Talk:Human history

Coverage of genocides and atrocities

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

• Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Africa etc. Here are few that can be mentioned such as California genocide: [1]
• Other crimes in Africa such as Atrocities in the Congo Free State, Herero and Nama genocide, and Algerian_War#Atrocities_and_war_crimes
• Circassian genocide
• Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction with about 5 million dead.

And that is just from a very quick glance at the article. Here's a specific example of the biased coverage:

• What the article says:

  Several European powers colonized the Americas, largely displacing the native populations and conquering the advanced civilizations of the Aztecs and Inca.[447] Diseases introduced by Europeans devastated American societies, killing 60–90 million people by 1600 and reducing the population by 90–95%.[448]

• What sources say:
  • The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies p. 304

    The conquest of Latin America resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of individuals, primarily as a result of disease and forced relocation into more concentrated settlements, as well as through exterminatory attacks on those who resisted Iberian domination. Severe exploitation aggravated the process through overwork, nutritional deficits, and reduced resistance to illnesses generally. Paralleling this process were concerted efforts to destroy the religious and cultural fabric of native societies through the systematic destruction of sacred objects, the death of indigenous religious leaders, and the prohibition of native rites

  • The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 p. 6:

    European colonisation has stretched around the world for more than five centuries, disrupting or destroying millions of Indigenous people’s lives. Yet only in the last few decades have some colonial histories, especially those of settler colonies, begun to be understood as genocidal. This volume reflects that historiographical shift. Sixteen of the following chapters identify and document genocides committed by colonists and their leaders in Ireland, North America, Australia and Africa. However, this volume also includes two cases of mass violence perpetrated by members of Indigenous groups, in North America (Ned Blackhawk’s Chapter 10 on the Iroquois destruction of Wendake) and Africa (Michael Mahoney’s Chapter 14 on the Zulu Kingdom’s genocide of neighbouring groups). In addition, this volume also assesses cases that did not take place in a settler colonial context, such as Dean Pavlakis’ Chapter 24 on the Congo, as well as four cases on the Eurasian continent, in Korea, Central Asia, Russia and France.

I'm also adding a NPOV tag for now. 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? ~~ 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 Wikipedia:Systemic bias because I assume it's due to the demographics of editors. For example, if we had more editors from Congo, they'd probably be more passionate about inclusion of Atrocities in the Congo Free State. If we had more native American editors, they'd be more passionate about indigenous genocides sentence. It doesn't mean there was any bad faith intent among the primary editors of the page. It's easy to miss issues in a very high level article such as this. Does that make sense? 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#Long_nineteenth_century 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)

Aza24, 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:

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

• About Circassian genocide, page 430:

  However, the 1864 Russian genocidal eructation of the Circassians from the North Caucasus into Ottoman territory...

• About Atrocities in the Congo Free State, page 429:

  One irony of this situation is that the most egregious case of violent mass death in fin-de-siècle Africa – the drive to extract wild rubber by concession companies in the so-called Congo Free State...

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: Colonial policies included the deliberate genocide of indigenous peoples. Sourced to Cambridge World History, from the quote Bogazicili provided.
• For Africa: Imperial rule in Africa involved many acts of violence such as the atrocities in the Congo Free State and the Herero and Nama genocide. --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 In some cases, colonial policies included the deliberate genocide of indigenous peoples. Some scholar suggest the wider claim that colonialism is "intrinsically genocidal" but I don't think that this is the generally accepted position. 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)

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

• I do think Circassian genocide should be mentioned in the article. Genocides against Christian and Jewish populations are already mentioned in this article, but there is nothing about genocides against Muslim populations, such as the Circassian genocide. I think this can be integrated into the following sentence 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: [2]

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#Genocide debate. 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#World_wars? 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)

Bump so this doesn't get archived. Will return to this. Bogazicili (talk) 18:38, 20 August 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: The early modern period, spanning from 1500 to 1800, was characterized by...the rise of centralized bureaucratic states.

Source text: Over the centuries from 1400 to 1800, kings and emperors sought to recover and expand their authority, gradually gaining control over larger and better defined territories and over local officials and landlords. They also greatly increased the regularity and size of their tax collection and their military establishments (these two trends being closely interrelated); raised the size, professionalism and uniformity of their official administrations; adopted contemporary vernaculars as their languages of administration and education in place of classical or sacred tongues; and supported scientific, commercial, cultural and welfare endeavors designed to increase the wealth of their territories.

