Talk:Human history/Archive 3

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

"and beyond"

Saddhiyama asserts that the edit made from 24.7.59.158 is premature. I disagree. Humanity has been to the moon. Our history is not limited to Earth. I propose to restore the edit, or otherwise reword the lead to say that this is the history of mankind in all places. Ibadibam (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Written records

It should be noted that winners write history, usually by destroying written records of the losers. This has happened:

1. In Mexico, written records were burned by Spanish conquerors. 2. In Spain, after the Reconquista, written moor records were burned by Catholics. 3. In Alexandria, early chrisian burned the great library. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01303a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.47.90.76 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose this be incorporated into the article? And can you provide further sources? Ibadibam (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose someone could write it into the introduction or even create a section pertaining to such a subject. Maybe something like, "Study of History." It could have a summary on the nuances and characteristics of historical analysis, terms, etc. It would probably also need to have a "main article" link to somewhere like World history. It is well known, though, that history is often at least somewhat biased with the writings of the "victors." Hence the African proverb, "Until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter." InvaderCito (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern history of mankind?

I think this article has a strange name. The article doesn't have much to do with the history of the world, only the humans living in the world. It also skips over the vast majority of human history (fire, tool use, migration from Africa, ice ages, interaction with neanderthals etc etc etc), and goes straight to the "culturally important" bits (Antiquity, Rome, WWII etc). As it stands, a better name would be "Modern history of the western world". If the article was expanded in geographic and cultural scope, maybe it could be "Modern history of mankind". If it were also expanded to deal with a much much longer time (on the order of a million years), it might be "History of mankind". As for "History of the world" (or even "of the Earth"), that's really too much to cram into one article, so let's not go there. 46.194.35.104 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are going to find the article prehistory to be extremely enlightening. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article has a bizarre title, although I assume it is based on popular consensus (just as the term guinea pig is based on popular consensus, rather than any factual connection of the animal to any place called Guinea). The history of the world quite literally implies the "history of the Earth" (which obviously has its own, separate article). Seems like "History of humanity" or "humankind" would seem more appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
History of humanity or Human history seem more appropriate titles. I would support a move. 209.51.65.47 (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There are historic linguistic reasons for the way things are phrased. The words "humanity" and "human" are polysemic. The proposed titles, "History of humanity" and "Human history", beg for counterpart titles: "History of inhumanity" and "Inhuman history". Nihil novi (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Then what about "History of Humankind"? Wouldn't that be appropriate linguistically and technically? I agree that it would be better if this article was renamed, even if it's not a major issue. I also find that, even if "History of Humankind" begs for a counterpart, is that really necessary anyway? And if that's necessary, what's wrong with creating those articles? I would also agree, in regards to the starting comment, that this article sufficiently covers most if not all of cultural and geographical mankind (at the very least as a start). InvaderCito (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that the word "world" has multiple meanings, one of which is that of the human population inhabiting planet Earth. Thus, the U.S. publication, U.S. News & World Report, deals with news concerning the United States and the rest of Earth's human population. Earth as a planet is not one of this publication's concerns.

Whether or not we like the title, "History of the world", it is not likely that we will be able, by fiat, to change this centuries-old English-language usage. When Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1618) wrote his The Historie of the World, he was not writing a geological treatise. Nihil novi (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've noticed that this page has the belief of evolution in it. I'm not sure all religions would agree with this. I don't know if there is a way to write this page without using a specific belief, but I do know that Wikipedia would like all pages to be entirely neutral. If you can do anything about this, please do. If I'm wrong, please explain. Thanks, 174.57.143.188 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21

Could you please be more specific? What do you mean by "belief of evolution"? Are you referring to Darwin's theory of evolution? Or to a historic evolution of human societies? Or something else? Can you give examples from the article's text? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages (Western Focus, etc)

It seems that despite the African, Southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern subsections, the Middle Ages section still focuses a bit too much on the Western world (or at this age, specificallly Europe). The section makes little mention of Chinese changes, a major country in history. The sections on the Middle East, the Americas, and Southeast Asia should be expanded further. Finally, compounding this issue is the fact that the "main article" leads to the Middle Ages page, which focuses almost entirely on Europe. I recommend the main article is changed to the Postclassical Era for a more global perspective (despite the article's current shortcomings). InvaderCito (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I thank UnvoicedConsonant for providing the change to the main article. However, some of the subsections still require a little more expansion, so I'd like to keep that aware. — InvaderCito (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Islam section

While the content of the History of Islam section is ok, I question its inclusion in the overall article. It seems a little out out of place and I would suggest it be removed and included in a separate article on the History of Religion where it would be more meaningful. As it is, it seems like a plug for a particular religion, which would begin to invite such from others in an otherwise good article on the History of the World. Unless equally important religions are also given coverage, it should be moved to a more appropriate article location. Wallenpb wiki (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the world ≠ History of humanity

Rephrase the introductory sentence. JDiala (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps change the title? I've always been baffled by how the title and content here don't seem to match. I've never, in all my years as an English native speaker and studies as an English major heard of "the world" being equated to "humanity" except perhaps figuratively (e.g. poetically). Wolfdog (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Over the years, there have been extensive discussions (now archived) here on this topic. Consensus was to keep the article name and subject as-is. Though perhaps literally imprecise, the phrase "world history" is extensively used to mean "human history." For example, a Google search for "World History" yields first the following link: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001196.html which is all about human history. 68.98.129.253 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Similarly, a search for "History of the World" yields: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/ which is also all human history.68.98.129.253 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Seems like a fascinating bit of anthropocentrism in our language, I guess. Wolfdog (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Postclassical Era"

