Talk:Human history/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inital spreadout

So primates appeared in west Africa, then evolved into Homo Sapiens over millions of years, and then and only then did they spread out? There were no migrations of Homo Habilis, Erectus, or hominids like Australopithecus?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.115.56 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

'Religion in the Opening'

I was very surprised to see not a single mention of RELIGION in the opening summation of HUMAN HISTORY. Surely even the most die hard atheist can appreciate the extremely integral role it has played in shaping us and our history. We should all know that the first book ever printed (an event which IS mentioned) was... a bible. Whether or not something is "real" will always be debated, and this article is not the proper place for such a debate. However, spirituality and the realm of the supernatural have always been near the core of what it means to be human, and its recognition CANNOT be ommitted from our history. - Lucas Davis, 5-21-07

I was very surprised to read that the first book vìever printed was the bible. Wasn't printing invented in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

'Rise of Europe'

This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg Kenneth Pomeranz). For a short rticles on Wikipedia will tend to be pretty generic since its not possible to detail all the various POV's on somthing as large as World History. If you want to write about a particular author, you could create an article, like Fall of the Roman Empire, that lists multiple POVs on a particular theme. Or, write up the summary under the authors entry, or a book article. Just some thoughts. Stbalbach 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a question of this or that tool and who invented it. Rather it is generally agreed among scholars today that before the Industrial Revolution, China led Europe technologically. Even in shipping - and despite the overseas voyages by europeans - Chinese technology was more advanced (see here). It must be remembered that Chinese vessels almost reached Europe in the early 15th century, but these voyages were ultimately stalled by imperial conservatism (see Zheng He). The advantage Euorpe did have was its greater entreprenuerial spirit (which itself was driven by Europe's original backwardness). Gavin Menzies has even purpoted to show that the maps Columbus used were ultimately derived from maps made by Chinese navigators.

But my main point is more subtle: The Industrial Revolution did not occur in isolation. It was the endpoint of a long process of technological change which had continued for several centuries in the Eurasian continent (for the reasons for this see my user page). During most of this period, Europe was a backward and peripheral part of Eurasia. The 'Middle Ages' were not in technological decline in comparison with antiquity. And a decline in culture was an isolated European phenomenon. The Renaissance was really just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the world.

Once humanity reached a certain level of sophistication, the Industrial Revolution was bound to happen. That it occured in Europe is a surprise. It may be true that there were certain characteristics in European culture, as it had developed since the Rennaisance, that gave Europe an advantage. That would be similar to explaining why the Bay Area in California is a modern technological hub. But that is not claiming that California is generally more advanced than France. And to further pursue this analogy, the IT boom in Silicon Valley didn't spring out of nowhere. It could not of happened without the general level technology reached, in Europe and in the US, in the first half of the 20th century.

I appreciate that these articles have to be generic, as you say. But they also need to represent the emerging academic view on the subject. One of the great advantages of this online medium is that it can be up-to-date. RCSB 07:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing youve said I disagree with. Jared Diamond as another example presents a theory why Europe came to dominance in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. There are various POVs on this. Certainly the article could better reflect current thinking. If we need to create a new article and link to it from here as a "See Main article.." that is possible also, in order to go into more detail. Stbalbach 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RCSB: How about you rewrite the section in a way that you feel would be more balanced? -- ran (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stbalbach and Ran: OK let's try it. To rewrite the article in the way I envision it would be a mammoth project. However, I think we can make some changes and additions and then later on, as you suggested, link to a wider main article. I hope to soon contribute to this. RCSB 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one responsible for most of this article. My own POV is geographic determinism, and I'm sure this article reflects that. I agree with you about the placement of the Crusades, the mention at the start implies some sort of causality with what follows, which is something that many, including myself, disagree with. It's been a couple years since I read Pomeranz, but I think his thesis that some parts of China, and perhaps India, were comprable to Western Europe as late as 1800 is a far cry from stating that Europe was "technologically backward even in the 18th century." Europe was well ahead of the vast majority of the world long before 1800. Pomeranz's view is also still far from the general consensus. I also wouldn't consider Gavin Menzies to be a useful source. I do agree that we should have a general article overviewing these various theories. Someone who is a big fan of Max Weber would, for instance, find this article even more lacking. - SimonP 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added three paragraphs which I think help to present a more balanced narrative. I have tried to steer a middle course between old-school eurocentrism and views such as those of Pomeranz. In future I think this seciton should be divided into two expanded sections: before 1750 and after 1750. RCSB 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

SimonP: I cannot agree with your latest edit (in which you overran some of my work). You write very well, but you have diluted the message I tried to present: domination of the seas does not necessarily mean a more advanced society. The Mongols dominated the Eurasian steppe, but were less advanced than the societies they conquered. The period in which Europe rose to become the leading world centre has continually been pushed forward by scholars. I notice you are keen on geographical determinism. So why not expand on Pomeranz? His thesis is quintessential geographic determinism. I do not agree with his explanations, but I do accept that the Euorpean economy was not ahead of China's before 1750. I added an important link on this matter which you have regrettably removed.

But the important message is this: World history has to be presented as global history. The Industrial Revolution is not a European phenomenon. It is a Eurasian one. The basis for the Industrial Revolution was a millennium of continuous technological advance, most of which occurred in China. It is not enough to remind readers that Europe was a peripheral region "during its Middle Ages". Rather, a balanced presentation would paint a picture of a millennium of Eurasian advance, during which China in the 12th century came very close to an industrial revolution of its own. Europe pressed forward during the 'Age of Discovery' not because it was more advanced but for precisely the opposite reason. It was in need of the superior products that the rest of Eurasia could offer. This is very reminiscent of the Mongol onslaught. But then began a process in which it could leverage its position in world trade in order to accumulate capital and wealth which enabled the Industrial Revolution. RCSB 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but asserting that the Industrial Revolution could have begun in China is counterfactual, and not good history. You also have to be careful with words like "advanced." The revisionist school of Pomeranz and the articles by Carol Shiue is focused on institutions, and is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony. They make a fairly strong case that European institutions were no more advanced than Asian ones. There has yet to be a strong case made that Europe wasn't scientifically and technologically ahead by 1700. Galileo and Newton had established modern physics, no other civilization had anything comprable to the caravel, the flintlock dates to the early 17th century, while the Newcomen steam engines dates from 1712. - SimonP 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Occidental development had come ultimately from China, as did apparently, the idea of a civil service examination system, introduced in the eighteenth century. In such ways the Occident seems to have been the unconscious heir of the abortive industrial revolution of Sung China" Marshall G. S. Hodgson Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam and World History (Cambridge 1993), p.68.

I agree with you that the Pomeranz school "is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony". I too find it hard to accept a simple geographical determinism explanation for the Industrial Revolution. In sum, here again is what I wrote in a previous revision of the article and which summarizes my position:

Outwardly the Renaissance was just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the Eurasian world. But it could also be argued that it engendered a culture of inquisitiveness which ultimately led to humanism, the Scientific Revolution and finally the great transformation of the Industrial Revolution. However, the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century did not have any impact on technology. Only in the second half of the 19th century were scientific advances beginning to be applied to practical inventions. The advantages Europe had developed by the middle of the 18th century were two: an entrepreneurial culture and the wealth generated by the Atlantic trade after the discovery of the Americas. But in 1750 productivity in the most developed regions of China was still on a par with that of the Atlantic countries in Europe. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that scientific advances of the Renaissance were not applied until the 19th century. One clear example is the discovery of projectile motion by Tartaglia and Galileo in the 16th century, which was immediately used to lob cannon balls with greater precision than ever before. As I mentioned earlier technologies like the caravel, flintlock, and steam engine were wholly new, and far superior to competing technologies, and were all in wide use long before the "second half of the 19th century." - SimonP 16:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

RCSB - can you please detail, in actionable terms, the reasons for the "totally disputed" tag? Such tags should not be abused, they are usually used when communications break down between editors, and should not be used to express a disagrement. Rather, editing of the article is the correct and first choice. There are multiple POV's on this subject, it is possible to present all those multiple POV's in a neutral, factual manner without the need for a disputed tag. Stbalbach 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be advantageous to have other editors join this discussion. But if that isn't happening then I agree the tag should be removed. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree with RCSB. I study history in Leiden, the Netherlands and a teacher, Peer Vries, teaching Worldhistory has the opinion that Europe superceded China, India and Arabia because of the industrial revolution. For him the inventions leading to the steam engine in England in the 18th century are the most significant for the European advantage towards Asia. I don't agree with RCSB that Europe was searching for raw material in the other continents. Raw material was produced and distributed within Europe until the 19th century, when Russia, Argentina and the United States brought cheap agrarian products on the European market. All products shipped from outside of Europe were luxury, because substitues could be produced within Europe. The question should be: why did Portugal and Spain started maritime empires and why did the English invent the steam engine? Spanish and Portugeese explorers were looking for gold and christians and the Portugeese tried to destroy islam in the Indian Ocean. They brought back riches, like spices, silver and gold to Europe.

