Talk:Human history: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:59, 16 January 2006

Latest revision as of 16:22, 21 April 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{AIDnom}}

{{Article history

{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}.ogg}}

|action1=GAN

|action1date=22:18, 17 January 2006

|action1result=listed

|action1oldid=35588355

|action2=GAR

==Old talk==

|action2date=09:35, 9 August 2006

NPOV Issue?

|action2result=delisted

I'm still kind of new to the idea of contributing/critiquing articles so I figure I'll just raise this point instead of tagging NPOV myself, but the section on the 20th Century states that the Soviet Union collapsed due to US military spending. This is not only very America-centric in that it ignores the contributions of Mikhail Gorbachev, John Paul II, et al. and the importance of the Solidarity movement in Poland in bringing down Soviet communism, but it is also considered a rather right-wing point of view even in the United States insofar as it focuses on the oftentimes controversial policies of the Reagan Administration. I would be open to editing the article to rememdy this but am reluctant to do so without some guidance, partly due to my inexperience and partly because I don't want to create an NPOV issue tilted towards my own ideas... [[User:ThirtyOneKnots|ThirtyOneKnots]] 4:24. 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

|action2oldid=67965330

|action3=GAN

*The reality was that the people in communistic countries knew that they were far poorer then the people in the west. They had a complete mistrust in their leadership. The leaders of the Soviet Union knew that their economy was decreasing and that they couldn't apply all the new technologies from the west. The advance of the computer was a great concern for them. A demand both among the elite as the population for change grew in large parts of Eastern Europe. Before Gorbachev, government and society were already changing in Poland and Hungary. The American military was an important element for the Soviet elite. The Soviet Union couldn't maintain its military anymore, while the United States was repadly modernizing its army using computer technologies. I'm not an expert, so i don't know how important the military was for the collapse.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

|action3date=18:36, 7 June 2008

|action3link=Talk:Human history/GA1

|action3result=not listed

|action3oldid=217384369

|action4=PR

|action4date=02:27, 25 May 2011

|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the world/archive1

|action4result=reviewed

|action4oldid=430598810

|action5=PR

Just a remark : afaik, Neanderthal Man is not an ancestor of man but rather a dead lineage. --[[User:Nct|nct]] 21:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action5date=19 November 2023

|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Human history/archive1

|action5result=reviewed

|action5oldid=1185815886

|aciddate=January 15 2006

A question of style rather than of content: shouldn't all verbs be either consistently past tense or consistently present tense? I'd suggest changing

everything to past tense if nobody objects :)

|action6 = GAN

Alright, everything is in past tense now :) [[User:Ferkelparade|Ferkelparade]] 17:29, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

|action6date = 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

|action6link = Talk:Human history/GA2

|action6result = listed

|action6oldid = 1239650225

|currentstatus = GA

|dykdate=30 September 2024

|dykentry=... that public health measures and advances in medical science in modern '''[[human history]]''' helped raise global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000?

|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/Human history

|topic = History

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Archaeology|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject History|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}

}}

{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=

{{annual readership}}

{{Section sizes}}

{{Old moves

| collapse = false

| title1 = Human history

| title2 = History of the world

| title3 = World history

| list =

* RM, History of the world → Human history, '''No consensus''', 20 May 2006, [[Talk:Human_history/Archive_1#Name_ambiguity|discussion]]

* RM, History of the world → Human history, '''Not moved''', 6 November 2011, [[Talk:Human_history/Archive_2#Requested_move|discussion]]

* RM, History of the world → Human history, '''Moved''', 13 March 2020, [[Talk:Human_history/Archive_3#Requested_move_13_March_2020|discussion]]

* RM, Human history → World history, '''Not moved''', 16 October 2022, [[Talk:Human_history#Requested_move_16_October_2022|discussion]]

}}

{{Former AFI|date= 5 December 2022|page={{PAGENAME}}|oldid2=1126899683|oldid1=1125507132}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Human history/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Human history/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 5

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(60d)

|archive = Talk:Human history/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== Coverage of genocides and atrocities ==

{{archive top|result= '''No result.'''<br />I don't know why a formal close was requested here. There was no singular question, several additions to the article were discussed. Some proposed changes were already adopted, while some are disputed. If there is disagreement about something in particular, a proper RfC can be formed on the topic, otherwise any further changes can be discussed on the Talk page. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:#9999FF;">'''Turbo'''</span><span style="color:#660066;">'''Super'''</span><span style="color:#CC3300;font-weight:bold;">A+</span>]] ([[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:##9999FF;">&#9743;</span>]]) 15:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)}}

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

----

* [[Genocide of Indigenous peoples]] in Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Africa etc. Here are few that can be mentioned such as [[California genocide]]: [https://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/global-maps-selected-cases-genocide]

The article claims that [[currency]] originated in the [[Neolithic]]. [[Coinage]] was certainly not used before the early [[Iron Age]], so I think I'm going to delete that misleading word from the Neolithic section as soon as I've thought up something relevant to add to the Bronze and Iron Ages section. Also, date ranges ought to be added to the section headings so that claims within each section are more easily verified. [[User:Arkuat|Arkuat]] 07:19, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

* Other crimes in Africa such as [[Atrocities in the Congo Free State]], [[Herero and Nama genocide]], and [[Algerian_War#Atrocities_and_war_crimes]]

* [[Circassian genocide]]

* [[Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction]] with about 5 million dead.

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: {{tq2|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]}}

==Article Incompleteness==

If you're going to try to write a history of the ENTIRE world, it has to be more comprehensive than this. Also, each section deserves its own article. Personally, I think such a history in one article is foolish. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] 05:25, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

*What sources say:

I think the article is simply meant as a very general overview. The history of the world obviously can't be completely covered even many, many volumes; this article should simply be

**[https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40215 The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies p. 304] {{tq2|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}}

something to point others in the right direction.[[User:CancerOfJuly|CancerOfJuly]]

**[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-genocide/E60C05ADB875E63EE57B5D41EC4BA485 The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 p. 6]: {{tq2|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.}}

I'm also adding a NPOV tag for now. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:What's important is to have one article that links to all of the various historical-overview articles of interest. When this article gets too long (and when all the anachronisms have been moved to their correct section, and we figure out what the chronological limits of each section are), at '''that''' point we can worry about breaking this up into smaller articles. --[[User:Eric Forste|Eric Forste]] 22:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]], please don't do that. Not everything can be covered in every article. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*:Ok, I'll wait for few more comments and proceed with a RfC if necessary. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*::RFC's are not for retaliation. If a discussion reaches a standstill over a prolonged period, sure. You sound like you're practically threatening an RFC after less than a few hours of discussion. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*:::Not my intent. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:The fact that something occurred in the history of the world is not sufficient reason for including it in this article, see [[WP:PROPORTION]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. This article can't discuss every single genocide, similar to how it cannot discuss every single war. Are you aware of sources that establish that the genocides you mentioned really were major events from the perspective of world history in general? The sources you presented so far belong to the more narrow field of genocide studies, not world history in general. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::I'd like to encourage us to keep this a nice, short, comprehensive overview. Not everybody wants to read a 20,000 word article. But neither should it simply be a list of available history articles. I think that it is pretty good now and with further tweaking (but not necessarily a lot more text) it'll be fine. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

::I don't mean listing every genocide. But we need a concise single sentence that several genocides occurred in Americas. Or at least point to the debate about it (some authors seem to argue against it). No need to list everything, but omitting to mention the issue entirely is indeed biased. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*Which chapters in the Cambridge World History are important enough to be included in the article, and why? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:Is there really a reason you can articulate why it's "systemic bias"? Is the bias that there aren't enough Americans editing Wikipedia? (If you would argue that that there being too many Americans is actually why it the Great Dying is not mentioned, you're mistaken.) Surely nothing is lost by being a bit more specific and not using terms just because they sound more serious. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

