Talk:World History
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] == Naming
Shouldn't this be at World history? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- No "world history" is a general term that can mean the history the world whereas "World History" is a discrete field of study and is a proper noun, like as in the World Wide Web or Long Tail. --Stbalbach 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Origins
Article doesn't mention McNeal (?) who in 1963 sparked off this field..., says Ed Tenner, Professor & Author, Princeton University. - The name possibly refers to William McNeill, who in 1963 wrote The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. --LA2 18:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think Stbalbach just fixed this nicely. -- TheMightyQuill 11:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mention in New York Times
This article was mentioned in a New York Times Opinion piece, Sunday, March 26, 2006. Specifically, the page was viewed as 'idiosyncratic' but was evaluated as having 'improved' over the period of review. --Ancheta Wis 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Searching for Dummies", by Edward Tenner, March 26, 2006.
- --Stbalbach 14:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eurocentrism
This article needs some expansion, but there's one issue in the field of "World History" that needs to be addressed. That's Eurocentrism (or Westnocentrism). General, universal, world, (whatever) history books almost always excluded the rest of the world (besides Europe, or even Western Europe) until the colonial era. Africa was only discussed in the context of Egypt and Carthage. Asia was only discussed in the context of 'Near Eastern' civilisations. The rest of the world only swam into the picture in the 1800s (in histories), and then Europe still dominated the scene. The biggest revolution in all of historiography, in my own opinion, was the sudden discovery that the rest of the world had history, too, after white supremacy disappeared in the '60s. So this article needs to address how Westnocentric histories were before the '70s, and how theories of world history are (still!) shaped by the fate of the West.
This also needs to be addressed in the pages dealing with the Middle Ages and modern history, which focus on Europe during these periods, presumably because traditionally histories have. Brutannica 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- --70.121.124.15 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)General, universal, world, (whatever) - yeah, that's a common misconception, that is not what World History is. It's not your typical history book with a political narrative of events. There are plenty of those, but they are not World History. -- Stbalbach 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)== Highschool Curriculums etc ==
I just erased a bunch of "World History" external links related to highschool courses, but maybe I was hasty. Any opinions on this? -- TheMightyQuill 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- They are more than just about high school courses. -- Stbalbach 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but it seems like we need to come up with some kind of policy here, or we'll be stuck with a huge list of every website related to the history of the world. - TheMightyQuill 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I added all those links when I first wrote the article, I went through Google and culled out all the good and relevant ones. Since WH is a teaching approach, I assumed this article would be of relevance to teachers and thus teaching resources were included. It also helps educate the general reader what the teaching approach to WH means in the real world. I'm not sure we need a blind policy, just common sense and address any particular concerns about particular links when they come up. It hasn't really been a problem (although I did just delete one ext link someone made that had to do with "world history" (the history)). -- Stbalbach 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
