Talk:Human history
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | Human history has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coverage of genocides and atrocities
[edit]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.
- The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies p. 304
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)
- 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)
- Ok, I'll wait for few more comments and proceed with a RfC if necessary. Bogazicili (talk) 16:53, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- Classic Wp:recentism - what about the the Mongols, Timur, Assyrian Empire and so on and on. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 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)
- 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)
- No colonial genocide by Europeans are mentioned. Besides the above quote, here's the one for Long nineteenth century:
- 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...
- About Genocide of Indigenous peoples, page 430:
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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
- Cerebellum and Phlsph7, thank you for the changes. I have several more concerns:
- Ok, I made that change and added the sentences. Bogazicili, does that resolve your concerns? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:23, 8 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)
- I suggest adding the following two sentences.
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)
Internet Archive
[edit]This article has a lot (~70) of refs to books hosted at the Internet Archive, most of which are now unavailable due to a recent court ruling. How should we handle this? Remove the links to IA or leave them in place while the case is on appeal? Cerebellum (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. The first two links I found are Abernethy 2000 and Abulafia 2011. Both provide general information about the books and a limited preview so I think both can be useful. I guess book links would be acceptable as long as they provide at least some basic information about the book even if they lack a preview function. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Periodization
[edit]Aside from the pre-history, the article seems to be structured around a periodization scheme which is simply the traditional three eras used for Western civilization (Ancient-Medieval-Modern). The term "late modern" isn't actually used by historians so I'm assuming it's been added purely out of editorial convenience.
When I checked two of the major sources focused specifically on world history, like The Cambridge World History or The Oxford Handbook of World History, they don't seem to use the Europe-focused traditional three eras to all of history. And I'd be surprised if they did since it would be blatantly Euro-centric.
So how did we wind up with this situation? Why has this article decided on a rigid Western-style periodization rather than something more nuanced that matched what's used in serious historical research? Peter Isotalo 08:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Isotalo and thanks for raising this concern. In response to this edit tagging the term "late modern period" as original research, I had a short at the sources. I found the following high-quality sources that use this term:
- Hanson, Paul (11 September 2019). "French Revolution". In Dixon, C. Scott; Kümin, Beat (eds.). Interpreting Early Modern Europe. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-49737-3.: ... there is a tendency ... to look backward into the early modern era, or ... to look forward into the late modern era ... The year 1789 marks a dividing point - it is both the end of an era and the beginning of another
- Ridgway, Peter (28 November 2022). "Toward a Periodization of Indian Ocean Maritime History". In Esler, Joshua; Fielding, Mark (eds.). Indian Ocean Imaginings: People, Time, and Space. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-6669-2217-2. : Indian Ocean in World History Schemes ... Early Modern Era 1450 to 1770 ... Late Modern Era 1750 to Present ...
- Hawas, May (19 April 2018). "Marian Malowist's World History and its Application to World Literature". The Routledge Companion to World Literature and World History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-41464-3.: For [Malowist], all nation-state divisions are artificial or at least related to the late modern era in world history. Nation-states and countries dated back more or less only to the nineteenth century, and some only to the twentieth century.
- Osterhammel, Jürgen (15 September 2015). The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century. Princeton University Press. p. xvii. ISBN 978-0-691-16980-4.
- This is probably enough to show that it is not original research. However, the fact that this term is used by some high-quality sources is not sufficient to name a main section after it, especially since various sources do not use the term. An alternative would be to rename the section to "Modern period". This is roughly the periodization used in Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (IV. The Early Modern Period, 1500–1800; V. The Modern Period, 1789–1914). However, distinguishing the early modern period from the modern is unintuitive. An alternative would be use the name "Long nineteenth century to present".
- There is no established periodization and many high-quality sources use their scheme. This problem is discussed in the section "Academic research". For a high-quality with a periodization similar to ours, see Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are engaging in cherry-picking here. None of the sources actually use the term "late modern period" but rather specify a late stage as it exists in all historical periods or concepts of chronology. If you look up virtually any article, book or chapter about periodization and modernity, they don't use the term "late modern period". This concept is mostly just a Wikipedia-generated neologism and based on a misunderstanding of periodization and the concept of modernity.
- There's been an extensive discussion about this over at talk:late modern period and the article has been redirected because it's simply a Wikipedia-generated neologism.
