Jump to content

Talk:Human history/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this—such an important article should be reviewed ASAP. I'll leave comments over the next week or two, if that's ok. This review will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AirshipJungleman29, I appreciate you reviewing this core article. I've gotten used to waiting several months before nominations are picked up so I'm happy that this is not the case this time. Given the size of the article, I don't think we have to stick to the 7-day length recommendation. I'll ping @Cerebellum: so they are aware of the review. Good luck for WikiCup round 3. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Phlsph7 and Cerebellum: can I ask whether you would prefer a normal GA review, or a more detailed one with FAC in mind? I am happy to provide either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't really talked about FA yet. I'm not sure if Cerebellum agrees, but from my side, the prime focus for now is on GA. Nonetheless, if you spot possible improvements that are not strictly speaking required for GA, I would be interested to hear about them. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Onwards! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for your suggestions so far. Just checking to see if you have more comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Phlsph7, real life unexpectedly interposed itself. Will be back shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About to leave some comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, real life has the tendency of interposing itself at times. Are you satisfied with the responses to your comments so far? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Gentle reminder that the review has been open for a month. (That's nothing compared to Talk:Corleck Head/GA1, which has been open since November!) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    I have done spotchecks of various citations; all came through with flying colours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Lead section

[edit]
  • For an article just under 10,000 words, the lead is a bit short at 272 words—it is effectively two long paragraphs (MOS:LEADLENGTH).
    • As a result, the weighting is completely out of track (MOS:LEADREL). It takes six sentences to summarise the "Prehistory" section, but the "Ancient history", "Post-classical history", and "Early modern period" sections, all of which are longer, are described in three total.
    • The "Academic research" section is not touched on at all.
  • The opening paragraph does not adequately define the topic (MOS:OPEN, MOS:FIRST etc.).
  • I'll go over the prose when the above MOS issues have been fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the lead to 340 words. It now roughly has the following structure:
    1. paragraph: define the topic and very short summary of section "Academic research"
    2. paragraph: prehistory
    3. paragraph: ancient and post-classical
    4. paragraph: early and late modern
    It has still a little more on prehistory than the others but I hope this is not too serious. We might be able to shorten the Ice Age part if it is still an issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the largest section ("Post-classical history") having just one lead sentence is still not great weighting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added 2 more sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph/sentence is now superb. Well done.
  • "and later Greek philosophy, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism" these are in alphabetical order aside from Greek philosophy, which implies that it is more important than any of the others. Is that intended?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think a sentence I quite liked summarising the "Regional empires" subsection has been cut; I think its reintroduction would be beneficial, otherwise there is no discussion of political history between "emergence of early civilisations" and "Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and various Chinese dynasties"
    I included the idea in a different form. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from about 500 to 1500 CE, witnessed the rise of Christianity and Islam " slight nitpick: Christianity had already "risen" long before 500; I think a different word is needed.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influential technological innovations were the invention of gunpowder and the printing press." this is slightly stilted and unclear
    I reformulated it, but I'm not sure that it is much of an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first explicit discussion of war in the lead is "the devastating impact of two world wars". I don't really know if that's ideal—thoughts?
    The sentence "These developments were accompanied by the rise and decline of major empires, such as the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and various Chinese dynasties." could be expanded with "..., frequently involving violent conflicts." Another option would be to mention that at the end of the prehistory paragraph that organized warfare only really became possible because of "The growing complexity of human societies". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, thoughts on whether the negative impacts of colonialism warrant a small mention?
    We could expand the sentence "During the early modern period, spanning from 1500 to 1800 CE, European powers explored and colonized regions worldwide, intensifying cultural and economic exchange." with "while leading to significant exploitation of indigenous populations."
  • "Weapon destructiveness" seems rather out of place in that ending list, however.
