Talk:Post-classical history/Archive 1

Archive 1

To-do list

• Expansion is needed in these sections (in order of urgency):
  • South & Southeast Asia section, which should at least have a section on India and one on Vietnam
  • Africa section, particularly on North Africa, Swahili coast, and Bantu societies
  • East Asia section, particularly on Japan and Korea
  • Central Asia section, particularly on the Mongol Empire
  • Eastern Europe section, particularly on the Slavs, the Bulgarian Empires, and early Russia.

Let's try to keep the size of the article around 150,000 bytes or smaller (you can check this on "View history"). If the article starts to get too long, we need to start condensing some sections (specifically ones that may be too detailed). Try cutting out information of minimal importance.

• More citations are needed in:
  • South and Southeast Asia
  • Korea
  • The Americas
  • End of Period
• A greater variety of references are needed in general

Feel free to add to or comment on the list of things to do. InvaderCito (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

refs/footnotes sort

A refs/footnotes sort out needs to be done. --J. D. Redding 01:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft outline

There's a draft for an outline of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of post-classical history if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post-classical 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/20120203005134/http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/latemiddleages/renaissance/historyren.shtml to http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/latemiddleages/renaissance/historyren.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culture24.org.uk/history%2B%26%2Bheritage/time/tudor%2Band%2Bstuart/art25761

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

CFORK

This entire page is a futile effort, apparently based on nothing else but "I do not like the term 'Middle Ages'". Well, WP:UCN. And WP:CFORK, you are not supposed to create content forks merely based on terminological preference. Not to mention that "post-classical" implies a reliance on the concept of classical antiquity no less than "medieval" does. "UCN"? "post-classical Asia" gets a mere dozen hits on google books (including false positives such as "XML by Example", actually it gets two hits, both for "post-Classical Asia Minor"), while "medieval Asia" gets about 300. This sounds about right, and is entirely sufficient to support my point. --dab (𒁳) 05:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The page Middle Ages currently refers exclusively to European history; this page refers to global history. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow I just discovered this article. There is a school of world history that seeks to view history globally by looking at common patterns. However the sources in this article are all regional histories, except one world history book by Peter Stearns. So if the article is about world history, it's pulling in regional histories and cramming them together - this is a WP:SYNTH and not world history at all: "World history looks for common patterns that emerge across all cultures." Not sure what to make of this article, it's neither here or there. In its current form it does look like CFORK. Unless the non-European culture sections don't exist anywhere else on Wikipedia - is this true? The other problem is "Post-classical history" -- is this term used when speaking about East Asia etc..? This looks like another misapplication of European terms onto other cultures, same with the 3-period view of history being imposed on other cultures. Where is the sourcing for this? Maybe it's done but no sources. @Power~enwiki and Dbachmann: -- GreenC 15:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article used to look like this in early 2013. It was then greatly expanded by User:InvaderCito and User:Reddi over 2013 to current form. I'm concerned that the original outline provided the seed for expansion and there was no real thought taken about these issues of misapplying European terms and periodizations onto other cultures with no sourcing to show an actual topic that historians study. Merely imposing a periodization scheme and term onto East Asia etc.. isn't sufficient, there has to be an established base of writing and school of study to back it up. Otherwise it is WP:OR. I could be wrong and such a thing exists but not seeing it discussed in the article. -- GreenC 16:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "Post-classic history"

• Source [1]

The term “post-classical history” emerged as a corrective to the earlier, now disfavoured term “dark ages” when referring to the 500s-1000s AD. That term carries connotations of violence, evil, lack of learning and barbarism, while new inquiries into the era are steadily noting the many advances in technology and government that occurred during that time. It is also better for this period in time than the catch-all term “Middle Ages”, since that implies that the Western Roman Empire fell and BAM! Knights and kings and crusades.

In other words, it applies only to Europe, and is just another name for Middle Ages. It is trying to put the problems associated with "Medieval" behind it: barbarians, etc.. "post-classic history" has been around since at least the 1930s when they were trying to get away from "Dark Ages", but it doesn't have much usage compared to Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages which are now predominate. Every instance of "post-classical history" in Google Books refers to European history only.

To me this article looks well intentioned but is WP:OR by including non-European cultures (except maybe Arabic), and is WP:CFORK by mirroring content from the Middle Ages. At best the article would be about the periodization scheme itself, like Dark Ages (historiography) or Second Thirty Years' War. But it's unclear there is even any sourcing to do that. Sources have to talk about the term not just use the term or discuss the history. -- GreenC 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What's it for?