----

::No colonial genocide by Europeans are mentioned. Besides the above quote, here's the one for Long nineteenth century: {{tq|The 20th century opened with Europe at an apex of wealth and power. Much of the world was under its direct colonial control or its indirect influence through heavily Europeanized nations like the United States and Japan.}}. Positives are mentioned, negatives are omitted such as [[Atrocities in the Congo Free State]] (with up to 13 million dead) [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:::I agree that the things you've mentioned should be in the article, but I just really don't see why it's systemic bias—which is a broader characterization about the recent efforts of specific editors. It seems more helpful just to call it bias which is a more natural to remedy in one specific article and perhaps assumes a bit less about the contributors. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::I say [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]] because I assume it's due to the demographics of editors. For example, if we had more editors from Congo, they'd probably be more passionate about inclusion of [[Atrocities in the Congo Free State]]. If we had more native American editors, they'd be more passionate about indigenous genocides sentence. It doesn't mean there was any bad faith intent among the primary editors of the page. It's easy to miss issues in a very high level article such as this. Does that make sense? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::Classic [[Wp:recentism]] - what about the the Mongols, [[Timur]], [[Assyrian Empire]] and so on and on. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Some of those can be added too possibly. But there's a whole paragraph about European colonization here [[Human_history#Long_nineteenth_century]] starting with {{tq|European empires lost territories in Latin America, which won independence by the 1820s through military campaigns, but expanded elsewhere as their industrial economies gave them an advantage over the rest of the world....}} So an entire paragraph but any mention of genocides or atrocities committed by Europeans are omitted? I don't think there's an entire paragraph about Mongols. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::This topic might be best addressed by simply stating that genocides have happened throughout history.... without naming any individual one.... we should simply summarize what the UN says or actually quote it "at all periods of history [[genocide]] has inflicted great losses on humanity." <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Interesting idea, but there's no natural place for a general comment like that in such an article. We have no "overview" section (nor should we, that would get messy quick), and including such a sentiment in the lead would not be summing up the article like a lead should. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 18:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::To clarify, removal of anything wasn't my suggestion. Examples can be given in relevant sections, with concise overview sentences. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Pick by what criteria ? [[List of genocides]] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:Bogazicili, this article is intended to be perhaps the most general, concise and summarized article on Wikipedia. You will need to cite and provide examples from books on the topic of Human history. That is, we need to see these things represented in modern reliable secondary sources ''about'' human history. Of course the ''The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies'' is going to mention these things, but how much are the mentioned in ''[[The Cambridge World History]]'' series? I'm not saying I disagree with you, in fact it seems like many here sympathize with your concerns (including me), but you're going about this the wrong way (and the systemic bias accusations don't help). As for which genocides, again, that would be decided by coverage in topic-relevant reliable sources. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 20:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"''The Europeans also had horses, steel, and guns that allowed them to overpower and slaughter the American people.''" Slaughter seems a little general. As I recall (and what a glance at [[Native_american|Native American]] seems to suggest), the French in Québec didn't really do anything but trade with the original inhabitants for furs, and the North American English tried to avoid them in general- at least for the first century or so that they were there.<br>--[[User:BillyL|BillyL]] 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::{{u|Aza24}}, thanks for the source suggestion. I checked [https://www.cambridge.org/tr/universitypress/subjects/history/regional-history-after-1500/cambridge-world-history-volume-7-part-1?format=HB The Cambridge World History Volume 7 Part 1]. There seems to be good coverage of genocide topic (chapter 16). Here are some quotes and page numbers. I'm keeping the quotes under 200 words:

::* About [[Genocide of Indigenous peoples]], page 430: {{tq2|That said, and ever since the initial Eastern seaboard settler wars against the Tsenacommacahs and Pequots in the 1620s and early 1630s, systematic genocidal massacre was a core component of native destruction throughout three centuries of largely ‘Anglo’ expansion across continental North America. The culmination of this process from the mid-1860s to mid-1880s ... native Araucanian resistance by the Argentinian and Chilean military in the Southern Cone pampas, primarily in the agribusiness interest. In Australia, too, ‘Anglo’ attrition or outright liquidation of Aborigines from the time of ‘first contact’ in 1788 reached its zenith in Queensland in these same decades, as a dedicated Native Mounted Police strove to cleanse the territory of indigenous tribes in favour of further millions of cattle stock. Undoubtedly, in all these instances, Western racism and contempt for natives as ‘savages’ played a critical role in psychocultural justifications for genocide}}

::* About [[Circassian genocide]], page 430: {{tq2|However, the 1864 Russian genocidal eructation of the Circassians from the North Caucasus into Ottoman territory...}}

::* About [[Atrocities in the Congo Free State]], page 429: {{tq2|One irony of this situation is that the most egregious case of violent mass death in fin-de-siècle Africa – the drive to extract wild rubber by concession companies in the so-called Congo Free State...}}

::[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:::This seems solid enough ground to partially expand content on the genocide of Indigenous peoples by at least sentence or two; I would assume the content needed here would be Oceania-based (which is an exceptionally small section in the Early modern period to begin with). I'm afraid the single sentence on the Circassian might not translate to anything in a limited encyclopedia article.

:::I think the last quote illustrates a possible lapse in this article. There's nothing said on the actual time during which African countries were colonized, just when they were colonized and when they were decolonized. I'd suggest that at the end of the 2nd paragraph in the "Long nineteenth century", a sentence be included on why the appeal of colonizations to major powers, and then the negative results for the native population, where the [[Atrocities in the Congo Free State]] could be used as an example.

:::That's just my reaction, others are welcome to way in. – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::I suggest adding the following two sentences.

:I expect the above remark was principally about the very early history of Spanish colonization. By the way, I noticed that [[Gupta]]s were showing up in the classical empires section, and [[Maurya]]s in the later age of kingdoms section, along with a few other anachronisms, which I tried to tidy up after checking the referenced articles. I also moved the paragraph on India in the age of kingdoms section so that it would adjacent to the rest of the discussion of Eurasian history in that period. --[[User:Eric Forste|Eric Forste]] 22:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::* For the Americas: {{green|Colonial policies included the deliberate [[Genocide of Indigenous peoples|genocide of indigenous peoples]].}} Sourced to Cambridge World History, from the quote Bogazicili provided.

::::* For Africa: {{green|Imperial rule in Africa involved many acts of violence such as the [[atrocities in the Congo Free State]] and the [[Herero and Nama genocide]].}} --[[User:Cerebellum|Cerebellum]] ([[User talk:Cerebellum|talk]]) 23:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::For the Americas, the source states seems to restrict its claims to "smaller groups" of native populations in North America while excluding "large native populations" in "tropical Africa, or the Central and Southern Americas" (p. 429). This should probably be reflected in our sentence, maybe as {{green|In some cases, colonial policies included the deliberate [[genocide of indigenous peoples]].}} Some scholar suggest the wider claim that colonialism is "intrinsically genocidal" but I don't think that this is the generally accepted position. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, I made that change and added the sentences. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]], does that resolve your concerns? --[[User:Cerebellum|Cerebellum]] ([[User talk:Cerebellum|talk]]) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Cerebellum}} and {{u|Phlsph7}}, thank you for the changes. I have several more concerns:

::::::::* I do think [[Circassian genocide]] should be mentioned in the article. Genocides against Christian and Jewish populations are already mentioned in this article, but there is nothing about genocides against Muslim populations, such as the Circassian genocide. I think this can be integrated into the following sentence {{tq|while the tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire did little to slow the Ottoman decline}}. I'll make a proposal about this after I go through a few more sources myself.

::::::::* Genocide in Australia should be added into Long nineteenth century section. There's already a sentence that covers British expansion: {{tq|The British also colonized Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa with large numbers of British colonists emigrating to these colonies.}} So you just need to add something like "which led to [[Genocide of Indigenous Australians|genocide in Australia]]" into that sentence. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::To make space for "which led to genocide in Australia", consider trimming this sentence: {{tq|European empires lost territories in Latin America, which won independence by the 1820s through military campaigns}}. You can just say something like "Latin American countries gained independence by the 1820s". [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::::}} Makes sense, I suggest you make those changes unless someone objects. I personally have never heard of the Circassian genocide but it has a similar death toll to the Armenian genocide and both are mentioned in the Cambridge World History, so to be consistent I think we would either have to include both or omit both. --[[User:Cerebellum|Cerebellum]] ([[User talk:Cerebellum|talk]]) 19:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:Great, I made the changes. The word count increased by only 4, while coverage of Ottoman Empire expanded significantly.

:::'''The shortest World History might include a line about the "present".''' "The capitalism socio-economics system domains the world with its power centers at the G-8 goverments, very contrast in human development societies exist and a massive south->north human migration exists. The planet-dynamics is changing because of human activities. Human race social and economics contrast and enviroment problems are the main challenges of human kind, etc..." lets discuss about. --[[User:gengiskanhg|GengisKanhg]] ([[User talk:Gengiskanhg|my talk]]) 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

:* Added Circassian genocide per above

:* Migration into Ottoman Empire is mentioned in The Cambridge World History Vol 7 Part 2 p. 5: {{tq|Tsarist and Habsburg Empires against the Ottoman Empire sent soldiers moving and Muslim peasant families fleeing}}. So I believe this is due too.

:Combining with additional sources, this is the result: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_history&diff=1228265513&oldid=1228264927]

:I really like how you guys link individual pages in the reference btw. I don't think I have seen that before. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I was too hasty, looks like the Australian case is more controversial. See [[Australian history wars#Genocide debate]]. I'm not sure if we should call it genocide or not. --[[User:Cerebellum|Cerebellum]] ([[User talk:Cerebellum|talk]]) 20:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

== I believe... ==

:I don't think it's a good idea to focus too much on genocides. It's often uncontroversial that a certain atrocity was committed but the problem of whether some parts of this atrocity amount to genocide is frequently controversial. I would suggest that we limit ourselves to atrocities of world-historic importance. If it's uncontroversial that a major part of one of those atrocities amounts to genocide, we can say so. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

...that a full history of the world would begin at maybe the formation of the Earth, I would consider renaming the article.