    I replaced it with "military capabilities". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, a much more suitable lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
What about changing the section title to "West and Central Asia"? And moving North Africa to the Africa section. It's a clunky title but the current title certainly violates the principle of least astonishment by saying that Central Asia is in the Middle East. If we break off Central Asia into its own section, we will run into trouble because there is only one sentence on Central Asia in the early modern section. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an improvement. I would agree with you both that Central Asia does not come to mind at all from "Greater Middle East". Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing them. I should say, in general, the article seems highly cautionate of the arts. The words theater (or theatre) and music don't even appear. The European Renaissance doesn't mention art/music/poetry etc. except to say that culture was the "inquisitiveness which ultimately led to humanism". Of course, I don't expect the arts to be added to every section, but the current situation is beyond barren. – Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I'll work on this today, feel free to jump in as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added music, theatre, and Renaissance art. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Early humans section, I think it'd be worth noting that the human voice was probably used as an instrument long before the findings of physical instruments. That always seems an unspoken misconception to me. Aza24 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is printmaking one of the Four Great Inventions? The wikipedia page has papermaking instead. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misspoke, paper is the one missing (and indeed printing/printmaking is already in the line I quoted!). I see paper is already included in a separate section though, so mention of the Four Great Inventions might be hard to muster (and is probably unimportant)
However, there's another problem here then. Our compass article seems to claim that the item was invented in the BCEs; its inclusion in the "c. 500 – 1500 CE" section seems way off. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that modern historians hate the term renaissance and barely acknowledge that there was an Italian renaissance. As our article says, "The term has always been a subject of debate and criticism, particularly on how widespread such renewal movements were and on the validity of comparing them with the Italian Renaissance." --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aza's comments above hit on something I had thought to comment on—many subsections focus primarily, or even solely, on political/military history. It is obviously a difficult balance to include other topics, and I don't know whether it falls under the GA criteria's "broadness" or the FA criteria's "comprehensivity". Still, something to think about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For art we are roughly in line with the sources - of 198 chapters in the Cambridge World History, only three by my count are about art. But in general I think it is a valid criticism, some sections are quite weak on cultural/economic history, for example the Southeast Asia section in post-classical history. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, art should not be neglected but its importance should also not be overstated since it does usually not get that much attention from world historians. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree that overstatement is a risk. Still there are significant figures/movements which are very closely associated with different periods of time; those seem like the best (perhaps the only) places to include such information. Some ideas come to mind (all suggestions):
To Airship's point, I think in general, if a subsection only includes political/military history, we should aim to have at least one sentence on something else. Not even necessarily the arts, but something cultural/economic/scientific. Obviously, if historians really aren't talking about anything but politics (perhaps for lack of information), we don't want to invent coverage, but there is certainly a balance at reach here. Aza24 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be best to address this in the discussion of the individual subsections. The main point is probably that each subsection covers what, according to world-historians, are the most important developments in that context. It's a plus if the domains to which these develoments belong are diverse but this is probably a secondary concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points; I've been providing feedback with an eye on addressing similar gaps in social concepts (moral and phiosophical concepts, like human rights, inequalities, etc.). The problem is, of course, the need to keep the size menagable, and give due weight to stuff. For better or wore, traditional view of human history focuses heavily on politics (of which military history is a part of). Which is why this article only barely mentions stuff related to culture. Which reminds me - we should probably say something in contemporary history about recent decline in religiosity; I think this is missing. A final thought on how to find out what is missing that just occured to me: check which concepts from Wikipedia:Vital_articles#History (VA3?) are not mentioned here (maybe run a wikidata query for this is possible). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned secularization in relation to the Enlightenment in Europe. The decline in religiosity in contemporary history is probably true for most of the West but not for various other parts of the world. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Is it perhaps worth mentioning that decline in the West, alongside the increase in Muslims? It does seem a little odd to me that the Late modern period doesn't say anything about any religion, but I don't know how much RS are talking about it in that period. Aza24 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Europe section of Early modern period (c. 1500 – 1800 CE) is an interesting case study of the arts vs politics comments above. The first half neatly and succinctly covers the political/military history. Yet the second half seems to leave out the entire 16th and 17th centuries. This ends up excluding seemingly significant moments like the first viennese school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) and the Age of Enlightenment, for example; one might expect to see Newton or Kant (or the larger ideas they represent) included here. Again though, just suggestions. – Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Thank you for the suggestions. Could you help us identify what we can cut to add the topics you mentioned? We are already well over 10,000 words. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient history's Regional empires section seems to ramble a bit; perhaps it could be more succinct.
