 | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
Old talk
NPOV Issue? 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... ThirtyOneKnots 4:24. 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- 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.--Daanschr 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a remark : afaik, Neanderthal Man is not an ancestor of man but rather a dead lineage. --nct 21:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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 :)
Alright, everything is in past tense now :) Ferkelparade 17:29, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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. Arkuat 07:19, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
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. Superm401 05:25, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
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 something to point others in the right direction.CancerOfJuly
- 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. --Eric Forste 22:11, 11 Jun 2005 (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, -Willmcw 22:32, Jun 11, 2005 (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 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.
--BillyL 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I expect the above remark was principally about the very early history of Spanish colonization. By the way, I noticed that Guptas were showing up in the classical empires section, and Mauryas 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. --Eric Forste 22:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 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. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe...
...that a full history of the world would begin at maybe the formation of the Earth, I would consider renaming the article.
Graph of Singularity
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. — Asbestos | Talk 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). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:26, 14 July 2005 (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.--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. - SimonP 03:11, July 18, 2005 (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.--Alexandre Van de Sande 02:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- 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? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul 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" — 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 — 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. — Asbestos | Talk 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. -- 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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
cover of a booklead section with no explanation text to walk the reader through it. --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..--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 20 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
- 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:51, 19 December 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. -- Schaefer 14:33, 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:
- 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? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:01, 19 July 2005 (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!
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. --Fenice 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
'Rise of Europe'
This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg Kenneth Pomeranz). For a short description of how I view world history, please refer to 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). RCSB 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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. Stbalbach 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't a question of this or that tool and who invented it. Rather it is generally agreed among scholars today that before the Industrial Revolution, China led Europe technologically. Even in shipping - and despite the overseas voyages by europeans - Chinese technology was more advanced (see here). It must be remembered that Chinese vessels almost reached Europe in the early 15th century, but these voyages were ultimately stalled by imperial conservatism (see Zheng He). The advantage Euorpe did have was its greater entreprenuerial spirit (which itself was driven by Europe's original backwardness). Gavin Menzies has even purpoted to show that the maps Columbus used were ultimately derived from maps made by Chinese navigators.
- But my main point is more subtle: The Industrial Revolution did not occur in isolation. It was the endpoint of a long process of technological change which had continued for several centuries in the Eurasian continent (for the reasons for this see my user page). During most of this period, Europe was a backward and peripheral part of Eurasia. The 'Middle Ages' were not in technological decline in comparison with antiquity. And a decline in culture was an isolated European phenomenon. The Renaissance was really just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the world.
- Once humanity reached a certain level of sophistication, the Industrial Revolution was bound to happen. That it occured in Europe is a surprise. It may be true that there were certain characteristics in European culture, as it had developed since the Rennaisance, that gave Europe an advantage. That would be similar to explaining why the Bay Area in California is a modern technological hub. But that is not claiming that California is generally more advanced than France. And to further pursue this analogy, the IT boom in Silicon Valley didn't spring out of nowhere. It could not of happened without the general level technology reached, in Europe and in the US, in the first half of the 20th century.
- I appreciate that these articles have to be generic, as you say. But they also need to represent the emerging academic view on the subject. One of the great advantages of this online medium is that it can be up-to-date. RCSB 07:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing youve said I disagree with. Jared Diamond as another example presents a theory why Europe came to dominance in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. There are various POVs on this. Certainly the article could better reflect current thinking. If we need to create a new article and link to it from here as a "See Main article.." that is possible also, in order to go into more detail. Stbalbach 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB: How about you rewrite the section in a way that you feel would be more balanced? -- ran (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach and Ran: OK let's try it. To rewrite the article in the way I envision it would be a mammoth project. However, I think we can make some changes and additions and then later on, as you suggested, link to a wider main article. I hope to soon contribute to this. RCSB 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the one responsible for most of this article. My own POV is geographic determinism, and I'm sure this article reflects that. I agree with you about the placement of the Crusades, the mention at the start implies some sort of causality with what follows, which is something that many, including myself, disagree with. It's been a couple years since I read Pomeranz, but I think his thesis that some parts of China, and perhaps India, were comprable to Western Europe as late as 1800 is a far cry from stating that Europe was "technologically backward even in the 18th century." Europe was well ahead of the vast majority of the world long before 1800. Pomeranz's view is also still far from the general consensus. I also wouldn't consider Gavin Menzies to be a useful source. I do agree that we should have a general article overviewing these various theories. Someone who is a big fan of Max Weber would, for instance, find this article even more lacking. - SimonP 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added three paragraphs which I think help to present a more balanced narrative. I have tried to steer a middle course between old-school eurocentrism and views such as those of Pomeranz. In future I think this seciton should be divided into two expanded sections: before 1750 and after 1750. RCSB 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
SimonP: I cannot agree with your latest edit (in which you overran some of my work). You write very well, but you have diluted the message I tried to present: domination of the seas does not necessarily mean a more advanced society. The Mongols dominated the Eurasian steppe, but were less advanced than the societies they conquered. The period in which Europe rose to become the leading world centre has continually been pushed forward by scholars. I notice you are keen on geographical determinism. So why not expand on Pomeranz? His thesis is quintessential geographic determinism. I do not agree with his explanations, but I do accept that the Euorpean economy was not ahead of China's before 1750. I added an important link on this matter which you have regrettably removed.