Typical to Europe is the military advantage towards non-European parts of the world. Peer Vries says that it can be explained by the continuous internal warfare within Europe. Europe can be compared with Southern India and South-East Asia in this light. The trace italien was invented to counter the modern cannons in the early 16th century. Military drill was introduced by prince Maurice of Orange during the Dutch struggle of survival. The whole development of weapons and tactics were done throughout the ages of continuous warfare which let to enormous victories in the outside world, like the battle of Plassey. I don't agree that Europe had a unique geography that didn't allow major empires. Take for example the Roman Empire. The Mongolians would have defeated the Europeans easily. The reason why they didn't were purely internally Mongolian and had nothing to do with the Western Europeans.

I have a new issue to adress. The Age of Kingdoms is an unfamiliar term to me. Kingdoms are known since 3000 BC and continue to be known until now. Why should the term middle ages, which is known throughout the world, be replaced by the term age of kingdoms? Maybe the term clash of civilizations could be used if you look at the enormous wars that have occured between China and Arabia and between Europe and Arabia and the clash between nomads from the steppes and the farmers and cities in other areas.--Daanschr 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The European evolution of institutions was an internal process. China had nothing to do with it. Roman law was very important, which was tought in universities grown out of monasteries. The people who studied on this universities helped as civil servants monarchs to modernize their states by introducing tax systems. Many institutions with a large amount of autonomy made a lot of innovations possible in the European governments. With these institutions i mean the knight order, the league of city states and small states, the parliament, constitutions. If the Chinese had institutional influence in Europe, where were the Europeans studying Chinese then to gain the knowledge.--Daanschr 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The nearly industrial revolution in China is very interresting (to me at least). I read in a book that there were many factories and a large amount of the population was working there living in cities. Capital Hangchow was the biggest city in the world with over a milion of inhabitants in the 13th century. There was a social problem adressed by writers who complained about the bad situation of the workers. Confucian philosophers were debating about individualism and a focus on life on earth without the concept of god. There was a relative equality between men and women. Punishment for crime was very low. there were many bars and restaurants. People went on day trips to an island in the neighbourhood of Hangchow which was specialized in tourism. I don't know if this information is correct since the book i read was from the 1970s and too much focused on undermining Europe to my opinion.--Daanschr 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! At last we're expanding this discussion. You have strengthened my claim that the narrative in this article does not represent the direction modern scholarly opinion is moving. You also add much interesting insight, like the origins of Europe's military advantage. One note though: I didn't claim that Europeans were in search of raw materials. I said to the contrary that they were in need of superior products from the major centres of Eurasia. That is why I compared European expansion with the Mongolian onslaught in the 13th century: The Mongols had a military advantage -- they had mastered the art of horseback warfare. But nobody claims they were more advanced than the civilisations they came to dominate. (I won't apologise for using the term 'advanced'). I view Europe's position vis-a-vis the great Eurasian centres of the 16th century in a similar vein.

I agree that 'Age of Kingdoms' is inappropriate. It sounds like a history of Tolkien's Middle Earth. RCSB 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I was too quick in reading the discussion. The products in the in the rest of Eurasia were not superior. They were merely different. Europe had all it needed. So for me the question remains: why did Portugal and Spain start maritime empires?

I don't agree that the European difference started with territorial expansion. The crusades can be compared with the Arab expansion throughout the centuries and with other great civilizations, like Tang China, the Mongolians etc. Typical for the Portugeese and the Spanish is that they were the first to explore the entire earth and establish lasting empires.--Daanschr 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a weblog dealing with the problem. I think it is useful in this discussion. I will try to find more information. [1]--Daanschr 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I followed a course on European expansion. It appeared that some Dutch people tried to help the king of Thailand to build up a modern navy. It was very hard to modernize. Many materials were (like ropes) had to come from afar. The enterprise was no succes. A good question is why other countries didn't take over the European advantages. The Portugeese dominated the Indian Ocean since 1500. Industrial revolution wasn't a succes in many parts of the world. Take present Africa for example.--Daanschr 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Previously you mentioned the European military advantage over southern India and South-East Asia and now you have brought the example of Thailand. I am not sure these are the right reference points. If centres like China were technologically more advanced than Europe in the 16th century, that is not claiming that Europe was backward compared with every area in the world. For example, Europe was definitely technologically more advanced than the stone-age civilisations of South America -- with devastating results for the latter. But unlike South America, China of course was not conquered. Neither was India at this stage, despite its internal weaknesses and fragmentation.

I meant that Southern India and South-East-Asia were more militant and had better military tactics then Northern India and China. The example of Thailand was about the difficulty for civilizations to take over eachothers advances.--Daanschr 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't other countries take over the European advantage? I think success breeds success. Once the processes of the Industrial Revolution set in, the pace of change became exponential. For a long period of time no other part of the globe had any chance in resisting Europe. Africa is altogether a very sorry matter. The disruption to what until very recently was in many parts a pre-agricultural society has been devastatingly vast.

I would like to recommend a book which has profoudly influenced me: Ponting, Clive World History: A New Perspective (London, 2000) RCSB 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Daanscher - You mention Africa as an example of where the industrial revolution failed. But that isn't because no one ever tried to industrialize the region. The reason actually has everything to do with European expansion. Taking a leaf from Jared Diamond, most of Africa was more or less isolated from the achievements made by the foreign world roughly after the fall of the Kings of Mali. Even before then, foreign advancements were never replicated in the African kingdoms, as was the case in the Eurasian countries. This meant that the people in Africa would be forever in a technological rut unless a major change took place. Unfortunately that change was as brutal as Imperialism came to be. But the reason that Africa has never properly undergone the Industrial Revolution is that it wasn’t fully colonized. The reason that Africa is (and this is a rather unfair but sadly realistic) such a horrid place is not because Imperialism came, but because it left too quickly. Had the European powers left their former colonies with at least a semblance of an infrastructure, and in the hands of able and trust worthy leaders, like in India, then the modern day countries likely have more of a future.

Europe was way ahead of the rest of the world long before the Industrial Revolution. Even back in 1200, there wasn't any Islamic mathematican to compare to Fibonaci. The scientific revolution of the 1600s past Islam by. In 1000, Europe was a backwater compared to Islam. By 1200, it had pulled ahead.

