Jump to content

Talk:Human history/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 16 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. This was a close one from the beginning, but the "no" votes eeked it out the back half. Especially as more and more editors naive to the discussion provided their input. New, but experienced participants are one of the best ways to get a sense of community consensus (e.g. WP:3O, WP:DR). The "no" votes also ended up having more persuasive policy-based arguments in WP:PRECISE and WP:ACCURATE (world history includes a lot more than humans, the academic term is too ambiguous) and WP:COMMONNAME in that the most staunch academic sources may use "world history" in a very technical way, but this is not what most of our readers will think of when they think of "world history." World history, as an imprecise term, is best left as a DAB page so that our readers aren't sent to unexpected places. Human history is best left here, given that this is the history of humans on the Earth. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

– Per discussion above, human history is usually referred to evolution of humans while world history covers ancient, post-classical, and modern history in reliable sources. The field of world history is not the article most people search for when searching up on history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Support the above proposal for title changes, which will benefit both of the articles concerned, as well as the articles' readers:
"World history" is the obvious title for the article currently titled "Human history".
The title change from the current "World history" to "World history (field)" will make superfluous the explanatory note that now appears at the top of the current "World history" article:

"This article is about the academic field. For a global overview of historical events, see Human history."

The proposed change from "World history" to "World history (field)" will prevent readers interested in world history from mistakenly arriving at the article that addresses the academic field of world history.
Thank you.
Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per the above discussion and the nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There aren't any definitive, unambiguous titles here but I think the status quo after the last RM is the best compromise. As I understand it, world history is commonly used in the US education system to refer to the complement of American history, but that won't be "obvious" to readers from the rest of the world. To me world history sounds like the history of, you know, the world, which is not what this article covers. Interstellarity's premise that "human history [usually refers to the] evolution of humans" doesn't match my experience, but since we don't have any sources either way that's a moot point. Wikipedia policy also prefers natural disambiguation to parentheses, so the proposed move to world history (field) would be a backward step. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    We definitely shouldn't be kowtowing to the US education system and what appears to be a ridiculously parochial convention in this instance (the world is clearly not just America). I also disagree that 'world history' ever really refers to the earth/geology and the like. For this we have History of Earth and Timeline of natural history. The existence of the current World History page carries with it the premise that 'World History' refers to the history of mankind at a global level; it is simply not currently about the subject itself, but a definition of the study of the subject. I agree that parenthetical disambiguation is not ideal, but this is primarily the case when better options are available, and I do not think maintaining a page at an otherwise sub-optimal title is a better option. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, World History is itself a field with a lot of weird Western-centric ideas baked into it, but that's another discussion. I guess what I'm missing here is, what is "sub-optimal" about the current title? The pros and cons of the various options were discussed at greater length in the last RM. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    That previous RM certainly introduces an element of irony into this discussion, but as an initial observation, if we look at the sources for this page, there is not a single one that has 'human history' in the title, whereas there are roughly a dozen sources that present themselves as this or that of 'world history'. It's a cursory point, but a stark one. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per this ngram presented in the last RM. The page is about human history not the history of the planet Earth. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    How does this ngram prove anything? How do we know the uses of these terms are being applied to global history and not human evolution, the earth's history etc. ? Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, here's another n-gram which at a minimum shows that this page is not broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    When you look at scholarly hits for "human history", perhaps half are for evolution, genomics or anthropology, making it ambiguous at best. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Those all seem a part of human history. Wanted to say I Support "World history (field)" and that the term 'World history' should redirect here no matter the result of the RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    There's certainly some considerable overlap, but 'human history' tends me more in the direction of human evolution - but I'm coming around to the idea that 'human history' might actually be a sufficiently ambiguous term that it might be better off disambiguated, with redirects going to both 'World history' and 'human evolution'. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Why should 'human history' be limited to evolution? The page describes all of human history, its civilizations, etc. (cave man, yada yada yada, Trump), and the timeline of what humans as a species have accomplished with their command and/or misuse of nature. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, when people talk about 'humans' it tends to be in the sense of analyzing us at the species level - hence the evolutionary bent, but that is not, in general, what this article is currently about. It has an exceptionally brief set of summaries about humanity's early development and then proceeds with world history from a normal world history perspective. I would expect a 'human history' article to be quite the opposite: the start being the millions of years of hominid evolution, the migration out of Africa, interactions with Neanderthals, 'World history', by comparison, is a mere speck in the timeline of a true 'human history'. That history would be brief: "In modern times, humanity..." Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    The current tendency of this article towards world history is why I would suggest only that term appears in the current sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support — None of the above rationales on either side seem to present tangible evidence (and my disagreement with the ngram chart's relevance still stands). We should consider that not a single book source in the article is named "human history"? Then we might note than numerous sources in this article are called "World history": The entire seven volume The Cambridge World History, Central Asia in World History, Encyclopedia of World History, 21st-Century Narratives of World History, Timelines of World History, A World History. If we look at the Ancient history article we again find no semblance of "human history" in book titles but instead, World History: From the Ancient World to the Information Age, and similarly (but notably, not "Human history"!), The Penguin History of the World and Concise History of the World. If we go to the World history#Bibliography section we see not a single mention of "human history" but numerous mentions of either "World history" or "History of the World". As such, I find no current opposition rationales convincing. Aza24 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Important to bear in mind that policy states where competing names exist in secondary sources, tertiary sources may be used to establish due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
World history should, at a minimum, redirect here, and the present article moved to [[World history (field}]]. I still questions why humans would encompass the term "world", as that topic would seem to cover the natural formation and development of the Earth and all of its life forms, and not just humans. Human history seems more defining of the actual topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Well I think you can chalk that last part up to anthropocentrism - it's more impressive still that in the USA 'world history' covers just America. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Odd that 'World history' directs to what should be, as nommed World history (field) or maybe World history (academic field). America? You must mean Texas. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there's been a misunderstanding. In the US, it's common to study American history (the history of the US) and world history (the history of the rest of the world) in secondary school. I'm speculating that this might mean world history is an "obvious" title for this article (as suggested above) for American readers, but not for the rest of the English-speaking world, where it's all just called history. – Joe (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes! Wrong end of the stick. In any case, I think sources such as The Cambridge World History make plain that it is not just the US. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Although ... the authorship in that work is very predominantly American - I'm suddenly wondering if the 'Cambridge' is just branding. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that ngrams can be misleading, but in this case it's quite stark: "human history" is used 50% more than "world history". Throw in the outdated synonym "history of man", and it's nearly double. It seems to me that the obvious explanation is that "world history" is more likely to show up in the title of works, perhaps to cater to the massive US textbook market (see above), but "human history" is more common in prose, e.g. in formulations like "the first X in human history". – Joe (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It's more like 40%, and that isn't a huge margin in Ngrams: it can be due to all sorts of things, and really just leads one back to more detailed source analysis. My problem is that 'human history' is a rather nebulous term than can mean a great many things with a great many different nuances, whereas World History is an actual, defined field of study. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It also look like the hits for 'world history' may be being split with the synonymous 'global history'. See this Ngram (most clear if you hit enter again). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ironically, the only category for this is currently Category:World history, clearly making the confusion one that pervades more than just this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is clearly the best title for this article. While neither title would be incorrect, this proposed move would create unnecessary confusion with the current articles at World history and History of Earth. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME as "human history" is the most common name for this topic according to the Google Ngrams. And I don't want to be too futuristic about this, but "world history" isn't a great name for this topic when humans have already been to another world decades ago (aka the Moon) and could possibly be on another world (Mars) within another few decades. "Human history" is a much better term for encompassing all of that. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support and propose triple move:
  • Human history → History
  • History → History (field)
  • World history → World history (field)--Maxaxa (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Maxaxax: Definitely coming around to this idea given all of the confusion that this move discussion is admirably demonstrating. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an encyclopedia. Our article on the history of the world should be at world history, not some meta-article about world histories themselves or how a concept of world history came to be. Red Slash 17:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and boldly moved the article about the field to world history (field) and turned world history into a disambiguation page, since there seems to be agreement here that the field is not the unambiguous primary topic for the phrase "world history". Obviously if there's a consensus here to move this article to that title, the disambig will have to be moved out of the way. – Joe (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose leave world history where it is. "World history" frequently includes the portion of time before the existence of any humans. Such as dinosaurs, the Hadean, the Cambrian explosion, the Late Heavy Bombardment. Atlases frequently show it as world history. "world history" is a disambiguation page and should remain as such. The field is located at World history (field), while world history is a disambiguation page -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    NB: This comment reflects the changed destinations of some of these terms after @Joe Roe, as noted in the comment above, moved some of the pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the comments made above by Rreagan007. "World history" is better off left as a disambiguation page that one can use to navigate to either Human history, or History of Earth. There are also a few pages, as well, that rely on the disambiguation page such as World history (field), or World History (album). BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 21:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The expression "human history" will become acceptable once we discover alien species with their own histories. Until then, it's simply a bizzare term. The Google Ngram arguments collapse under the most basic scrutiny, and I wonder if its proponents understand what Ngram actually does. It shows the use of an expression across all printed books Google knows about. If an erotic fiction novel talks about someone being the "worst villain in human history", that counts in Ngram stats. Come on! It's very obvious that you cannot use Ngram for colloquial expressions; you're not measuring what the topic is called in reliable sources, you're just measuring how much a meaningless colloquial expression gets used. The descriptor that is universally used in English-speaking academia is "world history", save for Australians which use "global history". In most of English-speaking academia, "global history" is a subfield of world history that studies a specific approach, so using that term would be misleading. "World history" is the obvious term here. Aza24's arguments are also convincing. I'll note that I would equally support "History" and "World history", but I assume the latter would be more popular. DFlhb (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    You've never heard of natural history, earth history, prehistory, etc., then? – Joe (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    Don't these other terms rather make the point that "World history" is in fact not any of these things, and relates to the "history of civilization"? I quote from that page: "The study of world history, as distinct from national history, has existed in many world cultures." The term boils down to us living in a 'human' world, so there is no other 'world history'. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    I was responding to DFlhb's (rather bizarre) argument that the concept of non-human histories is "bizarre". – Joe (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well I do agree that 'human history' has an odd ring to it precisely because of this point. Up until our first encounter, there is no non-human history, so the emphasis on 'human' in relation to history is rather redundant - surely that's just "history", since we have no history of civilization other than that of our own. This again cycles back to the point that world history (or global history) is actually a defined field of study, versus 'human history', which is indeed a colloquialism used in trivial pop culture comparisons: [1][2][3] - a lot! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Events such as the End-Permian Extinction are world history but not human history, moving this article to World history would exclude the vast majority of world history from this article. 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:8428:E690:50A9:9B83 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
    World history (field) is defined as being just history from a global perspective and essentially synonymous with human history, just with less tautology. Neither cover the Permian extinction event and the like, which are matters of natural history and earth history, or for geological events, the geological history of earth. Though clearly thr confusions around this are legion. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • oppose - Proposal would mean a reduction in WP:PRECISE, would be less WP:ACCURATE, would be a change in scope. BlueNoise has the right solution above. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom. The Ngram arguments are very weak and inaccurate. Either world or human history will ignore a part of what they claim to represent but given human history is taken to represent human evolution I don't think it fits here. World history is an actual field and there is a general consensus that it does in fact represent the history of humanity. The arguments that world history ignores the Earth is also invalid given there are pages on the history of the Earth as well as the history of life. At the very least I suggest also turning human history into a disambiguation page and changing the article page title again, maybe to Iskandar's suggestion. Politicsman540 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE. World History (or 'history of the world' or 'History of Earth') is a term that is used either in a chronological history of geological developments or could refer to human activities. On the other hand, human history (or history of humans or human civilization) is a much more concrete title to this article's scope. I do support the already moved World history becoming a disambiguation page and replacing it was World history (field). Yeoutie (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