- Regarding the choice of periodization, you're not really addressing my core concern here: other than convenience, what's the reason for choosing a single periodization scheme for all of human history? That's not a scheme that some of your main sources actually use. Peter Isotalo 08:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
None of the sources actually use the term "late modern period" but rather specify a late stage as it exists in all historical periods or concepts of chronology.
- I'm confused by what the distinction would be here, if you'll humor me. Remsense诉 08:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Late" is a pretty common adjective used when describing time. It is frequently applied to certain periods. Some of these are established and recognized sub-divisions of historical periods, like the Late Middle Ages. Others, like late Sengoku period, are more like ad hoc constructions used in descriptive prose, like the examples above. One of them isn't even about modernity in general but specifically "Indian Ocean Maritime History".
- If the term "late modern period" was actually a thing among historians, it would cover a period in time that is likely the most thoroughly researched and intensely discussed in the field of historical research. That would generate hundreds of thousands of hits, including thousands of titles of academic articles, books, conferences, courses, professorships and entire institutions. Peter Isotalo 09:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Isotalo: How do you think we should periodize the article? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should look at what periodizations world history-focused sources are using.
- If they aren't in agreement, you need to figure out how to describe many different perspectives rather than just picking one that seems convenient and familiar. Peter Isotalo 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems they were doing that. Does it really seem plausible to you that there would be a canonical periodization used by a majority here? Sometimes we have to write an encyclopedia article and structure it differently because all our sources are books or multi-volume works. Not all source material boils down the same way. Remsense诉 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Like I pointed out, if sources don't agree on something, we need to try to describe those differing perspectives.
- As a short, specific example, the first "Oceania" heading cites sources that cover some of the following periods:
- McNiven (in Benjamin) is writing in a volume specified as being 1200 BC-900 AD and actually goes back all of 50,000 years in some cases.
- Bulliet covers the dawn of history until 1550 AD
- Burley covers 2850-150 BP
- Kirch & Green covers 3200 BC-1800 AD
- None of them in any way fit the structure used in the article and none of the conclusions from those sources seem to have been included in the article. Peter Isotalo 14:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems they were doing that. Does it really seem plausible to you that there would be a canonical periodization used by a majority here? Sometimes we have to write an encyclopedia article and structure it differently because all our sources are books or multi-volume works. Not all source material boils down the same way. Remsense诉 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Isotalo: How do you think we should periodize the article? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen "late modern" used, if rarely−though usually to refer to a range roughly like 1750–1914, i.e. what we associate with aesthetic modernism.
- There are two broad options I can see beyond a fresh coat of paint: top-level structuring by theme or region rather than by era, or figuring out a periodization that's more acceptable? By the by, from what I remember The Cambridge World History doesn't use these labels per se, but it really does not reject them either: its volumes very roughly divide history into sections pre-500, 500–1500, and 1500–present. Remsense诉 08:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think using date ranges is a bad idea. Even if they're functionally the same, it renders them more objective and avoids region-specific terminology like medieval. Another option would be to follow the prehistory section and assign 'thematic' labels to each division (though the roughly 3000 years between the first agricultural societies and the first ancient civilisations seems to have been misplaced in the current scheme there). – Joe (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we want to use thematic labels, a good starting point is Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks' A Concise History of the World, she uses the same periodization we do but with descriptive era names. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think using date ranges is a bad idea. Even if they're functionally the same, it renders them more objective and avoids region-specific terminology like medieval. Another option would be to follow the prehistory section and assign 'thematic' labels to each division (though the roughly 3000 years between the first agricultural societies and the first ancient civilisations seems to have been misplaced in the current scheme there). – Joe (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
To aid the discussion, since this has come up before, here are the schemes used by some recent works in world history.
