may try emailing professor Christian to see if we can get a photo of him somehow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Books, essays, external links are out of control

There is a visible overload of external links, books, essays. These lists should be trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a biased account

This is a rather gushing and biased account of "Big History," with virtually no acknowledgement of any criticisms or limitations of the approach. As such it reads more like propaganda than like an objective description of Big History.Michael E. Smith (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the article is well-referenced and accurate, but if you feel critical views, perhaps of prominent Little Historians, are underrepresented, please add them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The introduction surely should not contain a quote from some random journalist to who it appears that big history includes an "unusual coalition of scholars". Firstly, what field does not when asking insiders/participants? Secondly, any field would appear so to a journalist with meager insight into the real diversity of science/scholarship? Thirdly, such a strong quote from such a banal source certainly do no merit inclusion in the introduction of the article.

I will remove it unless someone protests with good reason. Dakolawski (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your "random journalist" works for the New York Times, hardly a "banal source" with "meager insight", so I disagree and argue that the quote deserves inclusion. Clearly this newspaper is well regarded in Wikipedia as a reliable source. The quote is sensible: a field such as geology includes, well, geologists; anthropology includes, well, anthropologists. What it means is the subject of Big History includes a wide assortment of many different types of scholars, including anthropologists, geologists, astronomers, historians, and many other disciplines. That is what is meant. It describes the multidisciplinary nature of Big History.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, my harsh wording was unecessary and detracted from my point. My point is that the article indeed read as biased and the quote in the introduction adds to this impression. I privately think big history is fascinating and should be presented in the best way possible.

Secondly, as to the article and journalist the article focuses on long/deep/big history as opposed to specializing in, say, 20th century western history and the journalist as far as I can tell is no expert reporter on science/academia. The quote is from the first sentence of the article. The quote, I speculate, mostly serves to present Big History in a positive light. It has only a weak connection to the content of the article, which is about deep vs shallow history. Though, the article also states that "a small cadre of diverse collaborators in anthropology, archaeology, primatology, genetics and linguistics have spent the last two and half years working on a forthcoming book", but that is about it.

My suggestion would be to move the quote the a later section, as I still do not think it merits inclusion in the introduction. This would be part of the effort to reduce the celebratory tone of the article. Dakolawski (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your view that the article has a pro-Big History feel, yet at the same time, I think it does a fairly good job of describing this new field fairly accurately. As a discipline, it is relatively new, and I doubt that it divides neatly into two pro-BH and anti-BH camps, like if you search for "Big History", crossing it by well-regarded publications and academic sources, you'll get mostly people talking about the new discipline positively. Where there is disagreement, it is about the value of the approach, that is, the disagreement is not that BH is wrong, but rather that BH is not as valuable as its proponents suggest. But I think this criticism is a minority view, which is reflected in the current wiki article properly. I would like to see more of the content of BH included, more description of the larger ideas. About the quote, I still do not understand why you think the NYTimes article is off the subject or unworthy of inclusion in the lede paragraph; I reread the article and it seems squarely about what the subject is about, with a slight change of wording and emphasis (ie Deep History rather than Big History, but the terms are mostly interchangeable). The article describes what David Christian and others describe: that the BH discipline is, indeed, composed of scholars from a variety of different disciplines. This is a chief way in which BH differs from other disciplines, and I see it as an important point, worthy of mention in the lede paragraph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

About handling bias. The current article is well-referenced, so to the extent that there may be bias, is to do the following: when new sources come along which claim that BH is not as helpful as BH proponents suggest, or that BH is wrong, say, then that information should be included, with the references, and in that way, we can keep the article helpful by following Wikipedia's rules about neutrality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I must repeat. The article reads like a biased account and feels like a promotion of David Christian's work.

The following is particularly problematic and without proper referencing:

"He [Christian] read widely in diverse fields in science" must be referenced.

"Perhaps a major turning point resulted from efforts by [Christian]" this is an expression of doubt. The history section gives the impression that Christian invented the idea. While what is evidenced is that he coined the term and created educational programs.

The Goldilock notion is unfounded in this connection and, as far as I can scout, has no scientific backing. David Christian's scientific contribution in a relevant peer-reviewed journal should be referenced to substantiate? His TED talk will not do. Otherwise the section should be rewritten to reflect this tension.

The list of notable Big Historians should be trimmed as most of them apparently are not notable enough to merit a wiki page. It is not okay to just copy a list of conference participants to boost the numbers.

It is not okay that the bulk of references are from laymen sources.

Why not? In my view, reporters for the NY Times are perhaps the best source we've got since they have the requisite distance (ie they're not practitioners of BH and not academics with other axes to grind), they're one-step removed as per secondary guidelines. With academics, we may run into original research more readily, but if you find appropriate ones, then I'll support you if you'd like to include them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, the quote from the NY times in the lead section is inappropriate. To argue that BH includes an "unusual coalition" would necessitate a scientific study of all the disciplines and a statistical significance test telling that BH indeed is unusual on this variable (diversity of scholars in discipline). The referenced notable scholars only represent three different disciplines.