I would date the "rise of Europe" to around 700, at least in the sense that Europe was clearly making progress starting with Charles Martel, which had not been the case from, say, 150-700. If you think essay is too euro-centric, the solution is write something about your favorite part of the world. As it is, there is not nearly enough about any region -- including Europe. Kauffner 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For me, Europe became worldwide dominant in the 19th century. Large parts of the world were still independant before 1800, like the Arab world, China and Africa. What should be explaned to my opinion is why Europe could conquer and dominate all others. Making a judgment about Europe in 1200, 300 years before the explorations and 700 years before complete worlddominance seems pointless to me. Europe is a small continent compared to Asia and Africa. China was technologically more advanced in 1200. Scientific and institutional modernization has occured in China, India and Arabia untill 1800. Europe was unique in the speed of modernization during the early modern and modern times.--Daanschr 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So even after the Age of Discovery in 16th century and scientific revolution of the 17th century, you think Chinese science was more advanced? Chinese science produced geegaws for the emperor's amusement. There was no Chinese Newton or Galileo (or even Fibonaci). Asia certainly weren't keeping up in the military field -- witness the Battle of Plassey (1757). The Chinese military was even more backward than the Indians were at Plassey.Kauffner 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that people interested in this topic read Andre Gundar Frank's recent book "Reorient". In this he suggests that on almost every measure of civilisation and technology China led the world at least until about 1780. The only reason why European powers were able to enter into the system of world trade with such long established players as the Muslim and Hindu-Buddhist worlds was because they had the huge advantage of American Gold and Bullion, with which they bought South East Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern and Chinese products that they would not have been able to afford otherwise. European manufactures were considered of inferior quality by these people until the 1780s. This supports the earlier views by Van Leur and Mealink Roelofs in South East Asian history who showed convincingly that on the whole, the period of Portuguese and Dutch maritime empires concerned only a tiny percentage of the maritime trade of South East Asia, which by far the most part was conducted by Arab and Malay middle men and Chinese traders. It has been suggested that the rise of Western Europe and in particular the Industrial Revolution could only occur with three interlocking factors - (1) the Triangular Trade of Guns to West Africa, Slaves to the Americas, and Slave Products back to Europe, (2) The British East India Company's destruction of the Indian Textile Industry (allowing inferior Lancashire Cotton to gain a market), and (3) The Opium Wars in China, which rendered that civilisation open to European manufactures and exporting of indentured labour to pay for its drug habit. It is a pity that so much of our history writing is still strongly Europo-centric. World Systems Theory is attempting to remedy this situation, but we still have a long way to go. Regards, John D. Croft 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Globalisation/Westernisation

This section seems to be very biased towards a pro-globalisation, pro-western, pro-libertarian view. I'm about to remove the most obvious ones, the description of the LEague of Nations and UN as 'feeble', but I don't think I'm able to re-do the rest, it would probably require more knowledge than I have. - User:Dalta / 83.70.229.225 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, much strangeness here.

"Socialists and American liberals believed (and continue to believe) that the society is, in large part, responsible for the behaviour of its citizens and that the society should be changed in order to make the world better. American Conservatives, European liberals, and all Libertarians believed (and continue to believe) in freedom and market forces and want individuals to take responsibility for themselves and hold that a society should guarantee freedom in order for individuals to develop fully. Christians, regardless of political ideology, believe that the individual's relation to their Church and/or God is the critical factor in a satisfactory life. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have religious concepts of their own."

Seems simply bizarre. It's political science, not history, for a start. It also states some strange things - surely every ideology claims to be in favour of "freedom". "Socialist" isn't even a well-defined term, as it can describe anyone from a Stalinist to a Prodhounist (Prodhounists favour an individualist market socialism). Tito implemented a collective market socialism with little individual freedom. The "other religions have..." statement isn't exactly suitable for an encyclopedia. My guess is that this was written by an American conservative Christian. Regardless, none of this has much to do with history.

"Today the welfare state is unpopular because it withholds economical progress due to inefficient investments."

The first part of this statement may be true wherever the writer happens to live. It isn't where I live (Scotland). The latter part is a political opinion, best reserved for full reasoned debate in the economics section of wikipedia.

"It [Communism] led to genocide and substantial poverty, and was widely viewed as unsuccessful. Soviet and Chinese leaders and intellectuals discovered that the 'western' style of production with self-responsibility led to continuing progress, while the communist societies were in a continuous economic depression, so they were forced to become capitalistic."

Is poor analysis showing little knowledge of history. Certainly there was genocide in Russia and China, but not to my knowledge in Yugoslavia, Cuba, Poland, or any of many other countries that were considered communist at one time or another. The USSR was not in continuous economic depression- it was a superpower, how do you get that way with 80 years of economic depression?!? I'm no Soviet expert, but their economy definitely grew until the 50s or 60s (obviously WW2 took them back a few steps). It was definitely in depression by the mid to late 80s and continued to be well into the 90s. China is not the same economically as it was under Mao, but it has also not adopted true American/Western European style capitalism either.

I'm quite new to editing wikipedia, so I don't want to just change this section too radically withot prior discussion. However, it seems to me that the best thing would be a ground-up rewrite. Much of the content of this section is badly written and the rest is innacurate or biased. I would suggest that some alternative structure needs to be found, instead of lumping so many disparate things (decolonisation, the fall of the USSR, globalisation, communist revoution, social democratic ideology) in one incoherent section. ADavidson 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the section. It was not written from a pro-globalization, pro-libertarian or christian conservative angle. In fact, i am an atheist socialist from the Netherlands. I tried to express how the world became a unity and what the dominant ideologies are today. This could very well change in time. One sentence has been deleted. The discussion about it is here on this talk page (Talk:History_of_the_world#Capitalism).

I agree with the bias accusation. I have tried to start some discussions about the content of this article and other articles. Problem is that Wikipedia has far too little editors who are willing to read many books on a subject before editing. I have never seen a debate about the contents of relevant books and how to come to a good article based upon those books. I agree that my edit was not good enough by far, but at least it was much better from where it started. When i read this article last year, i thought about leaving Wikipedia and never to return. Instead i tried to make this article less ridiculous. Since this is only a leisure activity, i didn't put much effort in the edit. At the moment i really don't care very much anymore. Wikipedia needs a serious change in its organization in order to come to have some quality.--Daanschr 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. In addition the lead section is too short. I would recommend that these be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Globalization and westernization"

This current final section of the article seems an excessively detailed discussion of philosophical concepts, grafted onto a brief outline of the history of the world. Perhaps the contents of "Globalization and westernization" could be developed as a separate article or merged with existing articles, and "History of the world" closed with "Ascendance through technology"? logologist|Talk 09:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed out this section. I trust that the essential contents will find homes in other venues. logologist|Talk 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

History begins with the invention of writing

An editor has requested a source for this assertion in the lead. Encyclopedia Americana states: "[H]istory is the memory [of the past experience of mankind] as it has been preserved, largely in written records. In the usual sense, history is the product of historians' work in reconstructing the flow of events from the original written traces or 'sources' into a narrative account. The existence of written records distinguishes the historic era from prehistoric times, known only through the researches of archaeology." logologist|Talk 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is covered by the history article in the introductory discussion about history and prehistory. Please don't pretend that this issue is settled or that the current statement is satisfactory. —Viriditas | Talk 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The "History" lead presents essentially the same view as the "History of the world" lead: per the latter, "Human history, as opposed to prehistory, has in the past been said to begin with the invention... of writing..." This does not negate the valuable contributions of archeology and kindred sciences. logologist|Talk 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 created

I used the cut and paste procedure to make an archive of discussions older than August 2006 (ish). Xaxafrad 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs more references

IMO, the lack of in-line references is the biggest obstacle between this article and a good/great/featured article. I guess the easiest solution would be to copy references from other articles. Xaxafrad 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The footnote 'system' is a joke, isn't it? Why can't we do it here the same way as elsewhere at Wikipedia? With such a complicated footnote system one can't seriously expect people to make contributions. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What footnote system? I've seen footnotes, references, see also, AND external links, all in one article. There's a system I'm thinking of, I would call it a reference system (because it automatically moves in-line citations to a section at the bottom called 'References'), and I don't think it's a joke. I'm not exactly sure how to use it, mostly because I don't add references (I do more copyediting than anything else), but I expect a wp:ref page might describe it briefly (I can see an 'attributable to a reliable source' link from here that might start the path to such a description). Xaxafrad 01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinocentrism?