{{od}}

:[[History]] is the study and interpretation of the record of human societies, this would exclude earlier events such as the formation of the Earth, dinosaurs, etc. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can we mention Soviet famine was specifically directed at certain populations in [[Human_history#World_wars]]? The Cambridge World History Vol 7 Part 1 p. 425: {{tq|...cause or amplify famine was particularly directed at the Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga region and Kazakhstan}}? [[Holodomor]] can be linked to Ukraine. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

:While I don't have an objection to this request in particular, I just feel that we keep on bloating the article with details that are in some sense relevant but far from essential. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 11:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

== Graph of Singularity ==

[[Image:PPTCountdowntoSingularityLog.jpg|float|right|300px]]

Do we need this graph in the article? It seems to be one of the worst examples of pseudoscience that I've come across. Speculation and bizarre graphs created with a specific end in mind might be suitable for a theoretical page on [[Technological singularity]] and maybe [[Technological evolution]], but to put it on a page of World History elevates it to a scientific status which it does not have. The graph has also been placed on pages such as [[Social evolutionism]] and [[Neoevolutionism]], but I didn't think it worth creating three separate discussions. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT>]] 14:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

: I didn't add it here to promote singularity theory, but since it nicely names and illustrate some milestones in the history of humanity (i.e. history of the world). I was considering adding [[:Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg]] instead, as it has more sources (Britannica, AMNH - which may be viewed as more of the 'scientific status') but unfortunately it doesn't have the description of what those key points are. Or perhaps the [[:Image:PPTCanonicalMilestones.jpg]] will be more to your liking? Note that this is not speculation - the graph does not show future, just the past (historical) events. Whether one draws from it a conclusion regarding the technological singularity or not is rather irrelevant here. Regarding social evolutionism use - I think it is at least partially useful when describing the theories of [[Lewis H. Morgan]], [[Leslie White]] and [[Gerhard Lenski]] (which, you may note, are recognized scientists). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]} 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' to the Ottoman contraction article for being [[WP:UNDUE]]. One would also have to write about the Ottoman atrocities committed beforehand such as the [[Hamidian massacres]] and [[Bulgarian Horrors]], it is POV pushing to omit these. And at this point the subject would be too long for a due weight in all of human history. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 21:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

::The graph does not explicity shows the future, but the way in which it´s organized it guides the reader to a specific conclusion. It´s possible to draw a [[logarithmic timeline]] of the world from any point of start. I could put the zero in 1500 and write down what happened in 1490 (discovery of americas) in 1400 (renaissance) 500 (fall of roman empire?) and from there on the graph would be very similar. Or I could put the zero in today and create a script that updates it with the google news headline for the last 10 minutes or 10 hours (or the last 10<up>-100</up> year). The graph is biased to the suggest that there is something special in the next years to come. It does no state that, but it´s drawn to suggest it. It implicitly draws us to that conclusion. Also the Y axis - years to the next event is nonsense, as the "next event" is picked to fit in that date. That´s when biased graphics are dangerous, when they don´t say, but leads you to a erroneous conclusion. That´s why I am taking it out of the article: we can find better things to put there.--[[User:Avsa|Alexandre Van de Sande]] 02:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::I agree, the graph needs too much explanation for an overview article like this one. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 03:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg|left|right|300px]]

:::I disagree. Your agrument has already been disproven at [[Talk:Technological_singularity#Biased_Images]]. If you want more sources and references, there is the pic below, but I find that it is more interesting to use the above one with specific examples. Find me an academic list of key events that is contrary to that? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]} 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Piotrus, the graph is fine at [[Technological singularity]], because it accurately describes the theory. On this page, though, we're faced with one of two options:

::::#The graph is there to show the impending singularity, in which case it belongs only at the relevant article and not here.

::::#The graph is not there to promote the singularity, instead it's just there to show a list of key events, as you say several posts up.

::::If the second, the question remains: ''why do we need this graph''? If you really just want a list of important events, could not a simple list do? Or, tell you what, could we not write an article on the key events, call it, say, [[History of the World]]?

::::Obviously I'm being facetious, but my point remains. You can't say "''whether one draws from it a conclusion regarding the technological singularity or not is rather irrelevant here''" &mdash; it's not irrelevant, it's the entire point of this graph. A graph gets created where one hand-picks "events", such that the the step between emergence of Eukaryotic cells and the Cambrian explosion is given the same weight as the step between the invention of the computer and the invention of the personal computer, and suddenly you're surprised to discover that it forms a logarithmic curve. As Alexandre points out, it's incredibly easy to create a logarithmic curve &mdash; you just pick your "events" appropriately (if computer and personal computer are two different "events", why isn't the emergence of single celled organisms separated from the emergence of multi-celled organisms? What ever happened to fish?? Why the sudden jump to reptiles?).

::::Whether or not this graph is pseudoscience, it doesn't belong on this article, as it's quite clear that it's purpose is to promote the singularity theory, and not simply to show a list of some important "events" in world history. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT>]] 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::For what it's worth, I firmly believe in the Singularity, and even I don't think this graph belongs on this page. The members of this set of graphs from a slide presentation by [[Raymond Kurzweil]] that depict major historical events exponentially increasing in frequency are non-NPOV and don't have much place on Wikipedia outside the context of "This is what Ray Kurzweil says." I have doubts about their inclusion in the article [[Technological singularity]] (as discussed further on its talk page) and I certainly don't think they belong here. -- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] 14:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::::::I have readded the article, now that I have better references. It is not 'what Ray says', this is now a well referenced list backed with data by at least one Noblist - see the image's page for a complete list of references.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::It doesnt belong in an article of this scope, it's non-mainstream, arguably not even real "history", and needs a great deal of explanation. It belongs in [[singularity]]. It certainly doesnt belong on the <s>cover of a book</s>lead section with no explanation text to walk the reader through it. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::It's based among others on data from EB - they are pretty mainstream in my book. I don't really see a majority for discussing here. Let's have a straw poll vote then - I'll add it to the bottom section for increased visibility..--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 14:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:Concur with the above. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 22:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

== Civility ==

A few months ago, well ok, a year ago I made a contribution to this article in the 'Age of Kingdoms' section which was later edited by someone who felt it was necessary to add an insult to their edit summary in the form of "the Roman Empire fell in the 400's AD, not the 100's idiot!". Besides being totally uncalled for, insults such as this are a clear violation of the Civility Policy, and yet it is very difficult to effect a change to the comments in someones edit summary. I heartily encourage everyone to make contributing to wikipedia as enjoyable and pain free as possible for everyone. If you disagree with someone's contribution there are far more civil ways to engage your fellow wikipedians in a respectful debate and to otherwise make your views known. Thanks!

'''Oppose''' the bloating of the article with details on the Colonial genocides. It caused [[Eurocentrism|eurocentric]] bias. Colonialism is "intrinsically genocidal" and so is the human history. Non-Europeans were not inferior in the task.

==Improvement drive==

Several related articles are currently nominated to be improved on [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive]]. Help improve [[Spice trade]], [[History]], [[History of chemistry]], [[Hannibal]], [[John III of Portugal]], [[History of the Balkans]], [[History of Minnesota]] and [[Constantinople]] and vote for one or more of these articles on [[WP:IDRIVE]]. --[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Above, it was suggested to reduce the topic of genocides to an overview similar to the genocide statement by the UN, and counter-argued that there is no place for such an overview in the article.

== 'Rise of Europe'==

Perhaps, the article can end with a Summary where such statement is made. [[Arnold Toynbee]] mentions several professional historians who summarized the human history: "History is one damn thing after another." [[Edward Gibbon]] summed history up as "a little more than human criminal record." And he died before most of the genocides mentioned here.

This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg [[Kenneth Pomeranz]]). For a short description of how I view world history, please refer to [[user:RCSB|my user page]]. I have been especially influenced by [[Clive Ponting]], but also by: Marshall G.S. Hodgson, ''Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam, and World History'' (Cambridge, 1993). [[User:RCSB|RCSB]] 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of human history can be premature, as history will not end soon and Wikipedia is not crystalball. But Summary can end open with two possibilities, one realistic and one fantastic.

:Hi RCSB -- I didnt write the article but might offer some thoughts. Generally the Crusades are seen to be the beginning because it was the first time Europen ideas and culture ceased contracting geographically, and began expanding, a process which continues to this day. In hindsight it's a turning point and significant -- but as you say, at the time it was not that significant. As for technology, it was European usage of technology that allowed it to dominate the globe, from ships to navigation to books to weapons. Perhaps your confusing who invented a technology? Europeans didnt invent most of the key technologies, but who invents a tool is less relevant than how that tool is used. Technology is just one piece of a larger picture like humanism, scientific method, etc.. Id also say these large-scale articles on Wikipedia will tend to be pretty generic since its not possible to detail all the various POV's on somthing as large as World History. If you want to write about a particular author, you could create an article, like [[Fall of the Roman Empire]], that lists multiple POVs on a particular theme. Or, write up the summary under the authors entry, or a book article. Just some thoughts. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

*Realistic possibility: Aliens come and forbid genocides.