But the important message is this: World history has to be presented as global history. The Industrial Revolution is not a European phenomenon. It is a Eurasian one. The basis for the Industrial Revolution was a millennium of continuous technological advance, most of which occurred in China. It is not enough to remind readers that Europe was a peripheral region "during its Middle Ages". Rather, a balanced presentation would paint a picture of a millennium of Eurasian advance, during which China in the 12th century came very close to an industrial revolution of its own. Europe pressed forward during the 'Age of Discovery' not because it was more advanced but for precisely the opposite reason. It was in need of the superior products that the rest of Eurasia could offer. This is very reminiscent of the Mongol onslaught. But then began a process in which it could leverage its position in world trade in order to accumulate capital and wealth which enabled the Industrial Revolution. RCSB 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from, but asserting that the Industrial Revolution could have begun in China is counterfactual, and not good history. You also have to be careful with words like "advanced." The revisionist school of Pomeranz and the articles by Carol Shiue is focused on institutions, and is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony. They make a fairly strong case that European institutions were no more advanced than Asian ones. There has yet to be a strong case made that Europe wasn't scientifically and technologically ahead by 1700. Galileo and Newton had established modern physics, no other civilization had anything comprable to the caravel, the flintlock dates to the early 17th century, while the Newcomen steam engines dates from 1712. - SimonP 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Occidental development had come ultimately from China, as did apparently, the idea of a civil service examination system, introduced in the eighteenth century. In such ways the Occident seems to have been the unconscious heir of the abortive industrial revolution of Sung China" Marshall G. S. Hodgson Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam and World History (Cambridge 1993), p.68.
- I agree with you that the Pomeranz school "is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony". I too find it hard to accept a simple geographical determinism explanation for the Industrial Revolution. In sum, here again is what I wrote in a previous revision of the article and which summarizes my position:
- Outwardly the Renaissance was just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the Eurasian world. But it could also be argued that it engendered a culture of inquisitiveness which ultimately led to humanism, the Scientific Revolution and finally the great transformation of the Industrial Revolution. However, the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century did not have any impact on technology. Only in the second half of the 19th century were scientific advances beginning to be applied to practical inventions. The advantages Europe had developed by the middle of the 18th century were two: an entrepreneurial culture and the wealth generated by the Atlantic trade after the discovery of the Americas. But in 1750 productivity in the most developed regions of China was still on a par with that of the Atlantic countries in Europe. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can claim that scientific advances of the Renaissance were not applied until the 19th century. One clear example is the discovery of projectile motion by Tartaglia and Galileo in the 16th century, which was immediately used to lob cannon balls with greater precision than ever before. As I mentioned earlier technologies like the caravel, flintlock, and steam engine were wholly new, and far superior to competing technologies, and were all in wide use long before the "second half of the 19th century." - SimonP 16:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB - can you please detail, in actionable terms, the reasons for the "totally disputed" tag? Such tags should not be abused, they are usually used when communications break down between editors, and should not be used to express a disagrement. Rather, editing of the article is the correct and first choice. There are multiple POV's on this subject, it is possible to present all those multiple POV's in a neutral, factual manner without the need for a disputed tag. Stbalbach 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it would be advantageous to have other editors join this discussion. But if that isn't happening then I agree the tag should be removed. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I partially agree with RCSB. I study history in Leiden, the Netherlands and a teacher, Peer Vries, teaching Worldhistory has the opinion that Europe superceded China, India and Arabia because of the industrial revolution. For him the inventions leading to the steam engine in England in the 18th century are the most significant for the European advantage towards Asia. I don't agree with RCSB that Europe was searching for raw material in the other continents. Raw material was produced and distributed within Europe until the 19th century, when Russia, Argentina and the United States brought cheap agrarian products on the European market. All products shipped from outside of Europe were luxury, because substitues could be produced within Europe. The question should be: why did Portugal and Spain started maritime empires and why did the English invent the steam engine? Spanish and Portugeese explorers were looking for gold and christians and the Portugeese tried to destroy islam in the Indian Ocean. They brought back riches, like spices, silver and gold to Europe.
