Talk:Proto-globalization/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Educational assignment plan

  • Overview of the "state of the world" in 1600 (leading to a 'world system' starting to develop that century)

(maybe the technological, social, economic statuses of the main countries, china, middle east, europe?)

  • Travel and Trade between countries (merchants etc)

(trade routes, standards of currency, 'world economy')

  • Treaties, agreements, government-communication between nations

(hostilities, imperialism, wars)

Toasterlyreasons (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea.

  • Other Topics that might work or maybe they are more subtopics for the divide, but anyway:
    • why it shifted from rarities to basic commodities in their trading?
    • define and elaborate on the concept of "bodily practice"
    • the transformation from proto- to modern globalization

Bbsaa (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Justin can I trade you for the transformation from proto- to modern globalization?

Bbsaa (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted get my section on hostilities, imperialism, and wars between nations during this time period on our talk page so everyone knows what Im doing Dan Loheyde

Hey guys I'm doing the differences between the trading of the 1300 to proto globalization, why it switch from rarities to basic commodities and what not. Accgail (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.56.18 (talk)

Wait so is anyone doing the background/overview/state of the world/individual nations like the systems of government in place each area of the world when proto-globalization got started? If not, could I grab that topic? Or, and I could also do this along with whatever topic I'll end up with, I would like to volunteer my writing/editing/organizing skills to compiling everyone's individual research/writings into a comprehensive article so it flows together and doesn't sound like it was written by a bunch of different people? Let me know.

Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see your early discussions here. I'd recommend you post your "to do" list here as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Katie, yeah that sounds good...thanks for volunteering to organize it all too! Okay..so Katie-background/overview/state of the world/individual nations leading to proto-globalization Dan- hostilities, imperialism and war Sarah and Justin I'm not sure if you guys traded so let me know Abby- trade in general- shift from rarities to commodities

Is that about right guys? Let me know!

Accgail (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.56.18 (talk)

Hey Justin and I chatted it out. So, he is going to take treaties and agreements. And I'm going to do the shift between proto globalization and modern globalization. (maybe if i find the information why the shift occured) Also i'll elaborate on the bodily practice idea. I'll try to post some of the sources i plan to look at by wednesday. Bbsaa (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Our group "to do" list:

  • Justin- Treaties and Agreements of the proto globalization
  • Abby- Trade of proto globalization
  • Sarah- Shift between proto globalization and modern globalization
  • Katie-background/overview/state of the world/individual nations leading to proto-globalization
  • Dan- hostilities, imperialism and war

Accgail (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have been out of touch guys, I was sick the last couple of days. I see we have our group to do list together. What is the next deadline we need to meet?

Jml72 (talk) 2:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. I was having a hard time finding source materials. So, I met up with Professor Manning. He is the globalization specialist of the history department. He suggest we check out "Globalization in World History" by Hopkins and Bayly. He also said Bayly wrote three other books that would be worth looking at. Another book is "Origins of the Modern World" by Robert B. Marks.

(Bbsaa (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Hey thanks Sarah! I was having some trouble finding certain things as well. Although, trading is an easier topic I still felt that I didn't find many credible sources. We should all meet at some point this week

(Accgail (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC))


Hey guys, the next deadline is November 2- we need to have a draft outline for our page. I think we should try to meet outside of class sometime to get this around and what not. --Accgail (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just put up the headings and updated the references I've sited in my work so far. I forgot to sign in when I wrote them and didn't want you guys to be like who is this stranger. Hopefully by Saturday I'll have up my rough draft. (Bbsaa (talk))

Please note that you should be adding inline citations, not general citations at the end of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So not sure yet if I'm going to actually label the topics and subtopics in my section (on the page with the bold headers) since it is supposed to be just a general overview....the text I have up now is the bare-bones skeleton, every one paragraph is to be expanded into more (> or = three). This is I guess the general outline, which I don't think should be on the actual wiki page now for the world to see, right?