*Fantastic possibility: We on our own will end genocides.--[[User:IronMike6|IronMike6]] ([[User talk:IronMike6|talk]]) 04:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

==Did you know nomination==

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

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Human history}}

== "Human History"?? ==

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

While I have zero issues with the point of this article, the name of "Human History" is really strange to me. What other kind of history is there besides human? As far as I am aware, we have not yet discovered any other organisms that record the past in written form. [[User:Shedsunefertum17|Shedsunefertum17]] ([[User talk:Shedsunefertum17|talk]]) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

:[[Big History]] would be an example of a discipline that goes beyond the human realm. Apart from that, there are various branches of history that only examine certain aspects of human history and should be terminologically distinguished from human history, like [[History of Africa]] or [[Economic history]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 13:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

::The usual title one encounters for the subject of this article is "world history". I believe that was the original title.

::[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Was going to comment the same thing, might be worth making an RM but the last one was unsuccessful. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 21:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::::''World history'' could also work as a title. One difficulty is that ''world history'' is ambiguous as it refers both to the academic discipline (discussed in the article [[World history (field)]]) and the events studied by this discipline (discussed in this article). The advantage of the title ''Human history'' is that it avoids this ambiguity. For the unsuccessful proposals 2 years ago, see [[Talk:Human_history/Archive_4#Requested_move_16_October_2022]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 09:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::For those of us who see "history" as human-by-definition the title can be grating, but I came to accept that a lot of readers are used to using the term history more loosely, so that it can include geological, biological and paleontological discussions.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The title "[[Human history]]" begs the question: What would "[[:Wiktionary:Inhuman|Inuman history]]" be? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 19:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

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

:See both [[History]] and [[Big History]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

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

:Unfortunately we don’t have an article on [[Animal history]] despite there being loads of sources. See [[African historiography#Animal history]] for example [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 19:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think one reason could be that the term is more vague than others, as it could equally encompass "animals in human history" or "the chronology of organisms from the first multicellular eukaryotes and tracing the descendants thereof". Both are themselves reasonably covered histories on here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Idk, practically none of our articles on animals have history sections. We have [[Evolution of the horse]], [[Horses in warfare]], [[Domestication of the horse]], but no [[History of horses]], despite sources such as these:

:::* [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GBaiLESllNEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=history+of+horses&ots=A3tBrsyt7O&sig=T3dh_ZQF0NvHDIxeeyArf3z85hU#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20horses&f=false Horses: History, Myth, Art (2006)]

:::* [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tcwAuKwSSz4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=history+of+horses&ots=uY20xZOmhP&sig=PkXUmYQb6oJf2eAAaBWWJ_m0AB0#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20horses&f=false Horses Through Time]

:::* [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m09_uTLuz3UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=history+of+horses&ots=fLwl45-It2&sig=t549f9mvWR9IAnUMw_2MvK_F7-8#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20horses&f=false The Horse in Human History]

:::But also [[Animal history]] is just the academic discipline, I listed some sources at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals]] [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

*[[Natural history]] is the big one. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== Chimpanzees and Paleolithic ==

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

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

Hi there, in the origins sub-chapter there is a mention of chimpanzees and it is wrong or misleading at best. So I have to argue that this should be changed to [[Pan (genus)]].

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

Furthermore the sentence would give a better idea of what split it is talking about if it would mention both parts of the split, meaning the [[Australopithecine]] as the other to Pan.

Altogether there is much imprecision here, which lowers the quality of the article very much.

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

There are random details sprinkled around but the main categories are not well elaborated.

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

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

Another issue and example for this problem is the mention of the [[paleolithic]]. Its again at best misleading to talk about the paleolithik in the origins chapter, while the chapter does not focus on the whole paleolithic. So I have to again argue for more precision, argueing for saying [[lower paleolithic]] instead. Plus for puting it into perspective I would additionally

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

argue for mentioning the more widely known [[stone age]], as the lower paleolithik being an early stone age.

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

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

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

I have put forward a text, which was reverted for being too detailed. But as I argued in a second edit and now here I see this detail as crucial to increase the qualiy (and not length) of this article.

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

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

PS: to mention the [[Pleistocene]] is another way to give a first general idea of what period the chapter is talking about.

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

I am looking forward to finding together a version that fits.

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

Here a copy of my previous suggestion:

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

{{quote|The [[Bipedalism|ability to walk on two legs]] emerged in early hominins after the split between the [[Australopithecine]] (from which humans developed) and the [[Pan (genus)|Pan]] (from which [[chimpanzees]] developed), as an adaptation possibly associated with a shift from forest to savanna habitats.<ref>{{multiref|{{harvnb|Dunbar|2016|pp=8, 10|ps=, "What has come to define our lineage – bipedalism – was adopted early on after we parted company with the chimpanzees, presumably in order to facilitate travel on the ground in more open habitats where large forest trees were less common....The australopithecines did not differ from the modern chimpanzees in terms of brain size."}}|{{harvnb|Lewton|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DTwuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117 117]}}}}</ref> Hominins began to use rudimentary stone tools {{circa|3.3}}&nbsp;million years ago,{{efn|This date comes from the 2015 discovery of stone tools at the [[Lomekwi]] site in Kenya.<ref>{{harvnb|Harmand|2015|pp=[https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8697F75/download 310–315]}}</ref> Some paleontologists propose an earlier date of 3.39&nbsp;million years ago based on bones found with butchery marks on them in [[Dikika]], Ethiopia,<ref>{{harvnb|McPherron|Alemseged|Marean|Wynn|2010|pp=857–860}}</ref> while others dispute both the Dikika and Lomekwi findings.<ref>{{harvnb|Domínguez-Rodrigo|Alcalá|2016|pp=[https://paleoanthro.org/media/journal/content/PA20160046.pdf 46–53]}}</ref>}} marking the advent of the [[Lower Paleolithic]], the first period of the [[Paleolithic]] era (the first [[Stone Age]]).<ref>{{multiref|{{harvnb|de la Torre|2019|pp=11567–11569}}|{{harvnb|Stutz|2018|pp=[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118584538.ieba0363 1–9]|ps=, "The Paleolithic era encompasses the bulk of the human archaeological record. Its onset is defined by the oldest known stone tools, now dated to 3.3 Ma, found at the Lomekwi site in Kenya."}}}}</ref> and the geologic [[Pleistocene]].}} [[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]] ([[User talk:Nsae Comp|talk]]) 03:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. It's difficult to discuss multiple separate changes in edit summaries. In general, I don't think these suggestions are an improvement to the article because they add more detail than is necessary in such a broad article. We have one section to cover all of prehistory, it needs to be kept at a very high level overview.

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

:On chimpanzees, the split referred to is the split between our lineage (hominins) and that of our closest extant relatives, the chimpanzees (incl. bonobos). I cannot see anything incorrect or misleading about describing it that way. Specifying which genuses were involved seems unnecessary to understanding this point, and introduces two additional bits of jargon (Australopithecines, which are otherwise not mentioned until the next paragraph; and ''Pan'', which is not explained in this article at all) into an already heavy paragraph, for no real gain.

:On the Lower Palaeolithic, this is a sub-sub-sub-division of prehistory (the Lower¹ Old² Stone³ Age). Why does the reader need to know about this distinction, given that no other subdivisions of the Palaeolithic are mentioned in this article? Also, the Lower/Middle/Upper periodisation of the Palaeolithic is not used everywhere in the world; notably there is no "Lower Palaeolithic" in Africa (which is what this section is talking about), where the equivalent period is called the "Early Stone Age". If anything I can see the argument for going even broader and just saying "advent of the Stone Age", though an argument in favour of "Palaeolithic" is that the next section talks about the Neolithic, which might be confusing since it is also part of the Stone Age.

:On Pleistocene, this is just incorrect. The Pleistocene started 0.7 million years after the Palaeolithic (according to the current dating; the gap can only widen with new finds) and is in no way "marked" by the appearance of stone tools. If you want to give geological context then the Lower Palaeolithic started during the [[Pliocene]], but again this is extra jargon that is only helpful if the reader already knows what the Pliocene is, and I don't think we can assume that of a general readership. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::Just weighing on the Paleolithic issue, I agree with Joe that we don't need this extra level of information in a broad overview article like this one. How the Paleolithic is subdivided can be covered in articles on more narrow topics. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 11:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for the friedly reply. You are right that just mentioning the pleistocene and not mention other periods in the timeframe of the chapter produced the same shortcoming that I tried to reduce... But regarding the main point of too many difficult terms/concepts, I do understand your point, but I dont understand it in regard to "lower" and "stone age". Quite the contrary stone age is a better known word than Paleolithik so why cut stone age. And "Lower" Paleolithik doesnt make it more difficult, since it is not any special concept. Furthermore I dont mind saying "early Paleolithic" and link it to lower paleolithic. Altogether I have a problem if we omit the availability of more detailed articles by not providing links; as I said it doesnt need to use the articles name to link to it. Because what it creates is that a common reader has to figure out by reading through the paleolithic article that the whole paleolithic doesnt apply to that chapter here.