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 thesis on the ‘great divergence’ and its question regarding the extent to which European prosperity was caused by unique and superior institutions or colonialism. 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[3] 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: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. 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. – 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. – 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. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:OR: original research means material ... for which no reliable, published source exists. 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)

If you suggest that Wikipedia should write articles with a method equivalent to what's considered historical research, the result of that method would be original research.

Joe's suggestion is effectively saying that we need to include everything that any historian has ever written about history. I'm honestly not sure if he means this, but I don't know how else to interpret "summarizing what historians have written about history". Peter ^Isotalo 09:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? I mean what I said: that we should represent all significant viewpoints on the topic of human history, as the core content policy on neutral point of view directs us to. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what you wrote at the start of the thread:

"We need to be giving due weight to as many approaches to human history as possible, in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources."

That's in the same post where you reject any notion that world history as a discipline should be the "only or even main field".

What practical limits do you propose we impose on the article regarding which type of sources that are WP:DUE or not? Peter ^Isotalo 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And do you seriously understand those two points to equate to a me saying that we should "include everything that any historian has ever written about history"? I have no limits to propose. I think the article does a pretty good job as it is. – Joe (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have any limits to propose, there's no way to determine WP: DUE regarding sources. Same with article scope and fields of study, really. It'll all eventually boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and can be used to defend pretty much any version of the article. Peter ^Isotalo 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I did and replied to it with a question.[4]

I saw your criticism there and noted you have personal opinions about various sources and discussion among academic historians. I don't know what point you're trying to make other than that you seem to dislike how academic historical research is written and debated among professional historians. Peter ^Isotalo 10:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's easily resolved: you can go back and read my above comments. I would especially recommend reading the one containing sources critical of world history, which you replied to asking for sources critical of world history. As an aside, you have had trouble understanding me before; I think you should take more time to understand your fellow editors' words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should attempt to answer the question:

Can you provide some examples of sources that argue against the whole concept of world history, or at least describe it as deeply problematic?

I'm worried that you're taking normal criticial discussion among academic historians as a reason to exclude a whole field of academic study, or at least to marginalize it. Peter ^Isotalo 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What? In what universe is excluding or even marginalizing world/global history possible? That's like trying to discuss the Cold War without mentioning the USA! For the last time, please go back and read my comments—then you might understand the point I was trying to make. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why our how we're talking past each other, but I don't think it's actually content-related. Peter ^Isotalo 09:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. You have a theory that I and others are perpetuating a systemic campaign to distort and manipulate the writings of academic historians. To further this theory, you are purposefully misreading and misunderstanding every reply to you. As a result, productive discussion is impossible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 23 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 (the early modern era of world history, approximately 1500 to 1800 C.E.) and added a reference to Stearns 2001 (IV. The Early Modern Period, 1500–1800). 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)

Per this edit,[5] I don't think you're actually interested in facilitating other views than your own. You're trying to make overly exact statements that aren't actually supported by the sources we've both cited. At the same time, you want to tone down the lack of exactness of dates by hiding it away in a note.

I think you are quite overtly engaging in POV:ing the article. From what I can see, this article isn't actually treating the study of history as an academic topic but rather as something that can be done by anyone and which Wikipedia is free to interpret on its own. Peter ^Isotalo 11:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for parachuting into the middle of this; I saw Peter's post in the Archaeology group and came here to look. My 2 cents: I think Peter is being a bit disputatious here. What actually are you looking for? Do you want the entire article rewritten based on "themes" or "trends" instead of historical periods? That sounds like a lot of work, and I'm not certain that it would be any more useful than it is. If we are going to have the article based on historical periods, it is certainly useful to make it clear, perhaps near the top of the article, that such periodization is just for convenience and different historians divide up history in different ways, based on what they want to emphasize or talk about. However, I don't think that's a argument against having any periodization. Breaking things up chronologically is one way to make it accessible to our readers, and its a pretty good one. And nor do we really need to burden our readers with extensive coverage of disputes between historians over when periods begin and end. To me, this article looks like an overall sketch of human history, from which people can go to individual articles about parts of history which they are interested in. It isn't (correct me if I'm wrong) about the history of the study of human history. That would be a different article. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed already under #Periodization, including the idea of periodization "just for convenience".

I've suggested we collaborate on looking for what the common strands of periodizations are under #Periodization but have been rebuffed. Peter ^Isotalo 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You weren't 'rebuffed', Peter. At least three separate editors said they would be happy to consider a different periodisation if you could just make a specific proposal. You demurred and slapped a {{POV}} tag on the article instead. Are you expecting somebody else to do it for you? – Joe (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The core debate has been about how a single timeline is part of the problem, especially anything before the early modern period. Phlsph7 has suggested looking at alternate periodizations, but only if they fit pre-determined criteria.

