Talk:Archaic globalization

16th century or up to 16th century?

The article currently states that the focus of archaic globalization is the 16th century, but History_of_globalization#History suggest it covers times up to the 16th century (I also find the latter assertion to be more correct, but it does appear that sources have varying definition of archaic globalization, as they differ on where it begun (and what came before it)). Coreyj33 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)aic%20globalization&f=false Source for 1400-1600 as the timeframe for archaic globalization; source for 16th century as the time frame for archaic glob., source that seems to use archaic globalization for the times of proto-globalization (up to 19th century), source for the archaic globalization being simply "before the 1600", another one for the same use, source using arch. glob. in the context of 100 AD, source using arch. glob. in the context of the Roman Empire. So I'd suggest defining archaic globalization as the time before 17th century (1600s), and noting that most scholars stress its time frame as from around 15th to 16th centuries, although some use it for even earlier periods (such as the times of the Roman Empire). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To-Do List

I will research how historically archaic globalization emerged. The different factors that fueled it as well as the factors that caused it to not continue into present day. I will explore different historical events that shaped the ideals of this topic. I have two resources but hope to find more once I am able to get to the library tomorrow. Resources: In defense of globalization By Jagdish N. Bhagwat

         :Globalization and the Great Convergence: Rethinking World History in the Long Term
            Northrup, David, 1941

Bfowler513 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)B. Fowler

I will focus on feudal life and the events leading up to the formation of the first trade routes, using the sources: The book Feudal Society: The Growth of Ties of Dependence by Marc Bloch and the article Dobb on the transition from feudalism to capitalism by Robert Brenner Ebw7 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add details on the trade patterns and routes that appeared during the period of archaic globalization. The resources I'm going to utilize are "The Sociology of Globailzation" by Luke Martell and "Globalization in World History" by Anthony G. Hopkins Sandere0 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan, although I see two of your members have not posted yet. Also, try to discuss things here and interact with one another, rather than just "declare" things. Check out how the Talk:Economic globalization group is doing that.

Keep in mind that you will be graded as a group, so while individual activity is important (it will "weight" your grade), you are welcome to help your colleagues with their sections. By editing only your own section, you run the risk of it being in a different style than those of your colleagues. also, keep in mind that the lead, while not the largest part of the article, should summarize all the other sections, so it is a section that is usually best written in collaboration by all editors editing the article.

Don't forget to reference all content you are adding. Usually one reliable reference per sentence is enough (but if you build your sentence relying on multiple sources, you'll use more than one ref per sentence).

You can receive email (or other) notifications whenever this page is changed. See Wikipedia:Syndication for how-to.

Other things to keep in mind: 1) you are welcome to ask for suggestions and advice from others; try doing so by visiting the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above 2) if you mange to significantly improve the article over the course of five days, you can list it at T:TDYK and see your work featured on Wikipedia's main page (this will also net you extra credit).

Oh, and it is good that you've selected readings, but keep in mind that you may scan through multiple positions (using Google Books like I demonstrated in class) rather than read few positions which titles "sound right".

PS. Don't forget that you should all be editing individually, so don't have your colleagues post your sections for you. If this happens, they will get all the credit, and you will get none. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get on here. I have decided that I will be comparing Archaic globalization with other types of globalization and give a couple examples as well for Archaic globalization.-- Corey F.Coreyj33 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think it would be a good idea to create a new section within the article labeled something like the phases of globalization. In this section we can define and give examples of such phases as archaic globalization (of course), proto-globalization, and modern globalization. In this section I believe it would also be beneficial to just list the time periods of each and maybe just a brief explanation.Sandere0 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me Sarah. I can actually put my examples that I was thinking about doing into that section. I also think once we have all of the information typed out, we can get together and put it all in order into different sections. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah I think that sounds good too. I have a lot of research on the archaic period and pre 16th century. Does somebody want to take the proto-globalization period and modern? This could possibly be a good way to strucute the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfowler513 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

If you look at my question about the history below--should we organize specific states according to these three different "transitions" of archaic globalization?

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Haha, my name is Rachel, but it's cool. And Bridget, i'll take the proto and modern period. As you guys can see i wrote a little on the three basic principles of archaic globalization (I found that in the Bayly information), I dont know how to create a new section within the article, do you think someone could go in and fix that, or advise me on how its done? Sandere0 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea as well but I do think that information should be in a separate section than the archaic globalization history one and possibly towards the end of the article Ebw7 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG...Rachel I totally knew that but looked at your user name real quick and for some reason thought it was sarah hahahaha whoops. Along with my section on examples and explaining some of them. I was also going to compare differetnt types of globalization> so should i just compare the proto and modern to archaic too then or si someone going to add that into a new section??--Coreyj33 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hey Guys,

I am finding that the required book for the course is pretty helpful for our topic. I am still having some trouble finding more sources but if I stumble upon something good I will let you know.

Bfowler513 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey.. where did you find that book at? I was looking for other sources too but there are literally none out there. Im going to have to limit my information to that "googlebooks" I guess. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys I was just looking and actually found some good books on google for information. it may or may not help you out but here are the links http://books.google.com/books?id=MzgvKYQa4HEC&lpg=PA33&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=8pi2kwCmzDoC&lpg=PA6&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing

I seem to be having trouble citing my references on the edit page. I can't figure out how to cite it without it showing up in the article. If I select to add references it tells me I do not have it in the proper order. Anybody know how it should go?

