Talk:Human history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHuman history was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 7, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 19, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of January 15, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Start ancient history at 3500 BCE[edit]

Is anyone here strongly attached to 3000 BCE as the start date for ancient history? Here are three sources that start at 3500 BCE: [1], [2], [3]. I'm honestly not sure what is so special about 3500 since the earliest cuneiform is from 3300. I'm guessing historians just picked 3500 because it is a nice round number. Thoughts? Cerebellum (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is the rough start of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. I can only see the 2nd of those. I'm not inclined to change it. In an article at this scale it hardly matters. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn’t actually explain why I want the change: to me history begins with writing, and writing was in use in both Egypt and Mesopotamia before 3000 BCE. Here are quotes for the sources you cannot see:
  • The overall river valley civilization period, from 3500 to about 800 or 600 BCE, can be broken down into much more precise statements about changes and continuities in particular societies such as Mesopotamia and Egypt, where internal periodization schemes are quite elaborate, but at the same time this level of detail may not be necessary. [4]
  • In this chapter we trace the rise of complex societies in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus River Valley from approximately 3500 to 1500 BCE....Our starting point roughly coincides with the origins of writing, allowing us to observe aspects of human experience not revealed by archaeological evidence alone.[5] Cerebellum (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little late here but I wouldn't be opposed to using 3500 BCE as a better starting date. IMO writing is generally what determines the start of "history", and given that we know, more or less, that writing existed pre-3000 BCE makes for a credible argument. Of course there's a lot of debate on just how old writing is, debates about proto-writing, etc. but based on current understanding 3500 BCE makes more sense to me than 3000 BCE. SwensonJ (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023[edit]

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

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

Pre-GA feedback[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break[edit]

Now for Post-classical history.

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

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

Good points. I would prefer a simpler periodization based on modes of production - hunting/gathering, agricultural, and industrial. But I think we would need community consensus to make that change. And I agree on adding the other plague epidemics. Currently I'm having too much fun at AfC and I seem to have lost interest in this article so I don't see myself editing it much in the near future, hopefully other editors can pick up where I left off! --Cerebellum (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are facing no deadline. Do you want me to continue the review? As for periodization change, I think it's fine to be bold. You can start a new thread with that suggestion and wait a week or two to see if anyone else comments. RfC probably would be an overkill unless this becomes a contested issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you! If you continue, I won't be implementing your suggestions. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure ideas[edit]

I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline

Detailed outline collapsed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this a helpful image?[edit]

Re [6] – why is an impossible to read image of the entire human history helpful in the section called "Post-classical history (c. 500 CE – c. 1500 CE)"? Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That image should be removed in my view. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree, looks useless and almost unreadable. Artem.G (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite interesting at full expansion. Maybe it should be added purely as a link to that. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]