Work | Scheme |
---|---|
Cambridge World History |
Introducing World History, to 10,000 BCE |
New Oxford World History Incomplete, but there is a list of planned titles in the back of each volume. |
The World From 4000 to 1000 BCE |
Peter N. Stearns, World Past to World Present: A Sketch of Global History |
Early Civilizations |
J. R. McNeill and William H. McNeill, The Human Web: A Bird's-eye View of World History |
The human apprenticeship |
Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, A Concise History of the World |
Foraging and farming families (to 3000 BCE) |
As for "late modern period", I'm fine with changing it to "modern period". --Cerebellum (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you link to where periodization issues been discussed before? I don't want to rehash previous points unnecessarily. Peter Isotalo 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of what Piotrus said in his pre-GA feedback: I wonder if Chinese or Japanese histories (for example, considering major non-Western developed cultures and historiographies) use the same periodization? From what I know, they do not for their own history, but I am not sure what they do for the world history. Overview of what is mentioned at ja:世界の歴史 or zh:世界歷史 would be quite interesting and likely valuable, although it is a task more for FA level then GA level. But it is something we should do one day, I think. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Very briefly, from all I have ever read Chinese historiography is structured exclusively on the successive dynastic cycles integral to the Chinese state. There is no other metanarrative to speak of, not even in the context of major transformations in the relationship between China and the outside world, e.g. the late antiquity introduction of Buddhism from India, the brief incorporation of China into the Eurasia-spanning Mongol Empire, or the period of Ming exploration and global diplomacy.
- So that's probably a no. Remsense诉 15:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense I've heard about this, and something similar in Japanese historiography. But playing my own devil's advocate: the question is whether we are not conflating this with national historiography. See pl:Periodyzacja historii Polski (my article that I have yet to tl to en). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- China essentially invented nationalist historiography. Much of Europe only got it going in the 19th and 20th centuries
Remsense诉 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- China essentially invented nationalist historiography. Much of Europe only got it going in the 19th and 20th centuries
- @Remsense I've heard about this, and something similar in Japanese historiography. But playing my own devil's advocate: the question is whether we are not conflating this with national historiography. See pl:Periodyzacja historii Polski (my article that I have yet to tl to en). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of what Piotrus said in his pre-GA feedback: I wonder if Chinese or Japanese histories (for example, considering major non-Western developed cultures and historiographies) use the same periodization? From what I know, they do not for their own history, but I am not sure what they do for the world history. Overview of what is mentioned at ja:世界の歴史 or zh:世界歷史 would be quite interesting and likely valuable, although it is a task more for FA level then GA level. But it is something we should do one day, I think. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Cerebellum: Thanks for this overview table, this is quite helpful.
- Generally speaking, there are different ways of dividing human history into periods. All the major sources that I'm aware of use a periodization. I'm not sure how one would present human history in a reasonable format without it due to the lack of organization. If one wanted to use not one but several parallel periodizations, there would be a lot of overlap between the different presentations for each periodization. If someone could provide high-quality sources that follow one of these approaches, we could consider them. If we use a periodization, we have to decide the points where one period ends and the next one starts. This should follow sources on world history, not sources on local histories. To my mind, the points chosen in our article make sense and reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history. We also have the section "Academic research", which covers this topic and explains different perspectives, making the reader aware that there are alternative approaches.
- By the way, I implemented the earlier suggestion to use the term "modern period" instead of "late modern period". Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees that periodization is necessary and no one has questioned its relevance. Some sort of logical article structure is also necessary. That hasn't been questioned either. The problem is the choice of just one single periodization scheme to all of recorded human history. There's clearly no scholarly consensus for that so we need to stop pretending like Wikipedia should make one up.
- Going from my example regarding "Oceania", that section does not appear to "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The comments on long-term social structure development provided by McNiven[3] have been left out while more specific details have been included. The specific details have been lifted from region-specific sources rather than works on world history, so their inclusion seems to have been made by individual Wikipedians.
- From what I can tell, every single section in the article consists of a unique combination of sources referenced one sentence at a time, sometimes even just a few words at a time. That's strongly indicative of individual Wikipedians having chosen a very specific set of facts they think are important without regard to the context of the sources they've used. Peter Isotalo 18:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that there is consensus that our article should use periodization and should make the reader aware of alternative periodizations. I think it does both.
- I'm not sure what to make of your criticism that the article uses "one single periodization". All the books listed in the table above seem to do that, so at least we are in good company. If you could provide an example of a reliable source on world history that uses several alternative periodizations to structure its main outline instead of one single periodization, it might be easier to understand what alternative you are proposing.