OVERVIEW:

Explanation of Globalization

How did it start
Why did it start
When did it start

Early World System(s)

Roman Empire (or, the foundations of the 'Western World')
system of government
democratic republic
senators and policy
invention of 'modern society'
technology leading to increased travel, trade, and wars
'modern thought' and the propagation of cultural memes
methods of expansion
wars and military campaigns
provinces
Middle East and Asia
systems of government
class-based economy and society
elite ruling class and leadership
highly localized rule
modernization?
rigid societal structures
limits on literacy and class mobility
emphasis on religious tradition
trade between nations
Contrast Roman Empire and Middle East and Asian nations
Lead-up to imperialism, colonization
Western Enlightenment, science
Why no scientific revolution in Asia, Middle East
How this contrast lead to the way the nations would interact in period of proto-globalization

Toasterlyreasons (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(I'm still hazy on the finer points of formatting, no idea why I can't get that outline to not be boxes in courier new font) Toasterlyreasons (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An
easy
way
to
format
is like this (click edit and see how I did that). Feel free to ask me if you need to figure out anything more complex. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. You can also get points
  1. and subpoints
  2. like this - click edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I haven't added my references yet, but will do so soon

Jml72 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys I'm messing with the Headings to make our sections seem more logically organized and connected, feel free to disagree with my choices. I think a big key to wikipedia success is just nice organizations and headings and subheadings, and it's definitely what's weird about this assignment and makes it different from regular research papers I've written for other classes. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah can I borrow your Bayly book for a day? Toasterlyreasons (talk)

Early draft review

Early draft review comments:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another comments:

  • you should not have a section on overview. WP:LEAD is an overview of the article (note that lead should not contain new information, but only summarize information from the article). Your overview section is useful but needs refocusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey guys ok so here is how you put the footnotes in for your sources. 

    At the end of the sentence like where you would put a citation you type:
       [1]

You can see the footnote, but to see how to do it go to the edit this page part. If you need to see an example, click edit and then look at my section, because I totally over referenced. Also if you have a new book that isn't already there then you need to add it to the Reference section on the page first.

Hope that helps. (Bbsaa (talk))

Hey can anyone figure out how to upload photos. I have reread the wiki upload thing twice and I can't get it to work. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial, Wikipedia:Upload, and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(are we writing new posts under the draft review, or back up before it? Here's my post again in case everyone's skipping to the bottom here: ) Hey guys I'm messing with the Headings to make our sections seem more logically organized and connected, feel free to disagree with my choices. I think a big key to wikipedia success is just nice organizations and headings and subheadings, and it's definitely what's weird about this assignment and makes it different from regular research papers I've written for other classes. Also Sarah can I borrow your Bayly book? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Posts

Katie- posts are supposed to be at the end of the talk page I think. Also, I agree that the article should flow..definitely make any changes that you think are necessary! --Accgail (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses bottomposting. But you can bottompost in relevant sections, you don't have to start a new one every time you post - although people may not notice posts in the middle of the page that much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Newer Stuff

I tried to upload a photo too, but it kept telling me I needed to specify file type and I couldn't find any place to do that? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you quote the error exactly we can figure out the details. Did your image had a filename extension? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys i uploaded a bunch of photos. Kate, I made the Dynastic Cycle chart that's in your section. So, if you don't like it or if there is something you want to add to it let me know. I think they should work with the articles but if they don't or you don't like them my feelings won't be hurt. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

No it's cool, I just put it on the left, added a caption and shrunk it a little since all our photos seem to be on the right-hand side...also should all our photos have captions? Because my one that's at the top is mostly just for show, it doesn't directly apply to any of the things in my section, but should I still add a little caption saying what it is?