Recently, in this article, the heading "Middle Ages" was replaced with the heading "Postclassical Era". This new designation for "Middle Ages" evidently seeks to distinguish the Middle Ages from an earlier "Classical Era", but the latter expression doesn't appear in this article as a comparable heading. Use of the expression "Postclassical Era" would seem to beg for discussion of a "Classical Era" as the object of contrast; the meanings are not self-evident, and the separate article, "Postclassical Era" does not replace an adequate explanation of these concepts within "History of the world". Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's awkward, because "Classical Antiquity" refers almost exclusively to the Mediterranean, whereas "Postclassical Era" is deliberately defined to be world-wide. So the terms, though similar, are not analogous. It is true, though that the article did not contain the phrase "Classical Antiquity," which was an unfortunate omission, so I added it, in the Ancient History section.68.98.129.253 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you please quote the passage? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The passage with "Classical Antiquity" added now reads: "In southern Europe, the Greeks (and later the Romans), in an era known as "Classical Antiquity," established cultures whose practices, laws, and customs are considered the foundation of contemporary western civilization."64.134.41.12 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

At first I was surprised by the size of the timeline. So I had to look how this will function and what´s possible, e.g. Ancient_history#Comparative_timeline. There I saw a different history (marginal but remarkable). I tried to make some changes from a global view (Mideast and Med in the center). Maybe it´s a occasion to think about it.

Archaic period in the AmericasArchaic period in the AmericasArchaic period in the AmericasKingdom of AxumKingdom of KushAncient EgyptMiddle AgesAncient RomeAncient GreecePhoeniciaAegean civilizationsCaliphateSasanian EmpireParthian EmpireSeleucid EmpireAchaemenid EmpireMesopotamiaMiddle kingdoms of IndiaVedic periodIndus Valley CivilizationMigration PeriodCeltsUrnfield cultureTumulus cultureUnetice cultureChalcolithic EuropeImperial ChinaZhou DynastyShang DynastyXia DynastyThree Sovereigns and Five EmperorsPost-classical eraIron AgeBronze Age

--Palitzsch250 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Marxian periodisation

The Marxian periodisation section represents a political perspective of a non-historian with no counterbalancing viewpoints. For that reason I added a POV tag to the article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The recently introduced "Marxian periodisation" section is disruptive, partisan, and superfluous. It should be removed. Nihil novi (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the section called "Marxian periodisation" should be removed and be merged into another relevant article, as it is now it is interrupting the flow of the current article and it is more of a political and philosophical interpretation rather than historical analysis Gts-tg (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It does seem inappropriate to this article, given that it is about interpretation rather than events, and I'd agree that it interrupts the flow. The material is in any case adequately covered in other articles. I'm removing it now, along with the tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

At present the lede fails to cover the contemporary history section, and thus does not satisfy WP:LEAD. It spends more time covering the fall of the roman empire, which seems WP:UNDUE. Perhaps instead it needs to talk about the rise and fall of empires in general? Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a new penultimate lead paragraph to limn your idea. All it needs is some references to ward off deletionists. Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on History of the world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Move

I forgot to write an edit summary. Thus I say here that I removed those discussions to move them to the archive. TVShowFan122 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on History of the world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Sentence

In the 3rd paragraph of Introduction: The ancient Near East, ancient Greece, and ancient Rome figure prominently in the period of Antiquity.

Qi Ge (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Johannes Gutenberg and Romulus Augustulus

It seems odd to me that these are mentioned by name in the introductory section. They are the only names. Apparently they are the most important people in all of human history? I nominate we remove them and simply say something like "The invention of the printing press [significance] ... yada " without them.

I concurr Captain Cookie — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlong and Irrelevant footnote?

This is currently reference 29 for this article:

"Climate change," writes Yale University economics professor William D. Nordhaus, "has become the premier environmental [problem] facing the globe. Carbon dioxide... emissions continue to grow and accumulate in the atmosphere," despite the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent well-meaning international efforts to curb that growth. The cause of their failure, explains Nordhaus, is the working of the psycho-socio-economic mechanism of the "free ride", a variant of the "tragedy of the commons" whereby an individual or organization maximizes its own economic advantage by contributing little or nothing to a collective effort—in this case, the common effort to stop the growth of greenhouse gases. Nordhaus proposes an incentive to neutralize the perverse "free ride" mechanism: the creation of a Climate Club whose member countries would agree to implement a minimum domestic price per ton of carbon dioxide produced; non-member countries that do not share in the burden of emissions reductions would be penalized via uniform percentage tariffs on their imports into the club region. "A Climate Club," writes Nordhaus, "that ensures high prices of carbon emissions around the world, or the equivalent, is an essential step toward an effective policy to slow [global] warming." The Club proposal, which Nordhaus concedes may be utopian, begs the question of whether the member countries' electorates would permit the blocking of importation of cheap foreign-made goods. William D. Nordhaus, "A New Solution: the Climate Club" (a review of Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman, Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet, Princeton University Press, 250 pp, $27.95), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXII, no. 10 (4 June 2015), pp. 36–39.