My interpretation of the replies is that the single-timeline, single-periodization structure in this article is the only solution that is acceptable. Cerebellum appeared to be interested in seeing alternatives, but what good would an alternate suggestion do if the other primary contributor has already indicated that they won't even entertain the underlying idea?

Or am I missing something? Are you saying a multiple-periodization solution should be considered as an alternative? Peter ^Isotalo 09:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting me and other editors. Your claim that I "won't even entertain the underlying idea" is false. I considered your proposal in several comments, for example, from Talk:Human_history#Periodization:

• 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 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 would be more favorable to your proposal if there were main sources that implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The way you're clarifying the issue now seems a lot more generous than in previous posts.

Putting misinterpretations aside, are you interested in an open-ended discussion about article structure? If you are, I'll hit the books and try to suggest structural improvements. Peter ^Isotalo 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the discussion we've been having for the past weeks. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I found a way to include the topic of periodization in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Involved editors should have been informed (I think) that there are parallel discussions elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Late_modern_period My disagreement with Peter's position here is explained there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have also called attention to Peter's poor conduct on this page and elsewhere in this ANI discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Academic research section

I tried to address the concerns about world history explained here by making some reformulations to the section "Academic research" to avoid the focus on world history as a field. I think for this article, what matters is how academic research in general proceeds rather than what the role of world history as a field is. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is much improved and agree that this isn't the article to get into a discussion of world history as a field. I still don't entirely see why it is necessary to link the subject to this article to global histories specifically. If you sum up "histories of individual communities and societies", is that not academic research on human history? Or if you imagine a parallel universe where historians had completely rejected the idea of cross-cultural syntheses, wouldn't we still want an article on human history, summarising the narratives of individual cultures?

If I were writing this section from scratch, I'd do it as a summary-style précis of history with a little bit about prehistory at the start, giving roughly equal weight to the various fields and approaches described in those two articles. But I don't think it's a hugely important part of the article, and what we have now is also fine. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess interest in the global perspective comes from the contrast between human history in general and the history of India, the history of Japan, etc. You are right that local histories form part of human history so we shouldn't overemphasize this contrast. At the same time, the emergence of a global perspective seems to be an important development that should be mentioned. I tried one more time to reformulate the passage but it's probably still not fully what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the section "Modern period"

Hello Nihil novi and thanks for looking after this article. I saw that you reverted several changes in this edit, saying that they are unhelpful. The changes were made to implement the following suggestions from the GA review:

• The article says "In the war's aftermath, powerful ideologies rose to prominence." and then goes on to consider women's suffrage, with two dates—one long before WWI, and one long after.
• Perhaps move the sentence on Stalin to the end of the first paragraph of the subsection?
• "as the League of Nations had been formed following World War I." if the League wasn't important enough to mention in that section, it isn't now.
• The two paragraphs on the Cold War could be combined and condensed.

Do you disagree with these suggestions in general or just with how they were implemented? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Phlsph7, thanks for raising the above questions.

As a somewhat different approach, I have now edited the text to address points 1 and 3.

Perhaps Stalin could be left where he now is.

My preference would be two leave the 2 Cold War paragraphs separate, in the interest of keeping their contents thereby more easily assimilable.

Best regards,

Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks also fine, thanks for addressing the points. I'm not sure that the world wars subsection is the best place to discuss women's suffrage but I don't feel strongly about this. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think that the women's suffrage sentences should be moved elsewhere. We go from talking about "powerful ideologies" and the rise of communism and fascism, which feels like it flows nicely into WW2, but instead we have this oddly-placed diversion into social history. It should be moved into another subsection. Also, why is Portugal in 1976 specified? Saudi Arabia didn't let women vote until 2015. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the reference to individual countries since this is not central. I'm not sure that there is an ideal place for this passage but it could work in the section "Long nineteenth century" after the part on the abolition of slavery and serfdom. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Shaping of Western civilization

G'day. This is a well written article for a such a complex subject. There was however this one sentence that made me think. Reading the sources made me think more. It's in the start of Europe in the Post-classical history. Since at least the 4th century, Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization, primarily through Catholicism and later also Protestantism.

On the face of it, my question is how? Reading the sources I had other questions.