I marked two assertion in "Background to European advance" as dubious as I find them pretty sweeping statements. Is there a scholarly consensus that China was the "most urbanized" and "technologically advanced country" of "Eurasia" then? I am not aware of that, unless one wants to portrait the opinion of a handful of World System authors plus a "Joseph Needham always ready to inflate Chinese achievements" (Quote Robert Finlay) as defining an international consensus of scholars here. In particular, I wonder what parameters underlie such a verdict and what empirical material on whole "Eurasia" has been collected to come to such a conclusion.

If sweeping comments like that were made in a European context, they would be rightly castigated "Eurocentrism", so I don't hope we are coming out of the frying pan into the fire. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is noted. I agree with you as well. Furthermore, this article seems to have heavly politically "liberal" statements and a general left wing view, especially at the last paragraph. 66.91.119.183 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AgreeD prime 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic Period

The line about the population bottleneck occurring is not widely accepted in the scientific community. I think the line should begin with 'It is contended that...' or 'It is theorized that...' or something like that. I don't have any original sources to support my claim, but these articles do support me- Toba catastrophe theory and Population bottleneck. --64.131.213.198 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

Attempt to clean it up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_world&oldid=135404807'

Reversion by Nihil novi (talk · contribs) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_world&diff=135420102&oldid=135404807

Section intro begin

The history of the world is human history (as opposed to prehistory) that is marked throughout the globe by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps — paradigm shifts, and revolutions — that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. After humans left the "Cradle of Humanity", humans had colonized nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe and developed in several regions various systems of writing and unique social systems.

World history, which examines history from a global perspective, looks to the invention of writing as the key component that gave rise to civilization, i.e., to permanent settled communities which fostered a growing diversity of trades. This invention created the infrastructure for lasting, accurately transmitted memories and thus the capability for the diffusion and growth of knowledge. There are various written accounts of languages developing. The early writing systems were not a sudden invention. They were rather based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing, so that they may be described as proto-writing. The independent invention of writing at several sites on Earth allow various regions to claim to be a cradle of civilization. The various writing styles, in turn, had been made necessary in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution.

The scattered habitations, centered about life-sustaining bodies of water — rivers and lakes — coalesced over time into ever larger units, in parallel with the evolution of ever more efficient means of transport. These processes of coalescence, spurred by rivalries and conflicts between adjacent communities, gave rise over millenia to ever larger states, and then to superstates (empires). The fall of the Roman Empire in Europe at the end of antiquity signalled the beginning of the Middle Ages.

In the mid-15th century, Johannes Gutenberg's invention of modern printing, employing movable type, revolutionized communication, helping end the Middle Ages and usher in modern times, the European Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. By the 18th century, the accumulation of knowledge and technology, especially in Europe, had reached a critical mass that sparked into existence the Industrial Revolution. Over the quarter-millennium since, knowledge, technology, commerce, and — concomitantly with these — war have accelerated at a geometric rate, creating the opportunities and perils that now confront the human communities that together inhabit a planet of scarce resources.

Section intro material end

J. D. Redding 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

J. D. Redding (Reddi)'s recent rewrites added 1,003 superfluous words to a previously spare and rather elegant article, without introducing a single useful idea.

The proposed lead rewrite, above, adds an excessively lengthy discussion of writing, best left to its own existing article, and gratuitous mention of "Cradle of Humanity," whose article is under consideration for deletion. Nihil novi 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the http://books.google.com/books?id=cboXAAAAIAAJ ... everything before writing is prehistoric (such as stated by the archaeological.org citation (http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10299#p)) ... the pre is done away with after writing starts ... history proper begins with writing ... this is seen in the cited book ... "they now had a history"

Do you have any historical training? Or is this just a opinion that you are putting in?

If you know about world history, and Cradle of Humanity is where man sprang from is a common term for the beginning of man (scientifically, it's Africa according to sources) ... eg., the start of man in the history of the world. The Cradle of Civilization, I suppose you would call that "gratuitous" too, begins with writing and the transmission of knowledge ...

In history, writing is vital in the development of society and history itself.

I think I am beginning to understand why ppl chuckle when I bring up WP. J. D. Redding 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? There's a whole pleiad of Wikipedia articles dealing with Prehistory. This article, while it gives (I think, not inappropriately) a synopsis of prehistory, is devoted to the History of the world. Nihil novi 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Internet, computers, telephones and mass media

The global communications network? Isn't this an important advance? Why is it not even mentioned? The ability of the world to mass-communicate... the fact that I can pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other side of the planet, instantaneously, has got to be worthy of mentioning in a history of the world. It's changed the world forever and has arguably led to globalisation, which is mentioned. 212.139.167.196 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this article to put it simply is PREPOSTEROUS

the preposterous amount of links on the page it is not funny, it's hard to read for average readers.

1: get rid of country name links and other pointless links, wikipedia has a search field on every page.

2: the grammar on the pages are in some cases worse then mine (no insult intended)

3: just needs some cleaning up.

("?") Markthemac 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, especially in the suggestion that this article is hard to read for 'average readers'. I found it quite legible and very informative. In addition, the number of links is quite right, really. Just Another Fat Guy 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Nihil novi 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i don't mean the content i mean the layout, it's not working. Markthemac 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be retitled

This article should be called History of Human Existence or History of Humans or something like that. To be so biased as to say that only history concerning human beings is relevant to the history of the world is simply rude. We violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia should hold by starting the History of the World at any time other than when the world was first formed. The world was around before we were and it could be around a lot longer. If we really are going to have a History of the World article than it needs to cover the histories of geology, animals, humans, and everything concerning what happens on the earth. I sincerely hope that we can not just say "Oh, oops, this basically means the history of human existence" in the beginning and say that works for the article to be something other than what it is. If we go by the reasoning of "History starts with writing" then we should take out everything up to a few thousand B.C. being that it is conjectural.--76.23.84.86 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I really must thank whomever put the disambiguation stuff at the top I still think that this article should be retitled as its title is inaccurate. The proper name would be something like Human History or History of Human Existence. --76.23.84.86 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an article History of Earth, which I guess should be called Prehistory of the planet Earth, though there is a section linking to this article. 91.153.63.5 10:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous poster. Just because animals won't be reading this doesn't mean we shouldn't correct the bias. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That we should not be "biased" by not considering animals on par with humans in historical emphasis is simply silly, and completely goes outside the practical purposes of being neutral and unbiased.D prime 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitions and semantics... history means (to me) RECORDED events, which would (to me) necessarily indicate human events(animals don't record anything). Also "the world" indicates (to me) the realm of human experience (which differs from "the earth", the physical rock/dirt/water sphere humans, animals, and plants all inhabit)... meaning that (again... TO ME) "history of the world" is an entirely appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Even if someone was confused about the semantics involved, the introduction quickly and simply explains what this page is about, and where to go if you were more interested, for instance, in the geological life of the planet. Macduffman (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The 20th century

Although the second half of this section seems good, the first half (about politics, basically) badly needed a rewrite and some addition. I did it, but it may not be up to snuff. I tried to provide an unbiased, balanced interpretation, but with something so broad and eventful there will certainly be other ones. Also, it needs some more addition - for instance, on the rise of East Asia, the turmoil in West Asia after the Osmanlis' downfall, and maybe some short blurbs on the progress of individual nations, at least the pivotal ones (Germany, America, Japan, the USSR, India, China, Israel). I also think more needs to be said on postcolonial Africa and Asia and Latin America during this era, but I'm no expert there. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to show a World War II map instead of a World War I one? WWII was more important, after all, and involved more of the world. Brutannica 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not both? Maybe also one showing NATO and the Warsaw Pact? Nihil novi 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent history rewrite

I pulled a lot of questionable content from recent history, and reworded much of the remainder to be more concise and neutral.

The development of states had always taken impetus from hope of gain and fear of loss. The sense of national identity had always been forged in conflicts with outsiders who were perceived as a threat.

Sentence one paraphrases concepts of Utilitarian philosophy, 200 years old. Not much originality there.