I don't think anyone who's ever read any history can help here! Where do they get these ideas? --Wetman (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wetman spotted it over 10 years ago. -- GreenC 17:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually until after 2011 it was called "Postclassical Era", and was a stub like this. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is palatable anyway. Further comments below. -- GreenC 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Refactored article

I spent a lot of time researching the periodization term "post-classical history" and came to the following:

1. The term is old and appeared at least in the late 19th and early 20th century as an alternative to "Dark Ages". However it never really caught on and was overshadowed by Middle Ages.
2. It was sometimes used by writers who were unhappy with the cultural baggage surrounding Medieval (swords and blood etc)
3. With the rise of the school of "world history" in the 1980s, they appropriated the term as a global alternative to Middle Ages and Medieval.
4. It has since become a standard in American K-12 textbooks and AP world history exams, which teach public school students a "global" history without being focused on Europe. It's also common in film history books for some reason.
5. World historians do not generally break history into 3 periods, so it's not a direct replacement for Middle Ages which assumes a "Middle" of 3 periods. The historiography of Middle Ages has nothing to do with post-classical historiography.
6. The terms usage is not uncommon, but outside world history textbooks and some classicists it's not that widely used compared to Medieval and Middle Ages.

On Wikipedia, we generally use Middle Ages and Medieval. This can be seen throughout, even for non-European articles. For better or worse, what it is. Still, the value of having a top-level article called Post-classical history makes more sense than "Medieval history" which implies European history. So it can serve as a place-holder for a "global middle ages" while also providing historiography of the term within the framework of "world history" (the school of history). Likewise the article can focus on world history trends and motifs.

This article used to be much longer and suffered from WP:CFORK problems, WP:SYNTH and some general confusion about periodization historiography. The way Wikipedia works, general articles link to more specific articles using a "Main article: " tag at the top of the section. The main article provides greater detail and length than the general article. This article had it backwards with more detail than the specific article it was linking too! Content has been merged into the specific articles while this one summarized down. Indeed there are multiple layers. So for example, to get to China in the Middle Ages it goes: History of the world -> Post-classical history -> Medieval Asia -> History of East Asia -> History of China. Each step goes from more general to more specific. This way there is only one history of China and no WP:CFORK problems. Each of general articles can discuss issues relevant to that higher-level perspective, but wouldn't attempt to compete as a history of China with too much detail. -- GreenC 02:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Enhancement

I am currently working on improving the article, I have made adjustments to most areas and am looking to aid period appropriate images. Currently I am focusing on expanding the America's and Africa sections.

In regards to building a unified narrative of the world history in this period the task is monumental. A focus on trade, and navigation though will illustrate how most areas were connected.

As far as the America's the sections should focus on how different areas directly or indirectly traded with each other. While many distant civilizations did not have direct contact (such as the Aztecs and Inca) goods were surely exchanged between intermediate third parties. One reason why I created a subsection on Norse Contact with the Americas was to illustrate the Ivory trade that occurred prior to Portuguese Exploration of Africa.

One common factor that has been mostly neglected is the impact of climate, climate of the world effected all regions along similar lines, this is especially true for the cooling of the earth which followed the eruption of a 6th century volcano and the onset of the Little Ice Age in the 14th century. Therefore I plan to add discussion of global climate factors under the Main Trends section.

Following what other uses said we need to focus when writing this article that we are not competing with other articles, that this is mostly a brief introduction when it comes to descbring differing civilizations and that more detailed discussion should focus on interactions, broad trends and histograhy - Sunriseshore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These high level articles are an art in economy. Less is more. Find narrative summaries of regional histories written by world historians and source those. A world historian who summaries Europe in a couple paragraphs. A world history encyclopedia. Etc.. see how they do it, model and source them. That's the only way it will be credible, to not look like original research (ie. "building a unified narrative" - according to who?). -- GreenC 23:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In writing new sections I have attempted to follow your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

As per WP:gallery we should really try to incorporate the image spam section into the main article beside text so all can see the images normally.--Moxy (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Again, the galleries are not image spam.
  I think the current situation is best, as the images are supposed to be a general overview of the time period. In any other arraignment I am afraid that with the proposed  the                     
  images could not be on the  article. I have also checked out the situation on Wikiepedia's mobile view and the images seem to slide down one by one in a vertical direction.