This "climate club" might be a very good idea for the future, but is it really relevant (to this degree of detail) to an article about world history? Chuntuk (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No-one's said anything, so I've replaced the above with a simple cite journal:

Nordhaus, William D. (4 June 2015). "A New Solution: the Climate Club". The New York Review of Books LXII (10): 36–39. "Climate change has become the premier environmental problem facing the globe"

Chuntuk (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rename to "History of humanity"

The titles of "World history" and "History of Earth" mean the same thing as the title of "History of the world" yet there is 3 different articles about different things. I propose that World history get renamed to 'World history (study)' and this article be renamed to 'History of humanity'.MarkiPoli (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Over the years, similar ideas have repeatedly been proposed and been turned down. Please review this talk page's archives. Nihil novi (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of the world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing sources

@Ealdgyth and Nihil novi: You two seem to have overhauled the article a few months ago. Thank you for your improvements! Can either of you shed some light on what are McNeill 1998 and Bard 2013? Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Bard is me typoing the Bard 2000 source. Same for the McNeill - it should be McNeill 1999. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I got them all... sorry if I didn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth. Fixed now, no errors remain. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that history by period be merged into history of the world. The History by period has multiple issues, and doesn't have lots of information, and it might make sense to redirect here. Thoughts? LeptonMadness (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that History of the world is already long enough. Klbrain (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism

There is almost no mention of Jews and Judaism in the article. This is quite an omission given Jewish contribution to ancient civilizations, religious history, or modern society. Several things that are not mentioned include ancient Jewish civilization, Einstein, the Holocaust, or the modern state of Israel. I will try to fix this if I have time. OtterAM (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheesy image caption

Towards the end of the article, an image of a solar farm in Spain has a very cheesy and off-beat caption. I am not sure what to replace it with, or if it is actually ok as is, but as I was reading the article the caption just seemed very out-of-place. It reads as follows:

"Andasol Solar Power Station, in Spain, exploits energy constantly sent to Earth, free of charge, by the great fusion reactor in the sky, the Sun"


Perhaps the tone of the caption could be changed to something more serious and on-topic, for example:

"Andasol Solar Power Station, in Spain, is a source of renewable energy that turns the radiant energy of the Sun into usable electricity"

or

"The Ansasol Solar Power Station in Spain is one of many new sources of renewable energy, which also include geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric"

or maybe something more brief:

"This solar plant in Spain is one new source of green energy developed in the early 21st century"


I think any of the above would be an improvement over the original, but your feedback would be very much appreciated. If I don't get much or any feedback, I will go ahead and be bold and change the caption because I believe it needs to be changed.

Your fellow editor, Fritzmann2002 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've replaced the caption with a version of your first variant.
Nihil novi (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

"Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago,[20] and reached behavioural modernity about 50,000 years ago.[21]"

200,000 should be 300,000 according to source 20. Balticshuffle (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have accepted your request because as per the source its 300,000 year ago. Joshq.JQ 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

204.29.115.222 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Adam needs to be in here

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Lack of mention of Great Famine

I noticed that this article lacked any mention of the Great Chinese Famine, arguably the largest mass-death event in world history. I added a brief mention, but there may be other similar topics of significant importance missing. The structure of the article (presenting early history by geographic region, and then merging into a single narrative for more modern history) presents a risk that non-western more modern history may be being minimized or ignored. - Sdkb (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Central-Eastern Europe

This page, like some US textbooks, ignores areas between Russia and Germany. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. From the 15th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was the largest polity in Europe, the most welcoming to diverse ethnicities and religions, and made substantial contributions to world science and culture. The Commonwealth's history has tended to get short shrift in many general histories. Nihil novi (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've introduced a brief paragraph which suggests something of what was missing in that gap "between Russia and Germany."
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dates and locations for the invention of writing

This section is not ideal. There seems to be slippage between the concept of proto-writing and true literacy. The Indus script, here dated to 3200 BCE, is yet to be deciphered. It is unclear at what point it became a writing system, instead of a pictorial system. Its inclusion is problematic, as other undeciphered proto-systems are not included. Likewise, Egyptian and Sumerian both transferred from pictorial to more abstract around 3200. Although nearly simultaneous to the development of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Sumerian Cuneiform is generally considered to be the first writing system. However, there is no definitive transition line. I would strongly advise referencing Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond in this section. It is a compilation of articles on the origin of written language, last updated 2015.

Other scholars, such as the Assyriologist Irving Finkel, suggest that Egyptian Hieroglyphs are not an independent invention and that there are only two verifiable independent inventions of writing: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.

Therefore, I propose that

"Writing developed independently and at different times in five areas of the world:[39] Egypt (c. 3200 BCE),[39] India (c. 3200 BCE),[40] Mesopotamia (c. 3000 BCE),[41] China (c. 1600 BCE),[42] and Mesoamerica (c. 600 BCE).[39]

be changed to

"Writing most likely developed independently and at different times in four areas of the world: Mesopotamia (c. 3300-3200 BCE), Egypt (c. 3200 BCE), China (c. 1600 BCE), and Mesoamerica (c. 600 BCE).[1][2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasukhani (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Woods, Christopher (2010), "The earliest Mesopotamian writing", in Woods, Christopher (ed.), Visible language. Inventions of writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond (PDF), Oriental Institute Museum Publications, vol. 32, Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 11–50, ISBN 978-1-885923-76-9
  2. ^ Geoffrey Sampson (1 January 1990). Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford University Press. pp. 78. ISBN 978-0-8047-1756-4.
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Bradv🍁 03:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary deserves to be mentioned

WWI and WWII are underrated, the collapse of three Empires not mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Four empires collapsed due to World War I. Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added the information.
The two World Wars were indeed pretty prominent events; perhaps more information about them could be added.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide belonged to WWI, so it should be mentioned in the right place, not as a pre-Holocaust. Hitler allegedly has told "Who remebers the Armenians", but I'm not sure if the quote is real. Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Austria-Hungary collapses, but does not have origins, nothing about Austrian Empire.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1848 "remain the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history."