I disagree. BH does have an "unusual coalition" which is an important aspect of this discipline, differentiating it from other disciplines, worthy of being in the lede.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job in putting this article on the wiki map and providing the research. But you must represent academic/scientific work with the proper nuance and avoid it reading like a celebratory account of a single scholar. Dakolawski (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally I agree there is bias, one-sided in favor of Big History, perhaps elevating the importance of David Christian more than is warranted. Perhaps it is a tone issue? My sense is chopping material out would bias it further, that the best way is to add opposing points of view as they can be found, suggesting that BH is less valuable than its advocates trumpet, or BH has flaws, inconsistencies, or whatever they say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061209212647/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu:80/dept/histweb/course_syllabi/100_level_syllabi/history100_christian.pdf to http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/histweb/course_syllabi/100_level_syllabi/history100_christian.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I see the call for adding a criticism section has gone unanswered. I am personally in a supporter of Big History, but I think there now exist some interesting and important scholarly critiques. Notably from Lisa Sideris Such as this article on the problems of Big History I am new to Wikipedia, but if there are no complaints I will add this section in the near future. DustinEirdosh (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes go for it! I don't know how reliable of a source TheConversation.com is but why not, and others too; for source guidelines check out this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109012654/http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2012/July-big-history.html to http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2012/July-big-history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

not an academic discipline, rather a part of pedagogy

There are some interesting mistakes in the self-interpretation of this phenomemon. For example it says that big history doesn't focus on humankind as much as traditional history. Now i think that it is not a part of history, and as a general learning introduction it in fact extremely overestimates the importance of humankind: as it is stated, half of a typical course is actually about humanity. What's more, because of the logarithmic time scale, it talks a lot about quite recent history, something that traditonal history tries to avoid. chronozoom.com clearly shows this, where contemporary mayors of Toronto are mentioned. As a scientific discipline it would be extremely poor. For example bighistory.org is just advertising now in 2017 an issue of the journal The International Journal for Transformation of Consciousness. Come on, has anybody heard about it? :D Or in the references we see an article from The Scientific World Journal, which was removed from Web of Science because of abnormal citation patterns.
I do understand, that Bill Gates gave money to the Big History Project, but we mustn't consider it an academic discipline any more. This is an area that was teached earlier than researched, and as you can see, the attempts at ex post research are pathetic. Take the youtube video history of the entire world, i guess, which seems to have a big history viewpoint. It's fun, amusing, and might really help students to become scientifically literate quickly. But this interdisciplinary approach can only be a tool of pedagogy of very young pupils, to help them decide in which direction to pursue a career. 81.0.127.253 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain your position more fully? Specifically, what in your opinion qualifies a subject as an "academic discipline"? And in what ways does the subject of Big History fail your test?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115192655/http://www.dominican.edu/academics/big-history to http://www.dominican.edu/academics/big-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215162328/http://www.usm.maine.edu/bighistory to http://usm.maine.edu/bighistory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious addition

This addition makes no sense. The subject of Big History has nothing to do with shamanism, and the supposed "references" are merely pdf files, not articles in respected journals; one of the supposed references is a doctoral dissertation, and inclusion here counts as original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that usage in most sources is consistent with the title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Big History → Big history – Noun. WP:CONSISTENCY with equivalent articles on history. PPEMES (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per proper name, common name, page sources, the External links, Big History Project, the template {{Big History}}, and WP:NOTBROKEN. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. How is the name of an academic discipline a proper name? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• The name of the field of study since day one (developed by David Christian (historian)) has been upper-cased as a proper name. The name seems to be used universally, and provides the basis of an association, books, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

He's an American. Eventually he - and we - will have to accept abondoning his self-ownership of the concept. Per WP:GLOBAL, Not All English-Speakers Around The World Spell Like Some Americans Like To Do, right? PPEMES (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:GLOBAL? It doesn't apply. Please read the article, as well as see who's involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your reference does not reinforce taking WP:GLOBAL into account? PPEMES (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the association, books, etc, are proper names. But the field itself is not. Universities usually capitalise fields of study. We generally don't. This is an identical issue to the U.S. armed forces Obsessively Capitalising The Names Of All Of Their Ranks And Other Terms, which has been discussed before. It doesn't mean we do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sources used in the article use the current title. Calidum 19:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cosmic Evolution section is not NPOV and needs to be re-written

It is written with a glowing bias towards the subject especially the part saying "rightfully" in reference to cosmic history and "mere" in reference to human history. Xanikk999 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bill gates portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bill gates portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ChronoZoom Timeline Project.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hey folks, added an NPOV tag bc of previous debate that didn't really feel resolved, as well as the last comment from 2020 about cosmic evolution. I'll summarise below:

- Cosmic evolution section: I edited some of the most glaringly contentious terms out, but it's still written with a clear bias toward cosmic evolution over Big History; I didn't do a serious comb through. It's also just not really in an encyclopaedic tone — I edited this out, but terms like "why we are and from whence we came" (or whatever it was to that effect) really doesn't feel encyclopaedic to me.

- David Christian: Lots of focus on him in this article; I wonder if it's lending undue weight to his perspective? This is a concern that has been raised before. "He read widely in diverse fields in science" is problematic and needs to be cited; it feels like a glowing review of his work. Is his mention in the introduction justified?

- Criticism of Big History as a sub-sub-heading: This feels like a pretty important topic, at least worthy of its own subheading. IMO definitely shouldn't be buried under Comparisons to conventional history.

- Academic discipline: One editor above argues that it's not really an academic discipline, as there aren't really any recognised journals or consistent methodologies. The article fails to consider this in its understanding of the phenomenon. I'm hesitant about this point personally, as I feel it runs the risk of leaning into original research/poor synthesis if we just go around pointing out why it's not a discipline based off arbitrary standards we set.

I personally think that this article does need to be reworked; it doesn't feel really in-line with Wikipedia house style, it reads as biased, etc. Either way, don't shoot the messenger. Just my 2 cents. Xs zhang6 (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the "criticism of big history" has been expanded with information that somehow completely derails from the points of criticism and begins to portray it as a "consolidated academic discipline" that is changing science all for the best, based on a single source that is from a dubious online publication and is not even available anymore (links to an error 404). The whole article needs to be seriously reconsidered, in my humble view. Alex Pazaitis (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)