  The larger justification for why the images are included in this article, and why the article is so image friendly is the gallerias show (very broadly) the cultural and                                                             
  scientific of the distinct civilizations of the time period. This article is doing the difficult work of describing the human condition in a very long period a time. If go and                
  remove the galleries (so called image spam) you are removing context for the readers. If you move the images away from the galleries then of course some other images will also  
  have to be deleted.

  While I agree the article needs to be clean, and readable the current situation allows that. If you are still having problems on your specific mobile I admit I am a bit unsure                                                        
  on the techincal workings needed to fix that. Again however you can see the cleanness of the situation on Wikiepeida's mobile view.
 

  Are you proposing that the galleries be moved to a different location? If so where would you like to move them too?
   Sunriseshore (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has too images generally (two animated images of the Mongol Empire expansion?). The gallery is too big, and there are too many images in the text body, with images on both sides causing section-headers and text to be contorted, more so depending what kind of device you are reading with - mobile-device killer but also isn't great on my 21" desktop. This article covers a lot of topic thus a lot of images are available -- way too many -- we just need to pick a few, sometimes less is more. -- GreenC 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Which particular images in the text body do you want to delete? In which specific areas? Sunriseshore (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And to clarify I think you should visit the gallery gain. The second animated image actually depicts the Black Death a similar but different event from the Mongol Invasions. There are in fact two Mongol images (the second was put into the gallery based on your suggestion). The reason was to show both the rapid expansion/division of the empire while still also allowing the reader to see the full extent of the empire on a stable non moving image.

Some images have been removed, however I the galleries as a whole must be kept even if some individual images must be removed. Image removal should not be excessive, and all sections should be illustrated in some way.

Sunriseshore (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is how our mobile viewers see the image gallery......less is best....not a picture book.

I think 'image spam' is a bit harsh, Moxy. A lot of work has evidently gone into gathering these and it would be good to be polite about it, even if the result doesn't fit with guidelines. The galleries contain a range of relevant, high-quality material. Some of that could usefully illustrate particular sections, but for now the galleries strike me as quite handy repositories of useful maps and they don't do any harm.

I agree about the problems with images on both sides causing trouble though! Alarichall (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Images have been adjusted, some removed to combat both sides problem.

I think, I want to make an adjustment to the Eurasia section, so far plague is discussed under the Silk Road section I think now it may better if it has its own section. This section would talk about disease in Eurasia in general, both the Plauge of Justinian and the Black Death would get attention.

What do you think? Sunriseshore (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In specific reply to you Moxy, I have gone into mobile view and I have not encountered the same problem. I do not think all devices would have your specific problem. I think this is more of a techincal matter for your specific browser/device combination. I would honestly like to adjust the images so you dont have this problem but I am not sure how. In the mean-time we would be doing a tremendous diservice to readers by deleting the galleries as you suggest. Important contextual differences between civilizations are illustrated by the pictures and correspond with the model of breaking the text into sections by different civilizations.

Sunriseshore (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see that separating out disease could work. Keeping it within the Eurasia section for now makes sense. To me, the big headache with this article is that it's fairly easy to write a connected history of Eurasia-Africa, but hard to see how to fit in other environments like the Americas. In theory, it might be cool to have a 'disease' section like the 'climate' section, discussing epidemics not only in Eurasia but elsewhere. But I'm not sure if enough is known about other epidemics to make that worthwhile. So a section on epidemics in Eurasia makes sense for now. You might find some useful comments in James Belich, 'The Black Death and the Spread of Europe', in The Prospect of Global History, ed. by James Belich, John Darwin, Margret Frenz, and Chris Wickham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 93-107? Apologies if not! The book is readily available via libgen (currently http://libgen.pw/).

Personally, I still think the galleries are cool and given a straight choice would prefer untidy galleries to no galleries! Alarichall (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The reasons galleries are discouraged is because not all devices see them properly......but all device do see images normally when beside text. Just need to move the image beside relevent text.....last thing we want is to loos readers becaue of the picture book aspect of articles. Lets quote some rules....frist the Waring we get with the page ."This article contains too many or misplaced pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length. Please help to improve this article by fixing the sand­wich­ing of text between two images or charts, by reducing indiscriminate gallery sections and moving images to adjacent text, in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images".....MOS...A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph....--Moxy (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument here, is the galleries cannot exist for any users, due to problems for specific users. On several websites such as Wika for example, pages can be designed    
specifically for mobile viewers in mind. I presume there must not be any equivalent function here on Wikipedia? I have been using the page's mobile viewer to monitor and 
correct problems which I hope would apply to the majority of mobile users. 