Should be mentioned. Later Franco-Prussian War prepared WWI. Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Overly-detailed notes

In my opinion, there are several notes that go into an unnecessary amount of detail on this page. For example, there are six notes regarding the Paris Climate Agreement that contain paragraphs on opinions about climate change. Earlier, there's a long paragraph in a note about how the president of the World Bank urges countries to invest more in human capital. While I have nothing against talking about climate change or investing in human capital elsewhere on Wikipedia (and I actually personally agree with some of the points being made), I think that these lengthy notes contain entirely too much detail for an article about the entire history of the world. The content of these notes would be much more appropriate at articles specifically covering these topics, or at least at more focused articles like Contemporary history. Orser67 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Japanese in WW2

It should be added that the Japanese killed 3million to 10million during World War 2 with around 6 million Chinese, Indonesians, Filipinos, and Indochinese.-https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM To not only focus on Germany and also include Soviet Russian and Chinese genocides.38.104.198.186 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2020

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: Moved to human history. The opposition toward this name is weak. There is no consensus to move it to history of humanity and the opposition there raises fair arguments. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

History of the world → History of humanity – I am afraid this could be evaluated again. WP:PRECISE: in order to further distinguish from History of the world, World history and History of Earth. This discussion has been held previously at Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_1 (2006), Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_3 (2013). Earlier opposition to this proposal has argued that "world" was meant in a decisively anthropocentric sense (as in the recorded memory of the experience of Homo sapiens) by historians such as Walter Raleigh, and that "humanity" is a polysemy. Yet, the precise contrary could easily be argued. Using "world" in the the sense of pertaining to humanity may strike many a contemporary Wikipedia contributor as too bold in its assumption of an anthropocentric interpretation on part of the average reader. While arguments may be valid especially from a purely academic perspective, "History of humanity" could still be considered at least less bad (as in less ambiguous) and WP:LEAST astonishing than "History of the world", casually speaking. Hence it may be argued that the policy favouring traditional scholarly doctrine should perhaps after all give preference to WP:COMMONNAME in the service to the readers in this case? A possible alternative solution would be "History of humankind", but not sure that is really necessary. Please note that, as discussed priorly, a History of the world (disambiguation) would still be maintained to meet the academic term (along with the other possible meanings). PPEMES (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per the policies cited in the nom. The proposed title is more intuitive and less ambiguous. Sdkb (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Would you mind supporting human history since that seems to have emerged as main alternative? PPEMES (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure; as I noted to Netoholic, I'm fine with that. Consider my support !vote to apply to that option. Sdkb (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to human history as simpler and more WP:NATURAL (and likely more everyday/common) term. -- Netoholic @ 02:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    I'd also be fine with this, although no preference for or against it over "History of humanity". Sdkb (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral to that too. I'd support human history if that shows as main alternative. PPEMES (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If that was clear to everyone, why would you have to point that out here? And why would we need a hatnote at the top of the article that explains "This article is about the history of humanity"? PPEMES (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As पाटलिपुत्र says, the existing title is a typical formulation for the topic, whereas the proposed alternatives are not. There isn't likely to be much confusion—readers looking for the geologic time scale or information about plate tectonics or dinosaurs aren't likely to search under this title, but if they do it's easy to direct them to the proper articles using hatnotes. The fact that the phrase "world history" refers to the history of human culture, rather than the geologic history of the earth, is pretty good evidence in this regard. Moving the article to the proposed title—which I think is less intuitive—would be overly precise, and unhelpful. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Complicating things further, it looks like we already have an article at World History about the academic field examining history at a global scale. I don't agree that there is no likelihood of confusion for readers, since if I recall correctly my own experience when I first discovered this area of WP was that it took a bunch of hatnote clicks to figure out what was located where. Most people may recognize that "world history" refers to this history of humanity in a very colloquial sense, but I think they expect a little more specificity from WP than they do in everyday life, since they know we have articles on practically every conceivable topic and need to disambiguate between them. Sdkb (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common historical term for centuries, unlikely to be confused with eg geological activity on earth in the last 4.5 odd billion years. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed title, "History of humanity", is ambiguous: readers could assume the article dealt with "humanity" in the sense of the virtue – which begs the question, What about "History of inhumanity"? On the other hand, "History of mankind" will be opposed by some feminists; while "History of humankind" seems redundant, since other animals do not seem to cultivate a history, as we think of history. And, unfortunately, "Universal history" might be confused by some with "history of the universe". Nihil novi (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Human history per User:Netoholic and WP:PRECISE. As stated in the article on the subject, the World is the planet Earth and all life on it, and so the history of the World would include the history of the planet and all life on it. There is nothing awkward or vague about the title "Human history", so let's use that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Human history per User:Netoholic and User:BarrelProof. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Move to human history - I think we need to make it clear that this talks about the history of humans, not the History of Earth. Interstellarity (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Human history, per much of the above and this n-gram, but the long-time title should be kept as a redirect to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This common historical term need works well. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just want to point out here that, historically (no pun intended), the term "history" was used to refer only to the time after humanity began to write about itself (creating the artificial, awkward problem that history would thereby have started in different places at different times), or, as beginning after the invention of writing. So calling this article History of humanity when it includes pre-history, is perhaps not optimal. Leave it as is, with redirects from the other suggested titles. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Human history. It's a much more natural title. I also agree that there is potential confusion with History of Earth to readers.Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Uncertain about this. On one hand, when we say "history of X", we usually mean history of the humans there. History of the Americas doesn't go into geology. "History of the world" uses the same naming format as the other history articles, clearly expanded to include the whole world. The word "world" also has a lot of connotations, which match up pretty well with the actual focus of the article. (I imagine that if we had an article titled "History of Homo Sapiens", it would have a very different focus.) On the other hand, "human history" is clearly a more common term, and the potential confusion with other articles is somewhat relevant. I'm leaning slightly toward "History of the world". --Yair rand (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to human history as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to human history as per above. This article is clearly about the history of humanity. Humans are a part of the world, but they do not make up the world. Attempting to equate human history with the history of the world is an anthropomorphization of time and history itself, and should most certainly be avoided.--Mddesan (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2020 (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.

