Talk:Human history

Start ancient history at 3500 BCE
Is anyone here strongly attached to 3000 BCE as the start date for ancient history? Here are three sources that start at 3500 BCE:, ,. I'm honestly not sure what is so special about 3500 since the earliest cuneiform is from 3300. I'm guessing historians just picked 3500 because it is a nice round number. Thoughts? Cerebellum (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is the rough start of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. I can only see the 2nd of those. I'm not inclined to change it. In an article at this scale it hardly matters. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn’t actually explain why I want the change: to me history begins with writing, and writing was in use in both Egypt and Mesopotamia before 3000 BCE. Here are quotes for the sources you cannot see:
 * The overall river valley civilization period, from 3500 to about 800 or 600 BCE, can be broken down into much more precise statements about changes and continuities in particular societies such as Mesopotamia and Egypt, where internal periodization schemes are quite elaborate, but at the same time this level of detail may not be necessary.
 * 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. Cerebellum (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm late to this, too, but I would also support the change, per the above. Renerpho (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A little late here but I wouldn't be opposed to using 3500 BCE as a better starting date. IMO writing is generally what determines the start of "history", and given that we know, more or less, that writing existed pre-3000 BCE makes for a credible argument. Of course there's a lot of debate on just how old writing is, debates about proto-writing, etc. but based on current understanding 3500 BCE makes more sense to me than 3000 BCE. SwensonJ (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

❌, clearly no consensus for this change. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

But... I fear this may suffer from some OR. For example, the sentence "However, not all scientific and technological advances in the second half of the 20th century required an initial military impetus" needs a citation, and while it of course won't be hard to find, first, this sentence is a essayish truism, and second, what follows is a list of technologies and I doubt that we can show that all of those techs were not influenced by military.
 * Removed this claim. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is also just literary teaching a course on globalization, I am happy to see proto-globalization linked early, but the concept of globalization itself is missing. Ending paragraph says that "The period was marked by growing economic globalization", which is true, but. First, this is true for some older periods too. Second, why mention economic globalization but not cultural or political ones? They form the trinity of classic subtypes of globalization. Moving on, the paragraph seems not neutral, as it seems criticial of globalization ("with consequent increased risk to interlinked economies"), ignoring the postive aspects.
 * Added Revised the sentence about 21st-century globalization to include benefits and well as risks. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cerebellum I'd suggest revising this by adding the adjective modern before globalization, to distinguish from Proto-globalization mentioned already. Bonus points if we can work in how to add the link to Archaic globalization in a preceeding section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Added, and removed the sentence about democratic backsliding. I still need to add AI. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The concept (term) of decolonization is missing from the article, although there are almost 30 reference to colonialism (colonies, etc.).
 * Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Another quibble I'll have is with the sentnece "Germany, under Adolf Hitler, orchestrated the genocide of six million Jews in the Holocaust and murdered about as many non-Jews as Jews". The first part is correct, but the second is controversial. Although a RS is cited (Synder is a great scholar), see World War II casualties and Holocaust victims. Why don't we mention the total for WWII casualties? It might be better. And the Holocaust victims articles gives the 'Total' figure of 17 million, that's not "about as many". I know well that estimates of Holocaust victims are problematic and controversial, which is I'd strongly suggested avoding that quagmire by using the uncontroversial figure (range...) for WWII casualties rather than discussing non-Jewish Holocaust victims.
 * Removed non-Jewish Holocaust victims and added --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope I can provide more feedback, but I am a bit busy right now. Still, my semi-random glance and two paragraphs suggests this article still needs much more tweaking. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your insightful comments! I removed the claim about the military and technology and I'm researching the other topics you mentioned to find sources. Great suggestions! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some further comments as I am reading from the back, so on the final section (contemporary history). The first half of that section seems stronger than the second half and I have only a few minor comments:
 * regarding "Such war being viewed as impractical, the superpowers instead waged proxy wars in non-nuclear-armed Third World countries. Between 1969 and 1972, as part of the Cold War Space Race, twelve American astronauts landed on the Moon and safely returned to Earth." Those sentences are not connected and the latter does not flow from the first. Split and/or move the second one?
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "partly due to its inability to compete economically with the United States and Western Europe" - citation needed? Not controversial, just weird citation layout in that sentence.
 * Added citation. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Most Western European and Central European countries gradually formed a political and economic community, the European Union, which expanded eastward to include former Soviet satellite states" - that's a bit off, as EU was formed earlier than the period discussed. EU's formation should be mentioned earlier, probably in the first paragraph, as a consequence of WW2. EU's expansion can be mentioned here, but it's a bit jarring that Baltic states are not mentioned - they were not Soviet satellites, but republics. So that sentence is not precise, needs qualifier or mentioning of the Baltic States.
 * Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "and its economic inequality increased" - that's about USA. That's true and fine to mention, but it seems a bit US centric. We should say something about global trends in inequality. The same happened in China, for example (Income inequality in China).
 * Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Related, what I feel is missing from that entire chapter is the discussion of global progress in terms of poverty reduction discussed there and in other articles like International_inequality. Stuff like "World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001 only about 20% did.".
 * Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And related to this, I think this article should also mention the concept of moral progress. The article also does not mention the concept of human rights and stuff discussed under Progress, 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&#124; reply here 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You work faster than I do :) I will get to these. And you are quite right, those concepts are not in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cerebellum Just a ping - I think the above wasn't gotten around to yet? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For women's rights we have Women fought to expand their civil rights[485] and began to enjoy greater access to education and the workforce. For global inequality we have At the same time, economic inequality increased both within individual countries and between rich and poor countries. For human rights/moral progress we have In a remarkable instance of moral progress, most of the world abolished slavery in the 19th century. Does that cover all of the bases? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cerebellum Hmmm, not for human rights which is more than just abolishment of slavery. Can we add a sentence that would actually use this term (human rights)? I think it is very important to human history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I added --Cerebellum (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * @Cerebellum Thank you. I don't think it is a long way off, but I still need to read the rest. That said, GA review is a hit or miss, some reviewers are very competent and do a great job (perhaps some are to strict), and some are way too easy going, so it is hard to know which one you'll get. The real test is of course WP:FAC. Frankly, I could see the article passing GA already with some relatively minor tweaks like the ones I asked for above, but it will depend on the reviewer lottery. I'll to offer my feedback in the meantime, which should help. I prefer not to do a proper GA review as, a, it allows another set of eyes to provide feedback, and b, I am not a native English speaker and I am pretty easy going on the prose issues, and some reviewers can provide much better feedback then me when it comes to this plus some MoS issues (dashes, etc.) that again I tend to not care about. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Further comments as I am finishing (re)reading the contemporary history section:
 * I am not sure whether "and acquired an empire of its own" when talking about US is neutral. From that article, I'd agree with the part that says "Many – perhaps most – scholars have decided that the United States lacks the key essentials of an empire... The best term is that the United States is a "hegemon." I suggest rephrasing this to use the term hegemony, not empire. Note that American hegemony still redirects to the same article - I think it should be its own article eventually.
 * I chose the link poorly. I meant to refer more narrowly to the US annexing the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii. I changed the link to Spanish–American_War, hopefully that clarifies things. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd still recommend not using the term American empire or such and instead link to hegemony. I think American empire concept is not neutral (and hegemony is an important concept we should link to). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one, to me occupying the Philippines for 50 years and fighting a war to keep them from becoming independent is imperialism. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this concept is a minority view, hence undue in this general article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * there are minor issues with key concepts not being blue linked, see my minor edits. I expect more blue links could be added and I'll be doing so myself, but this is something to think about.
 * Possibly because of this recent edit, intended to fix overlinking. Maybe the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing it, it was mostly ok, although I'd restore a few (ex. Judaism, links to subregions like Western Europe, etc. I've already restored link to an important concept (urbanization) I think. industrialization should be linked to (I think it is?). That said, I'd recommend using a script for checking for duplicate links (maybe some removals were duplicates?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides saw the systematic destruction, mass murder, and expulsion during World War I of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks" - seems like pointless repetition in the latter part?
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * related to what we discussed above, I'd still try to say something about (unspecified) millions of non-Jewish Holocaust victims as discussed in that article. USHMM wording quoted there seems reasonably neutral: "In addition, 11 million members of other groups were murdered during the "era of the Holocaust"".
 * Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading now through early modern history:
 * as above, I think quite a few important concepts are not linked and should be: sefdom, Reformation, Arab slave trade, Kingdom of Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Butua, Oyo Empire. Kingdom of Benin. Kingdom of Kongo, Mughal Empire... I'll stop here for now with the list but I do think the article is clearly underlinked (and those are not links to more basic concepts removed above in the diff mentioned). Sometimes this leads to jarring inconsistency (ex. in the seemingly linking or not to some African states in single sentence; or later, Malacca Sultanate is not linked, but Johor Sultanate is in the very next sentence).
 * There are also occasional 'easter eggs, ex. "In Africa" (check link...).
 * I linked serfdom and removed the link to history in Africa, as far as I can tell the others are all linked at their first occurrence, for most of them it is in the post-classical history section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest mentioning partitions of Poland, as the end of what was for 2-3 centuries the largest European state is likely worth a few words. Related to this, I think European history of that period needs at least one more paragraph. For another IMHO glaring ommission, there is nothing on the raise of Germany (Prussia). I see next to nothing about similar growth in power for the UK. Pax Britannica should be mentioned IMHO (if in the later section we already discussed). Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Scandinavia don't seem to mentined at all, which is IMHO again jarring considering mentions of non-European states later that arguably had much less impact on the world's history. I am well aware of systemic bias issues, but right now I find this section to be too biased in the opposite way.
 * Yes, there are definitely many topics not covered in this article. What I'm struggling with is that I want to keep the article under 10,000 words per WP:SIZERULE, right now I'm at 9938 so for everything I add, I need to cut something else. And I'm not sure what to cut to add the topics you mentioned. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's tough. If I see something not relevant I'll suggest removal, but the topics I mentioned above are, IMHO, quite vital. It is strange for an article on human history to mention let's say Malacca Sultanate but not Prussia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue makes me suspect that the article will never pass FAC. I can't think of an external criterion to use to decide what topics should be included. If I cut some information on Africa and Asia to add another paragraph on Europe, that opens up the article to charges of Eurocentrism. If I use Google Scholar results for, say, Prussia and Malacca as a metric, someone can say that just reflects systemic bias in the sources.  Any ideas you have on judging relative importance are most welcome! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bias in sources is an issue, but IMHO we have no choice but to represent it to some degree per NPOV and DUE. Our mission is to inform, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I still have much to read but I think the article is too biased towards non-modern history. I, at least, agree with the school that modern era is more important than past eras. In either case, I recommend adding few sentences to the modern era about stuff I mentioned. We can figure out what to cut later. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "However, China and Japan would later pursue isolationist policies designed to eliminate foreign influence" (presumably those have dedicated articles that could be linked to - Haijin, Sakoku). Ditto for "Diseases introduced by Europeans devastated American" (Native_American_disease_and_epidemics). Consider this comment representative of wider issues of underlinking to such concepts I see, partially related to what I mentioned before.
 * Quite right, done. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for contributing your time and expertise to this article! Your comments are pure gold to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Section break
Now for Post-classical history.