The reason why the selected images are not part of the text is that within galleries there is greater context for differences. In case of the first maps gallery the viewer  
is allowed to see the progression of nation-states within the time period. Due to the specific design of the article a gallery is the only appropriate location for these. 
It is either in the gallery or not at all (which denies all viewers easier access to information regardless of what they use).

Again, I will discuss my motivation for two of the image galleries. They are not indiscriminate as a violation of the rules but are meant to show key similarities and  
differences between world civilizations. All structures in the first image gallery for example had some sort of religious function (despite appearing drastically different  
from one another). 

In case of the literature gallery the images serve two major purposes (1) display the major importance of religion in all civilizations in the time period as all pictures 
are of religious texts and (2) show the different religions/text styles which all existed at relatively the same time.

Each gallery, has been made with prior thought and careful selection of the images to provide helpful and meaningful context and illustration for such a large scope. One 
that could only be attained by a gallery (rather than forcibly going into sections and replacing all the current images with those in the gallery). The images are clearly 
related by an overarching subject but still must designated and understood from one another. 

Sunriseshore (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Powerpoint

I am considering making a public google presentation for this article that would be available via a link on the article. The point of the presentation would be to provide an accessible summary of the article's contents and to provide the information easily on more platforms.

Those who may be interested, can state here,  

Sunriseshore (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I just want to make note that my request for peer review was closed by AniomeBOT recently. Further comments are welcome. Sunriseshore (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced

An anonymous editor just left the following edit comment: "Huge portions of this article have no references for things that are blatantly false". I'd be interested in knowing which "huge portions" of the article are "blatantly false" (though I agree it needs more sourcing). -- GreenC 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean to add new sources from books I have on hand, I also wish the anonymous user would had been more specific. In the mean time do you see anything, that is blatantly false? If any statement it was proven false with appropriate sources I would correct immediately.

I dont believe the current template at the top of the page is useful because it does not provide any guidance to problem areas. Sunriseshore (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is how our mobile viewers see the image gallery......less is best....not a picture book.

Best to use just top template instead of spamming the majority of the article with sections unsourced tags. There is a HUGE sources and image gallery problem here. Think it's best to not spam section after section with no ref banners.....very cLear there is sources needed all over..with whole sections with 0 refs. Was going to start fixing the other article first.....but will start here. --Moxy (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have sorted all the centre-aligned huge-fixed images, which were the main image issue. Please don't just remove all galleries, as I seem to recall you like to do, Moxy! Bring it here, though a more orthodox gallery layout would be good. While reference levels are variable, at a quick look the actual text seemed orthodox enough. I agree don't plaster tags everywhere, and any claims of "blatantly false" stuff need to be specific - that sort of talk often means there is one point somewhere a POV editor doesn't like. User:Sunriseshore has done a lot of work since March, & has added most of the refs there are. It certainly seems better than before. He asked for a peer review nearly a month ago & has had no comments. Perhaps this will have to do. It gets over 200 views pd, btw. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So we all agree lots and lots of sourced needed and need to fix gallery spam and sandwich of text in many places to start with....right? Last thing we want is a reversal of the changes because of no sources and the image accessibility concerns as with the other article. Will start with sources this week.....fix image problem after.--Moxy (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I will continue to add sources, also keep in mind that this article is also under peer review. I ask that the galleries will be maintained as they illustrate the cultural production of the time. They are good images that are relevant for the subject. Perhaps maybe there is another way to help mobile viewers see them better, on my phone I did not have those problems. Sunriseshore (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod for your defending the galleries. I also would like to make a statement on the maps. They were centered as an introduction to the section, I would like to ask if we could consider putting them back in the original place. I must object as well to the gallaries being called spam, I think we need a detailed discussion before we remove relevant content. Sunriseshore (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you look Moxy every section has a source, there are no totally unsourced sections in this article. I agree that more are needed however. Sunriseshore (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC) EDIT: It appeared that the middle east section lacked sources, I have tried to fix that. (unsigned)

The big centred maps just aren't WP style, & were no awful for the 50%+ of our readers using mobiles. Centre alignment is rarely a good idea on WP, except for very wide panorama pics etc. As the maps were contemporary(ish), they were somewhat more useful as illustrations rather than actual maps. I've just moved them to the side. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I took inspiration from the maps that were already centered in the modern history article. Is there no way to make a specific version for mobile users, like in other websites? Sunriseshore (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For an example of what we are looking for see History of Canada.....as an overview article it should be sourced all over as every sentence should be relevant and a point for further research.--Moxy (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is we? I think you speak for yourself. Overtime I am adding more sources here, and I can assure you here that the sentences have purpose. I tried to follow Green C's advice in creating a proper world history overview. Sunriseshore (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The "we".....as in our basic expectation from everyone.-Moxy (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's expectation then. An expectation I have been working on working up to. Not that of any one user. Feel free to help by adding any sources, specifically those from world histories, or world historians. Only use more specific sources when nothing else can be found.