Global warming

The "21st century" two-word mention of "global warming" seems pretty weak, given that planet Earth is on a course for unprecedented resultant disruptions of all kinds, pretty imminently. Granted that history is supposed to describe the past, there is by now surely enough accumulated past to the problem and to the halting international agreements to solve it, to justify more substantial mention of the matter. Nihil novi (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: I doubt there will be concensus for that. Let's be careful not to insert POV language — it nearly caused the entire paragraph to get taken out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I disagree that there should be more coverage of global warming. I would actually recommend having one brief sentence which deals with international response to global warming and nuclear proliferation, replacing the sentence on Iran/North Korea and the paragraph on resource competition. We're only twenty years into the 21st century; I don't think the entire section should be longer than 3-5 sentences in length. --Yair rand (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: I'd be fine with seeing the section chopped down to 3-5 sentences. It has way too much right now about foreign policy relations. We can slim it a bunch and take out the 9/11 photo, keeping just the Shanghai one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

To me it seems that the opening sentence is missing a definition. We have:

  • Human history, or the history of humanity (or history of the world), is determined from archaeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and other disciplines; and, for periods since the invention of writing, from recorded history and from secondary sources and studies.

Based on normal definitions and WP style, we should have something like this?

  • Human history, or the history of humanity (or history of the world), is the carefully researched description of humanity's past. It is determined from archaeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and other disciplines; and, for periods since the invention of writing, from recorded history and from secondary sources and studies.

Does this make sense to others? I would also say that it might be preferable to find a more everyday English wording to replace "determined from".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The first, current version describes how human history is arrived at, but not what it is.
In lieu of "is determined from", maybe "is informed by"?
Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Would be an improvement on what we have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: sounds good to me. Please go ahead and implement! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The change in structure makes sense, but I'm not sure about the wording "carefully researched description". I think most would say that the history is the past itself, not the description of it. --Yair rand (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a common usage in casual speech, but not in more careful discussion. If you think about it, we would never have needed the word "history". If we are going to have an article, it is not about just the "past".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Just an idea, but perhaps "carefully researched record of humanity's past" or "carefully researched account of humanity's past" would get the meaning across better? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess the question is whether "description" is really being seen as a difficult word here, compared to "record" or "account". I don't see that personally, but in any case I hope we don't pick a word to make it sound fancy and technical if we don't need to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with "description". But to add to the list of possible alternatives: "narrative"?
Nihil novi (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Modern historian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Modern historian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Modern historian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"History of the world" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of the world. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 14#History of the world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#History_of_the_world

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#History_of_the_world. Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Crimes committed by the USSR

Why the extreme lack of detail about the crimes committed by the Soviet Union e.g. the great purge, Holodomor, Gulag system, deportation of ethnic groups within the USSR etc. These event's had an enormous impact on the USSR's inhabitants and global and internal perceptions of communism and lead to the deaths of millions of people. Similarly scaled atrocity's are mentioned in this article in reference to China and Nazi Germany but not the USSR, why is this? Likewise there is not mention of the 1975 - 1979 Cambodian genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A0C:5A89:2A:7BB:2DF5:A16D (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad question, regarding the USSR. Regarding the Cambodian genocide, I'm not sure it's WP:DUE, which feels like a horrible thing to say about an event that cost 2 million lives, but the bar for this page is higher than for any other history page on Wikipedia, and we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. (Other things left out include e.g. the Spanish flu, as mentioned above.) Do you or anyone else have a wording suggestion for the USSR? I'd be willing to consider something one sentence long or shorter, since that's what we allocate to the Holocaust. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksande15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of pandemics