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

Second, zooming back to smaller issues: "along with the plagues of the 14th century" - what other plagues were significant outside Black Death? Can we link to some article? Second plague pandemic perhaps? Which makes me wonder why first and third have not been linked (Spanish flu is linked later, good). That's it for now, will resume review as soon as I have time for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Good points. I would prefer a simpler periodization based on modes of production - hunting/gathering, agricultural, and industrial.  But  I think we would need community consensus to make that change. And I agree on adding the other plague epidemics. Currently I'm having too much fun at AfC and I seem to have lost interest in this article so I don't see myself editing it much in the near future, hopefully other editors can pick up where I left off! --Cerebellum (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are facing no deadline. Do you want me to continue the review? As for periodization change, I think it's fine to be bold. You can start a new thread with that suggestion and wait a week or two to see if anyone else comments. RfC probably would be an overkill unless this becomes a contested issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's up to you! If you continue, I won't be implementing your suggestions. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your detailed pre-GA feedback so far.  and myself have decided to give it another go, see the discussion at User_talk:Cerebellum. As I understand, some comments of your review of the subsection on early modern Europe were not fully resolved last time. Cerebellum did not add an extra paragraph but they rewrote part of that subsection in the meantime to address the concerns. Do you think it is better now? Some of the developments involving Europe are also discussed in the section overview before the subsection "Europe". If you have more feedback on the remaining sections, that would be much appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7 Just noting I saw your question but it may take me some time to get back to it. Feel free to go to GA without my feedback (I'll try to offer it but I can't be sure when, very busy until July...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. We'll see how it goes, it could be a while before a reviewer picks up the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a light skim through the article and found only minor stuff to change after spot checking a few different elements. I would probably find more to tweak if I took a deeper look, but overall, it seems like it's been improved and isn't far off from GA standard. Kudos! The images seem decent — for this article, ones depicting events I think are generally more compelling than ones depicting buildings. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 06:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I nominated the article and the review has already started so I'm curious to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7 You motivated me to offer some thoughts on the Ancient history section :)
 * somewhere around "In 508 BCE, the world's first democratic system of government was instituted" I think we should link to history of democracy
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Underlinking is still an issue. Link bureaucracy, Western civilization, perhaps technological progress, concrete, stirrup (more suggestions below)
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we have a bit of pro-Europe bias in Regional Empires, too much about Europe vs, too little about Asia (China) and Africa. Ditto for the next section (Declines, falls, and resurgence) which seems to be just about Asia and Europe
 * Done for Regional Empires, still need to do for "Declines, falls, and resurgences". --Cerebellum (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the decline/fall section made me wonder what the point of the section is. I think we can do without it, so I combined it with the regional empires section.  Feel free to revert if it is not helpful. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Technology developed sporadically" - perhaps a good place to link history of technology
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Greek science, technology, and mathematics" - link Ancient Greek technology
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Roman Empire's decline " - link Fall of the Western Roman Empire
 * There is already a link earlier in the sentence "The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE to German influence under Odoacer". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Romans were also accomplished builders" - I think we should mention and link to Roman aqueduct here
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most ancient societies practiced slavery, which was particularly prevalent in Athens and Rome, where slaves" - I'd link to slavery in ancient Greece and slavery in ancient Rome in that paragraph
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "horse-based nomads" should probably link to Eurasian nomads
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * missing topics: end of Persia?
 * I think we covered this in the post-classical section: Before the advent of Islam in the 7th century, the Middle East was dominated by the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires, which frequently fought each other for control of several disputed regions...The birth of Islam created a new contender that quickly surpassed both of these empires. Let me know if you want more. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cerebellum That's fine but can we connect Sasanian Empire to the Persia somehow? Persia is a more famous concept than Sasania. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * will try to find time to comment more but again, no promises
 * <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading through contemporary history again, three thoughts for now:
 * we mention NATO but not the Warsaw Pact
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Development efforts in Latin America were hindered by political instability, some of which was caused by the United States as it repeatedly intervened in the region". Fine, but I can't shake the feeling the article has slight anti-US bias - where is, for example, a matching sentence about how development efforts in Europe and Asia were hindered by communism? I notice we acknowledge some criticism of China (Great Chinese Famine), but there is not a single criticism of USSR anywhere in the text, including the World Wars section. I think we should link to (perhaps not all) but something from the list of Mass killings under communist regimes, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule, Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Holodomor, etc.
 * That's a good point. I added a sentence focusing specifically on atrocities under Stalin's rule. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Russian invasion of Ukraine likely merits mention, perhaps along the lines of something like "long era of relative peace in Europe ended with"... relative could link to the Yugoslav civil war, perhaps.
 * <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I support this for GA now :) If I have any more thoughts, I'll post here in the future. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the helpful suggestion! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * That image should be removed in my view. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * agree, looks useless and almost unreadable. Artem.G (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's quite interesting at full expansion. Maybe it should be added purely as a link to that. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was the one that added the image. I agree that it should be removed in favor of "no pictures, only navbox" approach. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

It probably needs the Renaissance in the lead? Tom B (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The fall of the Roman Empire gave way to the Middle Ages in Europe, a period marked by feudalism, the spread of Christianity" The Western Roman Empire fell, the Eastern Roman Empire survived to the end of the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance. And that Western Empire had been Christianized for more than a century by 480 CE. The "spread of Christianity" and its dangerous side-effects are relevant to Late Antiquity, not the Middle Ages. Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks, i've deleted it Tom B (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I think mentioning the early civilizations is important. I gave it another try while trying to stick more closely to the structure and content of our article. I'm not sure if we want to continue the discussion here or at the GA review, where the lead expansion was requested. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I've pondered that question as well and I haven't really reached a conclusion. Removing them would make the section titles more concise and I don't think they are particularly common in Wikipedia articles. However, they are used in works of world history. For example, they form part of the book titles of each volume of The Cambridge World History and are used in the main chapter titles of Bulliet et al. 2015a. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are they redundant? The headings use three different eras: years ago, BCE, and CE. What do you propose that Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE) would become, for example? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good that you bring up this point, I think I misunderstood the original suggestion. I initially thought that the year ranges themselves should be removed ("Ancient history (c. 3000 BCE – c. 500 CE)" would become "Ancient history") but the comment is about "redundant era designations in the year ranges", presumably:
 * Post-classical history (c. 500 CE – c. 1500 CE) -> Post-classical history (c. 500 – c. 1500 CE)
 * Early modern period (c. 1500 CE – c. 1800 CE) -> Early modern period (c. 1500 – c. 1800 CE)
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah right, no objection to that. You might as well drop the second circa too. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me, I'd drop the era designation for the headers of the 2 "modern" periods, which really aren't needed. In text, they are very rarely needed for dates after say 500 CE. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of genocides and atrocities
Ottoman genocides and Holocaust is mentioned in the article but the following seems to be missing: And that is just from a very quick glance at the article. Here's a specific example of the biased coverage:
 * Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Africa etc. Here are few that can be mentioned such as California genocide:
 * Other crimes in Africa such as Atrocities in the Congo Free State, Herero and Nama genocide, and Algerian_War
 * Circassian genocide
 * Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction with about 5 million dead.


 * What the article says:


 * What sources say:
 * The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies p. 304
 * The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 p. 6:

I'm also adding a NPOV tag for now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bogazicili, please don't do that. Not everything can be covered in every article. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll wait for few more comments and proceed with a RfC if necessary. Bogazicili (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC's are not for retaliation. If a discussion reaches a standstill over a prolonged period, sure. You sound like you're practically threatening an RFC after less than a few hours of discussion.  Aza24  (talk)   18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not my intent. Bogazicili (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The fact that something occurred in the history of the world is not sufficient reason for including it in this article, see WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUE. This article can't discuss every single genocide, similar to how it cannot discuss every single war. Are you aware of sources that establish that the genocides you mentioned really were major events from the perspective of world history in general? The sources you presented so far belong to the more narrow field of genocide studies, not world history in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mean listing every genocide. But we need a concise single sentence that several genocides occurred in Americas. Or at least point to the debate about it (some authors seem to argue against it). No need to list everything, but omitting to mention the issue entirely is indeed biased. Bogazicili (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