I wouldn't worry too much about the 10k. Of course, it's an important benchmark to keep in mind, but this is the kind of article where any reviewer/reader would understand if it was 12–13k. The Middle Ages FA is 14k; obviously it'd be ideal to not get to that high, but there is definitely some wiggle room. Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to mention Kant. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Again, all of my comments are suggestions, but I'm glad there has been more balancing out. Aza24 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Massive Wikipedia:Systemic bias issues" from User:Bogazicili Discussion moved to [4]

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:

  • 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.

Bogazicili (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazicili, why are these DUE in an article of this scope, why is the quote you identify "biased coverage", and why is your Cambridge History of Genocide quote relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Can you explain me why these sources are due and above (such as Cambridge History of Genocide) are not: "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else: A History of the Armenian Genocide." "Comprendre le Génocide des Arméniens—1915 à nos Jours [Understanding the Armenian Genocide: 1915 to the Present Day] (in French)"? Bogazicili (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the quotes specifically, the article omits genocides committed in Americas and just mentions deaths due to disease. Bogazicili (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bogazicili, sources cannot be DUE, only content. I cannot see where either quote you have provided describes the colonization of the Americas as genocide, so I don't see any problem. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, content comes from sources. We also use sources to decide what is DUE. For example, something from a high level summary such as page 6 in Cambridge History of Genocide can be more DUE than something from a more specialized source.
Second part of your response is weird. There are MULTIPLE genocides in Americas, and they each have their own chapters. I can't quote the entire book. But I see you seem prone to disregard my comment, so I'll probably move this to talk page and start an RFC Bogazicili (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you the best with that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, discussion has been moved to the talk page: Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities Bogazicili (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory

[edit]
I don't think taxonomists agree on whether or not chimpanzees are hominins. See Dunbar 2016: Conventionally, taxonomists now refer to the great ape family (including humans) as hominids, while all members of the lineage leading to modern humans that arose after the split with the [Homo-Pan] LCA are referred to as hominins. The older literature used the terms hominoids and hominids respectively. Clear as mud. I tried to fix the issue by removing "and includes chimpanzees and bonobos." --Cerebellum (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best explanation I could find, although it's not a scholarly source: Hominid and hominin – what’s the difference?. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an increase in brain size" might be nice to have the specific increase in text
Added. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first occurrence of "Homo sapiens" should probably be linked.
Homo sapiens redirects to human, which is already linked in the lead. Would you like me to link the first occurrence after the lead? --Cerebellum (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were already using" is the "already" needed?
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are saying the Southern Dispersal is the dominant view, might include a note on the minority view (what is it?)
Added Other scholars argue in favor of a northern dispersal of humans through Central Asia into China, or a multiple dispersal model with several different routes of migration. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence because the source does not support it. The source is talking about flint and jadeitite, it mentions copper but not as being traded. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history

[edit]
At the risk of death by committee - since this has downstream effects on articles like ancient history, timelines of world history, and list of time periods, should we discuss at WikiProject History before changing? Interestingly, timeline of ancient history starts at 3200. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted to implement this change across several articles, this would probably be the way to go. One difficulty in this regard might be that the periods may be defined differently in different context, for example, in different regions. If the point is just to get this article in tune with the relevant sources in our context, I don't think that this is required. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool. I made the change. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not mention the Norte Chico in the first paragraph? I recall they also arose along a river.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "a number of shared characteristics, including ... distinct cultures and religions" quite makes sense
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the section is a bit back and forth. For example, you have sentences like "Over the following millennia, civilizations developed across the world" coming quite a while after discussions of chariots, which were invented during that millennia. "This era also saw new land technologies" it's not entirely clear what "this era" refers to. The fifth paragraph discusses Mesopotamian history first, then goes backwards to discuss Egypt, then forward for the Indus Valley and Crete.