If you are not sure where to start, I recommend using this online source. World History Cultures, States and Society to 1500 from the University of North Georgia, Have a nice day.

Sunriseshore (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just dropping in to say that mostly I'm just really impressed that anyone's taking this hugely challenging topic on. I work on medieval north-west Europe professionally, and am starting to try and orientate myself to how medieval studies needs to move beyond Europe (but to do so without imposing a Eurocentric epistemology on the rest of the world). So I think that this article is in lots of ways at the bleeding edge of current historiography (and people shouldn't feel bad if this shows). It's brilliant that so much work has already been done (and is being done) on this page. I'd like to be doing the peer review of it, but at the moment don't quite feel I have enough of a grip on the topic.

I do agree that the big centralised images don't work very well, and I broadly like the image galleries. I think showing a global selection of architecturally important places of worship, or whatever, is a pretty cool way to help readers conceptualise the period on a global scale. But I can see that more might need to be done before they work well on all platforms.

Great that there's a climate section here: I'm aware that one of the most promising ways that's opening up for people to do global history is to study how climatic events had global effects. Though I'm a bit confused about why 'Eurasia' is in a separate section from 'History by region in the Old-World'. Maybe just renaming it 'Forces of integration in the Old World' might help?

I'm hoping that in the next month or so I might be able to make a decent fist of a historiography section for this article, sketching how global historical study for this period is emerging. Once I've done that, I hope I might feel more able to offer a peer-review. Not that I'm trying to discourage anyone from doing either of these things first! Alarichall (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For the most part I have found nailing down historiography fairly difficult though a look through a campus library would help a great deal with this. I have even some course syllabuses from colleges as histographical sourcing here.

I moved and added an images to the galleries recently. From what I have seen on the mobile view they usually act like normal pictures on mobile view, coming one by one as one scrolls down. I am not sure if there is a way to adjust things specifically for a mobile version.

Right now while there is a little discussion on appropriate peridoization outside of Europe I wrote the regional sections to reflect the 500-1500 time roughly. Though for East Asia (where Ming is considered early modern) there is only sparingly talk about conditions in 15th century. That was done on purpose because I think Early Modern Article is more appropriate as an in-depth description for some of these topics.

Eurasia was seperated to highlight the connections and similarities between the separate cultural zones. I am unsure about 'Forces of Integration' because it is a little wordy but on the plus side it does accurately convey what the section is about. Sunriseshore (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sunriseshore (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was also in the religion section, do you think its worth it to briefly mention widespread religions that did not survive until modern times such as Manichean?

Or maybe that would be suited for the Ancient History Article.

Sunriseshore (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On Manichaeism (and Zoroastrianism): sure, these clearly belong in the story somehow. If they can be integrated as part of a wider trend rather than just a disconnected list of religions, that would be amazig -- but I'm not sure if that's possible. For what it's worth, this article (available free-access) briefly considers reading them as part of a West Eurasian propensity to monotheism: James Belich, John Darwin, and Chris Wickham, 'Introduction: The Prospect of Global History', in The Prospect of Global History, ed. by James Belich, John Darwin, Margret Frenz, and Chris Wickham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732259.001.0001, pp. 3--22.

On Eurasia: I see your point. I feel that when I've done more reading, I'll have a clearer sense of what 'worlds' it might make sense to divide the article into, and then I might have a stronger opinion. On that subject, though, I am convinced that it makes sense to speak of a 'circumpolar' world (which I know a little bit about professionally; cf. Circumpolar peoples): while Scandinavians were in Greenland, there's a trickle of Western products travelling into northern Canada. At the same time, Thule culture, with Siberian roots, was spreading east across northern Canada. And there seem to be some important similarities in circumpolar cultures. So I wonder if it might make sense eventually to organise this article by 'worlds' characterised by economic/cultural interactions. Eurasia and at least parts of Africa are clearly one 'world'; the circumpolar world is another; the Polynesian world might be another. I'd be interested in your views on this: I have an open mind! Alarichall (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This quote to me stands out

Comparison allows us to see which they might be, and in which ways the ‘normal’ can be refigured as the atypical. The grand narratives which dominate our historiographies will often dissolve as a result.