::Last but not least I really strongly find it misleading to mention chimpanzees without saying that they are like humans a later development of the split. Yours, [[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]] ([[User talk:Nsae Comp|talk]]) 12:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::As I said, I don't think it's a bad idea to swap "Palaeolithic" for "Stone Age" here. But introducing multiple terms for the same concept, when it is really only mentioned once or twice in the whole article, is just poor writing. If someone follows a link to any of the articles ([[Stone Age]], [[Palaeolithic]] or [[Lower Palaeolithic]]) they will find plenty of context and links to the others. There is no need to be exhaustive.

:::What is misleading about describing it as the split between the lineages of humans and of chimpanzees? That is literally what it is. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Yeah better writing is needed. [[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]] ([[User talk:Nsae Comp|talk]]) 23:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

== Images ==

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

My edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_history&diff=prev&oldid=1285207085 was reverted] with the following edit summary: ''it's not clear that this is an improvement; it might be helpful to explain on the talk page why each of these images needs to be changed''.

:'''1.''' I think a world map related to the development of agriculture in the "Rise of agriculture" section is more informative for readers than a photo of a stone pillar.

:'''2.''' In the "Ancient History" section, there isn't a single photo from ancient Greece or Rome or any other part of Europe, and a photo of the Parthenon in Greece looks better than two photos of columns/pillars. I wouldn't mind if one or both of the column photos remained in the article, but at least one editor doesn't want any more pictures in this article.

:'''3.''' Teotihuacan was the largest city in Mesoamerica and the picture looks better than the pictures of the columns. On the other hand, there is already one image from Mesoamerica in the "Ancient History" section, so it could be replaced with another image. What about ancient China? Or leave one photo of the column in the article?

:'''4.''' Mecca is the holiest site in Islam, and a picture of Mecca looks better than a poorly visible picture of a mosque in Damascus at night.

:'''5.''' The "Greater Middle East" section is quite long and only has one image, so I've included a picture of Samarkand, one of the most important cities in Central Asia. The text next to the picture is about Central Asia.

:'''6.''' There is not a single image in the "Americas" section in "Early modern period", so I inserted an image from the American Revolutionary War.

:'''7.''' I deleted a few images that didn't look as good as the others, or were placed too close to other images, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_history&diff=prev&oldid=1284983624 to avoid] "over-illustration" after adding a few new images.

[[User:Phlsph7]], do you agree with at least some of the changes? -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 11:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello {{u|Tobby72}} and thanks for the explanation. Generally, I also think that the article is already borderline overillustrated so replacing images is better than adding more images. It's probably subjective whether all of your changes are improvements, but I don't think that they make the article worse either. I suggest that you wait a little longer in case other editors want to respond before restoring your changes. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 16:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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

:I support these changes as an improvement on the present use of images. — [[User:Goszei|Goszei]] ([[User_talk:Goszei|talk]]) 16:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Prehistory? ==

Since this article is about human history, should the sections on the Paleolithic Age and Neolithic Revolution be removed and replaced with a pointer to [[Prehistory]]? --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think this would be a good idea. In recent years the rigid boundary between prehistory and history has largely disappeared as historians have increasingly entered the areas once only studied by anthropologists and archaeologists. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 19:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Are you serious? Can you name a university that has combined its history and archaeology departments? --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 20:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Quite serious. The nonsensical division between "history" and "prehistory" was only developed in the late nineteenth century, and even by the 1950s it was all but ignored. Any resistance to historians covering periods before writing has been defunct for many decades. These days you won't find a history of the United States, including [[History of the United States|Wikipedia's]], that doesn't begin with the crossing of the Bearing Land Bridge. Every British history today mentions the builders of Stonehenge, and a modern history of Africa that ignores the spread of the Bantu would be laughable. For the most part history departments have simply expanded, and archaeology and antropology departments have been somewhat marginalized. Universities around the world have also been invreasingly taking a multidisciplinary approach. At the [[University of Toronto]], where I studied, Middle Eastern archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and history are all merged into the "Near and Middle Eastern Studies Department." - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: According to the University of Toronto's website, the History department doesn't teach any classes in Prehistory, Big History, or Archaeology. The University maintains separate History and Archaeology departments.

:::: Wikipedia's [[History]] article states: ''Historians limit their study to events that have been recorded since the introduction of the earliest known written and historical records...Events before then are called prehistory, a period informed by the fields of palaeontology and archaeology.'' The [[Prehistory]] article corroborates this.

:::: The way I see it, you can rewrite the History and Prehistory articles to reflect your view. Or we can modify this article to reflect those articles. --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 02:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::Actually the question is whether we should rewrite pretty much every history article on Wikipedia, as almost all of them begin with prehistory, or correct the history article. I've thus rewritten the history article. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::: Let me get this straight. The [[History]] article has been misusing the term [[Prehistory]] for nearly 4 years until you corrected it just now? --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I'll just add, thank you for pointing out the problem, and SimonP for fixing it. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 22:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::::It's not all that surprising. The history=writing idea is still quite a common simplification. It's like the Renaissance beginning in 1453, a fact that still appears in many high school text books, and even many university ones, but which hasn't been accepted by historians for decades. Still every few weeks someone alters the intro of the [[Italian Renaissance]] article to change 14th century to 15th century. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Also see [[Big History]] and [[World History]], both approaches common now not only in Universities but public high schools. As an example, the Celts left no written record, nor did many of the North American and other peoples around the world, so the "writen record only" approach doesnt work for world history, it's an increasingly outmoded idea as new evidence comes to light from lots of different places (not just archaeology). [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: You created the [[Big History]] article a little more than 3 months ago. Your article states that the first Big History book was written less than 10 years ago. I'm not knocking Big History, but it's definitely not mainstream. --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 02:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::This article doesnt take a Big History approach, so you can ignore it, for the sake of your argument. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 05:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference between history and prehistory has to do with the sources used, or the method of research. Many historians think it is important to use knowledge from Archeology, psychology, economy, sociology, anthropology and other fields to find the truth about what happened in the past. This is dominant in the history science since the 1960s.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 21:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

==More attention for civilization advances==

My view is that technological advances and the taking over of innovations are more important then a countdown of empires that existed in history. Important developments are the agriculturalism, industrialism, and the evolvement of cities and states. This article could focus on how and where this developed and how it spread the world. Also the disintegration of states and dissapearance of knowledge could be described.

:Quite right. This article 'misses the point'. World history should emphasize common themes, technological, economic and structural changes. Ideally this article should be rewritten. [[User:RCSB|RCSB]] 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is that this article is split in a section describing these developments and a sections describing the most importants empires and rulers.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 21:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the chapters about paleolithic and neolithic. Afterwards the chapters have unimportant chapter headers. Bronze and Iron age have to do with what archeologues found under the ground. Maybe it is better to emphasize the grounding of states, cities, writing and long range trade. The term classical is a tradition in European history to describe the Greek and Roman civilization, thereby disregarding Egypt, Mesopotmia, China and India who were the real classical empires. I think the rise of Europe has to start with the Portugeese and Spanish voyages. The crusades weren't very spectacular if you compare it with the Arab and Mongolian conquests. Europeans were everywhere while other civilizations remained regional during the period between 1500 and 1800 allthough the European civilization wasn't more advanced as the Euopeans new very well at that time. I think that the industrial age should be the name for a chapter, starting with developments in England leading to an enormous production and later on to the complete domination of the world by Europe (western world) in the 19th century.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 16:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think the 'Rise of Europe' began with the Portuguese and Spanish voyages, but with the Industrial Revolution. See [http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/chinawh/ here].