Also I just did a ton of editing and then realized I wasn't signed in :-/ oops... Toasterlyreasons (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


I would say yes to putting in a caption, because all the good wiki cites have captions. I don't know if that is a criteria but better safe than sorry. Also, what time did you guys want to meet up? I was thinking I'll be down on campus around 2, but I'm flexible so let me know. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Hey Kate I think that your section is too focused on archaic globalization. Maybe to make it more connected you should tie in what it changed to when it became protoglobalization. Otherwise it almost feels like it is mainly archaic globalization issue. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Hey just made edits on the lead in. I wasn't signed in, but they are legit (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm editing my section now and someone else is, and wikipedia says there are edit conflicts Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything I did is gone now. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I rewrote it. I was putting sentences at the end of my paragraphs tying the information to proto-globalization if it looks ok to everyone. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) What do you mean its going? when there are editing conflicts or whatever if you scroll down what you wrote/edited is still below it just didn't post. I wrote a whole paragraph and mine was didn't upload/looked like it was missing. I freaked out then found it lesson learned wikipedia lesson learned. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

yeah but when I went to the discussion page to ask you guys about the edit conflicts I didn't realize it replaced the tab I had the edit page on and then when I tried to click back to it my edits were gone. Anyway my new edits are up, it was just a few sentences transitioning the 'history lesson' to proto-globalization. If you want to also add some of the Bayly or Hopkins material to back it up, like maybe something more to my first paragraph before the roman empire one?, you can (just please don't mess with my sentences that are already there too much I think they flow pretty well now and tie archaic to proto globalization the way I wanted) (sorry as a writing major I'm kind of overprotective of my words!) Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to say also that the changes in the article are looking really good you guys! The structure is looking a lot better! Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys I just ran through and put [citation needed] where there need to be citation. The page is really coming along but in some sections the meat is really lacking. Also can anyone help me? I'm not sure how i should divide my section up into subsections or if i should just leave it to maintain flow? Also any suggestions where it needs meat i'm hitting a wall. (Bbsaa (talk))

I was looking at other wikipedia articles about periods of history and the like and many of the 'good articles' have subdivisions that aren't QUITE the best subdividing logically. But if you can somehow manage to figure out a phrase or something that differentiates one paragraph from the one before it that would work ok I think. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I am trying to put some picture on here too but Im having trouble. Can someone explain how to do it? Thanks.Danloheyde52 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you upload the photo to the wikimedia commons? Or do you already have the photo uploaded and are you having trouble coding it to be in the page? All I did was copy-paste the coding of an image on a random other wikipedia page. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Justin. The citations look good. Your section is a little short, but it might help if you broke each of the treaties into subsection and just explained what they were.

(Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Sweet guys this is looking so much better. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Hey thanks for letting me know that I figured the pictures out. Danloheyde52 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, do we each have to submit our selections to the good article review or is it just our entire page that has to be submitted? Danloheyde52 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were just supposed to nominate the whole article...Soooo I went ahead and nominated our article for good article in the sections History-World History and Social Sciences and Society--Sociology...are those the right places? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should chose only one of those. Other than that, all's fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Posts 11/16

hey I'm not sure there should be big empty spaces between paragraphs, is there any way around that? I understand trying to keep the pictures right next to the relevant paragraphs but I'm sure it won't matter if the pictures are also next to the preceding paragraph section...(I'm just worried it will negatively affect our article's review) Toasterlyreasons (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed extra whitespace with a handy script. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

yo Dan your section just got way to many pictures! Would you be willing to part with one? Because that would make it a lot easier to make it look even Toasterlyreasons (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I tend to go easy on "too many pictures", but the GAN reviewer may ask you to remove some. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Just a reminder that you need to do a lot of reference fixing. Here is a sample of unacceptable references:

  • (p 70-72)
    • Of what??
  • Daudin 2004
    • Missing title, page, publisher info.
  • http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History17.html
    • Unformatted html link missing author, title, publisher info.
  • Seymour I. Schwartz. The French and Indian War. 1754-1763. The Imperial Struggle for North America. Edison, NJ, 1999. Cloth.
    • page number missing

You should also standarize citation format. Compare:

  • (p.4-5) Jenkins, Richard. "The Legacy of Rome" 1992: Oxford University Press, NY, NY.
  • Osterhammel and Petersson, Globalization, PP. 28 ISBN 0-691-12165-6
    • they differ in placement of page numbers, first names, title formatting, one has ISBN, the other doesn't, one has publisher info, the other doesn't. I suggest you use the ASA style, plus ISBN. And don't forget to combine same references into one as described here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey guys here is what the web says ASA is. The wikipedia page on ASA shows NO examples so it doesn't help that much.: 


       BOOKS

 	· Book titles are italicized.
 	· Include both the city and state for the place of publication, excepting New York City. Use the U. S. Postal Code abbreviation for states (e.g., WI; IL; Washington, DC)

       One author

   Henslin, James M. 2002. Essentials of sociology: a down-to-earth approach.

           Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

           Two or more authors
       Nelson, Margaret K. and Joan Smith. 1999. Working hard and making do: surviving in
           small town America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.



       No authors
       Change: readings in society & human behavior. 1972. Del Mar, CA: CRM Books.
       Edited book, other than first edition
       Vander Zanden, James W. 1996. Sociology: the core. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 	· Other accepted abbreviations for editions: Rev. ed., 2d Ed., 3d ed.



       Edited books

   Finsterbusch, Kurt, ed. 1999. Sources: notable selections in sociology. Guilford, CT:

           Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.

           Articles from collected works
       Brewer, John D. 1998. "Sensitivity in Field Research: A Study of Policing in Northern Ireland." Pp. 29-37 in
           Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology, edited by John J.
           Macionis and Nijole V. Benokraitis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.



       PERIODICAL ARTICLES

 	· Titles of periodicals are italicized. Titles of articles are in quotation marks.
 	· All important words in article title are capitalized.
 	· Use the issue number or exact date for journals that do not number pages consecutively within a volume.

       One or more authors

   Villani, Susan. 2001. "Impact of Media on Children and Adolescents: A 10-Year Review of the
       Research." Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 40:392-402.
   Dwivedi, Kedar and Arun Gupta. 2000. "`Keeping Cool': Anger Management through Group

           Work." Support for Learning. 15:76-82.



           Articles from journals that paginate each issue separately
       Bullock, Barbara E. and Denis M. Provencher. 2001. "The Linguistic Representation of
           Femininity and Masculinity in Jean Genet's Notre-Dame des Fleurs." French Cultural Studies. 12 (34): 43-59.



           Articles from Magazines and Newspapers
       Lemonick, Michael D., Dan Cray, Deborah Fowler, Julie Grace, Alison Jones, Durham
           Thompson, and Dick Thompson. 2000. "Teens Before Their Time." Time. October 30, 156:66-73.
       Breen, Michael. 1999. "Parents, Peers Big Reasons for Image Obsession." Chicago Sun-
           Times. December 19, p. L1 46.



       WEB SITES AND E-JOURNALS

 	· Date of retrieval is included.
 	· Internet address is enclosed in parentheses. Periods are put outside of the parentheses.
 	· Follow the format and include the same information for books and articles.
 	· ASA does not provide an example for articles from commercial databases. These examples are

adapted from the American Psychological Association Publication Manual. 

       Articles from Commercial Electronic Periodical and Newspaper Databases

   Gray, David. 2001. "Accommodation, Resistance and Transcendence: Three Narratives of
       Autism." Social Science and Medicine. 53:1247 (11 pages). Retrieved October 19, 2001.
       Available: Ebsco Academic Search Premier.

If we could all reformat our sections that would be awesome.(Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Ugh I hate citing that's why I've been avoiding fixing mine. when we reference different page from the same source can't we just write "ibid" like in what is that boston manual of style that does that? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, ibid is not allowed on Wikipedia (just think what would happen if somebody would insert a ref between your original one and ibids).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand where the page numbers go??? (Bbsaa (talk)) Nelson, Margaret K. 1999. Working hard and making do: surviving in small town America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Does it go here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbsaa (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Or you can just use Nelson 1999, pp. xx, if you have cited Nelson 1999 before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't either, I was just about to ask...also since most people already seem to be repeating all the info for each source when the page numbers change, can we just stick with that instead of doing the multiple page ref for each source 'a b c' thing which is confusing to me. Like how important is it that we cite multiple references that way? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also does anyone know a good website where I can quickly and efficiently look up my book's ISBNs? Because I'm trying to find it on amazon and it's really really really annoying. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Try Google Print, WorldCat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What ABC thing? And Amazon.com in the product description (Bbsaa (talk)) thanks Piotr