    I clarified the sentence starting with "This era also saw new land technologies" and fixed the chronology of the fifth paragraph. This section itself divides the information by topic, so a chronological back-and-forth is not entirely avoidable. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as hegemony shifted from one city to another" I don't think it's right to think of hegemony "actively" shifting, instead of passively being acquired by a succession of city-states.
    I reworded it to "shifts in hegemony", which gives less of an active impression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In India, this era was the Vedic period (1750–600 BCE), which..."not sure we need the "this era was"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", a place of pilgrimage and consumption of psychoactive substances" is unneeded—we don't discuss the purpose of any other specific site in this much detail.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first Olympic Games were held in 776 BCE, ushering in a period known as "classical antiquity"." Is "ushering in" the right word? "Marking", for example, seems better to me.
    Changed to "marking". --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buddhism reached China during the Han dynasty" the Han haven't been discussed yet, and considering they were founded in 202 I'm not sure they should be in the "Axial Age" ection.
    You're quite correct that we used the Axial Age section as kind of a catch-all intellectual/religious history section, which breaks up the chronological flow of the article. There's always a tension between a topical and strictly chronological organization. My opinion is that moving this info to the Han paragraph breaks up the flow of ideas - I prefer to keep it here but I'm curious what Phlsph7 thinks. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a way to not mention the Han dynasty at this point.
    Concerning the more general point of this and the following comments about the section "Axial Age": World historians often characterize the Axial Age as a major turning point so I think it's justified to have a subsection dedicated to it. The second paragraph of this subsection discusses how Axial Age ideas shaped subsequent intellectual and religious history, meaning that it also covers events that took place after the Axial Age proper. The section could be renamed to "Axial Age and related developments" or something similar to be more inclusive. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "Both Christianity and Islam developed from the beliefs of Judaism."—I don't think the "Axial Age" section is the right place to discuss religions founded in the 1st and seventh centuries AD. Also, this is the most we get on the births of the largest religions in world history? Neither Jesus or Muhammad are mentioned? We sure about this?
    We don't mention Buddha or Confucius by name either, I'm not sure naming the founders is super important. But we have quite a bit on Christianity and Islam in the post-classical section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I'm not sure about the "Axial Age" as a subsection. Not only is it restricted to Eurasia, but it overlaps too little with the preceding section and too much with the following, so e.g. Alexander the Great and the Hellenisation of Asia are discussed twice, and as mentioned Christianity is a little overlooked—if you didn't know, this article wouldn't tell you when it was founded, or by who.
    In defense of the section, moving this info to the regional empires section would make an already long section longer. The Axial Age has a chapter in the Cambridge World History, if that matters. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered a pivotal moment in world history" by everyone? probably needs a direct inline citation.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the foundations of Western civilization, including the first theatrical performances" I would prefer to highlight the philosophy, which was discussed earlier in the problematic "Axial Age" subsection, but there's nothing to tell an uninformed reader that Plato and Aristotle even lived in Athens
    As long as we have the "Axial Age" subsection, we probably don't need to mention Plato and Aristotle here again. We could revisit this point once the discussion above is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several empires began in modern-day Greece." I count two described: the Athenian and Alexander's. Several? No.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were a number of regional empires during this period." a fairly unnecessary sentence.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are "Civilization" and "Empire" really the main articles for the "Regional empires" section?
    I removed them. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why split Greece and Rome with an Indian diversion?
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Han dynasty was comparable in power and influence to the Roman Empire that lay at the other end of the Silk Road." why compare the Han to Rome? Why not the other way around? Why is this sentence necessary at all?
    The sources frequently compare the two, see Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires and chapter 6 of Bulliet et al, "An Age of Empires: Rome and Han China." --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Han invented the compass, one of the Four Great Inventions of ancient China" Why not mention paper, developed under the Han. Also, ancient China? Printing was invented under the Tang, and gunpowder was invented in the 9th century.