  • Comment: As is so often the case with a given word, the word "world" carries many meanings, depending on context.
Three of my English dictionaries each give between 13 and 25 discrete senses or examples of use of the word "world", including "the human race; mankind...".
Thus, when speaking of "world history", we are speaking of the same field that some prefer to call "human history".
However, that field is more commonly, conventionally, in fact called "world history".
It therefore seems to me we would best move the article in question from "Human history" to "World history".
Thank you.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Quite. When we say world, we mean our world, as in the human world. Our 'world' is all that is around us. All of our history is human by default, but not all is worldly. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject History has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Archaeology has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Anthropology has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisting comment: still pretty deadlocked at second relist by my estimation with reasonable policy arguments on both sides. it edges slightly towards oppose given PRECISE and the many new and inexperienced accounts on the support side, but I want to see if we can garner input from the relevant wikiprojects. If we can't get a clearer consensus in a week then I'll close as nocon. But always better to avoid it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking over the discussion, this probably should have just been closed as no consensus rather than relisting for a second time. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
If you look over the history of the page, this has been proposed and closed and proposed and closed repeatedly back and forth over the past 16 years. I think it would be great if we could avoid having another discussion in 6 months or 6 days. However, I lay no claim of ownership here and my relist should not be seen as binding in any way. You Any uninvolved user can and should feel free to close it as youthey wish. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Minor comment: I will just point out, Rreagan007 did participate above, so it would probably be better if someone not involved were to make an overriding determination (I personally think this relisting was appropriate and shouldn't be overridden). --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
ah thank you I did not see that, I will go ahead and strike that part of my comment. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I would not have attempted to close this (or any other) RM discussion that I participated in. But I do think that there is a very clear "no consensus" here. In general, I think a second relisting should not be done unless it seems like the discussion appears to be leading towards a consensus, which is not the case here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "World history" is too vague. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    "Human history" is also vague and can be taken as the study of human evolution in addition to world history. In fact human history may be a much less clear term. Have you seen or heard anyone who uses the term "human history" to refer to world history or uses the term "world history" to refer to anything other than the history of humanity's past? Even if you know anyone who does you should refer to the ngrams. The only good explanation for why they are so much more common is that human history refers to more than just world history since none/few sources in the article use the term "human history". Hell "human history" could even be used for records such as "strongest human" or something else which can be seen if you read a few resources that use the term. Politicsman540 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Exactly! The point couldn't be made better.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it can be improved on. There are other reasons for a change to world history that have already been mentioned here. Making that point is still very important and I don't think any oppose arguments have convinced me yet. Politicsman540 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


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

Why is it "exceptional" to say that Indigenous people influenced Western democracy?

A recent edit by @Antiok 1pie removed content about Indigenous influence on Western democracy, arguing that this is an "extraordinary claim." They cite a source which says this about the source I had cited:

Graeber and Wengrow devote many pages to this literature. Their survey, however, does little but repeat points that many scholars—Anthony Pagden, Tzvetan Todorov, Sankar Muthu, Michèle Duchet, David Allen Harvey and Antoine Lilti, to name just a few—have made before them. And while they are correct to say that this literature played a role in the genesis of Enlightenment thought, so did many other things

This only seems to establish that this is not an "extraordinary claim." The removed content wasn't claiming that Indigenous people were the only influence, just that they had some significant influence. This section is already fairly skewed toward white people, so it seems to me like this removal only adds to the bias. Freoh (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (edited)

I think it is ok to ask this question. But I think any answer is going to be complex and not one which we can pin to any academic consensus? One thing which is clear is that the "noble savage" concept was something which influenced 18th century Enlightenment. This concept was "connected" to the new contacts with more isolated cultures around the world but I suppose many authors would see this connection more as "inspiration". For example landing on the moon "inspired" stories about aliens, but can we say that aliens literally influenced those stories?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously the wording Inspired by Indigenous American political theory, the Age of Enlightenment also led to the spread of modern democracy in the late-18th century American and French Revolutions. implies that "Indigenous American political theory", played a disproportionately large part in influencing Enlightenment thinkers and, indeed, this is what the authors of the source claim. This is an extraordinary statement, sourced to a controversial book, which contrasts the opinions of historians such as David A. Bell, among others. Generally, The Dawn of Everything's arguments about the Age of Enlightenment (incl. its claims about Native Americans and their influence) have been criticized ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) so I'm against using this source, especially in wikivoice, for claims regarding that period and any related individual. Regarding the argument that Natives had some influence on Western democracy and on the Enlightenment would probably be undue to add, (with or without sources) considering the fact that countless other things were influential for both of them. See the Bell source (para. 10) for a few examples. Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I would just add that unless the influence is beyond a doubt and a defining/central factor, it should not be included in this article, which is a very general overview with a scope far from the topic at hand. Aza24 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The Age of Enlightenment page notes in its lead that the French Revolution is the start of these developments, and the period is associated especially strongly with Europe, where there was little to no indigenous community or voice - so indigenous influence on trends in America can in no way be generalized to the entire Age of Enlightenment. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that that page should be changed as well. In any case, a self reference is not considered a reliable source. Freoh (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
And yet, it remains deeply unclear how indigenous American political theory is particularly pertinent to the Age of Enlightenment in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I can work on making it clearer, but I expect most of the details are outside the scope of this article in particular. Freoh (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you're right that the removed content was implying more than just some influence. I would say that it was implying significant influence. I feel like disproportionately large influence is not really something that can be objectively measured, but the fact that multiple experts have pointed to the significance of Indigenous influence seems to indicate due weight to me. Freoh (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you are going to have to pin this relevance and the sources a lot more clearly. If you want to state something in WP voice you also need sourcing which proves there is a consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think I need to do some more reading before proposing something we can all agree with. In the meantime, I'll try to clean up some of the other Eurocentric content on this page for which there isn't consensus. Freoh (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that this content is kind of out-of-place in this section anyway, I think it's easier to just remove it. Freoh (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Recent edits by Cerebellum [9] and Iskandar323 [10] adds content to § Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE) which states that Most societies were also patriarchal, with men controlling more political and economic power than women. Here's what the cited source says:

Twentieth-century Russia provides a good example: whether under the czars or the Communists or the post-Soviet government, women still did the shopping and the housekeeping and most of the child care, adding an unpaid “second shift” to their jobs in the paid workforce; these tasks were necessary to keep society functioning, but left women no time for the things that were valued and rewarded, such as further education or political activities. This gender hierarchy has interlocked with other hierarchies based on qualities such as age, physical strength, wealth, family origin, and spiritual authority to create the most common form of human society: patriarchy, in which men have more power and access to resources than women, and some men have more power and access to resources than others.
— Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks

This doesn't seem to justify that most ancient societies were patriarchal, which is implied by the placement of this content. This seems like a somewhat controversial claim to state in wikivoice. Freoh (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right! I will find a source more specific to antiquity. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like my claim was too simplistic, here's what another source says:

This includes rejecting grand narratives that ascribe public political and economic agency in this period primarily (or exclusively) to men, with women confined to the household. The economic, social, religious, and political forms whose emergence and interaction characterise this period are of too great a variety to allow for simple conclusions about how these developments changed gender relations in the domestic, political, and spiritual arenas.
— Scott Wells and Ping Yao

Thank you for catching that Freoh, I have removed the sentence I added yesterday. I still think our article is lacking in coverage of women's history but I'm not sure how to fix it. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree about the gender imbalance, I just think that text was a bit oversimplified. This content might be worth mentioning in § Rise of agriculture:[1]

Seen this way, the 'origins of farming' start to look less like an economic transition and more like a media revolution, which was also a social revolution, encompassing everything from horticulture to architecture, mathematics to thermodynamics, and from religion to the remodelling of gender roles. And while we can’t know exactly who was doing what in this brave new world, it's abundantly clear that women's work and knowledge were central to its creation; that the whole process was a fairly leisurely, even playful one, not forced by any environmental catastrophe or demographic tipping point and unmarked by major violent conflict. What’s more, it was all carried out in ways that made radical inequality an extremely unlikely outcome.