• Hayas 1953, p. 2: there is a direct quote "Judaeo–Christianity, Catholic and Protestant". Judeo-Christianity seems to be main the subject, distinguishing but not necessarily emphasising Catholic and Protestant. It's also a 1954 book which without reading the book I know reflects older thinking that's been challenged now
• Woods & Canizares 2012, It quotes how the Catholic church matters more, dismissing other views like the transmission of ancient knowledge. But the fact the book has a forward from a Catholic cardinal, means this isn't the type of unbiased resource one would want for such an grand statement with a stakeholder that tries to position itself in modern dialogues on this topic. The introduction's first sentence from Philip Jenkins makes it clear this is an attempt to influence perception in American politics.
• McNeill 2010, p. 204 Talks about Byzantine contribution: Art, law, the scholars of the renaissance expanding on ancient knowledge, Italian city states ancestral knowledge that haf influenced them, on Slavic civilisation, and Byzantine ideas continuing on in eastern Christianity. All these points not covered at all in the statement and in fact contradict Woods & Canizares
• Faltin & Wright 2007, p. 83: the Internet archive link does not work, page 83 not showing on Google books but the surrounding pages talk about the modern formation of the EU due to Russia, the Moscow Patriarch. How is the statement reflective of this source? Or even relevant to a comment about since the 4th century? Is it to say Russia shaped western civilisation? That's interesting, especially when you link it also to Byzantium as well and Faltin & Wright's discussion of eastern Christianity, but a much bigger discussion.
• Spielvogel 2016, p. 156: I couldn't get access to this but the author is someone with a heavy bent to Catholicism and the Holy Roman Empire, again reflecting views from a non-diverse group of sources and questionable on its neutrality.

For a sentence like this it would more helpful to list what contribution was made, beyond just stating Christianity and its denominations. Some contextual knowledge to share to be helpful as I’ve recently dug into this and which clarifies the role made in law and slavery that’s used to support the role of the Catholic church:

• the contemporary world is underpinned by the civil law tradition and common law.[6] My readings on common law is still ongoing to comment but I'm up to 13th century England so far (the vacuum origin is questionable and there’s influence by the work done in Bologna discussed after this). That source I shared mentions Roman civil law, cannon law, and commercial law as three of the 5 sub-traditions of civil law of which the first had an outsized influence compared to the others. Building on this and not mentioned in the article is how Justinian code was rediscovered in western Europe in the 12th century as the Authenticum by the Glossator's in Bologna (with the Basilika later, would later be used to fill in gaps in the archaeological findings). Concepts like the idea of the body politic, the judiciary, and some fundamental ideas in our legal system around evidence and more all come from the work of the Glossator's and especially the commentators later. The first university in Bologna is credited as being formed due to the study of Justinians digests.
• Another big thing is the end of slavery with initial movements towards this in the late Roman/Byzantine era (implemented through Christianity) such as the ban on enslaving children during the Tetrarchy and the practice of freeing battle captives by the regime of Honorius and later in the eastern Roman empire not enslaving Christians (the church itself still owned slaves in places which we why historians don't credit the Church for much in this period).

I'm sure there are better points to list here, but I hope that's helpful. Ultimately, this sentence is fine to be one sentence but needs a lot more credible support if written simply but preferably expanded to list examples which can stand on their own and with sources that support them. Biz (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Biz and thanks for raising this issue. I removed the broken link and I tried to expand the sentence a little to give some more concrete directions. It would be possible to explore each point more and you are right that the legal tradition would be one part of that. But I'm not sure that this is the best place to get into these details. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The expansion and addition of Duchesne is the appropriate improvement. So much so that I now plan to read that book! Biz (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the agricultural and industrial revolutions are key turning points in human history?

• Source:

• ALT1: ... that in early human history, humans migrated out of Africa and populated most of the Earth during the Last Ice Age? Source:
• ALT2: ... that for most of human history, children did not have access to public education? Source:
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Hanley
• Comment:

References

Sources

• Cajani, Luigi (2013). "Periodization". In Bentley, Jerry H. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of World History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-968606-3.
• Christian, David (2008). This Fleeting World: A Short History of Humanity. Berkshire Publishing. ISBN 978-1-933782-04-1.
• Christian, David, ed. (2015). Introducing World History, to 10,000 BCE. The Cambridge World History. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139194662. ISBN 978-0-521-76333-2. Archived from the original on 26 January 2023. Retrieved 26 January 2023.
• Pollack, Henry (2010). A World Without Ice. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-101-52485-5.
• Scott, William; Vare, Paul (2020). Learning, Environment and Sustainable Development: A History of Ideas. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-20802-3. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk) and Cerebellum (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 22 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but two friendly comments. First, Agricultural revolution in ALT0 is a disambiguation page (I'm guessing it refers to the First agricultural revolution, which redirects to Neolithic Revolution). Second, if it's possible to make a hook about life expectancy and/or child mortality, that could be a very interesting hook indeed—I know I found John Green's video "Most People Have Never Been 20" interesting. TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing this out, I fixed the link. A hook on changes to life expectancy could be interesting. I think the article only covers this in the sentence Advances in medical science led to a sharp increase in global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000.[552], which does not give us much to work with. Maybe:

