Talk:Human history

This article used to be a good article. It was promoted on 1 March 2009 and demoted on 7 May 2011. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

This overview is far too Western centered by almost all standards. It is very uncommon to speak of the "middle ages" in world history for example - it is generally a misnomer to the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.143.138 (talk • contribs)

I know. I want someone else to put it in. Why don't you? --Isis§^(talk) 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, should we extend the introduction (before the first header) a little? - What do you think? --Eptalon 13:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, but no help from en wiki. I guess I will have to think of some creative lines to put down. :) --Isis§^(talk) 13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Ancient History

Hello there, I have been working on some glitches, though I find, that Ancient History needs at least a paragraph on Ancient Greece, and one for Ancient Rome. The influence of those two civilisations was very big. At some point in time, the Romans called the Mediterranean Mare Nostrum (our sea). Quite a bit of modern-day Europe was founded on the roots of Greek philosophy, and Roman law. Would it be an option to split this into three sections:

1. Mesopotamia, Egypt,..
2. Rise and Fall of Greece
3. Rise and Fall of Rome

These should not only be seen as geographic, but also as divisions by time. Please note that I am not sure about what happened in Mesopotamia, or Egypt at that time. Also, I am unaware of the developments in other parts of the World, at that time. That one of the problems: My Hisotrical knoweldge is probably too Europe-centric. --Eptalon 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written Ancient Greece, and started Ancient Rome. I will probably finish this section today (Todo: Add East Roman history in two sections, fix redlinks). Please proofread and correct. --Eptalon 10:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That thing is done. All that remains are two redlinks to fix. --Eptalon 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Others

I think there may be other noteworthy cultures

• Maya
• Inca
• Aztec

All In the Americas. Of those only the Maya seem to be older than like 10-12th century. This means: Mention the Inca/Aztec in the Middle Ages section only, Maya go to Ancient history above. --Eptalon 11:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrote the Maya section. Currently fixing redlinks there. --Eptalon 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even better

If anyone knows, please add:

• Sumerians/Assyrians, other Mesopotamians
• Kush/Meroe (Northern Sudan)

--Eptalon 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to go even deeper?

• Hallstatt culture (Broze Age/Iron Age)
• La Tène culture (Iron Age, conquered by the Romans, probably a lot of influence on the Gauls/Galli)

Or do we leave that for later? --Eptalon 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Length

(Discussion copied from my homepage, looks relevant)

How long do you think this is going to be when it's "done"? World history is a pretty broad subject, so, I don't know, maybe I should go into less detail? Can you please review what I wrote on Sumer? Because I'm afraid that when I finish the section, it will be way too long. So I guess just tell me if I'm going into too much detail. Please? Thanks, --Isis§^(talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind the article, in my opinion is to give a short overview of the each of the civilisations, and a link to the main article about it, where this civilisation can be elaborated. As to size: I think the section on Ancient Greece is definitely too short, the one on the Mayas is probably too long. I don't know, really. If we look at what we have now, and what is still missing, I think we will end up with 70-80kb in size, once we are done. Or to look at it visually, add the section on Ancient Rome, about 5 times (for the 5 missing civs). As you say it is indeed a broad subject. We should therefore keep in mind that shorter is probably better. As the longer variant, try to visualize 5x the Maya section in that article. So, while doing the extension, create the detailed article about the civ early on, and put the detailed account there. --Eptalon 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

Why are we not saying about Communism in Russia/USSR? Most other places are mentioned. It's not easy to say it spread TO Russia because it had Communism first, so I'm not sure what to do. Also, the last sentence is really cheesy, can we say something a bit more encyclopedic (and still simple)? 129.67.125.194 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to help, the last three sections (Renaissance/Colonisation/20th century) are really scetchy though. Any help would be greatly appreciated (but please get a username first ;) )--Eptalon (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Extended

I extended the article, added a section on the cave paintings, as well as one on the Hallstatt/La Tene culture. Please read over those and simplify as needed. --Eptalon (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Making a good article

Hello, it has been proposed that this should be made into a good article. Before going any further we should keep the following in mind:

• It is always possible to add more detail later, this should not stop us from proceeding though.

Things we need to do:

1. Agree on a sectioning (either Geographically, or by time periods)
2. Agree on what to include and what to leave out
3. Identify what is missing
4. Complete what is missing
5. Review, and vote it to be sufficient for a Good Article.