Freoh (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
As above, I don't think Graeber & Wengrow are a great source for this article. We don't have space to cover all but the most mainstream of mainstream views, and their book is explicitly a reinterpretation of the mainstream narrative. Also worth noting that in that section they, like the Marler paper you linked above, are talking about gender in prehistory, which is typically doesn't include ancient history/classical antiquity. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I was pointing to § Rise of agriculture, which is in § Prehistory (c. 3.3 million years ago – c. 3000 BCE), not § Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE). I thought that the earlier controversy was over their presentation of the Enlightenment. Is the role of women in the prehistoric rise of agriculture also controversial? Freoh (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Not so much controversial as novel. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, and others were making similar arguments in 2007. Freoh (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Graeber & Wengrow 2021.

Social

Collect pictures of ancient people and prepar on album 223.187.62.7 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to be more specific.      — Freoh 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Lacking citations

What's with the lack of citations in the article's introduction? Is there an intentional reason for having so many claims go unsourced? If the answer is that the sources for these claims come when the claims are repeated later in the article, my question then becomes, why not move the citations to the first instances of claims like is typically done? 128.54.68.243 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia-wide style so it is not really a topic for this talk page, but yes, in WP articles the introduction works a bit like an abstract and is supposed to summarize the body, which is where the sourcing should be. You will often see footnotes in articles where the opening remarks are likely to cause a lot of controversy but this is not considered ideal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Theory of Evolution

I noticed the article treats the concept of human evolution as fact instead of theory. For example, the very first statement of the Prehistory section is "Humans evolved in Africa from other primates." Full stop. No if's and's or buts. With how controversial the concept of human evolution has been, I recommend changing the wording to something along the lines of "In theory, humans evolved in Africa from other primates". It is neither wrong nor dogmatic and doesn't step on as many toes. My 2 cents. --Artimaeus Creed (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The view that humans evolved in Africa is widely accepted by the scientific consensus, so there is no need to treat the claim as controversial. Helioz9 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It’s also important to note that theory, in the realm of science, is evidence-based fact, as opposed to in the literary sense, which is how you’re using the word here. 96.86.71.225 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

change The Mongols reached Europe in 1236 and conquered Russia to The Mongols reached Europe in 1236 and conquered Kievan Rus' Pankittt (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a historical gross mistake not to indicate the country that existed at that moment in time, thereby misleading
We never replace:
Sumer with references to Iraq
Rome with references to Italy
Incas with references to Peru
Aztec/Mayan to Mexico
this list can still be very long, but at that time the country was Kyivan Rus, not Russia, with a link to its page Pankittt (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Structure ideas

I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline

Detailed outline collapsed

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on Human History 

== Introduction ==
* Definition and scope of human history
* Importance and study of history
* Overview of human evolution and early human societies

== Prehistory ==
* Stone Age
  - Paleolithic
  - Mesolithic
  - Neolithic
* Development of agriculture and domestication of animals
* Formation of the first human settlements

== Ancient History ==
* Early civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley, and China
* Development of writing systems
* Ancient Greece and Rome
* Major empires and kingdoms (Persian Empire, Maurya and Gupta Empires, etc.)
* Scientific, cultural, and philosophical advancements

== Middle Ages ==
* Fall of the Roman Empire
* Byzantine Empire
* Rise of Islam and the Caliphate
* Feudalism in Europe
* The Crusades
* Mongol Empire
* Cultural and scientific developments in the Islamic world
* Medieval Africa, Americas, and Asia

== Early Modern Period ==
* European Renaissance
* Age of Discovery and colonialism
* Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation
* Scientific Revolution
* Major wars and conflicts (e.g., Thirty Years' War)

== Modern History ==
* Enlightenment and political revolutions (American, French)
* Industrial Revolution
* Imperialism and global empires
* World War I and II
* Decolonization and Cold War
* Technological and scientific advancements
* Cultural and social movements

== Contemporary History ==
* Post-Cold War era
* Globalization and the Information Age
* Recent technological innovations
* Environmental issues and climate change
* Current global political and social challenges

== Historical Methodology ==
* Sources of historical knowledge
* Archaeology and anthropology in history
* Historiography and different schools of historical thought

== Impact of History on Society ==
* Understanding cultural heritage and identity
* Learning from historical events and patterns
* Influence on politics, education, and culture

They're similar, because ChatGPT uses Wikipedia amongst other sources. But it provides ideas for additions, changes e.g. rebalancing sections, Tom B (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a helpful image?

Re [11] – why is an impossible to read image of the entire human history helpful in the section called "Post-classical history (c. 500 CE – c. 1500 CE)"? Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That image should be removed in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
agree, looks useless and almost unreadable. Artem.G (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It's quite interesting at full expansion. Maybe it should be added purely as a link to that. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I was the one that added the image. I agree that it should be removed in favor of "no pictures, only navbox" approach. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hominins

The article says: "The term hominin denotes human ancestors that lived after the split with chimpanzees and bonobos." But if you hover over the linked article, it shows a picture of a man and a chimp, and in the article, the picture is captioned: "Two hominins: A human holding a chimpanzee". Seems contradictory. 78.54.145.98 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I adjusted our formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Human history/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


I'll take this—such an important article should be reviewed ASAP. I'll leave comments over the next week or two, if that's ok. This review will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello AirshipJungleman29, I appreciate you reviewing this core article. I've gotten used to waiting several months before nominations are picked up so I'm happy that this is not the case this time. Given the size of the article, I don't think we have to stick to the 7-day length recommendation. I'll ping @Cerebellum: so they are aware of the review. Good luck for WikiCup round 3. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. @Phlsph7 and Cerebellum: can I ask whether you would prefer a normal GA review, or a more detailed one with FAC in mind? I am happy to provide either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
We haven't really talked about FA yet. I'm not sure if Cerebellum agrees, but from my side, the prime focus for now is on GA. Nonetheless, if you spot possible improvements that are not strictly speaking required for GA, I would be interested to hear about them. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Understood. Onwards! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for your suggestions so far. Just checking to see if you have more comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Phlsph7, real life unexpectedly interposed itself. Will be back shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
About to leave some comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, real life has the tendency of interposing itself at times. Are you satisfied with the responses to your comments so far? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Gentle reminder that the review has been open for a month. (That's nothing compared to Talk:Corleck Head/GA1, which has been open since November!) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For reference

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    I have done spotchecks of various citations; all came through with flying colours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Lead section

  • For an article just under 10,000 words, the lead is a bit short at 272 words—it is effectively two long paragraphs (MOS:LEADLENGTH).
    • As a result, the weighting is completely out of track (MOS:LEADREL). It takes six sentences to summarise the "Prehistory" section, but the "Ancient history", "Post-classical history", and "Early modern period" sections, all of which are longer, are described in three total.
    • The "Academic research" section is not touched on at all.
  • The opening paragraph does not adequately define the topic (MOS:OPEN, MOS:FIRST etc.).
  • I'll go over the prose when the above MOS issues have been fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    I expanded the lead to 340 words. It now roughly has the following structure:
    1. paragraph: define the topic and very short summary of section "Academic research"
    2. paragraph: prehistory
    3. paragraph: ancient and post-classical
    4. paragraph: early and late modern
    It has still a little more on prehistory than the others but I hope this is not too serious. We might be able to shorten the Ice Age part if it is still an issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think the largest section ("Post-classical history") having just one lead sentence is still not great weighting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I added 2 more sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph/sentence is now superb. Well done.
  • "and later Greek philosophy, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism" these are in alphabetical order aside from Greek philosophy, which implies that it is more important than any of the others. Is that intended?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, I think a sentence I quite liked summarising the "Regional empires" subsection has been cut; I think its reintroduction would be beneficial, otherwise there is no discussion of political history between "emergence of early civilisations" and "Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and various Chinese dynasties"
    I included the idea in a different form. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "from about 500 to 1500 CE, witnessed the rise of Christianity and Islam " slight nitpick: Christianity had already "risen" long before 500; I think a different word is needed.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "Influential technological innovations were the invention of gunpowder and the printing press." this is slightly stilted and unclear
    I reformulated it, but I'm not sure that it is much of an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The first explicit discussion of war in the lead is "the devastating impact of two world wars". I don't really know if that's ideal—thoughts?
    The sentence "These developments were accompanied by the rise and decline of major empires, such as the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and various Chinese dynasties." could be expanded with "..., frequently involving violent conflicts." Another option would be to mention that at the end of the prehistory paragraph that organized warfare only really became possible because of "The growing complexity of human societies". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Similarly, thoughts on whether the negative impacts of colonialism warrant a small mention?
    We could expand the sentence "During the early modern period, spanning from 1500 to 1800 CE, European powers explored and colonized regions worldwide, intensifying cultural and economic exchange." with "while leading to significant exploitation of indigenous populations."
  • "Weapon destructiveness" seems rather out of place in that ending list, however.
    I replaced it with "military capabilities". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Overall, a much more suitable lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