Europe was not technologically advanced and couldn't conquer much territories in Africa and Asia, but the Europeans were everywhere, dominating the world seas. Maybe the title of this chapter could be: Worldwide European naval precense, or something like that.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:I wrote you a reply in 'Rise of Europe'. There I recommended Clive Ponting's ''World History - A New Perspective''. I think any rewriting should follow Ponting's presentation. [[User:RCSB|RCSB]] 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I will look for that book.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall we change this article the two of us, and hope that other people will help us as well? I like to start with hunters/gatherers. The article begins with that history of the world means human history. There have been hunters/gatherers until the 20th century (or until this day). They are only mentioned in the start of the article, before the agricultural society started in some areas in the world.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this improvement project is too big to do alone. I need people to discuss with, especially for the deletion of texts. My opinion is that a text may only be deleted if you put something better in return.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== hunter-gatherers ==

I see there is an edit conflict. What i heard in class was that the Europe was conquered by agrarians, but that the former hunter-gatherers remained the main population, or that the hunter-gatherers took over the culture from the agrarians. There is the genetical evidence that 80% of the European DNA-pool is equivalent to the DNA of the hunter-gatherers. But the indo-european language groups came from outside, which suggests that the European hunter-gatherers were subdued. But again, i'm not an expert.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Graph straw poll ==

See [[#Graph of Singularity]] for discussion.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

* Keep the graph in this article (lead)

# --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

# Keep. Interesting and notable, IMO. [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Nightstallion|^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ]]</span> [[User_talk:Nightstallion|✉]] 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

#Keep, tres cool. This article made me ponder, and I am a supporter of pondering. I don't see how it is controversial, it is only a graph of how events occur in time.--[[User:Sansvoix|sansvoix]] 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

#Keep, very interesting.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

#'''Keep'''. For good or ill, we are manifestly living in an evolutionarily accelerating world. [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

* Keep the graph in this article, but not the lead

* Remove the graph

#--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

#-- Visiting per RfC. I'm sure the graph represents someone's hard work, but it's more of a history of life on earth than a history of human beings. Its date for the invention of language is questionable and its inherent assumption of progression toward some unnamed goal is inappropriate. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

# This is an intentionally brief, yet comprehensive, overview of human history. Editors must avoid the temptation to fill this article with details and special theories. This graph is too idiosyncratic. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 18:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

# Inappropriate for this article. Vertical axis highly questionable. Contains speculation as if fact. A one-dimensional timeline would be reasonable (but not one showing, for instance, eukaryotic cell origins). -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

#Not appropriate for an article at this level of generality -- theories of history don't seem to be discussed in this article, and certainly if we are to include them, we should being with the more substantial and well developed theories (e.g. Marxism). Sinply throwing this picture into the lead is POV. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

# The graph is interesting, but is trying to make a point which is more appropriate to an article on the [[Technological Singularity]] than to this article, and the graph goes much further back in time than this article. My preference would be to replace it with a logorithmic timeline of human history which doesn't try to predict any future event. This timeline would include most or all of the events on this graph from Art onwards, and maybe a few more, but doesn't need the vertical scale. There's a Wikipedia tool to create graphical timelines which I can't find at the moment. I'm not sure if it can handle logorithmic scales.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

#:[http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/EasyTimeline/Introduction.htm This is the tool I'm talking about] and no, it doesn't appear to support logorithmic scales. It still might be useful to generate a few timelines for the article - maybe an overall one and then a more detailed one for one or two sections.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

#Remove the graph but keep the reference to the [[Technological Singularity]]. Franky, if there anything happens in the last half of 20th century (outside the computer realm), it is slowing down the science and technology and replacement of dynamical capitalist society by stagnant welfare states. The link still maybe relevant. [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove''': A graph that includes eukaryotic cells and the Cambrian explosion does not belong in a page that only covers "human history, the first appearance of Homo sapiens to the present day." -- [[User:Jaredwf|jaredwf]] 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove'''. Does not belong in ''this'' article. May not belong anywhere, it doesn't ''really'' provide information. Of course such a logarithmic line can be made of life's history. I'm just not sure what useful information the marked-out points provide. Rather than "Computer", the person could have put "Holocaust", for instance, and so forth, if they were trying to prove a different point. So seems rather POV, if it goes anywhere it should: (1) go into the singularity article (2) its source be clearly noted, e.g. "According to Kurzweil, this graph shows, and (3) probably have the little picture in the upper left removed, this appears to be a logo, no more appropriate than having graphs with the Exxon logo on them (I can do this if asked). [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove'''. Tres weird. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove'''. Not appropriate for this article. [[:Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg]] at [[Technological singularity]] is nicer. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove'''. It is implying a destination which is extremely speculative. The graph is not appropriate for this type of article. [[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Remove'''. The content is only scarcely related to the article, while introducing superfluous content. Is this the best image available to illustrate this article? --[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

#'''Strong Remove'''. Anti-historical pseudoscience which belongs on a religious website. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

*Comment

:* This poll was done with no discussion beforehand that a poll is the way to settle the issue. Polls can be abused. It's clear from previous communications on this page from many people that this is not an ambiguous issue, the graph is inappropriate for the article. The singularity is a fringe theory that has nothing to do with professional history. Singularity is a controversial theory and not "fact". Singluarity deals with future predicitions, cherry picking certain facts from history to support its pre-concieved notion of what will happen in the future. It is from a professional viewpoint not history at all. It simply does not belong in the article. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::*I agree with user Stbalbach that the theory of singularity can't be used to explane historical events. It doesn't explane backwardness like the extinsion of the dinosaurs, the ice ages and the middle ages. It could be that our future could one of stabilization or backwardness, allthough i think that the technological advance will continue.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::*There could be some info about the history of the earth. The world is not only the term for human world.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::*"And how should we vote about the way we should vote?" I see no reason to discuss the need to start a poll. The previous discussion was going nowhere, with what - 3 or 4 people repeating the same arguments - and lost in the middle of this talk, so I decided to start sth new to bring new voices. Yes, Singlularity is a controversial theory, but the data used for the graph come from non-fringe sources, like Britannica or American Museum of Natural History (all 13+ sources listed on image's page now). Usage of such data seems to provide for a fairly unbiased (NPOV) set of data. You are of course free to get more data and create an graph with even more data. Events on this graph illustrate which events are deemed by various scientists (or institutions) to be important in the world's history, and it seems very fitting to this article. That the graph seems to fit the singularity paradigm is not a valid reason for removing it from this article, especially as I cite my sources and you cite your own personal opinon. Please provide data that the graph is biased and untrue.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

:::*The graph is cherry picking facts to support a pre-concieved universal idea of how history works, ignoring facts contrary to the theory. That it not history, it is philosophy. It is called [[inductive reasoning]]. Good history uses [[deductive reasoning]], looking at all the facts. Inductive "theories" of history are inherintly popular and are sometimes called [[metanarrative]]'s or [[universal history]]. There are scores of them. If we include the singularity, we open the door to any number of other theories, such as the [[Hegelian dialectic]], or [[Arnold J. Toynbee]]. This article is not about theories or philosophy of history, in particular it should not present a single theory as a fact! --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 02:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::::So your POV is that any list of important events in the history of mankind would be subjective and thus inappopriate for this article, yes?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 12:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::*I don't agree with stbalbach about the method of research of historians. Historians use both inductive and deductive reasoning, otherwise the subjects to be studied will be very small. An example of history mainly based on inductive reasoning is history of the world. The subject is so large, that you can't examine all the facts before coming to conclusions. I have critics on Piotrus as well. The problem with predicting the future is that you can't see all the factors that will influence the future. Good examples are the socialist failures of the last two centuries. I think that this article itself needs much improvement. Maybe we could discuss that instead of argueing about a graph.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::*I agree with Piotrus and Daanschr, I cannot imagine that historians do not use inductive thinking (or can you prove your claim by citing some source, Stbalbach?). If inductive thinking, or especially the method of forming a singularity, is controversial among historians, I suggest adding a paragraph that explains this issue. (And what's wrong with hegelian dialectic? )--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::*I think there is no controversy among historians about singularity. There are probably no historians (or only a few) who believe in it. I agree that the technological advance will 'probably' speed up, but the reality is that we don't know. There could be a third world war, or an enormous terrorist atack or some kind of natural disaster to prevend further modernization for a long period. Another possibility is that we can't solve some new technological problems, which means that we get stuck with what we have at this moment, or maybe a movement from within the society which blocks technological advance (examples: communism and christian or islamic fundamentalism). History should be about history and not about future.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::**First and most important (and I am getting tired of repeating this) this graph makes no prediction about the future, it only illustrates the trend, and is using several different, verifiable and respectable sources. Whether the singularity can occur or not is not discussed in this graph, and is the topic that belings ore at [[Talk:Technological singularity]], rather then here. I have not seen any reasons for its removal backed by any citation, and the chef remover, SimonP, haven't even posted here. I posted this talk on RfC over a week ago, and although few people replied, we have a 2:1 majority for using this graph in lead (granted, 6 votes are not much, but this is all we have). I am therefore restoring this graph, please don't remove it unless there is at least 2:1 opposition.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