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


 * Is there really a reason you can articulate why it's "systemic bias"? Is the bias that there aren't enough Americans editing Wikipedia? (If you would argue that that there being too many Americans is actually why it the Great Dying is not mentioned, you're mistaken.) Surely nothing is lost by being a bit more specific and not using terms just because they sound more serious. Remsense  诉  17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No colonial genocide by Europeans are mentioned. Besides the above quote, here's the one for Long nineteenth century: The 20th century opened with Europe at an apex of wealth and power. Much of the world was under its direct colonial control or its indirect influence through heavily Europeanized nations like the United States and Japan.. Positives are mentioned, negatives are omitted such as Atrocities in the Congo Free State (with up to 13 million dead) Bogazicili (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the things you've mentioned should be in the article, but I just really don't see why it's systemic bias—which is a broader characterization about the recent efforts of specific editors. It seems more helpful just to call it bias which is a more natural to remedy in one specific article and perhaps assumes a bit less about the contributors. Remsense  诉  17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I say Systemic bias because I assume it's due to the demographics of editors. For example, if we had more editors from Congo, they'd probably be more passionate about inclusion of Atrocities in the Congo Free State. If we had more native American editors, they'd be more passionate about indigenous genocides sentence. It doesn't mean there was any bad faith intent among the primary editors of the page. It's easy to miss issues in a very high level article such as this. Does that make sense? Bogazicili (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Classic Wp:recentism - what about the the Mongols, Timur, Assyrian Empire and so on and on. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of those can be added too possibly. But there's a whole paragraph about European colonization here Human_history starting with European empires lost territories in Latin America, which won independence by the 1820s through military campaigns, but expanded elsewhere as their industrial economies gave them an advantage over the rest of the world.... So an entire paragraph but any mention of genocides or atrocities committed by Europeans are omitted? I don't think there's an entire paragraph about Mongols. Bogazicili (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic might be best addressed by simply stating that genocides have happened throughout history.... without naming any individual one.... we should simply summarize what the UN says or actually quote it "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity." Moxy 🍁 18:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but there's no natural place for a general comment like that in such an article. We have no "overview" section (nor should we, that would get messy quick), and including such a sentiment in the lead would not be summing up the article like a lead should.  Aza24  (talk)   18:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, removal of anything wasn't my suggestion. Examples can be given in relevant sections, with concise overview sentences. Bogazicili (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pick by what criteria ? List of genocides Moxy 🍁 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Bogazicili, this article is intended to be perhaps the most general, concise and summarized article on Wikipedia. You will need to cite and provide examples from books on the topic of Human history. That is, we need to see these things represented in modern reliable secondary sources about human history. Of course the The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies is going to mention these things, but how much are the mentioned in The Cambridge World History series? I'm not saying I disagree with you, in fact it seems like many here sympathize with your concerns (including me), but you're going about this the wrong way (and the systemic bias accusations don't help). As for which genocides, again, that would be decided by coverage in topic-relevant reliable sources.  Aza24  (talk)   20:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the source suggestion. I checked The Cambridge World History Volume 7 Part 1. There seems to be good coverage of genocide topic (chapter 16). Here are some quotes and page numbers. I'm keeping the quotes under 200 words:
 * About Genocide of Indigenous peoples, page 430:
 * About Circassian genocide, page 430:
 * About Atrocities in the Congo Free State, page 429:
 * Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems solid enough ground to partially expand content on the genocide of Indigenous peoples by at least sentence or two; I would assume the content needed here would be Oceania-based (which is an exceptionally small section in the Early modern period to begin with). I'm afraid the single sentence on the Circassian might not translate to anything in a limited encyclopedia article.
 * I think the last quote illustrates a possible lapse in this article. There's nothing said on the actual time during which African countries were colonized, just when they were colonized and when they were decolonized. I'd suggest that at the end of the 2nd paragraph in the "Long nineteenth century", a sentence be included on why the appeal of colonizations to major powers, and then the negative results for the native population, where the Atrocities in the Congo Free State could be used as an example.
 * That's just my reaction, others are welcome to way in. –  Aza24  (talk)   22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I suggest adding the following two sentences.
 * For the Americas: Sourced to Cambridge World History, from the quote Bogazicili provided.
 * For Africa: --Cerebellum (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the Americas, the source states seems to restrict its claims to "smaller groups" of native populations in North America while excluding "large native populations" in "tropical Africa, or the Central and Southern Americas" (p. 429). This should probably be reflected in our sentence, maybe as Some scholar suggest the wider claim that colonialism is "intrinsically genocidal" but I don't think that this is the generally accepted position. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made that change and added the sentences. Bogazicili, does that resolve your concerns? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for the changes. I have several more concerns:
 * I do think Circassian genocide should be mentioned in the article. Genocides against Christian and Jewish populations are already mentioned in this article, but there is nothing about genocides against Muslim populations, such as the Circassian genocide. I think this can be integrated into the following sentence while the tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire did little to slow the Ottoman decline. I'll make a proposal about this after I go through a few more sources myself.
 * Genocide in Australia should be added into Long nineteenth century section. There's already a sentence that covers British expansion: The British also colonized Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa with large numbers of British colonists emigrating to these colonies. So you just need to add something like "which led to genocide in Australia" into that sentence. Bogazicili (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To make space for "which led to genocide in Australia", consider trimming this sentence: European empires lost territories in Latin America, which won independence by the 1820s through military campaigns. You can just say something like "Latin American countries gained independence by the 1820s". Bogazicili (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Great, I made the changes. The word count increased by only 4, while coverage of Ottoman Empire expanded significantly.
 * Added Circassian genocide per above
 * Migration into Ottoman Empire is mentioned in The Cambridge World History Vol 7 Part 2 p. 5: Tsarist and Habsburg Empires against the Ottoman Empire sent soldiers moving and Muslim peasant families fleeing. So I believe this is due too.
 * Combining with additional sources, this is the result:
 * I really like how you guys link individual pages in the reference btw. I don't think I have seen that before. Bogazicili (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * Concur with the above. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary of human history can be premature, as history will not end soon and Wikipedia is not crystalball. But Summary can end open with two possibilities, one realistic and one fantastic.
 * Realistic possibility: Aliens come and forbid genocides.
 * Fantastic possibility: We on our own will end genocides.--IronMike6 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Good question. The first two links I found are Abernethy 2000 and Abulafia 2011. Both provide general information about the books and a limited preview so I think both can be useful. I guess book links would be acceptable as long as they provide at least some basic information about the book even if they lack a preview function. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Periodization
Aside from the pre-history, the article seems to be structured around a periodization scheme which is simply the traditional three eras used for Western civilization (Ancient-Medieval-Modern). The term "late modern" isn't actually used by historians so I'm assuming it's been added purely out of editorial convenience.

When I checked two of the major sources focused specifically on world history, like The Cambridge World History or The Oxford Handbook of World History, they don't seem to use the Europe-focused traditional three eras to all of history. And I'd be surprised if they did since it would be blatantly Euro-centric.