General comments

  • I've never heard the term "Greater Middle East" before this article;its definition normally includes the whole of North Africa, but this article doesn't seem to do that. You have also used it as the place to discuss Central Asia, but it seems that definition is not universally agreed on ([12], [13], [14]). Some rethinking of sections may be needed.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What about changing the section title to "West and Central Asia"? And moving North Africa to the Africa section. It's a clunky title but the current title certainly violates the principle of least astonishment by saying that Central Asia is in the Middle East. If we break off Central Asia into its own section, we will run into trouble because there is only one sentence on Central Asia in the early modern section. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like an improvement. I would agree with you both that Central Asia does not come to mind at all from "Greater Middle East". Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing them. I should say, in general, the article seems highly cautionate of the arts. The words theater (or theatre) and music don't even appear. The European Renaissance doesn't mention art/music/poetry etc. except to say that culture was the "inquisitiveness which ultimately led to humanism". Of course, I don't expect the arts to be added to every section, but the current situation is beyond barren. – Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Phlsph7: I'll work on this today, feel free to jump in as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Added music, theatre, and Renaissance art. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
For the Early humans section, I think it'd be worth noting that the human voice was probably used as an instrument long before the findings of physical instruments. That always seems an unspoken misconception to me. Aza24 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Is printmaking one of the Four Great Inventions? The wikipedia page has papermaking instead. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I seem to have misspoke, paper is the one missing (and indeed printing/printmaking is already in the line I quoted!). I see paper is already included in a separate section though, so mention of the Four Great Inventions might be hard to muster (and is probably unimportant)
However, there's another problem here then. Our compass article seems to claim that the item was invented in the BCEs; its inclusion in the "c. 500 – 1500 CE" section seems way off. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Good catch! Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that modern historians hate the term renaissance and barely acknowledge that there was an Italian renaissance. As our article says, "The term has always been a subject of debate and criticism, particularly on how widespread such renewal movements were and on the validity of comparing them with the Italian Renaissance." --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Aza's comments above hit on something I had thought to comment on—many subsections focus primarily, or even solely, on political/military history. It is obviously a difficult balance to include other topics, and I don't know whether it falls under the GA criteria's "broadness" or the FA criteria's "comprehensivity". Still, something to think about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
For art we are roughly in line with the sources - of 198 chapters in the Cambridge World History, only three by my count are about art. But in general I think it is a valid criticism, some sections are quite weak on cultural/economic history, for example the Southeast Asia section in post-classical history. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, art should not be neglected but its importance should also not be overstated since it does usually not get that much attention from world historians. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I agree that overstatement is a risk. Still there are significant figures/movements which are very closely associated with different periods of time; those seem like the best (perhaps the only) places to include such information. Some ideas come to mind (all suggestions):
To Airship's point, I think in general, if a subsection only includes political/military history, we should aim to have at least one sentence on something else. Not even necessarily the arts, but something cultural/economic/scientific. Obviously, if historians really aren't talking about anything but politics (perhaps for lack of information), we don't want to invent coverage, but there is certainly a balance at reach here. Aza24 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It may be best to address this in the discussion of the individual subsections. The main point is probably that each subsection covers what, according to world-historians, are the most important developments in that context. It's a plus if the domains to which these develoments belong are diverse but this is probably a secondary concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Good points; I've been providing feedback with an eye on addressing similar gaps in social concepts (moral and phiosophical concepts, like human rights, inequalities, etc.). The problem is, of course, the need to keep the size menagable, and give due weight to stuff. For better or wore, traditional view of human history focuses heavily on politics (of which military history is a part of). Which is why this article only barely mentions stuff related to culture. Which reminds me - we should probably say something in contemporary history about recent decline in religiosity; I think this is missing. A final thought on how to find out what is missing that just occured to me: check which concepts from Wikipedia:Vital_articles#History (VA3?) are not mentioned here (maybe run a wikidata query for this is possible). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned secularization in relation to the Enlightenment in Europe. The decline in religiosity in contemporary history is probably true for most of the West but not for various other parts of the world. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Is it perhaps worth mentioning that decline in the West, alongside the increase in Muslims? It does seem a little odd to me that the Late modern period doesn't say anything about any religion, but I don't know how much RS are talking about it in that period. Aza24 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The Europe section of Early modern period (c. 1500 – 1800 CE) is an interesting case study of the arts vs politics comments above. The first half neatly and succinctly covers the political/military history. Yet the second half seems to leave out the entire 16th and 17th centuries. This ends up excluding seemingly significant moments like the first viennese school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) and the Age of Enlightenment, for example; one might expect to see Newton or Kant (or the larger ideas they represent) included here. Again though, just suggestions. – Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Aza24: Thank you for the suggestions. Could you help us identify what we can cut to add the topics you mentioned? We are already well over 10,000 words. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Ancient history's Regional empires section seems to ramble a bit; perhaps it could be more succinct.
I wouldn't worry too much about the 10k. Of course, it's an important benchmark to keep in mind, but this is the kind of article where any reviewer/reader would understand if it was 12–13k. The Middle Ages FA is 14k; obviously it'd be ideal to not get to that high, but there is definitely some wiggle room. Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I found a way to mention Kant. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, all of my comments are suggestions, but I'm glad there has been more balancing out. Aza24 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
"Massive Wikipedia:Systemic bias issues" from User:Bogazicili Discussion moved to [15]

Ottoman genocides and Holocaust is mentioned in the article but the following seems to be missing:

And that is just from a very quick glance at the article. Here's a specific example of the biased coverage:

  • What the article says:

    Several European powers colonized the Americas, largely displacing the native populations and conquering the advanced civilizations of the Aztecs and Inca.[447] Diseases introduced by Europeans devastated American societies, killing 60–90 million people by 1600 and reducing the population by 90–95%.[448]

  • What sources say:
    • The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies p. 304

      The conquest of Latin America resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of individuals, primarily as a result of disease and forced relocation into more concentrated settlements, as well as through exterminatory attacks on those who resisted Iberian domination. Severe exploitation aggravated the process through overwork, nutritional deficits, and reduced resistance to illnesses generally. Paralleling this process were concerted efforts to destroy the religious and cultural fabric of native societies through the systematic destruction of sacred objects, the death of indigenous religious leaders, and the prohibition of native rites

    • The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 p. 6:

      European colonisation has stretched around the world for more than five centuries, disrupting or destroying millions of Indigenous people’s lives. Yet only in the last few decades have some colonial histories, especially those of settler colonies, begun to be understood as genocidal. This volume reflects that historiographical shift. Sixteen of the following chapters identify and document genocides committed by colonists and their leaders in Ireland, North America, Australia and Africa. However, this volume also includes two cases of mass violence perpetrated by members of Indigenous groups, in North America (Ned Blackhawk’s Chapter 10 on the Iroquois destruction of Wendake) and Africa (Michael Mahoney’s Chapter 14 on the Zulu Kingdom’s genocide of neighbouring groups). In addition, this volume also assesses cases that did not take place in a settler colonial context, such as Dean Pavlakis’ Chapter 24 on the Congo, as well as four cases on the Eurasian continent, in Korea, Central Asia, Russia and France.

Bogazicili (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili, why are these DUE in an article of this scope, why is the quote you identify "biased coverage", and why is your Cambridge History of Genocide quote relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Can you explain me why these sources are due and above (such as Cambridge History of Genocide) are not: "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else: A History of the Armenian Genocide." "Comprendre le Génocide des Arméniens—1915 à nos Jours [Understanding the Armenian Genocide: 1915 to the Present Day] (in French)"? Bogazicili (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
As for the quotes specifically, the article omits genocides committed in Americas and just mentions deaths due to disease. Bogazicili (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Bogazicili, sources cannot be DUE, only content. I cannot see where either quote you have provided describes the colonization of the Americas as genocide, so I don't see any problem. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, content comes from sources. We also use sources to decide what is DUE. For example, something from a high level summary such as page 6 in Cambridge History of Genocide can be more DUE than something from a more specialized source.
Second part of your response is weird. There are MULTIPLE genocides in Americas, and they each have their own chapters. I can't quote the entire book. But I see you seem prone to disregard my comment, so I'll probably move this to talk page and start an RFC Bogazicili (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I wish you the best with that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, discussion has been moved to the talk page: Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities Bogazicili (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Prehistory

I don't think taxonomists agree on whether or not chimpanzees are hominins. See Dunbar 2016: Conventionally, taxonomists now refer to the great ape family (including humans) as hominids, while all members of the lineage leading to modern humans that arose after the split with the [Homo-Pan] LCA are referred to as hominins. The older literature used the terms hominoids and hominids respectively. Clear as mud. I tried to fix the issue by removing "and includes chimpanzees and bonobos." --Cerebellum (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the best explanation I could find, although it's not a scholarly source: Hominid and hominin – what’s the difference?. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "an increase in brain size" might be nice to have the specific increase in text
Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The first occurrence of "Homo sapiens" should probably be linked.
Homo sapiens redirects to human, which is already linked in the lead. Would you like me to link the first occurrence after the lead? --Cerebellum (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "were already using" is the "already" needed?
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • If we are saying the Southern Dispersal is the dominant view, might include a note on the minority view (what is it?)
Added Other scholars argue in favor of a northern dispersal of humans through Central Asia into China, or a multiple dispersal model with several different routes of migration. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I removed the sentence because the source does not support it. The source is talking about flint and jadeitite, it mentions copper but not as being traded. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ancient history