::*Hegel was not critical enough about the language he used. See [[Deconstruction]].--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comments that this graph is POV nonsense. First off it is not history. One half of the graph covers the period before modern humans. As a consultation with almost any general history work, or even checking the word history in a dictionary, history covers human events the Big Bang and the Cambrian Explosion are matters for scientists not historians. It makes sense then that not one historian is cited as a source for the graph, rather it seems to have been almost wholly based on the work of astronomers and other scientists. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:For starters, we have the [[American Museum of Natural History]] line of events there. [[Göran Burenhult]][http://www.csus.edu/anth/trobriand/depth/GBCV.htm] is a Swedish archeologist. [[Donald Johanson]] is a [[paleoanthropologist]]. And presumbably the list by Britannica was compiled by some historians. True, they don't form a majority of querried scientists, and part of the graph is irrelevant (as we deal with human history only in the article), nonethless, I see no reason to call it a POV nonsense and majority of the graph does deal with human history so it is relevant.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Its thus also not too surprising that these authors, at least those that can be checked online, seem to have little idea of what developments are actually considered important by historians or of the current theories and methodologies that historians now hold. Consider the caravel, which is given a prominent place in this article and by any historian I have read, but seems to have been overlooked. Other developments like the stirrup and heavy plow were far more revolutionary than the computer or genetics have yet been. The Green Revolution may not have been as sexy as space travel or computers, but it has unquestionably had a far more profound effect on far more people's lives, yet it too is ignored. These writers also take a dated and overly simplistic view of history. Many scholars today believe that scientific progress recessed during the Renaissance, and the economy almost certainly contracted during that era. Yet it is listed as a breakthrough on par with the Industrial Revolution. That most, if not all, important technologies develop slowly over a period of decades or even centuries is also ignored. The creation of the steam engine is placed at exactly 1765, ignoring the decades of earlier versions and the subsequent long period of refinement needed before it was truly optimal. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:The graph is as accurate as possible! The dates used are the dates used by the reputable sources stated. Sure you can go ahead and argue that the steam engine was invented earlier... But wikipedia has to go with the academics. Same thing with the early history, sure the dates may be different, but we have to go with those who know the subject best. And it's a little far-fetched to assume all the dates were pre-thought out to match a sinister plan. I don't see the logic in removing this.--[[User:Sansvoix|sansvoix]] 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::That said, what could the sinister plan be? All this graph shows is that our definition of history is excelerating, if you will. Neat! I don't know about you, but I didn't come to wikipedia to reinforce my current bubble of knowledge. This graph shows there <i>are</i> other ways to look at things. Its not just history either, look at this un-orthodox dow jones graph: [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14593#22651] But yes, as my source states, such examples should be used with caution, as not to mislead.--[[User:Sansvoix|sansvoix]] 06:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::You say academics, but you don't answer the critics that no historians have been mentioned, who support this graph. These academics are academics, because they are good in math. What does that have to do with history? Another comment to the graph is that it is very unclear. I don't know what is meant by it. It shows dots of different colours referring to some modern names and institutes and then we have some kind of grid, which i can vaguely remember of from school. This graph is too much a tech thi9ng, while most people in the world wouldn't understand it. I prefer the graph with key events.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:::So unless somebody has a degree in history, he is not authoritative enough to be cited here? I am sorry, but those are not valid arguments. Not a single opponent of this graph has provided a single reference to back his POV. And I can't see how [[exponential function]] and [[graph]]s can be too complex. As a major of not-so-techy economics and sociology I say this is basic stuff (primary school in Poland), and English Wikipedia is not [[simple English]] Wikipedia.''I prefer the graph with key events'' - isn't this the one?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:: This is becoming to political for me. I'm out of here.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 17:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:''Consider the caravel..stirrup...Green revolution...are overlooked...'' - oh, have you been able to actually get to the list of what those specific dots mean? If so, please let me know where I can find it so I can add it to the image description page. ''Many scholars today believe that scientific progress recessed during the Renaissance...'' - cite your sources, please. This is something not even mentioned in our current article, and I'd love to read about it. [[Renaissance#Critical_views]] has some statements, but most of them are unsourced. Even assuming they are true, I see no problem with this: our graph doesn't mind small declines, it is not a perfect exponential function, and so it can - and should - take in any bumps and twists. ''The creation of the steam engine is placed at exactly 1765, ignoring the decades of earlier versions and the subsequent long period of refinement...'' - as is explained in the image description (and in referenced, online articles by Modis), such dates were averaged from majority of sources. Apparently the average was in 1765 - not perfect, but this is what existing sources seem to agree upon, and we the graph is using specific years, not periods. Besides, even if you'd move it to 17th or 19th century, it wouldn't made any significant impact on the graph.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 10:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::There is a brief mention of the Renaissance decline in this article, though not added by myself. Pretty much any general work on the Renaissance or Renaissance science will present the regression idea, even if some scholars will go on to argue against it. One general text, ''Renaissance Europe'' by De Lamar Jensen states that "scholars have looked disdainfully at the entire Renaissance because it contributed so little to scientific knowledge." In terms of economics the backwardness paradigm was developed by Robert Sabatino Lopez. The graph also skips other periods widely considered to be regressive, such as the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, and even the present. Thomas Homer-Dixon, who has won far more popular and scholarly acceptance than any of the singularity advocates, has spent his entire career arguing that as the problems that face humanity are growing exponentially more complex progress is rapidly slowing. Consider that the number of patents issued in the United States per capita was slowly falling for many years, until very recently when the flood of very easy to receive software patents began. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:::And do you have any proof that 1) those omissions are there (given that we lack the exact descriptions of individual points), and 2) that they would skew the graph, even if they were there? Beacuse I think that given our current info those events may well be covered there as the graphs has points scattered enough to resemble some ups and downs in various periods, and even some 'downs' would not discredit this function from being exponential. I don't know if Thomas Homer-Dixon is so famous: Google test: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Thomas+Homer-Dixon%22&btnG=Search "Thomas Homer-Dixon" 38k], [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Ray+Kurzweil%22&btnG=Search "Ray Kurzweil 555k]. But, I hear you say, Google may be biased towards popular science and away from 'serious' science? Ok, Google Schoolar test then: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Thomas+Homer-Dixon%22&btnG=Search "Thomas Homer-Dixon" 74], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ray+Kurzweil%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search "Ray Kuyrzweil 512]. Last but not least, Kurzweil has presented [[:Image:PPTPatentsLOG-25.jpg|Another graph]], that seems to argue for a growing trend in patents. Yes, I agree, software patents did contribute substantially to the recent growth, but so what? It just another [[paradigm shift]]. You can as well deny that the human speed of travel has incresed, because you cannot count machine transportation, and actually our hunter-gatherer ancestors could run faster due on average ;p--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::You fail to grasp the problem I was raising with the steam engine example. It is not that the point chosen is wrong or inaccurate, it is that the very notion of picking a single point for each invention is a deeply erroneous idea. Almost all the developments, especially the biological ones, should be represented by long threads. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I stil fail to grasp it. Would a change from averaged points to long threads change something here? Citation, please.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think that the fundamental problem with this graph (espeically if it was at the beginning of the article) is that it presents a understanding of history not accepted by the majority of historians, archaeologists, etc. I don't think it matters what we think about the graph (which illustrates [[Technological singularity]] very well), but it shouldn't be here until it is accepted by the majority of people working in the field, as we're meant to be reporting what other people think, not what our own personal POV's are. --[[User:Grutter|G Rutter]] 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::It's also important to realize that this is just one of many possible charts we could have on this article, and each would be supported by a dedicated group of scholars and Wikipedians. We could have some nice graphs from [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], [[Jared Diamond]], or [[Thomas Malthus]] about how humanity has steadily been outstripping our resources and heading for collapse. I'm sure [[Francis Fukuyama]] has some nice graphs of the centuries long spread of liberalism, or if there are still any Marxist left we could have a graph of the "inevitable" evolution of human society to a socialist future. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the details, we are manifestly living in an evolutionarily accelerating world. (Let's hope we don't succumb to its concomitantly accelerating hazards.) By all means, add a brief methodologic disclaimer to the graph's caption if you must, but reinstate the graph as a visual reflection of observed trends. [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 23:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:The graph needs more than a disclaimer, it needs an entire article. And it has one. There are dozens of ways of looking at [[world history]], this graph represents just one theory. We report on what people do, not what we think they should do. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pet theories. If you want, create an article about "history theories" - but see [[historiography]] first which allready lists a bunch, and Simons list above. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

* I like the x-axis but not the y. I'd quite happily see a one dimensional logarithmic time line with some major events on it. This would neatly sumirise the major events in a visual form. But it would be not have the rather POV interpretation of the graphic. The y-axis just seems fishy to me. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] 01:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

== Page title ==

This should be [[History of the world]], not [[History of the World]] right? "World" isn't normally capitalized. Although wouldn't something like [[Human history]] be better? &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:I did originally create it as "History of the world", but it was later moved to the current title. Arguably both are permissible, something like the Internet/internet debate. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words]] advise to avoid capital letters in titles, therefore I'd support moving to lowercase version.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 10:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I agree. [[User:Appleseed|Appleseed]] ([[User talk:Appleseed|Talk]]) 17:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[[Human history]] would be a better name. "History of the world" is a bit too ambiguous. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:[[History of humanity]]?--[[User:Sansvoix|sansvoix]] 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::Most of the human history is about hunter-gatherers. Only the last few thousand years, there has been civilization. Maybe the title could be 'History of human civilization.'--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[[History of humanity]] or [[History of human civilization]] both sound good to me. [[History of the world]] should, in my opinion, cover all 4.6 billion years of Earth's history, at least in a cursory fashion. Hmmm...maybe I should write it. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::World doesn't only mean earth. It also means all humans presently. Maybe there should be a link to physical history of the earth, or to earth above the article.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::There are historians who are specialized in worldhistory. Worldhistory (probably) means history of humanity and modernization for them.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:::"History," otherwise unspecified, customarily means ''human'' history. Specifying it ''as'' "human" history is redundant. The qualifier "of the world" conveys that this article treats of universal, rather than merely regional, national or local history.