  ALT3: ... that in modern human history, advances in medical science helped raise global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of ALT2, which is rather anachronistic: for most of human history, children did not live in societies in which "public education" was a meaningful concept. Given the wide scope of this article, I think a hook that encompasses a broad timescale would make the most sense. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Many societies didn't really have public education so children didn't have access to it. Maybe you are concerned about something like the following: some readers may misconstrue the statement as implying that these societies did have public education but just not for most children. This is not what the hook says but it could happen. This problem could be solved by talking about formal education instead of public education but the claim in our article is about public education so this may not be acceptable according to the DYK rules. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  What I mean is that 'public education' to be a meaningful concept there first needs to exist the idea of a formal education and a state that provides public services, neither of which existed for "most of human history". In other words I think the hook anachronistically implies that children were missing out on something that was not even conceptualisable until recently. Kind of like saying "for most of human history, satellites did not use reusable launch vehicles". Technically true, but not very meaningful. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can people miss out on something for which they lack the relevant concepts? For example, the ancient Egyptians didn't have the concept of antibiotics. Can we say that "the ancient Egyptians didn't have access to antibiotics"? To my ears, this sounds acceptable. But I'm also open to different ways of expressing the idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT3 is not very well sourced. It cites page 1 of The Twentieth Century: A World History, which doesn't cite any sources for these figures, and a textbook on marketing for the "due to advances in medical science" part, which also doesn't cite a source for this claim. Neither source make it clear what specific measure of life expectancy they're using, but it's probably life expectancy at birth, which was largely a function of infant mortality in premodern societies and therefore the change involved more factors than just medical science (also improvements in public health, contraception, reduction of child poverty and malnourishment, etc). – Joe (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  ALT3 is not my favorite either but I think the sources fulfill our requirements even though they themselves do not cite other sources for these claims. The hook says "helped raise" to not imply that there were no other factors. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say they fulfil the basic requirement of being reliable sources, in this context, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But this is probably best continued on the article talk page. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  adjusted hook per talk page discussion at Talk:Human_history#Increase_in_life_expectancy:

  • ALT3a: ... that in modern human history, public health measures and advances in medical science helped raise global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000?

  Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Increase in life expectancy

Following up on my comments on the DYK nomination, I think we need clarification and better sourcing for the following claims in #Contemporary history:

Advances in medical science led to a sharp increase in global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000.

The second source cited is a tertiary textbook on marketing, which I don't think is a reliable source for this topic and have removed. These leaves two claims:

• Global life expectancy increased from 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000 – currently cited to Schoppa 2021, which is okay, but doesn't cite any sources in turn or say where his data came from. A more specific source on historic demography would be an improvement.
• This was due to advances in medical science – now unsourced and dubious. For example, our own article on life expectancy says rather that "public health measures are credited with much of the recent increase in life expectancy".

On both counts clarification is needed of what measure of life expectancy is being quoted. Neither source says so, but it makes a big difference. I'm guessing it's life expectancy at birth, in which case it should be clarified that in a premodern context this is primarily a function of infant mortality rather than adult lifespan. Quoting these figures in isolation leads to the common misconception that in the olden days people died in their thirties. In reality, if you control for infant mortality, "life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today".[7][8]

References

– Joe (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think advances in medical science and public health measures are two independent factors. The new insights of medical science can prompt public health measures and the public health measures can implement medical advances. We could take this into account by also mentioning public health measures in the sentence. Maybe something like "Public health measures and advances in medical science contributed to a sharp increase in global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000."

Concerning life expectancy, I think the two main uses are "life expectancy at birth" and "life expectancy at a certain age" (like the life expectancy of 65 year olds). For the 2nd one, there should be a specific age given in the text.

In regard to the sources about advances in medical science, do you think and are better?

References

Sources

• Getzen, Thomas E. (2022). Money and Medicine: The Evolution of National Health Expenditures. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-757328-0.
• Mathew, Oommen P.; Bhatia, Jatinder (2010). Innovations in Neonatal-perinatal Medicine: Innovative Technologies and Therapies that Have Fundamentally Changed the Way We Deliver Care for the Fetus and the Neonate. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4280-04-4.

Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)