  • In Human_history#Regional_empires, Hittites are missing. You can also mention Hattians. Bogazicili (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • That would seem quite the wrong place for the Hittites, who existed several centuries before the period described in that section. If they are DUE, the following sentences in the "Cradles of civilization" subsection seem the right place for insertion: "Over the following millennia, civilizations developed across the world. By 1600 BCE, Mycenaean Greece began to develop. It flourished until the Late Bronze Age collapse that affected many Mediterranean civilizations between 1300 and 1000 BCE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think they are DUE. The relevant period is covered in the Cambridge World History Volume 3. From what I can tell, the Hittites get exactly one sentence, on p. 360. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At the risk of death by committee - since this has downstream effects on articles like ancient history, timelines of world history, and list of time periods, should we discuss at WikiProject History before changing? Interestingly, timeline of ancient history starts at 3200. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
If we wanted to implement this change across several articles, this would probably be the way to go. One difficulty in this regard might be that the periods may be defined differently in different context, for example, in different regions. If the point is just to get this article in tune with the relevant sources in our context, I don't think that this is required. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok cool. I made the change. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Why not mention the Norte Chico in the first paragraph? I recall they also arose along a river.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think "a number of shared characteristics, including ... distinct cultures and religions" quite makes sense
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The chronology of the section is a bit back and forth. For example, you have sentences like "Over the following millennia, civilizations developed across the world" coming quite a while after discussions of chariots, which were invented during that millennia. "This era also saw new land technologies" it's not entirely clear what "this era" refers to. The fifth paragraph discusses Mesopotamian history first, then goes backwards to discuss Egypt, then forward for the Indus Valley and Crete.
    I clarified the sentence starting with "This era also saw new land technologies" and fixed the chronology of the fifth paragraph. This section itself divides the information by topic, so a chronological back-and-forth is not entirely avoidable. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "as hegemony shifted from one city to another" I don't think it's right to think of hegemony "actively" shifting, instead of passively being acquired by a succession of city-states.
    I reworded it to "shifts in hegemony", which gives less of an active impression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "In India, this era was the Vedic period (1750–600 BCE), which..."not sure we need the "this era was"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ", a place of pilgrimage and consumption of psychoactive substances" is unneeded—we don't discuss the purpose of any other specific site in this much detail.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The first Olympic Games were held in 776 BCE, ushering in a period known as "classical antiquity"." Is "ushering in" the right word? "Marking", for example, seems better to me.
    Changed to "marking". --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Buddhism reached China during the Han dynasty" the Han haven't been discussed yet, and considering they were founded in 202 I'm not sure they should be in the "Axial Age" ection.
    You're quite correct that we used the Axial Age section as kind of a catch-all intellectual/religious history section, which breaks up the chronological flow of the article. There's always a tension between a topical and strictly chronological organization. My opinion is that moving this info to the Han paragraph breaks up the flow of ideas - I prefer to keep it here but I'm curious what Phlsph7 thinks. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    I found a way to not mention the Han dynasty at this point.
    Concerning the more general point of this and the following comments about the section "Axial Age": World historians often characterize the Axial Age as a major turning point so I think it's justified to have a subsection dedicated to it. The second paragraph of this subsection discusses how Axial Age ideas shaped subsequent intellectual and religious history, meaning that it also covers events that took place after the Axial Age proper. The section could be renamed to "Axial Age and related developments" or something similar to be more inclusive. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Same with "Both Christianity and Islam developed from the beliefs of Judaism."—I don't think the "Axial Age" section is the right place to discuss religions founded in the 1st and seventh centuries AD. Also, this is the most we get on the births of the largest religions in world history? Neither Jesus or Muhammad are mentioned? We sure about this?
    We don't mention Buddha or Confucius by name either, I'm not sure naming the founders is super important. But we have quite a bit on Christianity and Islam in the post-classical section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Honestly I'm not sure about the "Axial Age" as a subsection. Not only is it restricted to Eurasia, but it overlaps too little with the preceding section and too much with the following, so e.g. Alexander the Great and the Hellenisation of Asia are discussed twice, and as mentioned Christianity is a little overlooked—if you didn't know, this article wouldn't tell you when it was founded, or by who.
    In defense of the section, moving this info to the regional empires section would make an already long section longer. The Axial Age has a chapter in the Cambridge World History, if that matters. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "considered a pivotal moment in world history" by everyone? probably needs a direct inline citation.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the foundations of Western civilization, including the first theatrical performances" I would prefer to highlight the philosophy, which was discussed earlier in the problematic "Axial Age" subsection, but there's nothing to tell an uninformed reader that Plato and Aristotle even lived in Athens
    As long as we have the "Axial Age" subsection, we probably don't need to mention Plato and Aristotle here again. We could revisit this point once the discussion above is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Several empires began in modern-day Greece." I count two described: the Athenian and Alexander's. Several? No.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "There were a number of regional empires during this period." a fairly unnecessary sentence.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Are "Civilization" and "Empire" really the main articles for the "Regional empires" section?
    I removed them. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Why split Greece and Rome with an Indian diversion?
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The Han dynasty was comparable in power and influence to the Roman Empire that lay at the other end of the Silk Road." why compare the Han to Rome? Why not the other way around? Why is this sentence necessary at all?
    The sources frequently compare the two, see Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires and chapter 6 of Bulliet et al, "An Age of Empires: Rome and Han China." --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The Han invented the compass, one of the Four Great Inventions of ancient China" Why not mention paper, developed under the Han. Also, ancient China? Printing was invented under the Tang, and gunpowder was invented in the 9th century.
    Paper is mentioned at the end of the section in the technology paragraph, would you like me to move it to the Han paragraph? Removed "ancient". --Cerebellum (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The ancient empires faced common problems associated with maintaining huge armies and supporting a central bureaucracy" all of them, or just Rome and the Han? The "Regional empires" section is really long and unwieldy. I would suggest splitting it into two, with one part dealing with Greece, Rome, Persia, Central Asia, and China, and the other part dealing with the rest.
Would you mind looking at this version, specifically the section "Declines, falls, and resurgence"? We used to have two sections but I combined them because a previous reviewer objected that the "Declines, falls, and resurgence" section was only about Europe and Asia. Do you think we should split them again? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that might be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "continued until its capital, Constantinople, was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453" we really don't need to go a millennium into the future at this point.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Why is the Tang dynasty discussed here and not in the following section?
    It is discussed in the following section, so I removed the redundant information from this section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Will continue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-classical history

  • For the Islamic Golden Age part, I have concerns about the current text: ushering in the Islamic Golden Age, an era of learning, science, and invention during which philosophy, art, and literature flourished.[233][m] The knowledge and skills of ancient Greece and Persia were preserved in the post-classical era by Muslims,[235] who also added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China[236] and decimal positional numbering from India.[237] To me, this sounds like there were no original inventions, but they just mixed ancient Greece and Persia with other outside inventions. Can original discoveries mentioned such as those in Islamic_Golden_Age#Mathematics, Islamic_Golden_Age#Natural_sciences, or Islamic_Golden_Age#Engineering? Outside influences can also be mentioned, but I don't think the current space is justified, given Greece, Persia, or paper from China etc are also mentioned elsewhere. Bogazicili (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I agree; it is important to remember that the Islamic Golden Age was not just preservation and compilation of ancient and oriental writings (in teleological preparation for the European Renaissance) but a period of superb scientific and cultural advancement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      Done. Many different examples could be picked here. Feel free to replace mine with others if you think they are more important. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      Great examples. Now that I'm looking into that section though, maybe it'd be better to move this: and the decimal positional numbering system from India. to Post-classical history (c. 500 – 1500 CE) - South Asia? There is nothing about science in that South Asia subsection. Above can be reworded as contribution of India that was adopted by Arabs and passed onto Europe. Cambridge World History Vol 4 pp 148–149: India made a fundamental contribution to modern science in mathematics. Indian numerals could be.... Bogazicili (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • You could merge the first and second paragraphs of the section.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The new religion greatly affected the history of the Old World, especially the Middle East this strikes me as a fairly unnecessary sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Are the glosses for Byzantine and Sasanian needed?
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Why are the crusades covered before the Seljuks?
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I think a link to Crusades would be preferable to Crusading movement, which is more about culture and ways of thought than the actual wars themselves.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The discussion of early Islam in the "West and Central Asia" section is confused. We start with "From their center in the Arabian Peninsula, Muslims began their expansion" which is rather disorganised (their "center"?) but also doesn't clarify what is expanding—terms such as Rashidun Caliphate and Umayyad Caliphate are left to be dropped in later without explanation: "Hence, the Rashidun Caliphate was able to freely expand into the region during the early Muslim conquests." for all the uninformed reader knows, the Rashidun could have been Confucian. I think the discussion of the Islamic Golden Age (unlinked) should be trimmed back to two sentences, and a sentence should explain the Muhammad-->Rashidun-->Umayyad-->Abbasid political evolution.
    Done for the most part. I hesitate to cut the info on the Islamic Golden Age since it was just added at the request of another reviewer, Aza24. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well before there was just "ushering in an era of learning, science, and invention known as the Islamic Golden Age". I think the expansion was beneficial, but to Airship's point, the specific examples of Al-Khwarizmi and Avicenna might be too much detail Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how to strike a balance here. The request above was "I have concerns about the current text ... Can original discoveries [be] mentioned ...?". The examples of Al-Khwarizmi and Avicenna were added in response, if I remember correctly. Maybe mentioning them in a footnote would solve the problem, what do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In general I feel that the "West and Central Asia" section's geographical split is excessive, and has caused too much duplication.
We could make a separate section for Central Asia, but that would be awkward once we get to the early modern period because there we only have one sentence on Central Asia (link). --Cerebellum (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The last two sentences of the crusading paragraph discuss the same events as the Caucasus paragraph (the Seljuks and the Mongols). This is a little repetitive.
I took out the Caucasus paragraph, hope that is ok. General world histories don't usually discuss the Caucasus in detail in this period. They focus more on Armenian merchants in the early modern era. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The Central Asia paragraph is also disorganised: the Hephthalites, the earliest state chronologically, is discussed in the middle of the paragraph; the arrival of Islam is unnecessarily involved, and could easily be reduced to one sentence; and the Mongols are not discussed at all.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • By comparison ,the "Europe" section is excellent—structured near-purely chronologically, it flows much better. I don't have any criticisms.
  • "the Aksumite emperors" does this refer to the Kingdom of Aksum? It's not entirely clear.
    Yes. I reformulated it to make the point clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the coastal forests" Do we have a link? Otherwise, this seems unnecessary.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The South Asia and Northeast Asia sections are largely good. On the Mongol paragraph: "various tribes" is imprecise, and the four successors states could be named (perhaps with locations).
    I added the successor states and changed the expression to "various Mongol and Turkic tribes". This is still a little vague but I'm not sure how to better summarize it. Given your promising FA nomination, you should be better qualified to assess this. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In the Southeast Asia section, mentioning the region's previous religions before the arrival of Islam would be nice.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oceania and Americas sections are good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Early modern history