I think with this source, and additional sources, perhaps some reorganization based on breaking the world into these spheres would be forward thinking. I was previously aware that the Norse had a trade network in Baffin Island though I did not want to be too detailed. However, with this additional context I think a mention of that can be included as well.

As you know your link will help a great deal with the future historiography area, giving the readers a picture of what is going in the World History field regarding Post classical times currently. I appreciate you presenting the link here. Right now Oceania is separate and I think it will continue to be so, your link however can help emphasize that the Polyonesian World was functioning as a complex trade system by itself. Also though more rudimentary and less theoretical I would like to ask if you had read A History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer, I recall that she emphasized that the New World had its own trade network and like the Old World still used their own religion as a foundation for their civilizations.

If were to include the Persian Religions, do you think that they should be mentioned in the Silk Road or the 'Main Trends' section?

This is exciting! I think now I want to look over the Prospect of Global History again, would you have any more easy accesses publications like this one?

Sunriseshore (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sunriseshore: Just to say that I didn't get as far as I wanted with the historiography section, and term's now starting, so I probably won't get much further for a while. So I'm including what I have: I hope you find the changes okay. I didn't notice your question about accessing publications like The Prospect of Global History: I recommend libgen for getting access to books like this. It doesn't always have them, but its coverage is remarkable. Alarichall (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

         Thank you for telling me about Lib Gen that will be of great help to me in the future. I must say when reading your paragraphs I was a little envious for how you have all of these gorgeous source and your writing style from the tip of your fingers. I think Ill try to read some of your source material just to get a better understanding of it. The historiography part is really the most innovative part of this subject- and the part that I had least access to. So thank you, for adding this section. 

In the mean time my future plans for this article is to still add sections we have spoken of before, though I would also like to add a 'Society' section under Eurasia which describes the similarity of feudal cultures at the time, if I can find enough confirming world history sources to properly back this up.Sunriseshore (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm conscious I still haven't done much with this page... But appreciate other editors' ongoing efforts. This new, open access publication on 'The Global Middle Ages' might be of interest: https://academic.oup.com/past/issue/238/suppl_13. Alarichall (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories"

• Should this overview article of the Post-classical period "imply" or give "any weight" to the transoceanic human contact theory based on sources about potatoes, chickens and word familiarity that many think is fringe science called Pseudoarchaeology?--Moxy 🍁 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputed content

There is a hypothesis that Pre-Columbian contact took place between Polynesians and South America but this is in dispute. Traces of Sweet Potatoes native to South America have been discovered on the Cook Islands to 1000, but this may have occurred without human facilitation. There is also evidence Polynesian Chickens in Peru radiocarbon dated to the 14th/15th centuries, but the origins of the chickens were later stated to come from Eurasia. Linguistic evidence involving similarities of certain words for Axe and Sweet Potato appear to substantiate sporadic contact according to linguists.

Discussion

• No this fringe theory about contact based on food has been rejected for inclusion in more main articles like History of South America. It is mentioned at Pre-Columbian era#South America saying "solid confirmation remains elusive" and only receives a link at Settlement of the Americas#Other hypotheses. Simply not a topic covered in overview academic publications about this period. --Moxy 🍁 21:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your first link does not work, Also I object to this being called junk, you are again invaliding years of research since 2005- no single Wikipedia editor can just call years of research of useless.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223340120049442

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2205

Is the National Science Academy of America a holder of fringe theories?

https://web.archive.org/web/20060927085144/http://www.saa.org/Publications/AmAntiq/70-3/Jones.html

Is the Society of American Archaeology, also fringe?

I may be nitpicking but I'm not sure I'd say this text has been "rejected for inclusion" from History of South America if you're referring to this RfC(?) on a much larger body of changes since this topic doesn't come up in the discussion. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support

Please bear in mind, that the purpose of the section was not to support, the theory but rather to give an introduction into the current debate. Remember the first phrase this is in dispute. Sweet Potates became important to Polynesian society, and discussing their origins are worth mentioning. At this time, there is evidence on both sides, but simply calling the work of experts 'junk science' is POV not supported mainstream sources, and is above the pay grade of an editor. The source provided that I was able to access, did little to completely invalidate, the theory, especially considering that was published in the 1990s. We can not be totally sure of the what the final result of research will be, nor is it our job to make a verdict. However, it is our job (or it should be) to prevent information- even ongoing developments to the public. Please also observe the academic credentials of the sources given in the article. If you would like to add some evidence that possibly negates the hypothesis, we can go from there, but removing the section entirely is unhelpful to readers. -Sunriseshore.