I tried to add a short sentence about the coronavirus pandemic. Yair rand reverted me, noting "not to downplay things, but this article doesn't even have room for the Spanish flu, the Plague of Justinian, yellow fever, malaria, smallpox, the 100 years war..." This is quite reasonable in my view, and we ought to have WP:RECENCY top of mind. That said, I'd argue the virus has had a comparable impact to other 21st century events listed (e.g. 9/11, Great Recession, Arab Spring), and it seems slated to be listed at VA4. And to leave out things like Spanish flu (which killed 17-50 million people) seems a gap. So, how should we balance coverage of pandemics with the other types of occurences (wars, achievements like flight/moon landings, political trends, etc.) that we cover here? Sdkb (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that moving in both directions would make sense: More coverage of major historical pandemics (though probably not COVID-19 itself, unless current efforts completely fail and it ends up killing many tens of millions of people), and less coverage of recent relatively minor events like the Arab Spring, ISIS, 9/11, the War on Terror, the financial crisis, and the Great Recession. There are a lot of major gaps in the area of history of medicine/health in general: I don't see any mention of the development of vaccines, germ theory, or sanitation, all of which were pretty significant developments. There's also no mention of the epidemics resulting from the Columbian exchange, which had a very large impact on history. --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Agreed. Editing this article very quickly brings up very big and contentious and thorny issues about what's important and what's not, and we've been debating the scope of related articles at WP:Vital Articles (see here and related conversations just after it). That said, I think this would be a great article for a concerted effort to push it up to GA status that started by taking a step back, assessing overall principles about how to define significance, and then proceeding from there. It'd be a great achievement to have WP's most important history article also be a good one. I'm not quite sure where to go to say "hey, we should all work on this", though, and not sure others would take me up on the offer even if I did. Sdkb (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I like your ideas above. as a start, perhaps you could post a notice at the talk page for WP:History. I am a lead coordinator there. the project itself is semi-inactive. we have little editing activities or group efforts there. however the talk page is still used occasionally for posting ideas and possible efforts for the entire community. you are welcome to post any notice, invite etc, at the talk page for the WikiProject. If I can assist, please let me know. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the editors above who recommend we provide some basic coverage of this pandemic in this article. it is already major worldwide event with global implications.I would like to suggest the draft text below.

In 2020, the disease of Coronavirus disease 2019 led to a major worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. Entire national economies were forced to "shut down" in whole or in part; in brief, this meant that businesses considered non-essential were ordered to close. the reason for this was that the virus was found to be highly contagious. Experts around the world in disease control urged that countries implement major social-distancing measures to slow or halt the spread of this disease. this meant that individuals remained physically distant from others in all settings. this measure was to prevent further transmission of the disease. Scientists found that while the disease could often be highly damaging and dangerous, there were some individuals who could have the virus and not exhibit any symptoms at all; based on this it was deemed necessary for all individuals to maintain proper physical distance from each other, in any and all settings, with the possible single exception of family members residing in the same household.

As of May 2020, there were concerns about major possible economic declines and other damage from the Socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the world's biggest economy, the United States, there were millions of workers who were laid off. there was widespread concern of possible widespread damage to small businesses everywhere. Meanwhile, various researchers worked frantically to try to develop possible vaccines, and possible cures or successful treatments for this disease.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said when I reverted this - it's unsourced. And it's entirely too much. Two paragraphs is more than we devote to the Neolithic Revolution and the devlopment of agriculture! At most we're talking a mention in a sentence, not the suggested paragraphs. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, your points are entirely valid. I would suggest an alternate way to view this question, however. I feel the best topic to compare this to is the coverage in this entry for the Depression, World War 2, and the new post-war arrangements that followed. I feel that unfortunately, this pandemic will be entirely on the same level of significance as those world events, which do get more than one paragraph of coverage. as far as any concerns about recentism, as you know Wikipedia is meant to be a chronicle of contemporary history, as much as past history. yes that absolutely does not mean we give more coverage to recent events just due to their recent nature. however, if a current event is already of worldwide, major significance, as this one is, then imho it behooves us to provide some degree of coverage in this entry, at the current time.
that is my own personal opinion on this question, of course. I will await any community discussion and consensus on this idea. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900, Ealdgyth, and Yair rand: I have to agree with Ealdgyth here. We're talking about a potential sentence, not a potential two paragraphs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's add something about it. Dmarquard (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900, Ealdgyth, Yair rand, and Dmarquard: I think a good place to start would be adding coverage of other major pandemics throughout history. Does anyone feel qualified to do that in a very concise way? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
While deaths directly attributable to Covid-19 will probably not be all that significant by historical disease standards, the societal disruptions caused by it seem quite significant. Certainly, it seems more significant than many 21st century events already mentioned here. However, it's sufficiently current that it may be hard to keep it in the appropriate perspective. - Nichlemn (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Norte Chico

I believe the Norte Chico civilization should be added to the "Cradles of civilization" subsection. It was contemporaneous with the Egyptian pyramids after all. It is odd that what could be the oldest civilization in the Americas is relegated to a sidebar link. --αlphαtheαlpαcα 15:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"History of the world" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of the world. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#History of the world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

No mention to socialism

I find a bit strange that there's no mention to socialism, an important topic both after the Industrial Revolution and necessary to understand the whole 20th century. I don't know if it should be noted in the industrial revolution section or after that. -Theklan (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Socialism and communism are discussed in the 20th century section. Cyrobyte (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"European expansion" section

The "European expansion" section is quite different from the others. It breaks the rythm and it tries to explain why this expansion occurred, instead of the expansion itself. I would suggest to delete this section, except the first paragraph, and then adding the section about "Protoglobalization" in history of globalization, that is way more precise, also shorter, and helps with the general rythm. What do you think? -Theklan (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: I agree!  Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Great! I think I can do it. Theklan (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh! You did it! Great. Theklan (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

history

Which African country became the first to the opportunit of independence prepared by charles gaulle of france — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.188.59 (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Human civilisation

Please 2409:4051:2012:4260:8D7A:320:37DE:242C (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues?