So how did we wind up with this situation? Why has this article decided on a rigid Western-style periodization rather than something more nuanced that matched what's used in serious historical research? Peter Isotalo 08:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for raising this concern. In response to this edit tagging the term "late modern period" as original research, I had a short at the sources. I found the following high-quality sources that use this term:


 * This is probably enough to show that it is not original research. However, the fact that this term is used by some high-quality sources is not sufficient to name a main section after it, especially since various sources do not use the term. An alternative would be to rename the section to "Modern period". This is roughly the periodization used in Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern . However, distinguishing the early modern period from the modern is unintuitive. An alternative would be use the name "Long nineteenth century to present".
 * There is no established periodization and many high-quality sources use their scheme. This problem is discussed in the section "Academic research". For a high-quality with a periodization similar to ours, see Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in cherry-picking here. None of the sources actually use the term "late modern period" but rather specify a late stage as it exists in all historical periods or concepts of chronology. If you look up virtually any article, book or chapter about periodization and modernity, they don't use the term "late modern period". This concept is mostly just a Wikipedia-generated neologism and based on a misunderstanding of periodization and the concept of modernity.
 * There's been an extensive discussion about this over at talk:late modern period and the article has been redirected because it's simply a Wikipedia-generated neologism.
 * Regarding the choice of periodization, you're not really addressing my core concern here: other than convenience, what's the reason for choosing a single periodization scheme for all of human history? That's not a scheme that some of your main sources actually use. Peter Isotalo 08:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by what the distinction would be here, if you'll humor me. Remsense  诉  08:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Late" is a pretty common adjective used when describing time. It is frequently applied to certain periods. Some of these are established and recognized sub-divisions of historical periods, like the Late Middle Ages. Others, like late Sengoku period, are more like ad hoc constructions used in descriptive prose, like the examples above. One of them isn't even about modernity in general but specifically "Indian Ocean Maritime History".
 * If the term "late modern period" was actually a thing among historians, it would cover a period in time that is likely the most thoroughly researched and intensely discussed in the field of historical research. That would generate hundreds of thousands of hits, including thousands of titles of academic articles, books, conferences, courses, professorships and entire institutions. Peter Isotalo 09:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you think we should periodize the article? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should look at what periodizations world history-focused sources are using.
 * If they aren't in agreement, you need to figure out how to describe many different perspectives rather than just picking one that seems convenient and familiar. Peter Isotalo 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems they were doing that. Does it really seem plausible to you that there would be a canonical periodization used by a majority here? Sometimes we have to write an encyclopedia article and structure it differently because all our sources are books or multi-volume works. Not all source material boils down the same way.  Remsense  诉  12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I pointed out, if sources don't agree on something, we need to try to describe those differing perspectives.
 * As a short, specific example, the first "Oceania" heading cites sources that cover some of the following periods:
 * McNiven (in Benjamin) is writing in a volume specified as being 1200 BC-900 AD and actually goes back all of 50,000 years in some cases.
 * Bulliet covers the dawn of history until 1550 AD
 * Burley covers 2850-150 BP
 * Kirch & Green covers 3200 BC-1800 AD
 * None of them in any way fit the structure used in the article and none of the conclusions from those sources seem to have been included in the article. Peter Isotalo 14:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen "late modern" used, if rarely−though usually to refer to a range roughly like 1750–1914, i.e. what we associate with aesthetic modernism.
 * There are two broad options I can see beyond a fresh coat of paint: top-level structuring by theme or region rather than by era, or figuring out a periodization that's more acceptable? By the by, from what I remember The Cambridge World History doesn't use these labels per se, but it really does not reject them either: its volumes very roughly divide history into sections pre-500, 500–1500, and 1500–present. Remsense  诉  08:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think using date ranges is a bad idea. Even if they're functionally the same, it renders them more objective and avoids region-specific terminology like medieval. Another option would be to follow the prehistory section and assign 'thematic' labels to each division (though the roughly 3000 years between the first agricultural societies and the first ancient civilisations seems to have been misplaced in the current scheme there). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to use thematic labels, a good starting point is Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks' A Concise History of the World, she uses the same periodization we do but with descriptive era names. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to use thematic labels, a good starting point is Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks' A Concise History of the World, she uses the same periodization we do but with descriptive era names. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To aid the discussion, since this has come up before, here are the schemes used by some recent works in world history. As for "late modern period", I'm fine with changing it to "modern period". --Cerebellum (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you link to where periodization issues been discussed before? I don't want to rehash previous points unnecessarily. Peter Isotalo 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of what Piotrus said in his pre-GA feedback: --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very briefly, from all I have ever read Chinese historiography is structured exclusively on the successive dynastic cycles integral to the Chinese state. There is no other metanarrative to speak of, not even in the context of major transformations in the relationship between China and the outside world, e.g. the late antiquity introduction of Buddhism from India, the brief incorporation of China into the Eurasia-spanning Mongol Empire, or the period of Ming exploration and global diplomacy.
 * So that's probably a no. Remsense  诉  15:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense I've heard about this, and something similar in Japanese historiography. But playing my own devil's advocate: the question is whether we are not conflating this with national historiography. See pl:Periodyzacja historii Polski (my article that I have yet to tl to en). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * China essentially invented nationalist historiography. Much of Europe only got it going in the 19th and 20th centuries <abbr title="Winking face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-wink.svg Remsense  诉  15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this overview table, this is quite helpful.