• Agree with Moxy. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support a mention. Moxy's first source seems perfectly open to the idea of pre-Columbian trans-Pacific contact, only calling it "fringe" in the sense of 'under-researched' due to an alleged taboo which is discussed at length, not in the sense of 'fringe science'. The second, as far as I can tell, doesn't directly mention the theories in the proposed text at all, instead criticising a much more spurious, extravagant and extensive 'secret history' of transoceanic pre-Columbian contact. Meanwhile, all the sources provided by Sunriseshore (in both the proposal and in their comment), which are academic and reputable as far as I've seen, treat the idea of limited contact between Polynesians and South Americans seriously, as do many more cited in Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories#Claims_of_Polynesian_contact. Since there doesn't seem to be an academic consensus yet, we can make that clear, as the proposed text already does, but to call it "pseudoarchaeology" strikes me as inaccurate.

As for due weight, this is certainly the kind of thing I would expect to be covered in this article, and the article doesn't seem so long that it would be an issue. The presence of an entire separate article (albeit only partly dealing with Polynesia specifically) also seems a pretty good indicator for the general notability of the topic, though it also means the section could be streamlined if necessary since we already link to a more detailed discussion. Personally I don't mind it explaining it a bit though. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been won over a little by SnowRise: ultimately, it's a history article, and a fairly long one, and the proposed text gives too much weight to the subject. However, I still don't think something has to have had a long-lasting impact (besides the distribution of a vegetable) to be a valid topic of historical interest. I'd support a shorter mention like:

Incidental contact between Polynesians and peoples of the Americas in pre-Columbian times has been proposed on various grounds, such as the presence of sweet potato in Polynesia, but no justification has been universally accepted. Archaeological evidence, as would be expected from regular or prolonged contact, remains absent.

I also don't think a lack of coverage means that the idea is viewed as an "outside possibility" by mainstream scholars – of reliable sources I've seen, opinions seem fairly evenly divided. The 2018 study says that "Most authors have explained the earlier introduction of the sweet potato to Polynesia by postulating pre-Columbian human contacts between the two regions", although it means it critically, as it concludes in favour of natural dispersal. An (admittedly less thorough) criticism of that study goes so far as to refer to the idea as "the current interpretation". (In any case, the 2003 source only refers to American scholarship, and I get the sense things have changed since then, like every source cited in the proposed text being published.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• No - why even consider fringe theories and speculations? -better leave those to the tabloids. If the fringe theories will ever get more support from scientific communities, Wikipedia should consider including them at that point, not sooner.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion I'm in agreement that this theory simply lacks due WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in this particular article. It is probably accurate to say (as both sides have asserted here, albeit in differing lights) that this is due to the lack of mainstream acceptance of the theory in question, but that question is substantially irrelevant (or at best, only indirectly relevant) to the question here: there are a number of articles where we can (and do) discuss the theory; and for what it's worth I agree with ReconditeRodent that the question of Polynesian contact (which has at least tangential evidence and support) should not be lumped in with other more fringe theories, just because they share a nominal similarity. But this just is not the article for such theories, regardless: this is an overview article of a major epoch in human history, and as a matter of keeping its coverage reasonably effective o a summary and keeping its (already considerable) length under control, it is not only reasonable but necessary to keep content focused upon well-established historical events developments, rather than unsubstantiated theories regarding incidental contact between societies which may or may not have taken place.

