Talk:World history (field)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wcs139.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14
You are invited to join the discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14. Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Perimeter and Focus
This article needs additional references for verification and is often shallow in its approach. What are the challenges of "global history" with respect to "comparative history". There is a good deal of secondary readings out there, highlighting both the possibilities but above all the pitfalls of a global approach to history (sources on a large scale tend not land themselves to historical analysis and can only be taken into account as big data). None of this is found in the article, do the detriment of the reader. --132.187.247.26 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Change to Common Era dating system
Given that this is an article on WORLD history and not western history or Christian history, the dating format used should be BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era). This would help promote the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. I will be making these changes in the next few days if there is no discussion on the topic. EuCJD (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't decide era styles based on religion. I object to the change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Images
I feel as though this article could improve from some images that might help enhance understanding. Lavenderluvr12 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article seems to imply the existence of a "global perspective", which no one in historical studies advocates because it would be totally acritical. Nor does it make any effort to clarify the meaning of the term "global perspective". The article is also controversial in that fewer and fewer scholars in the EU and elsewhere are teaching it or proposing undergraduate courses in "global history". What most universities around the world offer are majors on knowledge transfer and global connections, which are not immediately related to global history. I would therefore suggest that the NPOV remains in place until all these points are clarified. Thank you very much. 2003:A:A0B:4100:D828:B2C2:2F6A:88CF (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of the "global perspective" described in this article? Jarble (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it means coverage of all the major world cultures --especially Asia and Africa--in terms that experts have identified for them (as opposed to constructions based on the history of Europe.) One of the best approaches is Patrick Manning (historian), Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past (2003). See more recently Patrick Manning, "An Empirical Synthesis of Human Labor History." American Historical Review 127.3 (2022): 1394-1397. online abstract The complaints about lack of neutrality above are incoherent and unsourced and posted by a newcomer with zero editing experience. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the comment by the anon user holds up to scrutiny. I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, world history is actually gaining in popularity. Here's a recent example from Sweden. Not saying that proves it's on the rise in the EU, but neither is the anon backing the claim up with anything.
 * It seems a bit odd that global perspectives would be less popular today when there's a lot more focus on diversity and rejection of Western dominance within academia. There's plenty of critical discussion about how feasible a global historical perspective is, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean the entire premise is rejected. Peter Isotalo 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So so far we have several sources saying that the field is highly specific to the US (see refs in #Establishment and perimeters of the field) and now one from Sweden. That's not the world. The article should make it more clear that this is a regionally restricted field and avoid gobbling up thematically similar but intellectually distinct schools like comparative history or historical materialism. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)