  • I would suggest devoting a sentence to "the wider propagation of gunpowder in warfare"—as far as I can see, there is no discussion of specific weaponry before nuclear weapons in "Contemporary history"—not even a single mention of guns. Seems an oversight.
    I mentioned the invention of guns in the post-classical section. I expanded the phrase on warfare in the early modern section. I didn't mention any specific weaponry there since I didn't spot any specific innovation that really stand out in the discussion at Ackermann et al. 2008c, pp. xxxv–xxxvi. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The early modern period is in modern historical research the development following the European Middle Ages." this is not clear. it seems to be saying "the period is ... the development". If that is what is intended, it doesn't make sense to me.
    I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • shouldn't there be a "the" before "spread of printing"?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the rise of centralized bureaucratic states" the associated citation doesn't have a page number, and I am additionally skeptical of the truth of this statement—you had highly-bureaucratic and centralized states in China and the Near East long before the early modern period.
    I added the page number and adjusted the text to not imply that there were no centralized states before. I'm not sure how important this fact is for early modern history in general so we could also consider removing it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There are two mentions of the fall of Constantinople, but the general reader will need to be reminded this was the final end of the Byzantine Empire.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The sentence about serfdom in Europe is oddly placed, coming between two sentences on international trading.
    I moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Eurasia and Africa" we could say simply "the Old World".
    Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The sentences on Napoleon are a bit odd—the French Revolution isn't discussed before it is ended, and the mention of "First Consul" is obviously not what most know Napoleon as. Would suggest discussing Napoleon precipitating the wars in one sentence, and mentioning the French Revolution in the next, intellectual-centric paragraph (that's where it's importance lies).
    I took a slightly different approach and kept everything in the first paragraph to avoid repetition. Please let me know if this also works. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In general, unlike the previous section, I think the Europe subsection could use significant improvement in structuring. Perhaps discuss the intellectual, social, and theological developments first, and then move on to the wars and political developments?
    Done, I changed the paragraph order. There is a lot happening here so presenting this in a concise and well-structured manner is not easy. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No link for Protestantism?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Many African civilizations declined in the early modern period while others advanced." I think this is generally a given for any period and place in history, so I would cut this sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the African section is good.
  • "the Mughal Empire began" "began" is a bit odd, would suggest "was established" or similar
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Too much repetition of "Mughal Empire"
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Third sentence: to rearrange, "Shivaji founded the Maratha Empire against the Mughal Empire"? "Against" is definitely the wrong word.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, there was no "foundation" of Sikhism AFAIK. Suggest simply "Sikhism developed at the end of the 15th century from the spiritual teachings of ten gurus. or similar
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Northeast Asia", "Southeast Asia", and "Oceania" are good prose-wise, although slightly too-MOS:OVERSECTIONy for my taste.
    I agree, but it probably makes sense nonetheless to keep them this way to have a parallel with the post-classical section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I can see why Wheeler and Black might have been tagged, but what is the justification for tagging Bulliet et al. as better source needed?
    I adjusted the sources and removed the tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, the "Americas" section looks good prose-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern period

  • "The long nineteenth century started at the end of the 18th century" this is a bit confusing, since the normal nineteenth century also started at the end of the 18th century. Bringing the note into the prose may be helpful.
    I kept the footnote but moved the part about 1789 into the prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "This nationalism became important to peoples across the world in the 20th century." 20th? Are we sure? I recall most movements began in the 19th.
    Correct, I adjusted the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "The first wave of democratization took place between 1828 and 1926: Democratic institutions take root in 33 countries around the world." needs a copyedit for something.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "In a remarkable instance of moral progress" are we sure about saying "remarkable" in wikivoice?
    Reformulated to a more neutral tone. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • We don't mention the invention of flight in the prose, but we do mention the invention of jet aircraft. I'm not sure that's the right way around.
    Good point. I found a way to mention airplanes, together with balloon flight. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The death toll of World War I should be mentioned.
    Done. I used the opportunity to expand the description a little, I hope I didn't go overboard. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The article says "In the war's aftermath, powerful ideologies rose to prominence." and then goes on to consider women's suffrage, with two dates—one long before WWI, and one long after.
    For this and the next 3 points, see Talk:Human_history#Changes_to_the_section_"Modern_period". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Perhaps move the sentence on Stalin to the end of the first paragraph of the subsection?
  • "as the League of Nations had been formed following World War I." if the League wasn't important enough to mention in that section, it isn't now.
  • The two paragraphs on the Cold War could be combined and condensed.
  • While we're at it, nuclear weapons should certainly be mentioned in the World wars subsection.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't quite think that "solar-power and wind-power technologies" have quite the same resonance as the other items in that list.
    I generalized the point. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The last time the Middle East was mentioned in the article is ... quite far back. You could replace the sentence on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (quite recentist) with something about the many wars that have taken place there over the past four decades. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    I added the discussion of conflicts in the Middle East to the penultimate paragraph instead, where it seems to fit better. I'm not sure about the Russian invasion. It's quite recent but it was requested in another talk page review, see Talk:Human_history#Section_break. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think the logic is viable. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on since 2014, while the Yugoslav Wars ended in 2001. A 13-year gap can't be considered "a long era of relative peace in Europe". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Also, Second Gulf War is a disambiguation page. Did you mean to target Iraq War? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    The source talks about "relative peace" since World War II but a lot hangs on how one interprets that phrase. I removed the sentence per WP:RECENTISM since the global importance of this event is not yet clear but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Academic research

  • "The field of inquiry studying human history is called world history, but the two terms are also sometimes used as synonyms." This is definitely an (understandable) misunderstanding. World history is not the field of human history, but an approach, one which focuses on interactions between different systems and cultures. It's probably outside the scope of this article, but it, like "area studies", "comparative history", "global history" and the like, is even increasingly disdained. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    From Christian 2015a, pp. 1–3: World history must limit its ambitions precisely because its scope is so vast, so an exhaustive history of humanity, like a map the same size as the landscape it charts, would be of little use because it would have avoided the hard work of distillation. This is why world historians have to be good at selecting. The chapters in Volume i are indeed authoritative; they cover a great deal of territory (literally and metaphorically); but they are not exhaustive. Like all the best scholarship in world history, they try to convey both the detailed texture of human history and its major themes and trajectories. ... As Marnie Hughes-Warrington points out in her brief history of world history in Chapter 2, we find many different labels for the same core project. They include ‘universal history’, ‘global history’, ‘transnational history’, ‘macrohistory’, ‘comparative history’, ‘big history’, and more. She also points out that, whatever we call it, the world history project is ancient. All attempts to make sense of the past depend on imagining a coherent and meaningful ‘world’ of some kind, though they vary in the extent to which ‘the purpose of world construction is explicit’. I added qualifier "The main field of inquiry" to not imply that there are no other approaches. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    You will find similar and rather contradictory statements from adherents of many approaches. These are historians trying to tell others that their way of interpreting the world is right. No one really knows what "global", "world", "transnational", etc. history means. See pp. 435 onwards of this essay from Patricia Clavin: it explicitly differentiates "international", "world", "global", and "transnational" history, in complete contrast to Hughes-Warrington above saying that they are "many different labels for the same core project". Clavin says "Global historians are primarily interested to weave the history of humans and the planet on which they live into a single story" and that from the global history perspective, world history has a "narrow geographic and chronological focus"! Meanwhile, you have Sebastian Conrad arguing that global and world history are identical (What is Global History, 2016, chapter 3 especially) but differentiated from comparative and transnational history approaches. These are all highly respected historians, and their views are completely contradictory. On this matter, historians love to argue: I remember one (I believe Sven Beckert noted something along the lines of "more pages have been dedicated to whether transnational history is best than to actual research using the approach". I would certainly recommend against stating in wikivoice that "human history=world history" or similar—especially since many non-Western historians have come to view world/global history as the successor of colonialist analyses (see Conrad's acknowledgement on p.218). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    From the sources that I'm aware of, there is not a generally accepted distinction between "world history" and "global history". For example, from Stearns 2010 pp. 14–15: World history is the more common current label. Global history often means the same thing. For some, however, there is an implication in global history of more intense focus on contacts and interconnections, though as we have seen these emphases must be embraced in world history. For a similar but more lengthy discussion, see [20]. The expression "world history" is often found in the titles in our bibliography section and Ngrams indicates that the expression "world history" is more common than the others though we probably can't read much more out of it. Do you think that the problem could be solved by adding a footnote along the following lines: Some historians use the term "world history" in a more narrow sense to refer to one among several alternative approaches to studying human history. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Airship, I'd like to know more about the criticism against world history that you're describing here. Can you provide some examples of sources that argue against the whole concept of world history, or at least describe it as deeply problematic? Peter Isotalo 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestions for the lead

GPT4o came up with bits that might be useful for the lead:

Extended content
The study of human history is often divided into different periods, including prehistoric times, characterized by the Stone Age, which saw the advent of tool-making and the emergence of Homo sapiens. The Neolithic Revolution marked a significant shift with the beginning of agriculture and sedentary communities, leading to the establishment of complex societies and urbanization. As societies evolved, the Bronze Age and Iron Age introduced new technologies and materials that spurred advancements in agriculture, warfare, and trade. The rise of early civilizations, such as in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, and China, marked the beginning of recorded history, with writing systems, centralized governments, and monumental architecture.