    Paper is mentioned at the end of the section in the technology paragraph, would you like me to move it to the Han paragraph? Removed "ancient". --Cerebellum (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ancient empires faced common problems associated with maintaining huge armies and supporting a central bureaucracy" all of them, or just Rome and the Han? The "Regional empires" section is really long and unwieldy. I would suggest splitting it into two, with one part dealing with Greece, Rome, Persia, Central Asia, and China, and the other part dealing with the rest.
Would you mind looking at this version, specifically the section "Declines, falls, and resurgence"? We used to have two sections but I combined them because a previous reviewer objected that the "Declines, falls, and resurgence" section was only about Europe and Asia. Do you think we should split them again? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that might be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued until its capital, Constantinople, was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453" we really don't need to go a millennium into the future at this point.
    Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Tang dynasty discussed here and not in the following section?
    It is discussed in the following section, so I removed the redundant information from this section. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-classical history

[edit]
  • For the Islamic Golden Age part, I have concerns about the current text: ushering in the Islamic Golden Age, an era of learning, science, and invention during which philosophy, art, and literature flourished.[233][m] The knowledge and skills of ancient Greece and Persia were preserved in the post-classical era by Muslims,[235] who also added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China[236] and decimal positional numbering from India.[237] To me, this sounds like there were no original inventions, but they just mixed ancient Greece and Persia with other outside inventions. Can original discoveries mentioned such as those in Islamic_Golden_Age#Mathematics, Islamic_Golden_Age#Natural_sciences, or Islamic_Golden_Age#Engineering? Outside influences can also be mentioned, but I don't think the current space is justified, given Greece, Persia, or paper from China etc are also mentioned elsewhere. Bogazicili (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; it is important to remember that the Islamic Golden Age was not just preservation and compilation of ancient and oriental writings (in teleological preparation for the European Renaissance) but a period of superb scientific and cultural advancement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Many different examples could be picked here. Feel free to replace mine with others if you think they are more important. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Great examples. Now that I'm looking into that section though, maybe it'd be better to move this: and the decimal positional numbering system from India. to Post-classical history (c. 500 – 1500 CE) - South Asia? There is nothing about science in that South Asia subsection. Above can be reworded as contribution of India that was adopted by Arabs and passed onto Europe. Cambridge World History Vol 4 pp 148–149: India made a fundamental contribution to modern science in mathematics. Indian numerals could be.... Bogazicili (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could merge the first and second paragraphs of the section.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new religion greatly affected the history of the Old World, especially the Middle East this strikes me as a fairly unnecessary sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the glosses for Byzantine and Sasanian needed?
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the crusades covered before the Seljuks?
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a link to Crusades would be preferable to Crusading movement, which is more about culture and ways of thought than the actual wars themselves.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of early Islam in the "West and Central Asia" section is confused. We start with "From their center in the Arabian Peninsula, Muslims began their expansion" which is rather disorganised (their "center"?) but also doesn't clarify what is expanding—terms such as Rashidun Caliphate and Umayyad Caliphate are left to be dropped in later without explanation: "Hence, the Rashidun Caliphate was able to freely expand into the region during the early Muslim conquests." for all the uninformed reader knows, the Rashidun could have been Confucian. I think the discussion of the Islamic Golden Age (unlinked) should be trimmed back to two sentences, and a sentence should explain the Muhammad-->Rashidun-->Umayyad-->Abbasid political evolution.
    Done for the most part. I hesitate to cut the info on the Islamic Golden Age since it was just added at the request of another reviewer, Aza24. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well before there was just "ushering in an era of learning, science, and invention known as the Islamic Golden Age". I think the expansion was beneficial, but to Airship's point, the specific examples of Al-Khwarizmi and Avicenna might be too much detail Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to strike a balance here. The request above was "I have concerns about the current text ... Can original discoveries [be] mentioned ...?". The examples of Al-Khwarizmi and Avicenna were added in response, if I remember correctly. Maybe mentioning them in a footnote would solve the problem, what do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I feel that the "West and Central Asia" section's geographical split is excessive, and has caused too much duplication.