Sentence two: It is commonly acknowledged that a prime means of creating or controling a polity is to point to a (real or contrived) common external threat.

This is unreferenced and may be original. If not, it would be an interesting claim to add somewhere. It does not seem like a good introduction to the formation of the EU, since that implies causality, and that's an even stronger unreferenced claim which is potentially controversial or original.

It does not seem unreasonable to surmise that the European Union was formed in order to enhance the common weal, reduce economic and other losses, and increase the common security vis-a-vis the superpowers of the time.

The same period, however, raised prospects of an end to human history, precipitated by unmanaged global hazards: international conflicts prompted by the dwindling of resources, fast-spreading epidemics such as HIV, supervolcano eruptions, and the passage of near-earth asteroids and comets.

These threats are not new, and do not need to be sensationalized in this way.

True, they are not new, but the awareness of some of them is (e.g., supervolcano eruptions; threats from asteroids, comets and gamma-ray bursts; Earth's eventual loss of its captive Moon). And while humans may prove helpless against some or all of these, it may nevertheless be constructive to be aware of them; indeed, projects are currently underway to identify, and perhaps in the future to ward off, potentially hazardous asteroids and comets.

As the 20th century closed and the 21st opened, an increasingly interdependent world faced common hazards that could be averted only by common effort. Some scientists referred to this as a shift to a Planetary Phase of Civilization. It more and more seemed that the world must either perish or survive as a whole. This was brought home on October 30, 2006, by the Stern Review, warning of the threat of global warming and rapid climate change. In the historic escalation of human perils, localized internecine and international conflicts began to be edged out as a focus of dread by common threats to all mankind — by mankind's global conflict with the natural environment.

This seems to dwell excessively on global warming. The "Planetary Phase of Civilization" is a concept from a single working group, and a single global warming report does not really merit mentioning at the level of world history. The last sentence is overly broad and dramatic.

The Stern Report could be dropped, and the paragraph toned down.

The global threats posed by environmental degradation and by the exhaustion of material and energy resources were not the first "matergetic crisis" that the world had faced. One of many earlier ones had been triggered by Britain's deforestation to supply charcoal needed for the production of iron, and had led to the invention of coking by the Abraham Darbys, father and son, which helped spark the 18th-century Industrial Revolution. Similarly, as the 20th century yielded to the 21st, the world seemed again to be lodged at a historic bottleneck which might be opened up by new technological innovations — including research into fusion power (ITER), and greatly increased exploitation of solar-based renewable resources in the form of wind, tides, hydroelectric power and direct solar energy (e.g., photovoltaics).

This is interesting and all, but the first half does not take place in the 20th Century, and so it doesn't seem to belong in that section. The second half seems to be speculative.

The paragraph draws an analogy between a fairly well documented developing energy-resources and environmental-degradation technological bottleneck and a previous bottleneck, three centuries ago (described in the Scientific American Biosphere book), which was ultimately turned from a serious challenge to an opportunity. Past is prolog.

-- Beland 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All in all, a nice job of streamlining. But I wonder whether too much of the drama has not been thrown out together with some of the purple prose. Nihil novi 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

There is confusion between History of Earth and this article. If the present article is only about human societies in history, the title should reflect that. Why not move this to History of Humans or Human History? --Antonio.sierra 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, English-speakers find little or no confusion between "History of the world" and "History of Earth." The former relates to the human world, the latter to the physical planet. In any case, a reader who stumbles on the wrong article will find a note at the top, referring him to the right one. Nihil novi 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic Period: Toba catastrophe

This paragraph said the eruption had global effects, "killing off as many as 59 million people". However, I couldn't find this figure of 59 million anywhere else. I have no idea where it comes from. It's an absurdly high number because no earlier than 1000 BCE did the human population reach 50 million souls. I replaced this obviously erroneous figure with the reliable information that can be found in the Toba catastrophe theory article. Zonder 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11

I think that 9/11 should be mentioned in thae article as it was a major event in world history. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest adding? Corleonebrother (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, considering all that is involved in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, 9/11 is a rather insignificant event. Guttenberg's printing press, the two World Wars, and The Internet are major events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

this being the article on the "history of the world", the 20th century is given much too much weight. Also, the ToC organisation is questionable: it begins with classical periodization, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, but then breaks off and turns into a topical list. You would expect it to continue along the lines of Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern period and finally sections on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, partly because the article would probably lose some of its Eurocentricity in the process. I mean, there's a section called 'Rise of Europe' but barely anything about the recent impressive economic rise of South-East Asia... In any case, the reorganisation you propose would definitely be an improvement but it entails a major rewrite. Zonder (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with your first concern... let me know if you think I've gone far enough or too far. The article does need a rewrite, although that many divisions is unnecessary and I don't think we should keep a strict chronology as it limits flow. It just needs a bit of reorganising and renaming of section titles. As a starter, Rise of Europe should be merged with Age of Discovery, removing all the opinions about why or how Europe "rose" - just state what happened, and leave why for another article. I'll do it unless somebody beats me to it... Corleonebrother (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Necessity

I'm removing the phrase "of necessity" in the sentence "Civilizations, of necessity, developed on the banks of rivers."

It just doesn't fit. It's not neutral, and looks like some kind of biased vandalism. Who are we to say that the civilizations they developed were absolutely necessary. If someone puts it back, I'm going to ask that person to cite a reference. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Geometric increase in war?

I placed a {{fact}} tag on the intro's claim that ".... war ... increasing at a geometric rate".

From the War article, we read that "The Human Security Report 2005 has documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s." So if there ever was a geometric increase, it seems to have been broken. Unless someone has documentation, I suggest we delete war from the intro. --Alvestrand 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

not simply wars in general but the potential for their destructiveness, i.e. with new technology such as the atom bomb comes safeguards and dangers, or the internet, etc. 70.160.102.251 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

Late 20th century problems

I made a correction to the following statement, changing "greenhouse effect" to "global climate change":

"The century saw the development of new global threats, such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics of contagious diseases, environmental problems such as the greenhouse effect..."

The greenhouse effect is not a problem in and of itself, it is completely natural and vital to regulating the Earth's temperature such that it is not too cold or hot to support life. It is also not new in the 20th century. The important, problematic issue is actually human-caused global climate change. MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I also added a "citation needed" to this statement about dwindling global resources.

"The century saw the development of new global threats, such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics of contagious diseases, environmental problems such as global climate change[188][189] and deforestation, and the dwindling of global resources.[citation needed]"

It is not obvious that any particular global resources are about to run out, or are in danger of doing so in the near future. For that reason I believe a citation is in order, with some specific examples of dwindling resources and empirical numbers that can accurately project when they are going to run out. MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

21st century End of the World narrative

The 21st century section reads like the movie trailer for the end of the world, focusing exclusively on highly negative or marginally neutral issues, like resource depletion, economic conflicts, wars, famines, and overall death and destruction. I removed some of the overly dramatic narration, but it needs a serious overhaul. Maybe a few of the positive developments of the 21st century should be added, considering that the world's overall standard of living is near its all time high, and economic and political freedom has never been as expansive throughout most of the world as it is now. It could start with the increased availability of technology to new countries and formerly impoverished populations, the information boom, the relatively healthy economy for the first 8 years of the century, promising new medical procedures to treat formerly untreatable diseases, etc. In addition, the idea stated in the first sentence about "increased environmental degradation" is debatable, as well as any claims of historically high levels of violence. MarcusMaximus (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this whole section needs to be rewritten IMO to discuss the current state of the world, positive and negative. Theres also no need, imo, to write it as if its a historical narrative since it is the present. But seriously, there is a lot of good going on in the world right now, and to think otherwise is to completely lack historical context. Standard of living IS at its all time high, and things are relatively peaceful. At least in the first decade, there has not been a major war. BBnet3000 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory

A fair portion of the article is dedicated to prehistory and there have been some objections to this. I do think covering pre-history in this article is appropriate, as we discussed early in this article's creation at Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_1#Prehistory.3F. See also our own article at History#History_and_prehistory. What we should perhaps think about is changing the lead to better reflect this. - SimonP (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to pre-history being the 3 screen lengths or so on my computer, it could be culled to a paragraph for each segment, dealing with the usefulness of the concepts or period to the understanding of human history as the reflection on written practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Globalise Middle Ages 2009

1. Heading is Western Europe specific
2. Eastern Europe not dealt with
3. Islam and China dealt with cursorially
4. India not dealt with
5. African states in the period not dealt with
6. Failure to thematise complex agricultural states
7. No mention of Feudalism as either a European cultural institution or the Marxist analysis of peasant societies
8. Emphasis bias: needs expansion. Prehistory, ancient history, and modern history are much larger

Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved some paragraphs around. It may be helpful to mention the rise of urbanization across all inhabitants and the corresponding beginning in the decline of transhumance (nomadic culture), as well as a noticeable increase in trade between the urban centers. Perhaps a military assessment of the strengths of each civilization of the time is also in order. It is notable that explorers from Europe to Asia, like Marco Polo and Johann Schiltberger were actually beginning their travels.

It may also be helpful to include some citations on the wealth and technology of South and East Asia at this time, as up to the early Modern period, they might be fairly noted as the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the globe. --24.106.48.82 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

21st century

After reading this section it struck me as very odd that our predictions about the 21st centuary are talked about the past tense, as if they have/will come true. In my opinion speculation about the future of the world does not belong in an article named "History of the world".

---

The following sentence seemed like a blatant case of NPOV and weasel words:

"As the 20th century yielded to the 21st, it became increasingly clear that Earth's human population was fast becoming lodged in a historic bottleneck of resource constraints, exacerbated by mounting population and growing environmental degradation."

I reworded it in a more neutral fashion while trying to retain the meaning:

"As the 20th century yielded to the 21st, the worldwide demand and competition for resources increased due to increasing populations and industrialization, which resulted in increased levels of environmental degradation."

MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit was reverted by the user User:Nihil novi without any particular explanation or defense against my charges of NPOV and weasel words. Specifically,

• the phrase "it became increasingly clear" is a obvious instance of weasel words.
• the statement that "Earth's human population was fast becoming lodged in a historic bottleneck of resource constraints" is a statement of opinion about the characterization of uncertain future events, which violates NPOV.
• the use of the words "historic" and "exacerbated" lends the sentence a sensational quality that should be avoided in an encycolpedia.

Unless you can address these issues, stop reverting my edits. MarcusMaximus (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Maximus,

There are developments that are generally described as historic. The adoption of coal, and later of petroleum, as energy sources were two of these. The projected exhaustion of coal within a few centuries, and of petroleum within a few decades, are two more.

The world society is scrambling to find replacements for coal and petroleum. History suggests that, given adequate investments in research and development, replacements are likely to be found in due course. But the prospects in the short term are distinctly guarded. That is all that the phrase "historic bottleneck of resource constraints" was meant to convey.

Your substituted version, on the other hand, suggests less urgency and more of a sense of business-as-usual.

Sincerely, Nihil novi (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Your substituted version, on the other hand, suggests less urgency and more of a sense of business-as-usual."

That is precisely the point. Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum. Its purpose is to convey facts, and the reader decides if those facts require urgent action. If you want to convey factual information about the quantity of particular resources remaining and their projected exhaustion, that is fine, please do so. If you are merely going to state, in figurative terms, that we are "fast becoming lodged in a historic bottleneck", that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. How fast is fast? How significant is something before it becomes "historic"? How certain is this event to occur? And how is any of this conjecture relevant to an article about world history?

Petroleum has been projected to be exhausted "within a few decades" for many decades now, and there is more of it discovered all the time. If you are stating this as a fact, you will need a very good set of sources. On the other hand, a neutral mention of the fact that alternative sources of energy are growing in popularity and being researched would be a fine addition to this section.

By the way, you didn't address the weasel words issue. "Fast becoming apparent" to whom? MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who was paying the slightest attention to what is going on in the world. Nihil novi (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. The point is, you are not supposed to use that kind of phrasing. State facts. MarcusMaximus (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

~~ ~~Just a pass-by viewer of the page here. I am aware this is not an advocacy board, but since the 20th and 21st century mention a number of known social ills, perhaps the 21st century should include a mention obesity as a rising health/environmental issue and link to the obesity page. I mean, this is the first time in human history where too much food rather than too little is a health problem on a global scale. source: http://www.nfb.ca/film/weight_of_the_world/ ~~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.104.104 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"History During 1900-1909" needs to be removed

This section appears to be nonsense and should be removed from the article. Jleonunez (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

of Order is Article out¡

Why does it talk about "Temple establishments" and the "New Kingdom of Egypt" and THEN have the next section title be "Early civilization", then talk about Cities, THEN say all of that is before "Ancient history", and then start talking about religion and civilization again?--98.114.243.75 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

19th century

To speak of the Age of Reason leading to the Scientific Revolution, and simultaneously to the Industrial Revolution, in the 19th century, is grossly inaccurate. The Age of Reason began in the 17th century; the Scientific Revolution — in the 16th, with Copernicus; and the Industrial Revolution, in the 18th century. Nihil novi (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"History of the World" vs "Recorded History"

From the "History of the World" article:

Not to be confused with Recorded History.

The history of the world is the recorded memory of the experience of Homo sapiens.

From the "Recorded History" article:

Not to be confused with History of the World.

Recorded history (sometimes called record history) is a part of human history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language.

Anyone else find the above passages unclear and problematic? What exactly is the difference between the two?

I agree that this is troublesome. I will take a stab at fixing it, with "History of the world" representing what really happened, and "Recorded History" representing what was written about what happened.70.179.92.117 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.70.179.92.117 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

no forest fires back then?

During the Industrial Revolution, the world economy became reliant on coal as a fuel, as new methods of transport, such as railways and steamships, effectively shrank the world. Meanwhile, industrial pollution and environmental damage, present since the discovery of fire and the beginning of civilization, accelerated drastically.

This sentence suggests that there were no wood burnt on the earth until mankind discovers fire, kinda silly imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Democracy would grow to have a profound effect on world events and on quality of life.[dubious – discuss][neutrality is disputed]

I don't see what challenges the principle of neutrality here. The article doesn't say whether democracy has a positive or negative effect, just that it has an effect. Few reasonable people could deny this, I think.86.7.216.182 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

True. It has an effect. Should be removed. --J. D. Redding 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Western bias

Article is written with a purely eurocentric POV of history. Most civilizations get secondplay and marginal treatment while others like the Chinese and African history get uncomfortably fitted into European history periods like the "middle ages", a concept alien to any culture outside Europe (and even then limited to the European parts of the Western Roman Empire), then anything outside Europe is threated as "provincial history". All before 1492 in this article is but a sideshow for what the eurocentrists consider the most important historical happening, the socalled "rise of Europe", that they consider starts from 1492 and culminates in the the XIX century. The sections that go from Middle ages to 1945 ares just Europe,Europe and more Europe.

A history of the world as a whole, and not just an Eurocentric Panegyric must put facts that affected the whole world or most of it like climate changes, and economic developments.Andres rojas22 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been considerably internationalized really ... from some time ago. Chinese history was mostly "static" BTW, for a 1000 yrs [give or take a few] ... but if you wanna improve it do so. But remember, history is about the written historical record for the most part.

As to the "middle ages", as historians generally date it [which also varies] match and fit other dates in the world. The same event times are put together. It's really that simple.

And there wasn't a "so called" rise of Europe ... Europe did "dominate" the world. Sorry. Facts are facts. But the 'provincial history' thing is false ... it's what known, with records that are contemporarily known.

Anyways [and more importantly] ... What are the most 'important historical happenings'? If you can list them, do so ... otherwise then I can't see how this good article can be improved ...