The classical period saw the flourishing of Greek and Roman civilizations, which laid the foundations for Western culture and influenced philosophy, art, science, and politics. The fall of the Roman Empire gave way to the Middle Ages in Europe, marked by feudalism, and significant cultural and economic changes. The Renaissance in the 14th century heralded a resurgence in art, science, and intellectual pursuit, leading to the Age of Discovery and colonialism, which connected distant parts of the world through exploration, trade, and conquest. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries brought unprecedented technological progress and industrialization, transforming societies and economies on a global scale.

The 20th century was marked by rapid advancements in science and technology, as well as significant political and social upheavals, including two world wars, the fall of colonial empires, and the Cold War. The latter part of the century saw the advent of the information age, characterized by widespread use of computers and the internet, which continues to shape contemporary human history. The study of human history is interconnected, with historians and scholars incorporating diverse perspectives to understand the complexities of human experiences across different cultures and eras. Modern human history is marked by ongoing challenges such as climate change and social inequalities, which influence the trajectory of human societies.

It probably needs the Renaissance in the lead? Tom B (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"The fall of the Roman Empire gave way to the Middle Ages in Europe, a period marked by feudalism, the spread of Christianity" The Western Roman Empire fell, the Eastern Roman Empire survived to the end of the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance. And that Western Empire had been Christianized for more than a century by 480 CE. The "spread of Christianity" and its dangerous side-effects are relevant to Late Antiquity, not the Middle Ages. Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thanks, i've deleted it Tom B (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I think mentioning the early civilizations is important. I gave it another try while trying to stick more closely to the structure and content of our article. I'm not sure if we want to continue the discussion here or at the GA review, where the lead expansion was requested. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor style question

Would it be deleterious to remove the redundant era designations in the year ranges in each heading? Remsense诉 06:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've pondered that question as well and I haven't really reached a conclusion. Removing them would make the section titles more concise and I don't think they are particularly common in Wikipedia articles. However, they are used in works of world history. For example, they form part of the book titles of each volume of The Cambridge World History and are used in the main chapter titles of Bulliet et al. 2015a. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Are they redundant? The headings use three different eras: years ago, BCE, and CE. What do you propose that Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE) would become, for example? – Joe (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Good that you bring up this point, I think I misunderstood the original suggestion. I initially thought that the year ranges themselves should be removed ("Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE)" would become "Ancient history") but the comment is about "redundant era designations in the year ranges", presumably:
  • Post-classical history (c. 500 CE – c. 1500 CE) -> Post-classical history (c. 500 – c. 1500 CE)
  • Early modern period (c. 1500 CE – c. 1800 CE) -> Early modern period (c. 1500 – c. 1800 CE)
Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah right, no objection to that. You might as well drop the second circa too. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Me, I'd drop the era designation for the headers of the 2 "modern" periods, which really aren't needed. In text, they are very rarely needed for dates after say 500 CE. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Pre-GA feedback

I noticed the feedback request, and since I am too late for peer review, here are some comments. First, of course - good job!

But... I fear this may suffer from some OR. For example, the sentence "However, not all scientific and technological advances in the second half of the 20th century required an initial military impetus" needs a citation, and while it of course won't be hard to find, first, this sentence is a essayish truism, and second, what follows is a list of technologies and I doubt that we can show that all of those techs were not influenced by military.

Removed this claim. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is also just literary teaching a course on globalization, I am happy to see proto-globalization linked early, but the concept of globalization itself is missing. Ending paragraph says that "The period was marked by growing economic globalization", which is true, but. First, this is true for some older periods too. Second, why mention economic globalization but not cultural or political ones? They form the trinity of classic subtypes of globalization. Moving on, the paragraph seems not neutral, as it seems criticial of globalization ("with consequent increased risk to interlinked economies"), ignoring the postive aspects.

Added Along with industrialization came globalization, the increasing interconnection of world regions in the economic, political, and cultural spheres. Globalization began in the early 19th century and was enabled by improved transportation technologies such as railroads and steamships. Revised the sentence about 21st-century globalization to include benefits and well as risks. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Cerebellum I'd suggest revising this by adding the adjective modern before globalization, to distinguish from Proto-globalization mentioned already. Bonus points if we can work in how to add the link to Archaic globalization in a preceeding section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence, "Beginning in the 2010s, many nations experienced democratic backsliding." is correct, but it immediately raises (for me) the question - why wasn't this mentioned earlier? Democratic backsliding occurred as early as the interbellum period. See Waves of democracy. A quick glance at democratic backsliding suggests the article suffers from major recentism problem, waves... covers this concept better. The lack of discussion of artificial intelligence in the last paragraph seems like another oversight (in fact, this tech is not mentioned anywhere in the article).

Added The first wave of democratization also took place between 1828 and 1926 and saw democratic institutions take root in 33 countries around the world, and removed the sentence about democratic backsliding. I still need to add AI. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The concept (term) of decolonization is missing from the article, although there are almost 30 reference to colonialism (colonies, etc.).

Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Another quibble I'll have is with the sentnece "Germany, under Adolf Hitler, orchestrated the genocide of six million Jews in the Holocaust and murdered about as many non-Jews as Jews". The first part is correct, but the second is controversial. Although a RS is cited (Synder is a great scholar), see World War II casualties and Holocaust victims. Why don't we mention the total for WWII casualties? It might be better. And the Holocaust victims articles gives the 'Total' figure of 17 million, that's not "about as many". I know well that estimates of Holocaust victims are problematic and controversial, which is I'd strongly suggested avoding that quagmire by using the uncontroversial figure (range...) for WWII casualties rather than discussing non-Jewish Holocaust victims.