We could make a separate section for Central Asia, but that would be awkward once we get to the early modern period because there we only have one sentence on Central Asia (link). --Cerebellum (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the crusading paragraph discuss the same events as the Caucasus paragraph (the Seljuks and the Mongols). This is a little repetitive.
I took out the Caucasus paragraph, hope that is ok. General world histories don't usually discuss the Caucasus in detail in this period. They focus more on Armenian merchants in the early modern era. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Central Asia paragraph is also disorganised: the Hephthalites, the earliest state chronologically, is discussed in the middle of the paragraph; the arrival of Islam is unnecessarily involved, and could easily be reduced to one sentence; and the Mongols are not discussed at all.
    Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By comparison ,the "Europe" section is excellent—structured near-purely chronologically, it flows much better. I don't have any criticisms.
  • "the Aksumite emperors" does this refer to the Kingdom of Aksum? It's not entirely clear.
    Yes. I reformulated it to make the point clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the coastal forests" Do we have a link? Otherwise, this seems unnecessary.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The South Asia and Northeast Asia sections are largely good. On the Mongol paragraph: "various tribes" is imprecise, and the four successors states could be named (perhaps with locations).
    I added the successor states and changed the expression to "various Mongol and Turkic tribes". This is still a little vague but I'm not sure how to better summarize it. Given your promising FA nomination, you should be better qualified to assess this. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Southeast Asia section, mentioning the region's previous religions before the arrival of Islam would be nice.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oceania and Americas sections are good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern history

[edit]
  • I would suggest devoting a sentence to "the wider propagation of gunpowder in warfare"—as far as I can see, there is no discussion of specific weaponry before nuclear weapons in "Contemporary history"—not even a single mention of guns. Seems an oversight.
    I mentioned the invention of guns in the post-classical section. I expanded the phrase on warfare in the early modern section. I didn't mention any specific weaponry there since I didn't spot any specific innovation that really stand out in the discussion at Ackermann et al. 2008c, pp. xxxv–xxxvi. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The early modern period is in modern historical research the development following the European Middle Ages." this is not clear. it seems to be saying "the period is ... the development". If that is what is intended, it doesn't make sense to me.
    I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't there be a "the" before "spread of printing"?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rise of centralized bureaucratic states" the associated citation doesn't have a page number, and I am additionally skeptical of the truth of this statement—you had highly-bureaucratic and centralized states in China and the Near East long before the early modern period.
    I added the page number and adjusted the text to not imply that there were no centralized states before. I'm not sure how important this fact is for early modern history in general so we could also consider removing it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two mentions of the fall of Constantinople, but the general reader will need to be reminded this was the final end of the Byzantine Empire.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about serfdom in Europe is oddly placed, coming between two sentences on international trading.
    I moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eurasia and Africa" we could say simply "the Old World".
    Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences on Napoleon are a bit odd—the French Revolution isn't discussed before it is ended, and the mention of "First Consul" is obviously not what most know Napoleon as. Would suggest discussing Napoleon precipitating the wars in one sentence, and mentioning the French Revolution in the next, intellectual-centric paragraph (that's where it's importance lies).
    I took a slightly different approach and kept everything in the first paragraph to avoid repetition. Please let me know if this also works. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, unlike the previous section, I think the Europe subsection could use significant improvement in structuring. Perhaps discuss the intellectual, social, and theological developments first, and then move on to the wars and political developments?
    Done, I changed the paragraph order. There is a lot happening here so presenting this in a concise and well-structured manner is not easy. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Protestantism?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many African civilizations declined in the early modern period while others advanced." I think this is generally a given for any period and place in history, so I would cut this sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the African section is good.