- Typical to Europe is the military advantage towards non-European parts of the world. Peer Vries says that it can be explained by the continuous internal warfare within Europe. Europe can be compared with Southern India and South-East Asia in this light. The trace italien was invented to counter the modern cannons in the early 16th century. Military drill was introduced by prince Maurice of Orange during the Dutch struggle of survival. The whole development of weapons and tactics were done throughout the ages of continuous warfare which let to enormous victories in the outside world, like the battle of Plassey. I don't agree that Europe had a unique geography that didn't allow major empires. Take for example the Roman Empire. The Mongolians would have defeated the Europeans easily. The reason why they didn't were purely internally Mongolian and had nothing to do with the Western Europeans.
- I have a new issue to adress. The Age of Kingdoms is an unfamiliar term to me. Kingdoms are known since 3000 BC and continue to be known until now. Why should the term middle ages, which is known throughout the world, be replaced by the term age of kingdoms? Maybe the term clash of civilizations could be used if you look at the enormous wars that have occured between China and Arabia and between Europe and Arabia and the clash between nomads from the steppes and the farmers and cities in other areas.--Daanschr 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- The European evolution of institutions was an internal process. China had nothing to do with it. Roman law was very important, which was tought in universities grown out of monasteries. The people who studied on this universities helped as civil servants monarchs to modernize their states by introducing tax systems. Many institutions with a large amount of autonomy made a lot of innovations possible in the European governments. With these institutions i mean the knight order, the league of city states and small states, the parliament, constitutions. If the Chinese had institutional influence in Europe, where were the Europeans studying Chinese then to gain the knowledge.--Daanschr 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- The nearly industrial revolution in China is very interresting (to me at least). I read in a book that there were many factories and a large amount of the population was working there living in cities. Capital Hangchow was the biggest city in the world with over a milion of inhabitants in the 13th century. There was a social problem adressed by writers who complained about the bad situation of the workers. Confucian philosophers were debating about individualism and a focus on life on earth without the concept of god. There was a relative equality between men and women. Punishment for crime was very low. there were many bars and restaurants. People went on day trips to an island in the neighbourhood of Hangchow which was specialized in tourism. I don't know if this information is correct since the book i read was from the 1970s and too much focused on undermining Europe to my opinion.--Daanschr 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Bravo! At last we're expanding this discussion. You have strengthened my claim that the narrative in this article does not represent the direction modern scholarly opinion is moving. You also add much interesting insight, like the origins of Europe's military advantage. One note though: I didn't claim that Europeans were in search of raw materials. I said to the contrary that they were in need of superior products from the major centres of Eurasia. That is why I compared European expansion with the Mongolian onslaught in the 13th century: The Mongols had a military advantage -- they had mastered the art of horseback warfare. But nobody claims they were more advanced than the civilisations they came to dominate. (I won't apologise for using the term 'advanced'). I view Europe's position vis-a-vis the great Eurasian centres of the 16th century in a similar vein.
- I agree that 'Age of Kingdoms' is inappropriate. It sounds like a history of Tolkien's Middle Earth. RCSB 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I was too quick in reading the discussion. The products in the in the rest of Eurasia were not superior. They were merely different. Europe had all it needed. So for me the question remains: why did Portugal and Spain start maritime empires?
