Talk:Universal history (genre)

It would be good to add examples of 19th century works of universal history to back up the claim in the "Modern Examples" section. All we have right now is Kant's lecture, which is more of a description of the genre's goal than an example of it.

Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History seem like a good place to start, but I wonder if we could get any works by actual historians. The Lectures are high on philosophy, low on data.

Collisteru (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a great article, but it reads like a copyright violation. Professional article. Uploaded by an anonymous user who has no history on Wikipedia. Please keep an eye out. Stbalbach 03:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this article. My name is Gerald Phillip Leb. email: gerryleb@mac.com. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan (1978) with High Honors in History. I have also been trained as a professional historian, although illness prevented receipt of a graduate degree in the field. My mentors as a professional historian were Dr. Stephen Tonsor of the University of Michigan and Dr. Constance Bouchard of the University of Akron. I am a licensed attorney in the State of Ohio. I wrote this article from information in my own head, so to speak, and plan on including references to published materials in the near future.

Please do not delete my stub. Revise it, but do not delete it. Universal History is the problem child of modern historiography. It needs reference in your magnificent encyclopedia. I have logged in (obviously I am in the middle of the learning curve on this site) to support my bona fides. my login: Gavriel Pesach.

Ok thank you Gavriel for the confirmation, I will remove the copyright notice. Sometimes some things seem too good to be true, and it was from an anonymous user with no posting history. Thanks again. I will link to it from other articles the opportunity arises. Stbalbach 16:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that Ranke was a positivist in contradiction with postmodernism. Ranke and postmodernism share a view that texts have limits for interpretations based on the language and intention of writers and readers. Writing history like Marx or Weber did would be declined by both Ranke and postmodernism, because the wide scope of the analysis could never describe the way it was.--Daanschr 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry on modern day western conception of time seems almost gripped from empty air, a product of original thoughts and personal pre-conceptions. Is it possible to find verified documentations/evidences for this entry or do the rest of you deem it unnecessary? I am just an extremely anonymous reader who is curious about where to read more on this.

This comment has some validity, but the community of historians, the guild of academic historians, if you will, considers Ranke to be a positivist in contradistinction to postmodern thinkers. Gavriel Pesach

Ranke is mentioned in the chapters about hermeneutics in De Constructie van het Verleden, a book about the philosophy of history, and not in chapters about positivism.--Daanschr 15:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you. I, personally, do not like classifying Ranke as a positivist. But the consensus of academic opinion differs. The reason: Ranke is still the "father," if you will, of that school of philosophy of history that assumes one can go beyond text to an existent referent. In other words, most academic historians that are not avowed postmodernists assume that they can describe "what really happened." They do not enjoy talking about this assumption, but it is implicit in all mainstream historical narrative. Gavriel Pesach 15:45, 1 March 2006

Maybe someone would like to research Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose by Immanuel Kant Jgold03 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

These two articles are essentially the same thing, just different names. It would be a perfect fit because universal history has an Ancient and Modern section but is missing the Middle Ages, which is what is contained in Universal chronicle. -- 71.191.36.194 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it! Wareh 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I think, especially given the current length of the other article. Go ahead. Iblardi 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be mentioned if it is to redirect here, though I think it would be contested that they are synonymous. 130.216.1.16 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of a "universal history" as outlined in the first paragraph is THE definition of a metanarrative. Not only does this article lack reason for existence beyond one mans desire, but the concept is wrong.

I propose a massive deletion. 58.174.169.54 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is completely confused. It's a personal compilation of various facts and impressions regarding the general topic of historiography, not an encyclopedia article. Urgently WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In the article, it is mentionned: In Greco-Roman antiquity, the first universal history was written by Ephorus (fl. 4th century BC). This work has been lost, but its influence can be seen in the ambitions of Polybius (203–120 BC) and Diodorus (fl. 1st century BC) to give comprehensive accounts of their worlds.. I think Herodotus's Histories, should be included in the list.DrLewisphd (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110704232136/http://www.antarcticaedu.com:80/uexhibition.htm to http://www.antarcticaedu.com/uexhibition.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some issues with it. The line about Italy should be properly so named ("Italy", not "Apennine") - will change myself. Still about Italy, a mention to the rise and fall of Mussolini should be present. "Italian Empire" is misleading as Italy had colonies before WW1. Should be removed. Finally, there should be further mention of the Cold War somewhere (not just in US politics...). Thanks.69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

... multiple issues? This article is about an event or subject that was used in the 19th century (and although aspects of it are being revived). Not sure how to make time context is clearer. It's used then and now the same. This article possibly contains original research? What in particular? Please state it clearly. What parts need additional citations for verification?

Likely the whole issues tag need to be removed. --J. D. Redding 20:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Still nothing on the Tags? The whole lot is rubbish. Should be removed, all of them. Been a year. J. D. Redding 13:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this section? An attempt to give an example of a universal history? I think it might need to be removed, as it doesn't really seem to fit the purpose of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I renamed the article to Universal history (genre) to make the distinction with world history (field) even clearer. I moved a whole lot of stuff from the former to the latter (and some timelines to timeline articles), and from both to Bibliography of world history (field), because frankly, it was too much, and too tangentially relevant. I'm now trying to narrow it down to the ancient and medieval genre, even if what we now call "world/global history" is sometimes still called "universal history". The new categories Category:Greek-language chronicles containing universal histories and Category:Latin chronicles containing universal histories should help both readers and editors understand what we're talking about. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to raise a concern about a specific edit made on 28 May 2023 by User:Nederlandse Leeuw, in which the page was changed from Category:Chronicles to Category:Universal history books. Although this was a small technical change, it had a significant downstream effect on how the article has been interpreted and edited since.

The issue is that this category shift effectively reclassified the page from a historiographical genre (universal history as a mode of writing practiced across cultures and eras) to a bibliographic class (a type of published book). This change appears to have unintentionally altered the perceived scope of the article. After this edit, subsequent revisions began removing or trimming material related to:

the historiographical tradition of universal history

cross‑cultural examples (e.g., Greco‑Roman, Islamic, Chinese)

philosophical treatments of universal history

the relationship between universal history and world history

These topics are central to the longstanding definition of universal history as a genre of historical writing, not merely a category of books.

To be clear, I am not questioning the editor’s intentions. However, the category change seems to have redirected the article’s development away from its broader historiographical meaning and toward a much narrower “book‑genre” interpretation. This has resulted in the removal of substantial, sourced content that aligned with the article’s earlier scope.

Proposal: I suggest we revisit the categorization and clarify whether this article is intended to cover:

Universal history as a historiographical genre (the traditional meaning), or

Universal history books (a bibliographic subset of #1).

If the intended topic is the historiographical genre, then the 2023 category change should be reconsidered, and the article’s scope restored accordingly. If the intention is to cover only “universal history books,” then the article title and lead may need to be adjusted to reflect that narrower focus. J. D. Redding 00:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't have time to check this all now, but at first glance your observations appear to be correct. NLeeuw (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)