Talk:World history (field)

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#History_of_the_world.  Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#History_of_the_world]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Perimeter and Focus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to Common Era dating system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What is the meaning of the "global perspective" described in this article? Jarble (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Neutrality