I was hoping to get this article to B-Class and eventually make it into a GA, but I am unsure what exactly the problems are here in this article. I already have noticed the citation formatting issues, but is there anything else that I should know about for improvement? Perhaps some undue weight in a few sections? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on it but there are still many paragraphs that don't have any citations, especially in the early modern section. Some sources probably need to be replaced, like Khan Academy, and I'm not sure if the coverage is balanced – does it make sense that the 20th century section is as long as the entire prehistory section? Do we need separate sections for Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cerebellum the Stone ages are elaborated in Prehistory as the Paleolithic and Neolithic. The Bronze Age on the other hand definitely warrants its own section, as the current incarnation in the “cradles of civilization” section fails to mention major nations that used bronze like China and Japan. I don’t think the Iron Age needs a section, as it can just be cited that empires began switching from Bronze to iron because it was more common. In regards to the 20th century, it definitely needs to be cut down. Perhaps a lot of the Cold War material can be removed? I’d I could order it in a few paragraphs, I would do Colonial empires, World War I, World War II, Cold War, Decolonization, Technology. Each probably needs two or three sentences at most. But the lead probably needs the most work right now, and needs to be toned down. I’ll be working on that at the moment. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Trimmed the lead. Would you change anything about it? I took out the citations because the body already has most of the information. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Where in Africa did humans originate?

I believe we need to be more specific about where in the 11.73 million mi² continent of Africa humans originated. For example, we can write that humans originated in "sub-Saharan Africa", "modern day [country]", etc. However, I am having trouble finding a source that claims exactly where homo sapiens originated. The Fonz (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Experts question study claiming to pinpoint birthplace of all humans -Our species likely arose in many places around Africa, not just around the Kalahari Desert, critics say
Moxy- 20:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there more to human history?

1. Most of the photos seem to be of the fanciest possible representative buildings and structures. Human history is not just the history of such structures.

2. Nearly everything else in photos is of the Western world. Is there a diversity committee you can run this past? 2601:645:100:1D20:0:0:0:CBAF (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia frequently has diversity problems; however, images in this article are just not one of them. There is a huge diversity of images, so frankly, I find it difficult to take your second point seriously. Agreed that there may be too many buildings, but this article is certainly not finished, so that will hopefully be addressed once it the article as a whole is at a higher quality. Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Periodization

@Interstellarity: Could you please explain the thinking behind your recent changes? For example, why does ancient history start in 600 BCE and post-classical in 476 CE? Cerebellum (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cerebellum and thank you for asking. The reason why I picked 600 BCE was because it marks the start of Classical antiquity. I changed the title from Ancient history to Classical antiquity so it makes much more sense. 476 CE was the year the Western Roman Empire fell and is a common definition of when post-classical history begins. I hope this answers your question regarding the periodization of history. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Ok, fair enough! Only issue I see is that I don't think the Bronze Age (Cradles of civilization section) fits into Prehistory, where do you think it should go? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cerebellum I think the three ages, Stone, Bronze, and Iron, fit will in the prehistory since they occurred before classical antiquity. That's my opinion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Hmm, our article Prehistory says that prehistory ends with the first writing systems but let's wait and see what others have to say. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to go back to what we had before, because our own article Classical antiquity says that the concept only applies to the Mediterranean/Greco-Roman world. The dates from our article Ancient history, 3000 BCE–500 CE, work better for the rest of the world. Let me know if you want to see sources to back up those claims. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Prehistory or 'pre-literary history' refers to periods and cultures not covered by any attestation in literature, which applies to largely stone age civilization and some bronze age civilizations, but rarely any iron age ones. As a general rule, the material on any given article that fits into this is in the form of information derived solely from excavated archaeological evidence, rather than any form of written record, such as inscriptions, tablets or scrolls. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Classical antiquity, as noted on that page, is a fairly Eurocentric term pertaining almost purely to Mediterranean civilization. Ancient history was more appropriate and inclusive of the contents from all geographies. This page is fairly instructive - it employs Ancient history and then Post-classical history. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the date changes are improvements. If anything we should be more general in the relative ranges, not giving a specific year like 476, which completely defeats the purpose of using "post-classical" instead of "middle ages". Aza24 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Page title: Human history vs World history?

I am beginning to question whether the current title of human history is a good one. I noticed that Human history seems to be used more when talking about evolution of humans while world history seems to be used when talking about history after prehistory. I was hoping I could get some comments regarding the usage of those two terms. I am aware of the discussions to change the title, but when I was reading the discussions, I didn't think this was brought up before and I think it is worth discussing. Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This point is fairly well illustrated by the talk post further up the page with an evolutionary bent entitled "Where in Africa did humans originate?" - strong testament to the confusion. World history might be somewhat less ambiguous and leave less scope for potential confusion as to the subject matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur. "World history" seems the natural title for this article. However, Wikipedia already has an article titled "World history". Therefore some sort of differentiation would have to be made. One way might be to add, to the existing article of that title, something like "(history of the field)". That seems to me better than simply reverting the present "Human history" article's title back to the longish, less graceful "History of the world".
Nihil novi (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Simply World history (field) might be a more concise option for that other page, but this might need a move discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Nihil novi You know, when I was finding this article for the first time, I searched for "History of the world" as I imagined something which included every living thing on Earth and every occurrence which took place due to the actions of those living things. I was basically interested in Humans and their actions over the period of time. Later, the title of the article was changed to "History of humanity" and I said, yes that makes sense too. But I also believe "History of the world" would be a better title overall because this article is probably purposed for a miscellaneous look into the common History one would like to know about things on Earth. Rain & Thunderstorm (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