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

While i havent look at the progression of the article to know if it has been internationalized i can see that the present edition need further work to be a globalized history of the world. As i said the article in its present state follows the traditional eurocentric account of world history, this account typically centers on the history of Europe and looks in it for the reasons for "why the west is better than the rest.

Historians traditionally select a topic, for example the impact of deconolization in Europe's economy, and then go backwards in time to study its roots, so do it too the Eurocentric historians and it would be a valid point if they presented it as a study of the political, social and economic developments in Europe in 1500-1800 that would be perfectly fine but what eurocentrists do is present a study about a specific culture/region as if it where a study about world history, eurocentric literature is not world history its regional history, in their view a countrys history only has importance in world history if it has contacts with Europe, example pre-colonial Africa, because they see Europe as "mainstreem" and the rest of the world is only relevant when its has contacts with Europe, another example would be Inner Asia eurocentrists largely ignore Central Asia as irrelevant to world history until the era of the Great Game when they come more steadily in contact with Britain and Russia.

Eurocentrism is like a movie in wich only Europeans can be the protagonists, they find all kind of ruses to downplay anything that didnt came from Europe an example of this is the industrial revolution, traditional Eurocentric historiagraphy says the first industrial revolution ocurred in Britain but in reality a thousand years earlier in Song China the chinese had made outstanding technological discoveries that had made an industrial revolution like that of the 1700s Britain. There is a lot of literature that challenges the eurocentrist tradition and they can explain these points much better than i [2].

Seriously to call Chinese history as "static" is to have no knowledge of Chinese history. I understand what you say about the middle ages being a convenient way of putting events of the same time under a common name, but isnt conveniently eurocentric that that name is an eurocentric one?middle ages. You misinterpreted what i said about the "rise of Europe", Europe did have a powerfull influence in the world but in a recorded human history of about 6000 years its ridiculous give the importance they do to the 15 minutes of fame of Europe. If we talk about a cultures importance in world history the article should include a rise of islam 700-1000 because in that period the islamic world was the center of world economy, trade and culture while Europe was a wasteland, and how about China 1100-1800 when it had an economy an a state aparatus that made her more rich and powerfull than all Europe combined. By the way just want to clarify that history and historiography are two completely different things and you are taking eurocentric historiography as history wich is not.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

John Atkinson Hobson? ... hmmm .... a POV [cited] /the authors seem related, seriously =-], do you know if they are?/... add counterviews if you included some of his writings, or similar ... it would seem to me to be necessary to do so. Source has a strong POV.

Anyways, History is history. The Imperial era of Chinese history last from 221 BC - AD 1912 ... static. Be nice to find references about east west interaction though ... I think you are talking about early modern period and maybe alittle before. Maybe? The mention of Mohammad should be in section (like the axial age) should be included, briefly ... and with other great figures of the timespan. The initial expansion of Islam wasn't as important as the second wave, JIMO. --J. D. Redding 05:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

John M. Hobson its his son. Again read the book, it would challenge your conception, still dont understand what do you mean about the history of China being static and how do you base that claim.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment in the 19th century?

Why are the pre-19th-century Age of Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution discussed under "19th century"? Nihil novi (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

footnote 129. The Age of Enlightenment has also been referred to as the Age of Reason. Historians also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, contemporary historians have considered the Age of Reason distinct to the ideas developed in the Enlightenment. The use of the term here includes both Ages under a single all-inclusive time-frame.

... this "lead to the Scientific Revolution" ... and ends as late as the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804–15).

--J. D. Redding 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you correct "lead" to "led" and put the references to the Age of Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution where they belong. Nihil novi (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem ... took out the "19th century" header. Better now? --J. D. Redding 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [don't know what i was thinking ... or i wasn't thinking. Thanks. Corrected it now ... ]

The first two sentences in the Late Modern History section are still not right. The Scientific Revolution was 17th-century. The second paragraph explains it correctly.70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I think it's good we have a timeline, like the one in the Antiquity section, but I think we should remove the top line (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages). These three "ages" directly apply only to Europe and the Near East. Besides, it doesn't follow the chronology in the article, where Antiquity follows the Iron Age.70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure

The grouping of history into antiquity, middle ages, modern ages seems irrelevant and misleading. The lines in truth are not so clearly drawn, and calling all Europe after the Renaissance "Early Modern" likewise limits the experience of the 17th-20th centuries. Similarly by getting rid of these silly headings, we could eradicate accusations of "eurocentrism." The movement I think will be more powerful and true, if the chronology proceeds more fragmentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.52.161 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

mv'ed from see also

• Non Campus Mentis: World History According to College Students (book)
• Nicolaus of Damascus

J. D. Redding 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"The development of cities was synonymous with the rise of civilization"

This isn't the only place where this confusion exists. You don't have civilization in the archaeological sense without cities, that's one of the key defining characteristics of a civilization. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the very word "civilization" comes from the Latin civilis, meaning "civil," related to civis, meaning "citizen," and civitas, meaning "city" or "city-state." Nihil novi (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaced lead paragraph

I found the start of this article remarkably abrupt, and not consistent with WP:LEAD. I checked the history, and lo and behold, the article used to have a good lead paragraph, which had been removed with the comment that the article should be a history of the world, not an article about the topic "the history of the world". This seemed a misguided argument, so I re-instated the lead paragraph. --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Ideas inaccuracies

I suppose it should be expected that such a broad overview would mischaracterize a lot of traditions. But it's surprising that such simple factual problems are glossed over as the founding dates for traditions.

Beginning in the 7th century BCE, the so-called "Axial Age"

The Axial Age is a model posited by Jaspers for categorizing the period from 800 BC to 200 BC. This means it encompasses 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, and 3rd centuries BC.

During the 6th century BCE, Chinese Confucianism, Indian Buddhism and Jainism, Persian Zoroastrianism, Ancient Egyptian Monotheism, and Jewish Monotheism all developed.

(More or less) correct on Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, and monotheistic Judaism. Incorrect on Zoroastrianism (6th c. is just when Herodotus first took notice of Zoroatrianism, not when it was probably founded, which could have been anytime from 1800 to 500 BC). The fact that our earliest historical information on Zoroastrianism (or proto-Zoroastrianism, perhaps) dates from this century says a lot more about Greek civilization than it does about Persian, since it's only really a reflection of the increasingly cosmopolitan and literary character of the Greeks. Egyptian monotheism (or monolatry) per se was more an aberration than a long-term cultural shift, and occurred in the 14th century BC, not the 6th.

In the 5th century Socrates and Plato would lay the foundations of Ancient Greek philosophy.

Greek philosophy predates Confucianism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The 'foundations' of ancient Greek philosophy were laid by the proto-scientific Thales and the metaphysician Anaximander at the start of the 6th century BC. This tradition was then spread from Ionia to Athens by Anaxagoras in the 5th century BC; Socrates did not lay the foundations, but rather popularized the existing tendency toward speculative disputation, resulting not just in the Platonic school (and its Aristotelian offshoot), but in three other major schools founded by disciples of Socrates: the hedonistic Cyrenaics (replaced by the more moderate Epicureans), the antisocial Cynics (who birthed the Stoicism that came to dominate Rome, Christianity, and the entire modern world-view), and the logical Megarians. I say all of this not to in any way suggest that we should include this all in the article, but only to complicate the notion that Socrates and Plato popped out of nowhere and single-handedly built philosophy; both were borrowing from a tradition that had already been firmly established over the past 150-200 years by such luminaries as Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Heraclitus. Plato's real significance is the impact he had much later, since (via Plotinus and Augustine) he is the source for much of the orthodoxy of western Christianity over the last 2000 years, and for most of our modern Western views about 'mind/soul' and 'matter.' But we could just as easily trace the start of Western philosophy to any of the other figures I've mentioned above.

In the east, three schools of thought were to dominate Chinese thinking until the modern day. These were Taoism, Legalism and Confucianism.