Bfowler513 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)B.Fowler

Look how I cited stuff for this portion, it should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_globalization&action=edit&section=2 Tyod (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You can also try using the cite templates you can access from the pull down menu in the edit mode (see the cite to the right of the editing toolbar). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

History, Comparison, Evolution, etc.

A possible recommendation is to have a history section. Also, you could possible organize it in a manner to have show an evolution or archaic globalization to present day globalization and the the differentiations between the two. I think this would solidify the topic and give a nice transitory progression to what we see in modern society. In addition, a comparison might be effective as well. Tyod (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

History Section

There are many different countries that are touched upon during early globalization. Is it more important for me to touch upon the broad spectrum of the topic or go into detail about certain actors?

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I'd say broad. If you go into details, this may raise the question of "why did you focused so much on X, and omitted Y and Z"? If a source would allow to say more about X, just note this here. You can always come back to it later if you'll have time (we still have several weeks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be broken down because everything we are writing about is history and I think it might be getting confusing, Any suggestions on what the sections should be?Ebw7 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Informal classmate reviews

It looks like you're doing a nice job with the page. Some sections are a little awkward as the paragraphs only contain one sentence. Also it seems there may be some editing issues with the section "the distinction between food..ect." Obviously these problems can be easily ironed out. Seems like a comprehensive summary of the history of archaic globalization so far. Good work! --Kas205 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you guys could divide it up a little better. I was thinking have the history then maybe have a section about what goods were traded, means of trade, etc... It just seems to get a little cluttered and hard to read, but I'm an idiot and it's just a suggestion! Rsg20 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside Help

I made a post on the Globalization page mentioning our article and that we are welcoming all and any help! Sandere0 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I got some very helpful books from the library yesterday. Google books was very helpful to me. Articles on out topic seem to be slim to I guess look more towards the books.

67.95.168.226 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey Guys,

If you look at the economic development page it can be useful when thinking about different phases of archaic development. I think by tomorrow night if we all have most of our groundwork that will be useful and we can start arranging the page in a better manner. See you guys tomorrow.

Bfowler513 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget F

Some spotchecks

Some points on sentences that need to be reworked:

• "This early form of state interaction comes from the idea of European Hegemony." - unreferenced. What early state? Does it come from the idea, of from the European Hegemony? What is European Hegemony? When you introduce such terms, they should be explained and/or linked (preferably, both)

-European Hegemony has briefly been described. Should I add more? Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)bridget

• "Most of the trade connecting the Middle East, North Africa and Europe was controlled by China and India around 1400." - unreferenced; and untrue. Middle East pretty much controlled the trade in its region, for example.

-This has been omitted.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "While these colonizers formed new relationships to their new land they did not retain ties to the land in which they left." - unreferenced; what colonizers? The article does not mention the word "colony" up to that point (and I assume we are talking about colonies)

-Colonizers has been changed to a more appropriate term-merchants

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "This periodization was proposed by the historian A.G. Hopkins in 2001" - right. What periodization? The article does not introduce any periodization, at least, not clearly.

-This was added by a previous editor. I have changed periodization to early globalization.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "Relative to the modern articulations of globalization that followed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, archaic globalization involved small-scale contacts between regional networks of traders or missionaries" - remember to reference key sentences like that. I am only guessing it comes from the end-of-para ref?

-Who found this point? Please add the reference.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "During the middles ages, archaic globalization produced many new goods to different surrounding countries" - globalization does not "produce" goods; you'll want to reword it
• "This was all done by numerous kings, religous wonderers, merchants, and warriors" - I am not seeing anything on linked Rossi, p.30 to support this assertion (the ref needs to be formatted, in its current raw url stage I may well be looking on a different page than the author intended)

-Whoever added this reference please go back and format it correctly.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "silks, exotic herbs, coffee, cotton, iron,Indian calicoes, Arabian horses, gems and spices or drugs such as nutmeg, cloves, pepper, ambergris and opium. Purchases of luxury items such as these are described as archaic consumption since trade was largely popular for these items as opposed to everyday needs." - sounds right, but is unreferenced...

-Whoever added this line please reference where you found it.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "Bayly also stresses..." - add pages to the reference, and don't forget to cite key sentences (this entire para is unreferenced, and I can only guess that it refers to the Bayly also stresses (2004) cited elsewhere in the article
• "The Three Principles of Archaic Globalization" - was this intended to be a heading?
  • Yes! I had intended on making that the heading for the section but was at the time unsure of how it was done. Was going to fix it, but someone already went in and did it! Sandere0 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good job, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sections

Hey guys I rearranged the sections and created headings for what I think are some of the main points linked to our topic. Please feel free to add more to sections that look like they need more and if you find that another heading is a better suit for the topic. I am basically done with the emergence of archaic globalization and the different factors that drove it. I will still be adding more but the next phases need to be developed. Hope everybody is making out okay, can't wait to see the changes made later on tonight!

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Also, if somebody thinks of a more specific topic on early globalization to research let me know and I can help add to it. I have a few books from the lib that are pretty useful.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Who is in charge of modern globalization? I started a section and added some information I found in my research. Let me know if you are having difficulty finding information I have a book that covers that topic.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey Bridget, Yeah I was planning on going on to do Modern globalization as well. I just hadn't gotten to it yet. But about what you already wrote down this afternoon under that section, I was wondering if you could clarify one sentence: "This began to emerge during the 1500s, continuing to expand exponentially over time as industrialization developed in the eighteenth century." In this sentence, which phase of globalization are you referring to? Because the modern period didn't start till the 19th or 20th century Sandere0 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)