I don't agree that the European difference started with territorial expansion. The crusades can be compared with the Arab expansion throughout the centuries and with other great civilizations, like Tang China, the Mongolians etc. Typical for the Portugeese and the Spanish is that they were the first to explore the entire earth and establish lasting empires.--Daanschr 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I found a weblog dealing with the problem. I think it is useful in this discussion. I will try to find more information. [1]--Daanschr 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I followed a course on European expansion. It appeared that some Dutch people tried to help the king of Thailand to build up a modern navy. It was very hard to modernize. Many materials were (like ropes) had to come from afar. The enterprise was no succes. A good question is why other countries didn't take over the European advantages. The Portugeese dominated the Indian Ocean since 1500. Industrial revolution wasn't a succes in many parts of the world. Take present Africa for example.--Daanschr 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Previously you mentioned the European military advantage over southern India and South-East Asia and now you have brought the example of Thailand. I am not sure these are the right reference points. If centres like China were technologically more advanced than Europe in the 16th century, that is not claiming that Europe was backward compared with every area in the world. For example, Europe was definitely technologically more advanced than the stone-age civilisations of South America -- with devastating results for the latter. But unlike South America, China of course was not conquered. Neither was India at this stage, despite its internal weaknesses and fragmentation.
I meant that Southern India and South-East-Asia were more militant and had better military tactics then Northern India and China. The example of Thailand was about the difficulty for civilizations to take over eachothers advances.--Daanschr 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why didn't other countries take over the European advantage? I think success breeds success. Once the processes of the Industrial Revolution set in, the pace of change became exponential. For a long period of time no other part of the globe had any chance in resisting Europe. Africa is altogether a very sorry matter. The disruption to what until very recently was in many parts a pre-agricultural society has been devastatingly vast.
- I would like to recommend a book which has profoudly influenced me: Ponting, Clive World History: A New Perspective (London, 2000) RCSB 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
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? --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. - SimonP 19:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Can you name a university that has combined its history and archaeology departments? --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 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." - 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. --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. - 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? --Brunnock 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll just add, thank you for pointing out the problem, and SimonP for fixing it. 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. - SimonP 23:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll just add, thank you for pointing out the problem, and SimonP for fixing it. Stbalbach 22:41, 11 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? --Brunnock 21:53, 11 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. - SimonP 05:22, 10 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). Stbalbach 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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. --Brunnock 02:42, 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. --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. Stbalbach 05:09, 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. --Brunnock 02:42, 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.--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. 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.--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.--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 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.--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. RCSB 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I will look for that book.--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.--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.--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.--Daanschr 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Graph straw poll
See #Graph of Singularity for discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the graph in this article (lead)
- --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting and notable, IMO.
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.--sansvoix 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, very interesting.--Fenice 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. For good or ill, we are manifestly living in an evolutionarily accelerating world. logologist|Talk 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the graph in this article, but not the lead
- Remove the graph
- --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. 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. -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). -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. 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.-gadfium 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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.-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. 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." -- 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). Herostratus 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Tres weird. Kaldari 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Not appropriate for this article. Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg at Technological singularity is nicer. —James S. 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. 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? --Andrew c 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Remove. Anti-historical pseudoscience which belongs on a religious website. 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. --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.--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.--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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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! --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?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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.--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? )--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.--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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hegel was not critical enough about the language he used. See Deconstruction.--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. - SimonP 23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- For starters, we have the American Museum of Natural History line of events there. Göran Burenhult[2] 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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. - 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.--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 are other ways to look at things. Its not just history either, look at this un-orthodox dow jones graph: [3] But yes, as my source states, such examples should be used with caution, as not to mislead.--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.--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 graphs 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?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is becoming to political for me. I'm out of here.--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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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. - 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: "Thomas Homer-Dixon" 38k, "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: "Thomas Homer-Dixon" 74, "Ray Kuyrzweil 512. Last but not least, Kurzweil has presented 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--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:19, 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. - SimonP 15:51, 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. - 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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. - SimonP 15:51, 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. --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. - 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. 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. --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. --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? — Knowledge Seeker দ 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. - 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Appleseed (Talk) 17:07, 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Human history would be a better name. "History of the world" is a bit too ambiguous. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- History of humanity?--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.'--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. — Knowledge Seeker দ 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.--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.--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 cities, or at least permanent habitations. Much of human history involved "uncivilized" peoples, if at times peripherally.
- The hunter-gatherer stage is prehistory.
- Four billion years of earth is geology.
- 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.--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! — Knowledge Seeker দ 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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. 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. --Stbalbach 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Replied at your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 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[4] should give lots of information about the subject.--Daanschr 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it is a good idea if World History and History of the World will be merged?--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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it is a good idea if World History and History of the World will be merged?--Daanschr 09:22, 10 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). 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. 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. 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. --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.--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. --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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 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.--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 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 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? 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. 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. darkliighttalk 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. 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. darkliighttalk 07:52, 16 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. PatrickA 22:26, 15 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. - 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. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would welcome the new universal convention, using BCE and CE. 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)