This is a controversial claim. The conventional view is that Legalism largely died out until a few decades ago; certainly it may have been partly incorporated into Confucianism thousands of years ago, but all three schools borrowed views from one another. You also already mentioned Confucianism above; re-repeating a bunch of names without doing anything to even cursorily explain their significance is not very informative. If you read a good history book (including a textbook or encyclopedia), does it focus mainly on giving long lists of names, or does it put its main effort into cultivating an understanding of why certain historical events occurred as they did? In the case of China, the key event is of course the Warring States Period during which the Hundred Schools of Thought (not just the aforementioned three, but also the Mohists, who invented the first form of utilitarianism and Chinese logic) arose, and the subsequent consolidation under the Qin and Han.

The Confucian tradition, which would attain dominance, looked for political morality not to the force of law but to the power and example of tradition.

I'm not sure this even makes sense. Because I'm already familiar with Chinese history, I can suss out that you mean to be drawing a distinction between Legalism and Confucian 'traditionalism;' but what is a law if not a codified tradition? And in what sense is Confucianism not interested in 'the force of law'? 'Tradition' is simply absurdly too general a term here, and is doubly ridiculous insofar as Confucianism is by definition a new school of thought in the period in question. What distinguishes Confucianism from its rival traditions isn't that it's the 'most traditional' (which may be so, but nearly all the traditions claimed to be 'more traditional' in one way or another), but that it places its emphasis on Virtue and on the interconnected web of obligations sustaining everything from the family's morality to the sovereign's.

In the west, the Greek philosophical tradition, represented by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle,

Again, why take the time to say the words 'Greek philosophical tradition,' 'Socrates,' and 'Plato' twice in such close proximity, when you could spend the same time instead giving some notion of what it actually means that these figures existed? Why is Alexander's conquest, which radically changed the course of every society on the Mediterranean (and going as far as India in the Greek-ruled, largely Buddhist northwest) for the next 2300 years, treated as nothing more than a crude vehicle for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? Socrates didn't even write; if he had any influence, it was only through the views of other philosophers who appropriated him. Yet the complete restructuring of the Mediterranean political landscape is significant chiefly because it let more people know who Socrates was? Instead of wasting readers' time with lengthy discussions of meaningless names and rambling about aliases ("Alexander III of Macedon, more commonly known as Alexander the Great" -- why do we need to know that there were two other Alexanders and that he was known by several names that all feature 'Alexander'?), one could actually include useful historical information in this deeply unfortunate and malnamed page.

-Silence (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks silence ... I'll try to work your more constructive points into the article. --J. D. Redding 04:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC) ps., do keep in mind that this article is a broad overview and, personally, any mis-characterizations are not as much as you imply.

Human History

Shouldn't this article be moved to Human History (now a redirect to this article)? This is a fantastic article, but it's not about the history of the Earth, or even of Life. It's about the history of humans, so that's where it should go. I would do this myself but a) I wanted to get some other opinions first, and b) Human History already exists as redirect to this article, so an admin is needed to delete that before this can be moved. Thoughts? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Human History ... Human history. Human History should be redirected to Recorded history, JIMO ... or {{disambig}} it. --J. D. Redding 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for "History of the world" to remain the main article, with "Human history" as a redirect. Either way would be OK, but "History of the world" seems more idiomatic to me. The article Human also offers a perspective -- a more biological approach at least to prehistoric human history.70.179.90.182 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

History of the world → Human history –

• Support please. If this video doesn't convince you, please consider that the "History of the world" title is a confusing and inaccurate rarely used idiom which is incompatible with the very idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. The title "Human history" would solve those problems. Dualus (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that "History of the world" is confusing, inaccurate or rarely used. Google search shows "History of the world" to be twice as common (20,800,000) as "Human history" (9,140,000).

There is no evidence that those more common usages are the idiomatic form. I'm likely at least 5 million are, but how can we tell what proportion of the 20 million refer to Earth and how many refer to Human history? The unambiguous form is preferred per WP:NC. Dualus (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial intelligence has nothing to do with the history of the world, which is understood to be the history of humans on planet Earth. Nihil novi (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: "History of the world" is idiomatic. In this expression, "the world" is understood as "the human world". "Human history", on the other hand, potentially resonates against "inhuman [i.e., cruel] history". Nihil novi (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove the {{movenotice}} tag until the period for this requested move is ended. Dualus (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is FRINGE and disruption, and I quote the proposer "rarely used idiom which is incompatible with the very idea of extraterrestrial intelligence." Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article tags

Be helpful to get some points to work on ... --J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I read the first part of the article (so far) and it certainly seems to have broad enough coverage to be entitled "History of the world". I do not yet get a sense that it is incomplete. In fact, I am impressed by the coverage so far. It is more than I expected. I too would like to know what points the "tagger" of this article has in mind. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would be worth checking out the inaccuracies mentioned above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tags now that you've commented. Since Reddi went to the trouble to add the edits below, he really should have explained his concerns in more detail. The inaccuracies are another issue (haven't checked to see if they are in fact inaccurate). Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

expansion or cleanup

This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Please list specific bulleted points here. --J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [ps., The #History of Ideas inaccuracies above is noted]

• I think the spread of Proto-Indo-European from Western Europe to Iran should be mentioned as it probably indicates a series of conquests nearly as extensive and significant as Alexander's. That PIE, in one form or another, became the principal language among so many, diverse cultures is also worth noting, though not well understood. In any case, it accounts for why Indo-European is the largest linguistic family in the world today. Of course the date of this diffusion (probably through military expeditions) is controversial—where to put it in the timeline would be a problem.helio 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more representation of modern life in Human history because the "History of the world" title is a confusing and inaccurate rarely used idiom. Dualus (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

worldwide view

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please list specific bulleted points here. --J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• The "History of the world" article title as written is incompatible with the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. "Human history" would be compatible. Dualus (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial intelligence has nothing to do with the history of the world, which is understood to be the history of humans on planet Earth. Nihil novi (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources for this idiom. Is there any source saying that definition is more common than the history of the Earth? Dualus (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

H.G. Wells, in his 455-page A Short History of the World (1922), by way of prolog, devoted the first 10% of the book to the evolution of the universe, of planet Earth, and of all life forms prior to "the first true men." The rest of the book recounts the history of those "true men" and their descendants—us. The title and contents of Wells' book exemplify the accepted use of the expression "history of the world." It is not to be confused with the history of planet Earth. Nihil novi (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the world?

Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and North America are completely absent from the pre-Modern history sections of the article. I think a couple of sentences about the early Polynesians, Inuit, etc, added somewhere, would be helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added some information about Sub-Saharan Africa in the Regional Empires and Middle Ages sections, but the article still needs to represent more of the world. --EmperorOfSiberia (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating the epic contribution by User:Hadseys

Hello everyone!

User:Hadseys made an epic contribution to the article, but I reverted it because it was too long. The current article is 90KB (which maybe should be brought down to about 50KB) and their contribution was 800KB.

Judging solely from a quick skim of his content, there seems to be a lot of good stuff there, which could possibly be merged into the article (once it is properly sourced, of course).

• Here is the article revision User:Hadseys made,
• here is the copy in Hadseys's userspace, and
• here is a copy in my userspace.

It would greatly be appreciated if some of the editors of this article could look over User:Hadseys's contribution and incorporate as much as possible into the article, so all the hard work does not go to waste.

Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The absence of sourcing makes me believe that it is all OR, in the sense that the WEIGHT is entirely made up, that it does not follow the preponderance of scholarly opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the contribution being original research, but I think that we should assume good faith and help identify what sources were used. Given that the article concerns history of the world, the contribution made by User:Hadseys would not be a primary source but would be based upon or influenced by other sources. If we can work with User:Hadseys to identify the influencing sources, the large effort made might not be lost and an active editor of Wikipedia might not be discouraged from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Heard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. User:Dougweller found the text provided by User:Hadseys to violate the copyright of Complete History of the World by R. J. Overy. Matt (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)