- I'll have a look at McNiven to see how the long-term social structure development can be included in regard to Oceania. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how you could write a single article (or book) that uses multiple periodisations in parallel without totally decohering. The only way I can see to do so here would be to treat each region wholly separately, which would defeat the purpose of having an article on human history in the first place, and make it redundant to History of Europe, History of Oceania, etc. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article really just uses a single periodization scheme for all of recorded history: the traditional Eurocentric ancient-medieval-modern scheme. None of the sources listed in the table actually use this scheme. Some sources might still use it, but it's still a matter of WP:UNDUE to just flat-out ignore the others and relegate them to the "academic" section.
- Your question about "several alternative periodizations" doesn't really make sense to me. At least one of your major sources (The Cambridge World History) employs and discusses multiple periodizations in the regional chapters. You have abundant examples of many different global periodizations, so why would you be asking me for more evidence?
- The point regarding the Oceania section was not that info specifically about social structure was missing. It was meant as an example of how the article completely disregards the perspective of its own sources. The Oceania section was just one minor example of systemic problem throughout the article. You can see the same pattern in sections like "medieval" Africa and "post-classical" America. In the America section, the very first cited source (Begun & Brashler, "The Americas" in Benjamim 2015[4]) focuses mostly on 1200 BCE-900 AD and very clearly describes general overview periodizations for North, Meso- and South America respectively. None of this is reflected or even mentioned in the article.
- If we look at a more general example, the introductory sentence to "Post-classical history" is not representative of the cited sources either:
- Benjamin and Wiesner-Hanks (p. 348)[5] explains that China, India and the Maya have classical and post-classical periods, but not that they are literally the same period as the Mediterranean region. The cited chapter itself isn't about the world as a whole either.
- Christian (p. 102)[6] has a chapter called "A Periodization of World History as a Whole" that doesn't correspond to any classical period.
- Stearns (p. 33)[7] is the only source that seems to argue a global post-classical period (500-1450 CE), but also uses a different dating for the classical period (1000 BCE-600 CE).
- None of these look like they "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The pattern throughout the article seems very consistent: various events are mentioned in chronological order under arbitrarily chosen headings.
- I don't see that these problems are really fixable one example at a time. The whole article needs to be restructured and rewritten from the ground up. From what I can see, the following issues need to be resolved before the article gets out of the rut its currently stuck in:
- Start the article with a proper definition of the article topic, including the state of research. It should be defined the way historians define the topic, not what a bunch of Wikipedians think it should be.
- Let go of the current structure and focus on identifying a structure that is more useful than just a single chronological timeline, otherwise, this is really nothing but a kind of timeline of world history in prose form.
- Sources need to be limited to works that are explicitly about the article topic: world history or various forms of "megahistory". Works that are not about vast timespans or large regions should not be used. Sources like Rael (2009), Ning (2023) and Blier (2012), Barro (2015), are way too specific to be worthy of inclusion (these are just examples).
- Stop pulling out snippets of history from various sources and sprinkle them across the article. You can't pick-and-mix your way to a coherent, high-quality article.
- Everyone needs to start taking periodization a lot more seriously and stop treating it as just some subjective layout issue. Whether something belongs in a historical period is something that needs to be determined by a source, not by individual Wikipedians. Just the fact that this article has had a pure neologism like "late modern period" is a sign that of clearly substandard, uncritical and subjective use of sources. Peter Isotalo 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to jump in and make some edits :) The article can always be improved. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really a "make some edits"-problem here. The article structure is hopelessly biased and trying to polish it will just further justify the bias. It would be like adding info to an article about fish that included marine mammals and plesiosaurs in its core structure simply because enough editors thought it convenient and logical to include "all swimmy-type sea creatures".
- As a starting point, are you prepared to collaborate in a serious attempt at restructuring the article and move away from a one-size-fits-all-regions periodization scheme? Peter Isotalo 10:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I don't really understand what structure you are proposing. But I like your passion and ambitious vision for the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm proposing we do a seriously deep dive into determining the most common periodizations applied to the discipline of world history, which is the discipline that this article falls under. A very good place to start is Cajani 2013. The thing to look for are statements like this one:
- During the second half of the twentieth century, world history research has experienced an extraordinary development. Three main periodization paradigms have emerged.
- Cajani explains the three main paradigms as "the productive relation between humans and nature", "[r]eligion and culture" and "relations among civilizations or societies". That's an overview of three different perspectives of world history which could be used to construct a more scientifically accurate description of the topic: one timeline for each focused on these three paradigms.