God. I can't handle the internet today. Like my brain is about shot from stress of all my other classes and my crummy 4 year old laptop with lowest possible internet speed is barely loading pages and making me want to slam things. But yeah the little 'a b c d' multiple reference thing you did at your bottom section for the different pages in the same book that all your facts are coming from? Or can I just do the "author, year, page number?" OR can I do the multiple-reference thing tomorrow? I can't handle even the simplest coding right now I'm serious. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the grandma comp. Piotr said no to doing the multiple-reference thing. Once you cite it once with full citation in your paragraph then you can do the rest in "author, year, page number" (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Wait so just to clarify 'no' as in 'no, it's not necessary to do the a b c thing as long as you just shorten the info to author, date, page # each citation?' Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm. If the refs are the same, you should do the a b c d thing :) If they are not, then don't. If you cite a certain book many times, but different pages, you don't have to repeat the long info all the time (but you can - as long as you are consistent). See Good Article's ref sections from previous assignments: Reborn_doll#References, American_family_structure#References, Stay-at-home_dad#References. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Using templates and <ref name= > makes it much easier

Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.

I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.

The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{cite book}} reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for {{cite book}}.

So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>

As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>


Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use <ref name= > so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.

Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3</ref>[2] and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref>[3], then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/>[2] and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/>[3]

Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.

Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.

If you've done it all properly it should look like below.

Notes

  1. ^ then the copy and paste version of the references
  2. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 3
  3. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 21

References

Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.

You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTES

Hey guys, some people added a few facts in my section I think, and the citing is wrong and confusing but I'm not sure what they are citing from, so if you added could you fix it please or send me the information of the book you are referencing from so I can fix it --67.186.56.18 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I forgot to sign in!--Accgail (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

wasn't me Toasterlyreasons (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammed II

checkYA picture of Muhammed II shouldn't be used to illustrate proto-globalization in the Roman empire, since he lived in the 15th Century. S. Sbabones (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I actually meant for that picture to just be a general illustration of proto-globalization, not of the Roman empire specifically...I'll change it though. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Too Much Information

There seem to be far too many, and largely off-topic, sections to this article. For example, why is the 30 Years' War here? A sentence mentioning it in context of the Wethphalian system might be appropriate, but a history of the war certainly is not. Ditto many other passages. My recommendation would be to edit out about 60% of the text of this article to make it more useful and effective. More isn't always better -- S. Sbabones (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Some of the history sections do not discuss globalization in any shape or form (not surprising, considering GA reviewer comments above). A historical overview is useful - but if and only if it concerns proto-globalization; we are not writing history of the world. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the input. Hey boys, I need you guys to add to the lead in. We each (Katie, Abbey, and I) read the lead and incorporated a sentence or two about what our section focused on. So, if you guys can go in and edit that it would be great. Then our lead would be stronger and more of a complete reflection of the article. Thanks. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC).