  • "the Mughal Empire began" "began" is a bit odd, would suggest "was established" or similar
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much repetition of "Mughal Empire"
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence: to rearrange, "Shivaji founded the Maratha Empire against the Mughal Empire"? "Against" is definitely the wrong word.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, there was no "foundation" of Sikhism AFAIK. Suggest simply "Sikhism developed at the end of the 15th century from the spiritual teachings of ten gurus. or similar
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northeast Asia", "Southeast Asia", and "Oceania" are good prose-wise, although slightly too-MOS:OVERSECTIONy for my taste.
    I agree, but it probably makes sense nonetheless to keep them this way to have a parallel with the post-classical section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why Wheeler and Black might have been tagged, but what is the justification for tagging Bulliet et al. as better source needed?
    I adjusted the sources and removed the tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, the "Americas" section looks good prose-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern period

[edit]

Academic research

[edit]
  • "The field of inquiry studying human history is called world history, but the two terms are also sometimes used as synonyms." This is definitely an (understandable) misunderstanding. World history is not the field of human history, but an approach, one which focuses on interactions between different systems and cultures. It's probably outside the scope of this article, but it, like "area studies", "comparative history", "global history" and the like, is even increasingly disdained. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From Christian 2015a, pp. 1–3: World history must limit its ambitions precisely because its scope is so vast, so an exhaustive history of humanity, like a map the same size as the landscape it charts, would be of little use because it would have avoided the hard work of distillation. This is why world historians have to be good at selecting. The chapters in Volume i are indeed authoritative; they cover a great deal of territory (literally and metaphorically); but they are not exhaustive. Like all the best scholarship in world history, they try to convey both the detailed texture of human history and its major themes and trajectories. ... As Marnie Hughes-Warrington points out in her brief history of world history in Chapter 2, we find many different labels for the same core project. They include ‘universal history’, ‘global history’, ‘transnational history’, ‘macrohistory’, ‘comparative history’, ‘big history’, and more. She also points out that, whatever we call it, the world history project is ancient. All attempts to make sense of the past depend on imagining a coherent and meaningful ‘world’ of some kind, though they vary in the extent to which ‘the purpose of world construction is explicit’. I added qualifier "The main field of inquiry" to not imply that there are no other approaches. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You will find similar and rather contradictory statements from adherents of many approaches. These are historians trying to tell others that their way of interpreting the world is right. No one really knows what "global", "world", "transnational", etc. history means. See pp. 435 onwards of this essay from Patricia Clavin: it explicitly differentiates "international", "world", "global", and "transnational" history, in complete contrast to Hughes-Warrington above saying that they are "many different labels for the same core project". Clavin says "Global historians are primarily interested to weave the history of humans and the planet on which they live into a single story" and that from the global history perspective, world history has a "narrow geographic and chronological focus"! Meanwhile, you have Sebastian Conrad arguing that global and world history are identical (What is Global History, 2016, chapter 3 especially) but differentiated from comparative and transnational history approaches. These are all highly respected historians, and their views are completely contradictory. On this matter, historians love to argue: I remember one (I believe Sven Beckert noted something along the lines of "more pages have been dedicated to whether transnational history is best than to actual research using the approach". I would certainly recommend against stating in wikivoice that "human history=world history" or similar—especially since many non-Western historians have come to view world/global history as the successor of colonialist analyses (see Conrad's acknowledgement on p.218). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sources that I'm aware of, there is not a generally accepted distinction between "world history" and "global history". For example, from Stearns 2010 pp. 14–15: World history is the more common current label. Global history often means the same thing. For some, however, there is an implication in global history of more intense focus on contacts and interconnections, though as we have seen these emphases must be embraced in world history. For a similar but more lengthy discussion, see [9]. The expression "world history" is often found in the titles in our bibliography section and Ngrams indicates that the expression "world history" is more common than the others though we probably can't read much more out of it. Do you think that the problem could be solved by adding a footnote along the following lines: Some historians use the term "world history" in a more narrow sense to refer to one among several alternative approaches to studying human history. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Airship, I'd like to know more about the criticism against world history that you're describing here. Can you provide some examples of sources that argue against the whole concept of world history, or at least describe it as deeply problematic? Peter Isotalo 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_history/GA2&oldid=1239674528"