 * Generally speaking, there are different ways of dividing human history into periods. All the major sources that I'm aware of use a periodization. I'm not sure how one would present human history in a reasonable format without it due to the lack of organization. If one wanted to use not one but several parallel periodizations, there would be a lot of overlap between the different presentations for each periodization. If someone could provide high-quality sources that follow one of these approaches, we could consider them. If we use a periodization, we have to decide the points where one period ends and the next one starts. This should follow sources on world history, not sources on local histories. To my mind, the points chosen in our article make sense and reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history. We also have the section "Academic research", which covers this topic and explains different perspectives, making the reader aware that there are alternative approaches.
 * By the way, I implemented the earlier suggestion to use the term "modern period" instead of "late modern period". Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees that periodization is necessary and no one has questioned its relevance. Some sort of logical article structure is also necessary. That hasn't been questioned either. The problem is the choice of just one single periodization scheme to all of recorded human history. There's clearly no scholarly consensus for that so we need to stop pretending like Wikipedia should make one up.
 * Going from my example regarding "Oceania", that section does not appear to "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The comments on long-term social structure development provided by McNiven have been left out while more specific details have been included. The specific details have been lifted from region-specific sources rather than works on world history, so their inclusion seems to have been made by individual Wikipedians.
 * From what I can tell, every single section in the article consists of a unique combination of sources referenced one sentence at a time, sometimes even just a few words at a time. That's strongly indicative of individual Wikipedians having chosen a very specific set of facts they think are important without regard to the context of the sources they've used. Peter Isotalo 18:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is consensus that our article should use periodization and should make the reader aware of alternative periodizations. I think it does both.
 * I'm not sure what to make of your criticism that the article uses "one single periodization". All the books listed in the table above seem to do that, so at least we are in good company. If you could provide an example of a reliable source on world history that uses several alternative periodizations to structure its main outline instead of one single periodization, it might be easier to understand what alternative you are proposing.
 * I'll have a look at McNiven to see how the long-term social structure development can be included in regard to Oceania. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine how you could write a single article (or book) that uses multiple periodisations in parallel without totally decohering. The only way I can see to do so here would be to treat each region wholly separately, which would defeat the purpose of having an article on human history in the first place, and make it redundant to History of Europe, History of Oceania, etc. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article really just uses a single periodization scheme for all of recorded history: the traditional Eurocentric ancient-medieval-modern scheme. None of the sources listed in the table actually use this scheme. Some sources might still use it, but it's still a matter of WP:UNDUE to just flat-out ignore the others and relegate them to the "academic" section.
 * Your question about "several alternative periodizations" doesn't really make sense to me. At least one of your major sources (The Cambridge World History) employs and discusses multiple periodizations in the regional chapters. You have abundant examples of many different global periodizations, so why would you be asking me for more evidence?
 * The point regarding the Oceania section was not that info specifically about social structure was missing. It was meant as an example of how the article completely disregards the perspective of its own sources. The Oceania section was just one minor example of systemic problem throughout the article. You can see the same pattern in sections like "medieval" Africa and "post-classical" America. In the America section, the very first cited source (Begun & Brashler, "The Americas" in Benjamim 2015) focuses mostly on 1200 BCE-900 AD and very clearly describes general overview periodizations for North, Meso- and South America respectively. None of this is reflected or even mentioned in the article.
 * If we look at a more general example, the introductory sentence to "Post-classical history" is not representative of the cited sources either:
 * Benjamin and Wiesner-Hanks (p. 348) explains that China, India and the Maya have classical and post-classical periods, but not that they are literally the same period as the Mediterranean region. The cited chapter itself isn't about the world as a whole either.
 * Christian (p. 102) has a chapter called "A Periodization of World History as a Whole" that doesn't correspond to any classical period.
 * Stearns (p. 33) is the only source that seems to argue a global post-classical period (500-1450 CE), but also uses a different dating for the classical period (1000 BCE-600 CE).
 * None of these look like they "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The pattern throughout the article seems very consistent: various events are mentioned in chronological order under arbitrarily chosen headings.
 * I don't see that these problems are really fixable one example at a time. The whole article needs to be restructured and rewritten from the ground up. From what I can see, the following issues need to be resolved before the article gets out of the rut its currently stuck in:
 * Start the article with a proper definition of the article topic, including the state of research. It should be defined the way historians define the topic, not what a bunch of Wikipedians think it should be.
 * Let go of the current structure and focus on identifying a structure that is more useful than just a single chronological timeline, otherwise, this is really nothing but a kind of timeline of world history in prose form.
 * Sources need to be limited to works that are explicitly about the article topic: world history or various forms of "megahistory". Works that are not about vast timespans or large regions should not be used. Sources like Rael (2009), Ning (2023) and Blier (2012), Barro (2015), are way too specific to be worthy of inclusion (these are just examples).
 * Stop pulling out snippets of history from various sources and sprinkle them across the article. You can't pick-and-mix your way to a coherent, high-quality article.
 * Everyone needs to start taking periodization a lot more seriously and stop treating it as just some subjective layout issue. Whether something belongs in a historical period is something that needs to be determined by a source, not by individual Wikipedians. Just the fact that this article has had a pure neologism like "late modern period" is a sign that of clearly substandard, uncritical and subjective use of sources. Peter Isotalo 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to jump in and make some edits :) The article can always be improved. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not really a "make some edits"-problem here. The article structure is hopelessly biased and trying to polish it will just further justify the bias. It would be like adding info to an article about fish that included marine mammals and plesiosaurs in its core structure simply because enough editors thought it convenient and logical to include "all swimmy-type sea creatures".
 * As a starting point, are you prepared to collaborate in a serious attempt at restructuring the article and move away from a one-size-fits-all-regions periodization scheme? Peter Isotalo 10:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I don't really understand what structure you are proposing. But I like your passion and ambitious vision for the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing we do a seriously deep dive into determining the most common periodizations applied to the discipline of world history, which is the discipline that this article falls under. A very good place to start is Cajani 2013. The thing to look for are statements like this one:
 * During the second half of the twentieth century, world history research has experienced an extraordinary development. Three main periodization paradigms have emerged.