Personally, I am surprised at the amount of resistance that exists to the notion that Polynesians may have had incidental, transient contact with South American cultures at some point: given the expansiveness of the travel by Polynesian peoples in the South Pacific over a large period of time, including colonization of islands not so far from the South American mainland at various points, the notion doesn't strike me as shocking. But rough believably is not the same thing as establishing research, let alone proof of a form of contact well-established and significant enough to warrant inclusion here. None of which is to say that this article won't cover controversial topics--necessarily it will. But as an overview of a period of world history stretching across a three-quarters of a millennium, this article is not the right location to discuss theories that are viewed by the balance of mainstream scholars as (at best) outside possibilities which have never been well substantiated. The proposed wording here doesn't even engage with the question of any historical impact/significance of supposed contact (because even the serious scholars open to the possibility of such contact believe it would have been incredibly incidental trade once upon a time, with no migration) so the three sentences are just re-hashing of the evidentiary debate that can already be found on other (more relevant and appropriate) articles, without any additional context or meaning that would make the reference into historical detail useful to this article. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support link inclusion: I agree with some commentators that the Polynesian contact theory is much more grounded in reality than others and should be mentioned, but also with Snow Rise on that such a general article isn't the place for this specific topic, so maybe just a link to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories page would suffice? That page is going to make a much better job of explaining what this is all about than a cramped paragraph on a page that tries to cover 1000 years of global history. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support: I don't have a problem with a paragraph for a properly identified fringe theory. I would prefer the material be in Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories with a one-sentence link from here, but prefer text substantially like that proposed to no mention. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, in hearing of arguments for rejection and link inclusion, I think ReconditeRodent's quote is the best compromise, as it mentions the possibility of contact while also acknowledging opposition to the hypothesis in a shorter fashion. I am willing to agree to this, if all other parties can as well. -Sunriseshow

It does address WEIGHT concerns by reducing the amount of coverage while including a wikilink to the main article for anyone wanting to learn more. -- GreenC 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support: We should provide all the available information. To knowingly withhold it is to support a particular POV. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure

@CaptainEek: Could I request that the RfC be re-opened for a bit? There's a clear consensus against the full paragraph but the raw count in support of any mention is 4 versus 4 (+ PraiseVivec who I'd been meaning to ask if they meant a super-short line or a link in See also) and the last comment was posted just three days ago. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus that its fringe...thus its not worthy of any inclusion. Closing is based on policy arguments ...inclusion has no basses in policy thus was rejected outright. --Moxy 🍁 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Closings are based on the arguments, not the votes (see WP:VOTE). While there were more numerical votes for inclusion, the arguments were shorter, less nuanced, and made some nonsensical references (such as to NPOV, whose rationale was not grounded in policy). I did weigh whether the short blurb could be added, but in the end it came down to not the size of the blurb, but its inclusion at all. I commend folks for trying to create a compromise wording (that's the true spirit of cooperation), but overall the arguments for not including it at all were stronger. The time for closing seemed right, discussion had been dead for a month, and there was an outstanding request for it on the closure board. Thus I stand by my close. If you believe I've made a procedural error, please let me know and I'll take another look. Happy editing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 19 August 2019 (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:

• East-Hem 800ad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 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:

• Genji emaki sekiya.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

After thinking this over, I have to ask, how mainstream these ideas actually are: that "medieval/Middle Ages" refers specifically to EUROPE ONLY" and that in the rest of the (Old) world the term for the same period is "Post-Classical History". Because when I was in school, the Middle Ages were the Middle Ages no matter where in the Old World they were, be they in England, Constantinople, Arabia, China, Japan, or Timbuktu (making sure Africa ain't excluded neither XD). So the question I ask: who uses these terms in this way? Is it truly the mainstream practice or is it some minor/fringe POV viewpoint that Wikipedia is being used as a platform for to try to push it into mainstream? Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles definitely don't reflect a fringe POV situation, but they do reflect imperfect attempts to deal with a complex situation. The Wikipedia entry for Middle Ages is only about Europe, and that does reflect how the term is often/usually used. (The 'Middle Ages' are so called because they fall between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, so from that point of view the term only makes sense in places that were part of the Roman Empire and which later experienced the Renaissance, i.e. parts of Europe; until very recently almost every paper given at the vast International Medieval Congress was about Europe, the International Medieval Bibliography only goes as far east as Persia, etc.). So how do we talk about the rest of the world in the same period? Some people do use 'Middle Ages' for all parts of the world, but some people see that as just imposing a European periodisation on other places. 'Post-classical history' definitely isn't a great alternative term, but I don't think scholars have worked out a consensus on what terminology to use yet. That my quick response anyway! Alarichall (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

B or Good Article

Hello everyone, For editors tt come here please state below. What would make this article eldgible for a B rating, or a higher evaluation? What should be done to cross the threashold? Thanks in dvance for any feedback.Sunriseshore (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what? I am going to nominate this for a featured article, I realize the vote will be an overwhelming no, but at least it will get some attention. Sunriseshore (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC). I made a peer review!