BC/AD vs BCE/CE

@Cerebellum: The reason why I am bringing this to the talk page is because we should use a consistent format throughout the article. I don't care which one we use as long as it's consistent since neither would be incorrect. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

However, there is an advantage to "BCE, CE", in that the earlier English "BC" derives from "Before Christ" and "AD" from "Anno Domini" ("in the Year of Our Lord", i.e., of Jesus Christ); whereas "BCE, CE" are short, respectively, for "before the common era" and "of the common era" and are therefore religion-neutral.
Such neutrality may be helpful in a period of ongoing religious animosities when some are ready to oppress, even kill, on behalf of their particular brand of religion.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I am not against using BCE/CE and I believe that is a valid point. I just care that we use the same format throughout the article. Interstellarity (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur about the need, in any case, for consistency.
Nihil novi (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Consistency would be good, per MOS:VAR. I'd support BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:BCE, either date style is acceptable. But there should be internal consistency within an article. Also per MOS:BCE, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content". In general, whatever style dates an article was started with is what it should continue to use unless there is a good reason to change it. Looking at the article history, it appears that the article was created with "BC/AD" date styles, so that is what the article should be using consistently. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the entire text was already stable on BCE/CE until this edit. Only the recently-added dates in headings needed correcting, which has now been done. Is there anything more to discuss? – Joe (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the article was started with BC/AD date style, so per MOS:BCE that is what the article should be using. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
"An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content."
It seems to me that, in this case, there is good reason to use BCE/CE ("Before the Common Era", "Common Era") rather than BC/AD: most of the world does not subscribe to any variant of the Christian religion which created "BC/AD" ("Before Christ", "Anno Domini"). Religious neutrality has much to recommend it in a presentation of world history, especially when former European colonies are struggling to overcome various manifestations, including cultural, of neo-imperialism.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Um no, if that logic were accepted on Wikipedia, it would apply to just about every Wikipedia article except topics specific to Christianity. But Wikipedia policy is explicitly neutral as to whether any particular article should use BC/AD or BCE/CE. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
As early as 5:25, 25 January 2006 – and no doubt earlier – in this article, it was BCE/CE.
Should the community decide on BCE/CE as the standard era designation in Wikipedia articles, I for one will not object. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, until the Wikipedia community does decide to standardize on BCE/CE, the rule is that what the article was started with is what it stays with. So this article should be using BC/AD date formatting. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The currently-named "Human history" article was started 05:51, 19 January 2004.
Only 6 months later – 07:08, 23 July 2004 – the article began using the "BCE/CE" era-designation system.
Ever since, to this day, the article has consistently been using that, to the exclusion of "BC/AD".
Thus the article has since 2004 – through over 97% of its life – been using "BCE/CE".
That, to me, speaks to the legitimacy of continuing to use "BCE/CE".
Thank you.
Nihil novi (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
We're well past the point at which continuing to debate this is helpful, I think. BCE/CE is what's currently in the article and is clearly the status quo, making it supported by MOS:ENGVAR, plus we have consensus it's preferable here. Let's move on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
You mean WP:ERA dude - why not "move on" to read it! Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with those above that per WP:ERA the original BC/AD style should be reinstated. This creeping American cultural imperialism should be resisted, especially here - a high proportion of the world's Anglophone population don't understand BCE/CE. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Nihil novi and Sdkb. WP:ERA states both are acceptable and "[a]n article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content". I think Nihil novi has shown, BCE/CE is the established era style. Those pointing to a quote from WP:ENGVAR about using the first usage as the preferred style are IMO taking the quote out of context and changing it slightly. Here's the full quote, coming from the WP:RETAIN section of ENGVAR: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." Assuming this is a discussion about an English variety, the guideline is to use established version, and only revert to the first post-stub version if there's no established version. But it's pretty clear BCE/CE has been established for this page. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
If anyone cares to read, BCE/CE consensus appears to have been established via a talk discussion in January 2006. In that discussion the page creator expressed support for BCE/CE over BC/AD despite their original writing decision. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Pinchme123, for looking up the "Era proposal" discussion begun on 14 January 2006, during which the article's originator, SimonP, commented on 27 January: "I really don't care if my BC/AD is replaced with BCE/CE. In fact, I usually use BCE/CE myself."
I suggest that those interested in this question look up the very informative "Common Era" article, tracing BCE/CE back to 1615 and Johannes Kepler.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article should use BC/AD unless there is an explicit consensus to change through talk page discussion, as is demanded by MOS:ERA. The dating style was changed back in 2005 without doing this, which was wrong. I don't think we should 'just let it slide because it happened a long time ago'. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
MOS:BCE is neutral, but notes it "depending on context". BCE/CE should be preferred in articles that deal in a large part with non-European areas of the world. Walrasiad (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_history/Archive_3&oldid=1148254518"