:::"History of humanity" will be readily confused with "[[Paleoanthropology]]."

:::"[[Civilization]]" refers to life centered on [[city|cities]], or at least permanent habitations. Much of human history involved "uncivilized" peoples, if at times peripherally.

:::The hunter-gatherer stage is ''pre''history.

:::Four billion years of earth is ''geology''.

:::[[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::Historians used to study history by examining texts from the past. Only civilizations have texts. Archeology deals with prehistoric data. Since the 1960s other sciences are introduced to give better (more scientifical) answers to historical questions and to ask new questions to make history more scientifical.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While I still think [[World history]] or [[Human history]] would be more appropriate, I can understand the arguments given above. If no one minds, I'm going to work on [[History of Earth]] as the story of our planet, the kind of article I was expecting to find here. Thanks! &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with Knowledge Seeker. Either of those titles is better then this, the current title should be the history of the planet. History of the world should be a disambig between the [[History of human civilization]], [[History of Earth]] and [[World history]].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Knowledge Seeker and Piotrus. History of the world is ambiguous and the page should probably serve as a disambiguation. The article discuses our development from prehistory to current times, so another title I thought might work would be [[Development of Humanity]] or something similar. [[User:Darkliight|darkliight]] 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Check out [[Big History]] -- it's one perspective in the study of [[World History]] - whatever article you write, it should follow an established historiographical tradition, not one you make up based on arbitrary boundries or personal visions, to avoid problems with original research claims, and also to guide what other editors should included in the article. We report on what other people say, not what we want to say. Somthing as broad as the history of the earth can take any number of established approaches. Otherwise it turns into a mash up of approaches, as other editors add or fork the article to take their own approach, and it can be confusing. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks! Replied at your talk page. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::We could use the data from the links to world history websites of the article of [[World History]] to make this article better. Especially the online Journal of World History[http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jwh/] should give lots of information about the subject.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Maybe it is a good idea if [[World History]] and [[History of the World]] will be merged?--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Most definetly not. World History is a field of historical study, while History of the World should be a disambig, as I described above.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Changes to Agriculture section==

I removed the reference to Ohalo II because it's clear in the cited article by Weiss et al that the cereal grains there are harvested from the wild, not sown. They say explicitly "In sum, the plant remains from Ohalo II prove that broad-spectrum '''foraging''' was a strategy for plant collecting as well as for hunting in the UP"

Removed text: Recent findings of considerable quantities of grains in the Ohalo II paleolithic site in modern [[Israel]] seem to suggest that cereals had been '''intentionally sown''' (without the agriculture-associated additional caretaking activities like fertilization, land clearance, etc.) since 21,000 BC (''PNAS'' 101 p. 9551-9555). [[User:Marknesbitt|Mark Nesbitt]] 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

== New historiography section ==

I added a section on the historiography of world history. Not being a world history specialist, its cursory, but probably acceptable for the purposes of an encyclopedia article (I hit the big four points: predisiciplinary world history sucked, Marx made teleography credible, Braudel did important stuff, most current work is thematic). I'm actually seriously troubled that few if any wikihistory pages have historiographies. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:Does this belong at [[World History]], which describes the methodology of world history, rather than in this article which is explicitly a narrative history? Would suggest moving your text but adding a sentence or two in [[History of the World]] to make it clear that the historiography is dealt with in the companion article [[World History]]. This would also make it clearer why there are two articles with similar names and how they differ. [[User:Marknesbitt|Mark Nesbitt]] 10:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::[[World History]] is a distinct field of history that emerged in the 1980s, it is not the right article for a broad historiography. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::I want this section to be changed. I don't agree with the information and the it is outdated. Voltaire and Hegel had history designs which weren't creationist, so writing history from a non-creationist POV started before Karl Marx and Fernand Braudel. I miss modern historians and sociologists like Wallenstein, Barington Moore and Pommeranz. I want to have it focused on the present debate in world history. A special historiography can be made at the end of the article, but if Karl Marx and Fernand Braudel are put there, then it should be explaned why they belong to this article with a special focus on possible disadvantages. Problem is that i have too little time.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree the current historiography section has some interesting perspectives but misses a lot. See also [[Universal History]]. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the issue at hand is 'does this article needs a historiography section', or is 'see also' enough. I think that a short section at the bottom, with details template would be useful. It should also be combined with 'theories of history' and such as we discussed above when dealing with the [[Technological singularity]] graph appropriateness issue.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Globalization and Westernization==

Needs some work. I find this section needs work on being neutral also. 22:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:We can't change anything, if you don't say what should be changed.--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Era Proposal ==

One can imagine that alot of folks from around the world read this article, and I believe the [[Anno Domini|Era notations]] are confusing and inconsistent. Some portions of the article refer to BC, and some to BCE and CE. Because of the mixed opinions of Wikipedians, I think it would be best to edit the site to refer to year prior to [[1]] as with ''BC'', and to years after and including [[1]] as with ''CE'' '''(eg.- [[200 BC]] but [[200|200 CE]])'''. Also, a note should be included at the bottom of the page referring to what ''CE'' means, or a link to [[Common era]] should be supplied with ''CE'', because many around the world who use the [[Gregorian calendar]] still do not undersant ''BCE'' and ''CE''. Any objections? [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

:Due to the absence of rebuttal, I am '''enforcing''' my above reccomended changes. If you read this article and disagree with the changes, revert them and provide an explanation here. [[User:Darwiner111|Darwiner111]] 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

::I would have preferred to stick with either BC/AD or BCE/CE for consistency. You were concerned about confusion and consistency and I don't see how mixing these together helps; now users have to be familiar with both notations to understand the document. I don't really mind which is used, though BCE/CE seems to be gaining prevelence in newer material. [[User:Darkliight|<font color="#000">d</font><font color="#333">a</font><font color="#555">r</font><font color="#777">k</font><font color="#999">li</font><font color="#777">i</font><font color="#555">g</font><font color="#333">h</font><font color="#000">t</font>]]^{[[User_talk:Darkliight|talk]]} 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for your input. I will replace ''CE'' with ''AD'' for consistency per your comment. Although you say BCE and CE are being used more in newer documents, not everyone knows they exist and to insert them could be considered POV because we would be ''promoting'' a new system. Using the currently accepted system is better. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

:::After reading your user page I don't think you were acting with a NPOV. If a consensus is necessary, per Knowledge Seeker, i'll vote for BCE/CE. [[User:Darkliight|<font color="#000">d</font><font color="#333">a</font><font color="#555">r</font><font color="#777">k</font><font color="#999">li</font><font color="#777">i</font><font color="#555">g</font><font color="#333">h</font><font color="#000">t</font>]]^{[[User_talk:Darkliight|talk]]} 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::I've also noticed tht BCE and CE are becoming the new norm. They're also a bit more neutral. But I don't really mind either way. - [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::It doesn't matter too much to me either way. In this case, [[User:PatrickA]]/[[User:Darwiner111]] (the same user, as should be obvious from above), is correct, in my opinion. The article was originally written using BC, not BCE, although a consensus for change on the talk page could override that, of course. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 07:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::I would welcome the new universal convention, using BCE and CE. [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 07:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some general Wikipedia guideline about what dating systems we use? While my first answer is 'it doesn't matter as long as we are being consistent', on the second thought I think it we need to be consistent throught the entire project: if we use BCE here, and CE somewhere else, confusion will abound.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 07:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:The general guideline that has emerged is similar to the solution to the American/British English difference. There has been a lot of impassioned argument both for using BC/AD and BCE/CE, with both sides making very good arguments. Current practice is to be consistent within an article, using whatever format was originally used. Since this article was originally writted with "BC", PatrickA/Darwiner111 was correct to change the BCEs and CEs for consistency. It would not be appropriate, however, to edit a different article that used BCE/CE and change them to BC/AD. Even if an article were originally written in one style, if the article's editors decide on the talk page that there is good reason to change to the other style, that of course is completely acceptable as well. Some feel that BCE/CE is more appropriate for scientific or non-Christian topics. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 08:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)