Removed non-Jewish Holocaust victims and added Estimates of the war's total casualties range from 55 to 80 million dead. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope I can provide more feedback, but I am a bit busy right now. Still, my semi-random glance and two paragraphs suggests this article still needs much more tweaking. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thank you very much for your insightful comments! I removed the claim about the military and technology and I'm researching the other topics you mentioned to find sources. Great suggestions! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Some further comments as I am reading from the back, so on the final section (contemporary history). The first half of that section seems stronger than the second half and I have only a few minor comments:
  • regarding "Such war being viewed as impractical, the superpowers instead waged proxy wars in non-nuclear-armed Third World countries. Between 1969 and 1972, as part of the Cold War Space Race, twelve American astronauts landed on the Moon and safely returned to Earth." Those sentences are not connected and the latter does not flow from the first. Split and/or move the second one?
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "partly due to its inability to compete economically with the United States and Western Europe" - citation needed? Not controversial, just weird citation layout in that sentence.
Added citation. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "Most Western European and Central European countries gradually formed a political and economic community, the European Union, which expanded eastward to include former Soviet satellite states" - that's a bit off, as EU was formed earlier than the period discussed. EU's formation should be mentioned earlier, probably in the first paragraph, as a consequence of WW2. EU's expansion can be mentioned here, but it's a bit jarring that Baltic states are not mentioned - they were not Soviet satellites, but republics. So that sentence is not precise, needs qualifier or mentioning of the Baltic States.
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "and its economic inequality increased" - that's about USA. That's true and fine to mention, but it seems a bit US centric. We should say something about global trends in inequality. The same happened in China, for example (Income inequality in China).
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Related, what I feel is missing from that entire chapter is the discussion of global progress in terms of poverty reduction discussed there and in other articles like International_inequality#Global_poverty. Stuff like "World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001 only about 20% did.".
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
And related to this, I think this article should also mention the concept of moral progress. The article also does not mention the concept of human rights and stuff discussed under Progress#Social_progress, just dicussing technological progress. Women rights seem to be mentioned only with regards to the suffrage/voting which is just a small dimension of important topic related to empowering half of the human population. Global inequality/North-South divide or such should be mentioned too. (Mind you, I still haven't read the entire article at this point, but CTRL+F is not showing me the concepts I expected to find here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You work faster than I do :) I will get to these. And you are quite right, those concepts are not in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Cerebellum Just a ping - I think the above wasn't gotten around to yet? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
For women's rights we have Women fought to expand their civil rights[485] and began to enjoy greater access to education and the workforce. For global inequality we have At the same time, economic inequality increased both within individual countries and between rich and poor countries. For human rights/moral progress we have In a remarkable instance of moral progress, most of the world abolished slavery in the 19th century. Does that cover all of the bases? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cerebellum Hmmm, not for human rights which is more than just abolishment of slavery. Can we add a sentence that would actually use this term (human rights)? I think it is very important to human history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, I added The United Nations is associated with the human rights movement and adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus! I've attempted to address all the concerns you raised. In your opinion, is the article still a long way off from GA quality? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebellum Thank you. I don't think it is a long way off, but I still need to read the rest. That said, GA review is a hit or miss, some reviewers are very competent and do a great job (perhaps some are to strict), and some are way too easy going, so it is hard to know which one you'll get. The real test is of course WP:FAC. Frankly, I could see the article passing GA already with some relatively minor tweaks like the ones I asked for above, but it will depend on the reviewer lottery. I'll to offer my feedback in the meantime, which should help. I prefer not to do a proper GA review as, a, it allows another set of eyes to provide feedback, and b, I am not a native English speaker and I am pretty easy going on the prose issues, and some reviewers can provide much better feedback then me when it comes to this plus some MoS issues (dashes, etc.) that again I tend to not care about. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Further comments as I am finishing (re)reading the contemporary history section:
  • I am not sure whether "and acquired an empire of its own" when talking about US is neutral. From that article, I'd agree with the part that says "Many – perhaps most – scholars have decided that the United States lacks the key essentials of an empire... The best term is that the United States is a "hegemon." I suggest rephrasing this to use the term hegemony, not empire. Note that American hegemony still redirects to the same article - I think it should be its own article eventually.
I chose the link poorly. I meant to refer more narrowly to the US annexing the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii. I changed the link to Spanish–American_War#Aftermath_in_the_United_States, hopefully that clarifies things. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd still recommend not using the term American empire or such and instead link to hegemony. I think American empire concept is not neutral (and hegemony is an important concept we should link to). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one, to me occupying the Philippines for 50 years and fighting a war to keep them from becoming independent is imperialism. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue is that this concept is a minority view, hence undue in this general article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  • there are minor issues with key concepts not being blue linked, see my minor edits. I expect more blue links could be added and I'll be doing so myself, but this is something to think about.
Possibly because of this recent edit, intended to fix overlinking. Maybe the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing it, it was mostly ok, although I'd restore a few (ex. Judaism, links to subregions like Western Europe, etc. I've already restored link to an important concept (urbanization) I think. industrialization should be linked to (I think it is?). That said, I'd recommend using a script for checking for duplicate links (maybe some removals were duplicates?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "The Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides saw the systematic destruction, mass murder, and expulsion during World War I of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks" - seems like pointless repetition in the latter part?
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • related to what we discussed above, I'd still try to say something about (unspecified) millions of non-Jewish Holocaust victims as discussed in that article. USHMM wording quoted there seems reasonably neutral: "In addition, 11 million members of other groups were murdered during the "era of the Holocaust"".
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Reading now through early modern history:
  • as above, I think quite a few important concepts are not linked and should be: sefdom, Reformation, Arab slave trade, Kingdom of Zimbabwe , Mutapa, Butua, Oyo Empire. Kingdom of Benin. Kingdom of Kongo, Mughal Empire... I'll stop here for now with the list but I do think the article is clearly underlinked (and those are not links to more basic concepts removed above in the diff mentioned). Sometimes this leads to jarring inconsistency (ex. in the seemingly linking or not to some African states in single sentence; or later, Malacca Sultanate is not linked, but Johor Sultanate is in the very next sentence).
    • There are also occasional 'easter eggs, ex. "In Africa" (check link...).
I linked serfdom and removed the link to history in Africa, as far as I can tell the others are all linked at their first occurrence, for most of them it is in the post-classical history section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest mentioning partitions of Poland, as the end of what was for 2-3 centuries the largest European state is likely worth a few words. Related to this, I think European history of that period needs at least one more paragraph. For another IMHO glaring ommission, there is nothing on the raise of Germany (Prussia). I see next to nothing about similar growth in power for the UK. Pax Britannica should be mentioned IMHO (if in the later section we already discussed). Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Scandinavia don't seem to mentined at all, which is IMHO again jarring considering mentions of non-European states later that arguably had much less impact on the world's history. I am well aware of systemic bias issues, but right now I find this section to be too biased in the opposite way.
Yes, there are definitely many topics not covered in this article. What I'm struggling with is that I want to keep the article under 10,000 words per WP:SIZERULE, right now I'm at 9938 so for everything I add, I need to cut something else. And I'm not sure what to cut to add the topics you mentioned. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
It's tough. If I see something not relevant I'll suggest removal, but the topics I mentioned above are, IMHO, quite vital. It is strange for an article on human history to mention let's say Malacca Sultanate but not Prussia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This issue makes me suspect that the article will never pass FAC. I can't think of an external criterion to use to decide what topics should be included. If I cut some information on Africa and Asia to add another paragraph on Europe, that opens up the article to charges of Eurocentrism. If I use Google Scholar results for, say, Prussia and Malacca as a metric, someone can say that just reflects systemic bias in the sources. Any ideas you have on judging relative importance are most welcome! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Bias in sources is an issue, but IMHO we have no choice but to represent it to some degree per NPOV and DUE. Our mission is to inform, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I still have much to read but I think the article is too biased towards non-modern history. I, at least, agree with the school that modern era is more important than past eras. In either case, I recommend adding few sentences to the modern era about stuff I mentioned. We can figure out what to cut later. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "However, China and Japan would later pursue isolationist policies designed to eliminate foreign influence" (presumably those have dedicated articles that could be linked to - Haijin, Sakoku). Ditto for "Diseases introduced by Europeans devastated American" (Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#European_contact). Consider this comment representative of wider issues of underlinking to such concepts I see, partially related to what I mentioned before.
Quite right, done. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for contributing your time and expertise to this article! Your comments are pure gold to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Section break

Now for Post-classical history.

First thought: "The era is commonly dated from the 5th-century fall of the Western Roman Empire" - I wonder if Chinese or Japanese histories (for example, considering major non-Western developed cultures and historiographies) use the same periodization? From what I know, they do not for their own history, but I am not sure what they do for the world history. Overview of what is mentioned at ja:世界の歴史 or zh:世界歷史 would be quite interesting and likely valuable, although it is a task more for FA level then GA level. But it is something we should do one day, I think.

Second, zooming back to smaller issues: "along with the plagues of the 14th century" - what other plagues were significant outside Black Death? Can we link to some article? Second plague pandemic perhaps? Which makes me wonder why first and third have not been linked (Spanish flu is linked later, good). That's it for now, will resume review as soon as I have time for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good points. I would prefer a simpler periodization based on modes of production - hunting/gathering, agricultural, and industrial. But I think we would need community consensus to make that change. And I agree on adding the other plague epidemics. Currently I'm having too much fun at AfC and I seem to have lost interest in this article so I don't see myself editing it much in the near future, hopefully other editors can pick up where I left off! --Cerebellum (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
We are facing no deadline. Do you want me to continue the review? As for periodization change, I think it's fine to be bold. You can start a new thread with that suggestion and wait a week or two to see if anyone else comments. RfC probably would be an overkill unless this becomes a contested issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
It's up to you! If you continue, I won't be implementing your suggestions. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Piotrus and thanks for your detailed pre-GA feedback so far. Cerebellum and myself have decided to give it another go, see the discussion at User_talk:Cerebellum#Human_history. As I understand, some comments of your review of the subsection on early modern Europe were not fully resolved last time. Cerebellum did not add an extra paragraph but they rewrote part of that subsection in the meantime to address the concerns. Do you think it is better now? Some of the developments involving Europe are also discussed in the section overview before the subsection "Europe". If you have more feedback on the remaining sections, that would be much appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Phlsph7 Just noting I saw your question but it may take me some time to get back to it. Feel free to go to GA without my feedback (I'll try to offer it but I can't be sure when, very busy until July...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. We'll see how it goes, it could be a while before a reviewer picks up the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a light skim through the article and found only minor stuff to change after spot checking a few different elements. I would probably find more to tweak if I took a deeper look, but overall, it seems like it's been improved and isn't far off from GA standard. Kudos! The images seem decent — for this article, ones depicting events I think are generally more compelling than ones depicting buildings. Sdkb talk 06:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I nominated the article and the review has already started so I'm curious to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Phlsph7 You motivated me to offer some thoughts on the Ancient history section :)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Reading through contemporary history again, three thoughts for now:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I support this for GA now :) If I have any more thoughts, I'll post here in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all the helpful suggestion! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Start ancient history at 3500 BCE

Is anyone here strongly attached to 3000 BCE as the start date for ancient history? Here are three sources that start at 3500 BCE: [21], [22], [23]. I'm honestly not sure what is so special about 3500 since the earliest cuneiform is from 3300. I'm guessing historians just picked 3500 because it is a nice round number. Thoughts? Cerebellum (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably because it is the rough start of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. I can only see the 2nd of those. I'm not inclined to change it. In an article at this scale it hardly matters. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn’t actually explain why I want the change: to me history begins with writing, and writing was in use in both Egypt and Mesopotamia before 3000 BCE. Here are quotes for the sources you cannot see:
  • The overall river valley civilization period, from 3500 to about 800 or 600 BCE, can be broken down into much more precise statements about changes and continuities in particular societies such as Mesopotamia and Egypt, where internal periodization schemes are quite elaborate, but at the same time this level of detail may not be necessary. [24]
  • In this chapter we trace the rise of complex societies in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus River Valley from approximately 3500 to 1500 BCE....Our starting point roughly coincides with the origins of writing, allowing us to observe aspects of human experience not revealed by archaeological evidence alone.[25] Cerebellum (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I'm late to this, too, but I would also support the change, per the above. Renerpho (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
A little late here but I wouldn't be opposed to using 3500 BCE as a better starting date. IMO writing is generally what determines the start of "history", and given that we know, more or less, that writing existed pre-3000 BCE makes for a credible argument. Of course there's a lot of debate on just how old writing is, debates about proto-writing, etc. but based on current understanding 3500 BCE makes more sense to me than 3000 BCE. SwensonJ (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, clearly no consensus for this change. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive

This article has a lot (~70) of refs to books hosted at the Internet Archive, most of which are now unavailable due to a recent court ruling. How should we handle this? Remove the links to IA or leave them in place while the case is on appeal? Cerebellum (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. The first two links I found are Abernethy 2000 and Abulafia 2011. Both provide general information about the books and a limited preview so I think both can be useful. I guess book links would be acceptable as long as they provide at least some basic information about the book even if they lack a preview function. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_history/Archive_4&oldid=1246188933"