ok I just tried to cut as much "world history" irrelevance from my written/researched section (before proto-globalization, roman empire, east asia and china and soon-to-come middle-east section I am trying to research still) and keep as much of it as possible historical context as it relates to proto-globalization....better/worse/missing the point? At any rate I think I'm going to go dive into the other sections now and try to give this article some sort of flow and less historical tangents, maybe? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel like a jerk cutting large portions of everyone's obviously heavily researched work, but upon examination I can definitely see how a lot of the sections we each wrote (mine included) aren't really summarizing very well. In our defense, Proto-globalization is a prety vague, all-emcompassing topic, and I think in trying to discuss the historical processes and how they lead to the world system of proto-globalization we seem to be doing a lot of "it allll began wayyy back in 1462 (or whatever) when a certain act passed in parliament lead to a year of disagreement between the various factions (or whatever)"
I'm trying to fix what I can using my nonfiction-writing-training but it would help for those who did the actual research to decide what main points they are trying to describe (and how it relates to proto-globalization) Toasterlyreasons (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I think these comments of mine fit better here than in the GA1 template.
I think the section on the Roman Empire was good; however, as an aside, I'm not sure that there is a direct link between the trade that took place in the Roman Empire and the West's success in the 1600s. The Roman Army pulled out of Britian about 40 AD and most of the western Roman Empire was invaded by about 400 AD by, e.g. Viking raiders, Vandals, etc. The so called Dark Ages. Much of this was "land grabing" and "booty grabing". Knowledge of things such as brick making, roads, concrete which the Romans used, was virtually reinvented in the 17th & 18th centuries, because the knowledge was lost. In the Middle Ages, there were the Crusades, more land and booty grabing, possibly international money transfers date to that time. The west got much of its science and mathematics from the Arabs (and some of that came from China - but you've given China a bit of a bashing).
Later on various nations started to create Empires, e.g. the Dutch, Portugal, Spain, France, Britain. If you think about North American, for instance, Inca gold grabbed by the Spanish, British Privateers robbing these treasure ships. Canada, had Scottish, English and French settlements. Great Britain at one time had about one third of the world in its Empire.
You might be able to rework some of your Hostilities, War, and Imperialism material, and the references that go with it, in respect of colonisation of the "New World" and the transportation of its products back to the mother country. You've already covered some of these products, such as silk, cotton, tobacco, etc, elsewhere). Some of these Empires were broken up by conflicts with newer emerging Empires and some by nations fighting for/gaining their freedom (and that is covered). Later on some of this became free trade, rather than the "mother contry" bringing home the wealth from its colonies.
There are two problems, the existing Hostilities, War, and Imperialism section is written from the perspective of conflict and it does not really cover proto-globalisation: I suggest that you might change it round to think about "strong" maritime nations expanding their wealth by taking over other countries and moving the products and the wealth back to the "mother contry": that might help bring globalisation back into focus. The Thirty Years' War and possibly one or more of these other subsections, have the appearance of being Copyvios, so they need to be reworked or removed, before they are labelled as such and removed by others.
Whether you do this is, or not, is up to you. The article is being assessed against WP:WIAGA, so that is what you have to meet.
I welcome comments from Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, its your student's assignments not me: I only make some of the GA assesments. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The time of the Roman Empire and it trade links with China are certainly notable in the context of proto-globalization, as they form one of the early world systems. That said, this is relevant to archaic globalization, and proto-globalization covers a much later period, and as such while the article could use a section summarizing the earlier history of globalization, it should not be the article's main focus. I agree with Pyrotec's points: the Hostilities, War, and Imperialism focuses on general history / wars, while it should be focusing on globalization (trade). Thirty Years' War is probably entirely irrelevant here - it may be summarized in a sentence, if somebody can figure out how it was at all relevant to globalization. There is good stuff in "Proto-Globalization Begins" and "Changes in Trade Systems and Commodities". but the "Hosilities" needs work - I certainly agree with Protonc that the focus should be on colonial expansion and warfare, not on "European civil wars". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey Abbey I added in the citation for those two sentences. I forgot to sign in. Sorry I meant to put them up earlier. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC).


Hey I change the title of the section back because it says on the wiki page that the title of sections shouldn't contain the page name unless necessary, because it is redundant.

(Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

proto-globalization is in essence a redundant subject... Toasterlyreasons (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

but sarah your section still contains the page name Toasterlyreasons (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah I'm trying to think of a better title. Is it still clear if i change it to "Transition into Modern Globalization"? (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

I think "Transition into Modern Globalization" will work! Toasterlyreasons (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys for whatever reason when I tried to edit the lead, it would take me to a different section. I'm not sure what the deal is with that. Has that happened to anyone else? If so what did you do to fix it? I plan to have the corrections to my section and citations done by Wednesday at the latest. I think our page looks really good! Jml72 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

=12/07

To edit the lead you need to edit the entire page, as lead has no section of its own (so you have to click the edit at the very top of the page, not the one at the right sides next to headings - lead has no heading...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Awesome. One more check on the list.

Hey Dan great job on streamlining your information section, but i think you till need to make it relate more to the topic with like a few open and closer sentences to explain why it is in there. Maybe something to do with how The relationship between war and finance gave the better fighter the advantage. I found this quote that might work: "Europeans became much better at killing people. The savage European ideological wars of the 17th century had created links bettween war, finance, and commercial innovation which extended all these gains. It gave the Continent a brute advantage in world conflicts which broke out in the 18th century. Western Europena warfre was peculiarly complicated and expensive, partly becasue it was amphibious." [1] You can then tie that into the wars you discuss. and end it with how their success increased European advancement in the global market of the proto-globalization period.