 * Cajani explains the three main paradigms as "the productive relation between humans and nature", "[r]eligion and culture" and "relations among civilizations or societies". That's an overview of three different perspectives of world history which could be used to construct a more scientifically accurate description of the topic: one timeline for each focused on these three paradigms.
 * This is a structure that could absolutely be applied assuming it's something that there's some sort of scholarly consensus around. We need to look at more overviews of world history historiography and see what they say about it. Are there patterns we can follow without just making purely arbitrary choices? Peter Isotalo 13:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I think I get what you are saying now. Sounds like quite the intellectual adventure that I don't want to embark on right now, but I support you if you want to rewrite the article accordingly. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you just want to discuss these paradigms as paradigms, you could do that at World history (field). But it seems you are suggesting that our article here uses three timelines to tell human history three times, once for each paradigm (one main section per paradigm?). Is that correct? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels like putting far too much weight on the field of world history, which despite the name is a still a very niche and (ironically) US-centric discipline. This article is about human history and the vast majority of historians of humanity do not work within a 'world history' framework. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7, I'm pointing out a core aspect of research in the field that this article is positioned in. I've pointed out that Cajani 2013 summarizes the use of periodization within the academic field that this article falls under. That's not merely a comment on the discipline itself works but specifically about how periodization is applied. The article is clearly choosing its own path in this matter and that's very obviously WP:UNDUE.
 * Structuring history thematically is neither problematic nor controversial. All sorts of sources do it all the time, and so does Wikipedia, especially for more complex historical topics. So I don't really understand the pushback here. The only argument in favor of the single-timeline structure seems to be editorial inertia.
 * So what I'm suggesting right now isn't immediately rewriting the whole article, but to try to look through sources for a consensus regarding the periodization issue. Are you interested in collaborating in that regard? Peter Isotalo 09:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are actually getting surprisingly little 'pushback' considering you are making some quite strong criticisms of an article that everyone else agrees is at a GA level. What I mostly see here is people trying, and struggling, to understand how your very broad broad critiques could translate into actual changes to the article. So I'd echo Cerebellum and say that what would be most useful now is for you to either make changes to the article or propose a new structure for discussion here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The intention of my last comment was not to push back but to get you to clarify your proposal. Apologies for the confusion. I have various concerns about your proposal and your criticisms but, before diving into them, it might be better to first clarify what your alternative suggestion actually is. Concerning the amount of pushback you have received so far, Joe's comment hits the nail on the head. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To scour sources similar to Cajani to glean some sort of scholarly consensus regarding periodizations to replace the one you use right now.
 * That's the starting point at least. My bullet list above is the further steps I think are necessary.
 * But there's no point on working further on the article before we deal with the periodization. Peter Isotalo 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to scour sources, we should try to answer 2 questions: (1) how many periodizations and (2) which one(s). From my point of view, the how-many question is simple to answer: all the main sources pick one so we should too, see the overview table above. I presume you disagree since this would exclude your multi-periodization proposal. The which-one question is more complicated, since each of the main sources picks different periods. I think our best bet here is to pick the periods that are most standard and most well-known. I guess these are roughly the ones we picked. Eras like ancient history and post-classical history are well-known. Eras like "Webs and civilizations in the old world" and "The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America", as used in the source McNeill & McNeill 2003, are not well known. Just as an example, ancient history and post-classical history have their own Wikipedia articles but Webs and civilizations in the old world and The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America don't. Given the great variety of periodizations, there is some wiggle room for us. This means that there may be different ways to structure the contents that are acceptable. Our current periodization is just one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way forward here if you've already decided that a single-periodization approach is the only relevant structural solution for this article. In your own words, that a POV and isn't an appropriate way to approach neutrality.
 * If you're not willing to even explore the idea of multiple periodizations, you're effectively shutting down discussion. Peter Isotalo 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion was to look at the sources. In my last comment, I reviewed the sources in the overview table above and shared my interpretation. I know that you have a different perspective but I don't know how we can reach a common understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to simply acknowledge the necessity of a more complex article structure, just like you were perfectly fine with over at history of philosophy. And that's "only" the history of philosophy rather than the entirety of the human past.
 * If you choose a single perspective from sources that are providing multiple perspectives, and some even summarizing some of them into paradigms, what's your justification for simply allowing a single perspective? How is that not giving something undue weight? Peter Isotalo 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement that the picture we get from the scholarship poses unique challenges. We are in disagreement about how to deal with it. One of our differences seems to lie in the importance we give to periodization. As I see it, for the purpose of this article, periodization is needed to structure the contents but is not at the center: the article is about human history, not about periodizations in world history. If picking a single periodization was biased in principle, then all our main sources would be biased. I find that conclusion, and in turn the argument it is based on, troubling.
 * I would be more favorable to your proposal if there were main sources that implemented it. However, I don't think any have been mentioned so far. Cajani 2013 is a source about periodizations in world history. Strictly speaking, it belongs to historiography rather than history. It compares different periodizations, but it does not do what you are proposing to do with this article. Without any sources implementing something like your proposal, the proposal sounds like an exciting intellectual experiment and I would be curious to see how it would play out. However, I'm not sure that an intellectual experiment should be carried out on a Wikipedia article. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to understand your editorial position here, are you opposing any structure other than a single timeline based on just a single periodization? Peter Isotalo 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the sources and arguments presented so far favor a single-periodization approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe we have an unresolved content dispute. I've added a tag to the article and have requested a third opinion. Peter Isotalo 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification
Thank you for those failed verification tags Peter. This is a good test of the verifiability of the article. I'm happy to provide quotes for all tagged citations but maybe we can start with #372, so I can understand where you are coming from.