- This is a structure that could absolutely be applied assuming it's something that there's some sort of scholarly consensus around. We need to look at more overviews of world history historiography and see what they say about it. Are there patterns we can follow without just making purely arbitrary choices? Peter Isotalo 13:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, I think I get what you are saying now. Sounds like quite the intellectual adventure that I don't want to embark on right now, but I support you if you want to rewrite the article accordingly. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you just want to discuss these paradigms as paradigms, you could do that at World history (field). But it seems you are suggesting that our article here uses three timelines to tell human history three times, once for each paradigm (one main section per paradigm?). Is that correct? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- This feels like putting far too much weight on the field of world history, which despite the name is a still a very niche and (ironically) US-centric discipline. This article is about human history and the vast majority of historians of humanity do not work within a 'world history' framework. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Phlsph7, I'm pointing out a core aspect of research in the field that this article is positioned in. I've pointed out that Cajani 2013 summarizes the use of periodization within the academic field that this article falls under. That's not merely a comment on the discipline itself works but specifically about how periodization is applied. The article is clearly choosing its own path in this matter and that's very obviously WP:UNDUE.
- Structuring history thematically is neither problematic nor controversial. All sorts of sources do it all the time, and so does Wikipedia, especially for more complex historical topics. So I don't really understand the pushback here. The only argument in favor of the single-timeline structure seems to be editorial inertia.
- So what I'm suggesting right now isn't immediately rewriting the whole article, but to try to look through sources for a consensus regarding the periodization issue. Are you interested in collaborating in that regard? Peter Isotalo 09:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are actually getting surprisingly little 'pushback' considering you are making some quite strong criticisms of an article that everyone else agrees is at a GA level. What I mostly see here is people trying, and struggling, to understand how your very broad broad critiques could translate into actual changes to the article. So I'd echo Cerebellum and say that what would be most useful now is for you to either make changes to the article or propose a new structure for discussion here. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The intention of my last comment was not to push back but to get you to clarify your proposal. Apologies for the confusion. I have various concerns about your proposal and your criticisms but, before diving into them, it might be better to first clarify what your alternative suggestion actually is. Concerning the amount of pushback you have received so far, Joe's comment hits the nail on the head. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- To scour sources similar to Cajani to glean some sort of scholarly consensus regarding periodizations to replace the one you use right now.
- That's the starting point at least. My bullet list above is the further steps I think are necessary.
- But there's no point on working further on the article before we deal with the periodization. Peter Isotalo 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we want to scour sources, we should try to answer 2 questions: (1) how many periodizations and (2) which one(s). From my point of view, the how-many question is simple to answer: all the main sources pick one so we should too, see the overview table above. I presume you disagree since this would exclude your multi-periodization proposal. The which-one question is more complicated, since each of the main sources picks different periods. I think our best bet here is to pick the periods that are most standard and most well-known. I guess these are roughly the ones we picked. Eras like ancient history and post-classical history are well-known. Eras like "Webs and civilizations in the old world" and "The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America", as used in the source McNeill & McNeill 2003, are not well known. Just as an example, ancient history and post-classical history have their own Wikipedia articles but Webs and civilizations in the old world and The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America don't. Given the great variety of periodizations, there is some wiggle room for us. This means that there may be different ways to structure the contents that are acceptable. Our current periodization is just one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any way forward here if you've already decided that a single-periodization approach is the only relevant structural solution for this article. In your own words, that a POV and isn't an appropriate way to approach neutrality.
- If you're not willing to even explore the idea of multiple periodizations, you're effectively shutting down discussion. Peter Isotalo 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your suggestion was to look at the sources. In my last comment, I reviewed the sources in the overview table above and shared my interpretation. I know that you have a different perspective but I don't know how we can reach a common understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- You need to simply acknowledge the necessity of a more complex article structure, just like you were perfectly fine with over at history of philosophy. And that's "only" the history of philosophy rather than the entirety of the human past.
- If you choose a single perspective from sources that are providing multiple perspectives, and some even summarizing some of them into paradigms, what's your justification for simply allowing a single perspective? How is that not giving something undue weight? Peter Isotalo 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are in agreement that the picture we get from the scholarship poses unique challenges. We are in disagreement about how to deal with it. One of our differences seems to lie in the importance we give to periodization. As I see it, for the purpose of this article, periodization is needed to structure the contents but is not at the center: the article is about human history, not about periodizations in world history. If picking a single periodization was biased in principle, then all our main sources would be biased. I find that conclusion, and in turn the argument it is based on, troubling.