Hey Katie, with you amazing Writing major skills I would appreciate it to the extreme if you would read my section and let me know where it isn't clear or not flowing because i'm AWFUL at that. AWFUL. I would really appreciate it 

(Bbsaa (talk))

Hey Sarah thanks for that quote, it really helped me shape my introduction. (danloheyde52 (danloheyde52)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Hey group, I added something small to the lead. I also made a correction to the sentence I was asked to change. I think all I have do to now is change how I did my references. I'm going to talk to the prof. about that tomorrow. Looking good guys! (Jml72 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Sarah- a confession: well perhaps I may have exaggerated my writing-editing skills as part of my self-cheerleading pre-gaming myself for the fiercely competitive job market for Writing majors I will be faced with upon my graduation in less than two weeks, when I'll have to get out there and be like "Hey [real job people] you should totally hire me because I'm like totally the best writer ever, for real." Also I'm really bad at making sense out of this proto-globalization material because it's so dense and complicated and mired in sociology/historical abstract terms and concepts that I barely understand. But I will go look closely at your section again...brb, talk page. Toasterlyreasons (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Sarah I went ahead and tightened the writing in your first couple sections, changed a lot of passive voice to active, tried to add some clauses and such transitioning the sentences together and connecting the statement. The only really big problem I noticed is the first sentence of your first paragraph of your section: "According to Sebastian Conrad, proto-globalization is marked with a “rise of national chauvinism, racism, Social Darwinism, and genocidal thinking” which came to be with relations to the “establishment of a world economy”. You don't really talk about this at all for the rest of your section, and I don't really see how it relates to the rest of the material. I'd be inclined to cut it. Could you summarize how proto-globalization transition changed to modern globalization and put that as your first sentence instead? Toasterlyreasons (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to fix references; I am seeing lot of raw html and dubious reliability from 50 to 90s. This doesn't look like a reliable source; nor does this. Please re read [[WP:RS|what a reliable source is], or just look at other parts of this article (you should cite scholarly books, journals, etc.); not random websites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Due date

Hey guys the due date is coming up this Friday, and I noticed there is still some plagiarism going on within a few section, but besides that the page looks good. --Accgail (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix the references I noted above have issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I guess my sections were kind of a problem but I completely re-did them so now nobody can say they are plagiarized. Considering I already have my degree in history from Pitt I don't really see any future problems regarding my sections as being copyright infringement.

Danloheyde52 (talk:Danloheyde52) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Hey guys I fixed all my references so I think my part is done. If anyone gets a chance can you glance over mine and let me know if you see a change I need to make. Besides that I think our page looks really good.

Jml72 (talk:Jml72) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Hey Dan, check through the comments because he still isn't pleased with the raw links you did. Justin has the right way to references them in his section if you need an example. Also, check through the comments because there are still problems. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Explanation for additions?

I gather a Pitt history class has been adding to this page over the past couple months? I appreciate the work you've all done but I'm planning to make major changes to several aspects of the page.

First, I agree with whoever posted above about the irrelevance of many of the sections. Why are there pocket summaries of the English Civil War, Revolutionary War, etc.? The links between these sections and proto-globalization are tangential at best. They also encourage a teleological narrative that puts undue weight on the history of British America, when in fact this was a peripheral region of the world economy in most of the 1600-1800 period. I propose that these portions of the article be deleted.

More problematic is the fact that several of the footnote links don't work and sources have been misquoted. And there are grammar and spelling errors throughout.

Ultimately, I think the overall tone of this article is sloppy and misrepresents the work of both Bayly and Hopkins. As a result, I'm going to do subtstantial rewrites and deletions over the next few days. Fair warning. Benjaminbreen (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bayly, C.A. 2004. Birth of the Modern World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 0-631-18799-5 PP. 64
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-globalization/Archive_1&oldid=1089894700"