Article text:

Source text:

Could you help me understand what is wrong this citation? Cerebellum (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was creating a new section about this but then forgot to actually post it. The issue with #372 (Bentley, Subrahmanyam & Wiesner-Hanks (2015) p. 449) is that the periodization doesn't match with the start of the sentence. I just tried another round at checking citations, this time it's under the "Americas" sub-heading of "Early modern period" and it's almost as bad as the introduction.
 * Besides all page citations pointing to nonsense, what's with all those largely random refs with quotes? The quotes seem to serve any purpose other than to highlight a very specific part of a cited source. It's almost as if the quotes are used as a way to argue that the citation is relevant. That serves no relevant purpose.
 * And these quotes are kinda clear that they're just mentioning specific facts in passing, like with Wheeler (1971), not that they actually focus on the statement they're supposed to be supporting. Wheeler (1971) is a pretty old source about a narrow aspect of Russian-US relations. Why is it being cited in article about world history?
 * I think you guys are seriously overestimating the quality of the article. I have plenty more examples of just plain weirdness in choice of both facts and references, especially how a lot of sentences have been cut down and edited in a way that makes them kinda incoherent. And then someone has come along and slapped citations on them to make them look verifiable. It's like the article has been written largely without any proper interplay between content and sources. Peter Isotalo 02:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the discussion here, it might be better to precisely respond to the specific concern raised about the maintenance tag you added instead of lashing out at all kinds of potential problems you see with the article. Reference 372 is used for the phrase "the rise of centralized bureaucratic states". This seems to be a good summary of what the source says. In this context, I'm not sure that there is a serious problem with the fact that the timeframe in the source is slightly wider than the one in our article, given that the section where the phrase occurs is about the latter timeframe and confirmed by the earlier sources. The claim itself seems uncontroversial and more sources could be added but I don't think this is necessary.
 * Having a short look right at your next maintenance tag of reference 374 for our sentence on the Great Divergence, I have similar concerns. The source clearly introduces the discussion of the and its question regarding the extent to which  was caused by  or . Again, the sentence itself about this debate seems uncontroversial and more sources could be added but I don't think this is necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where a lot of the perceived problems came from: I misread a lot of instances of citations to parts 1 and 2 of the various volumes. It's a lot harder to follow the citations to individually-authored chapters in major anthologies. It did seem a bit extreme, but I honestly didn't catch my initial error. Sorry about that.
 * I just want to stress that taken in isolation, most statements in the sections under the "Early modern period" intro and the "Americas" that I looked through are pretty basic and uncontroversial. It's just that they are what I've described: mostly a huge pile of facts with little or no cohesiveness to them. And everything is peppered with some rather idiosyncratic use of sources.
 * Regarding my "lashing out", you seem to getting my points fine, like with 372. In this case, you're making the mistake of glossing over the problems inherent in the article's treatment of periodization. At some point in the distant past, you seem to have collectively decided that the early modern period is canonically 1500-1800 and when I try to point out that your own sources don't follow that pattern, you dismiss the variation as trivial. You're not going to solve this simply by chopping up the content even further and citing each deviation from the source material separately; you need to start treating paragraphs as cohesive units instead of micromanaging individual sentences. Peter Isotalo 11:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing some of the misguided maintenance tags you added. I suggest that we focus on the individual maintenance tags rather than re-introduce and repeat the unproductive discussion on the alternative-periodizations-proposal.
 * You first tagged a reference to Bentley, Subrahmanyam & Wiesner-Hanks 2015a, p. 277 and later removed the reference without explanation or replacement. Why?
 * You added various "better source needed" tags to indicate insufficiently reliable sources. You added this tag to a university press book, a book by Cengage Learning, and a JSTOR journal article. Why do you question the reputation of these sources? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the p. 277 reference, I just merged it with the exact same citation at the end of the sentence. Here's where it was added and there's really no logic to repeating it.
 * I've pointed out why it's inappropriate to use a non-world history, somewhat dated source like Wheeler 1971 in an article on world history. Black 2004 isn't dated but it's the same problem: it's not a world history source.
 * I've tagged Bulliet because it's a basic introductory textbook. That means it's a slightly more advanced schoolbook. If it's the only source available, it makes sense, but the article is swimming in high-quality world history literature.
 * Regarding my periodization proposal, I replied to a direction request from you about it above, but you haven't replied. I think you should. Peter Isotalo 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are these source concerns based on the GA/FA criteria? Do the criteria say you cannot use textbooks, or books from an adjacent historical discipline? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a GAN or FAC. Why are you bringing that up? Peter Isotalo 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True, I should rephrase: what Wikipedia policy says we cannot use textbooks, or books from an adjacent historical discipline? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The same rule that says we shouldn't stuff beans up our noses; not all contingencies are covered by explicit rules. I've specified why it's inappropriate above. Peter Isotalo 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So it is just your opinion. Since WP:RS explicitly says we can use textbooks. Feel free to swap out sources if you would like, but I hope you'll understand if I don't feel compelled to do so. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Cerebellum that these sources fulfill the basic requirements. For example, from WP:SOURCETYPES: . It's possible that there are better sources and I don't know whether they would fulfill the FA requirements of high-quality reliable sources. But we are just talking here about the basic requirements of reliable vs not. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the suggestion that world history (field) should be the only or main field we look to for sourcing for this article. It isn't "about world history", it's about human history. And as the lead says, this is understood through history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics and various other academic disciplines. World history is just one current within one of those fields, and not a very popular one; even its proponents acknowledge that it is virtually unknown outside of the peculiar context of the United States educational system (pg. XV). We need to be giving due weight to as many approaches to human history as possible, in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I live in Sweden and have been around the historic academic community for quite a while. Never heard anyone complain of world/global history being only relevant to US students. Some of the most significant sources used in this article are written by non-Americans. You are gravely misinformed.
 * As for the scope of the article, you're confusing history with its application. We're not going to summarize "as many approaches to human history as possible", because that's not how historians actually write history.
 * There is no separate discipline called "human history" that is somehow separate from the scope both of this article and history. Peter Isotalo 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I live in a place and talk to some people too. What's your point?
 * We're not historians writing history; we're encyclopaedists summarising what historians have written about history. To do that we must try to reflect all significant views on the topic (not discipline, who said anything about that?) of human history. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Summarising what historians have written about history" is pretty much the definition of world history. What you're suggesting is original research. Peter Isotalo 19:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From WP:OR: It's hard to see how Joe's suggestion to summarize sources or reflect significant views on the topic would be original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , you presumably read my criticism of "world history" in the GA review above, but I would direct your attention there again, especially (for what Joe is getting at) chapter 10 of Conrad 2018. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Time spans for early modern and modern periods
The article currently assigns a span of 1500-1800/1800-present to the modern eras, but that's not really in line with any of the sources cited. These time spans aren't wildly inaccurate, but they imply there's a more or less canonical timeframe, especially for the early modern period.

Repeating the 1500-1800 timespan is not in line with current scholarship. A recent standard work like What is Early Modern History? doesn't at any point assign the 1500-1800 span as some sort of default, but makes very clear that it varies depending on perspective. The variation is considerable, as early as 1300 and as late as 1850. That variation needs to be accounted for in the article, not just glossed over to make it more convenient to sort information.

Even more importantly, historians never try to claim that historical periods are defined as "events that happened between year X and year Y", but with distinguishing features. We should explain this instead instead of dumbing it down. Peter Isotalo 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this point. I see two good ways to account for variation: use terms like "approximately" to not imply that the dates are exact and use footnotes to explain in more detail. I adjusted some formulations to do that and I used the source you mentioned in an explanatory footnote. I also updated our reference to Bentley & Ziegler and added a reference to Stearns 2001 . I think the part about distinguishing features is discussed in the section "Academic research". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's your justification for keeping the 1500-1800 span as the default date and characterizing any deviation as "disputed"? By using this language, the article implies that there is widespread agreement that the early modern is defined as 1500-1800 (with or without "approximate" doesn't really change the meaning much). But most of the sources cited, including those dedicated explicitly to defining the period as such, use differing time spans.
 * Can you provide sources to back up a scholarly consensus regarding this? Peter Isotalo 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Our earlier version said that "The exact dates are disputed", not that only the other time spans are disputed. I think it didn't imply that there is widespread agreement. Having approximate time spans can be helpful for the reader to orient themselves.
 * Your recent edits, replacing approximate time spans with prose, are a different way to address the problem. If we want to use that approach, I suggest we keep the prose short (for example, by focusing on the most common start and end points) and move the additional material (periodizations in literary studies, uncommon time spans like starting 1300) to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Disputed" is not an appropriate way of explaining a range of interpretations. Neither is placing it in a footnote. The variation is in itself central to the topic.
 * I don't agree at all with your approach here. Major points of scholarship are how we explaining events; the latter shouldn't be presented as "actual" history while the former is just a bonus. If we move core definitions of historical periods to "additional material" we'll be treating it as obscure theory and methodology when it's actually necessary to actually understanding the topic. And clearly, we need to be much clearer that historical periods aren't "events between year X and Y".
 * The article right now is dominated by events without context, which is not representative of what historical research actually looks like. Professional history isn't just a big pile of facts assembled without a predictable, transparent method.
 * The article needs to focus more on explaining conclusions, explaining context, summarizing multiple perspectives (without simply downplaying some) and highlighting historical processes of change. Peter Isotalo 09:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess one of our disagreements concerns the importance of periodizations for this article. Roughly speaking, I would say that the article should give an account of events of world historic importance show how they are connected. There are different ways to do that. As I remarked to you earlier, I personally think that it might be better to structure the early modern section according to themes rather than regions. This could help shift the focus on connections, so there may be some overlap with your ideas here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)