- I would be more favorable to your proposal if there were main sources that implemented it. However, I don't think any have been mentioned so far. Cajani 2013 is a source about periodizations in world history. Strictly speaking, it belongs to historiography rather than history. It compares different periodizations, but it does not do what you are proposing to do with this article. Without any sources implementing something like your proposal, the proposal sounds like an exciting intellectual experiment and I would be curious to see how it would play out. However, I'm not sure that an intellectual experiment should be carried out on a Wikipedia article. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to understand your editorial position here, are you opposing any structure other than a single timeline based on just a single periodization? Peter Isotalo 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the sources and arguments presented so far favor a single-periodization approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we have an unresolved content dispute. I've added a tag to the article and have requested a third opinion. Peter Isotalo 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the sources and arguments presented so far favor a single-periodization approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to understand your editorial position here, are you opposing any structure other than a single timeline based on just a single periodization? Peter Isotalo 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your suggestion was to look at the sources. In my last comment, I reviewed the sources in the overview table above and shared my interpretation. I know that you have a different perspective but I don't know how we can reach a common understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we want to scour sources, we should try to answer 2 questions: (1) how many periodizations and (2) which one(s). From my point of view, the how-many question is simple to answer: all the main sources pick one so we should too, see the overview table above. I presume you disagree since this would exclude your multi-periodization proposal. The which-one question is more complicated, since each of the main sources picks different periods. I think our best bet here is to pick the periods that are most standard and most well-known. I guess these are roughly the ones we picked. Eras like ancient history and post-classical history are well-known. Eras like "Webs and civilizations in the old world" and "The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America", as used in the source McNeill & McNeill 2003, are not well known. Just as an example, ancient history and post-classical history have their own Wikipedia articles but Webs and civilizations in the old world and The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America don't. Given the great variety of periodizations, there is some wiggle room for us. This means that there may be different ways to structure the contents that are acceptable. Our current periodization is just one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm proposing we do a seriously deep dive into determining the most common periodizations applied to the discipline of world history, which is the discipline that this article falls under. A very good place to start is Cajani 2013. The thing to look for are statements like this one:
- I'm not sure. I don't really understand what structure you are proposing. But I like your passion and ambitious vision for the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to jump in and make some edits :) The article can always be improved. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Failed verification
[edit]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[8] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This is not a GAN or FAC. Why are you bringing that up? Peter Isotalo 10:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This is what you wrote at the start of the thread:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[9]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, it really isn't. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 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)
- 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
Time spans for early modern and modern periods
[edit]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,[10] 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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
[edit]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"
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
Shaping of Western civilization
[edit]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.[11] 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
[edit]
- ... that the agricultural and industrial revolutions are key turning points in human history?
- Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that in early human history, humans migrated out of Africa and populated most of the Earth during the Last Ice Age? Source: [2]
- ALT2: ... that for most of human history, children did not have access to public education? Source: [3]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Hanley
- Comment:
References
- ^
- Cajani 2013, § Current Trends
- Christian 2008, pp. 102–103
- ^
- Christian 2015, pp. 316, 400, "Dispersal over an unprecedented swath of the globe...coincided with an Ice Age...by the end of the era of climatic fluctuation, humans occupied almost all the habitats their descendants occupy today"
- Pollack 2010, p. 93
- ^ Scott & Vare 2020, pp. 54–56
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- adjusted hook per talk page discussion at Talk:Human_history#Increase_in_life_expectancy:
- 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)
- 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)
Increase in life expectancy
[edit]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.[1]
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".[12][13]
References
- ^
- Schoppa 2021, p. 1
- Belz & Peattie 2012, p. 6
– 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 [1] and [2] are better?
References
- ^ Mathew & Bhatia 2010, p. 8.
- ^ Getzen 2022, p. 234.
- 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)
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-1 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-1 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-1 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Archaeology articles
- Top-importance Archaeology articles
- GA-Class history articles
- Top-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- GA-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- GA-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia former articles for improvement
- Articles that have been nominated for Did you know