These are 5 easy steps.

en:History_of_the_world is a similar approach we can look at. --Eptalon (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

World history is such a broad subject that it would be nearly impossible to create a decent article in a SEWP-sized article. Already at 37 KB, this article is very lengthy yet there is still much more to be added. I think that this should be considered very carefully before being made into a good article...should an article as long as this one be featured as one of the best of this (simple) Wikipedia? Should an article this long be considered too "complex", even if the language is simple? While others may consider long articles to be complex, I agree with Eptalon that the somewhat trivial matter of length should not stop us from proceeding in making this into a good article. I would rather an article be 50KB and provide detail than be normal length and not properly explain the subject.

IMO, these are the most prominent issues to be dealt with:

• Red links - As stated by Eptalon here, there would have to much research done to create good articles with enough context to be considered an actual article. This would no doubt pose a challenge if I did not have any resources available...but finding resources should not be much of a problem for me. I believe I could fill in most of the red links, without much help from others, as I have at least 2 years' worth of notes...
• Sufficient detail on all areas of the world - this article seems to be centered around Europe and the Americas. I believe we've left out poor Asia and Africa. Much of what I know about history is on Europe, the Americas, and Asia. This leaves me with little knowledge about what was going on in Africa during this time. The most I could write on Africa is the gold/salt trade, the slave trade, and, of course, Egypt (with extensive knowledge on its mythology, if that would come in useful...) would someone else be willing to fill in a little (um, a lot) about Africa? I do not think this article should be promoted until this is done.

Also, the Middle Ages section probably needs something about what was happening in Asia during this time (such as elaboration on the Japanese feudal system, to start with)

• Sufficient detail throughout history - While the Ancient history section is very nice and detailed at most parts, the following time periods in history are not brought to their proper glory. There is much more to be added to the "renaissance" section, such as the many new philosophies, inventions, etc. And I believe the the section on colonization should be renamed to "Imperialism", as that covers the events happening in Asia as well. Could the section on the renaissance and the section on colonization be merged somehow? Also, the section on the twentieth century, IMO, should be completely re-written, as it is not simple and does not explain the many major events of the century. I've also been wondering if there should be a section on happening in the present day in this section, as it is titled "twentieth century onward", which brings us to the present day. Would anyone be willing to, possibly, maybe, by chance, provide a short bit about recent and current events?

This is my opinion on the above 5 points:

1. Agree on a sectioning - I believe the article should be organized by time, as many different geographic areas were more often than not related to each other. I believe these relations would make much more sense in chronological order rather than geographic. However, this brings about an awkward cutting-off of time from one section to the next. I think this should be from one major event, to the next, to the next, and so on, in chronological order without being abrupt about it, if that makes sense at all...
2. Agree on what to include and what to leave out - I would say that, in general, if it seems superfluous to the article, and the article still makes sense without it, it can be left out. Such a general statement is obvious enough, but I feel that each case is special in its own context and should be carefully considered.
3. Identify and complete what is missing - The ancient history section is the most complete section in the article. I believe some details have yet to be included, especially in the section on ancient Greece and the section on ancient Rome, whereas the section on the Maya and the section on the Aztecs seem almost complete. The Hallstatt and La Tene sections, in my opinion, might do better to go before the sections on Greece and Rome.

Also, a bit of tweaking should be done, perhaps, and I think it should be proofread by at least 2 or 3 people to catch typos, see where phrasing could be confusing, simplify parts that are complex, etc. After this is done I think focus should be brought to the next sections. As I stated before, my focus will be on

1. Review, and vote it to be sufficient for a Good Article - Far off in the future, yet very possibly manageable. :) Let's see what we can do with this article...--Isis♠(talk) 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

More this gets longer, I think we need sectioning to be intuitive, Sectioning should be such that:

• In general, sectioning is by time; cultures that are younger are further down in the article
• Where there are several cultures for a time frame, we could further section them as to geographical region (Egypt/Greece/Rome: Mediterranean; Sumer: Asia; Kush/Meroe (if it ever gets written): Africa; Hallstatt/La Tene: Europe; Inca/Maya/Aztec: Americas)
• In the case of the Cave paintings, this is not really necessary; while there are cave paintings in South Africa, we do not currently know enough on this culture to be able to make a difference between European and South African cave paintings).
• Hallstatt and La Tene are related; one grew out of the other; do we keep them together, or do we split them?

--Eptalon (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

@Eptalon: "do we keep them together, or do we split them?" I would think that depends from your main time frame.

You have convinced me that the article can serve three functions at the same time: tell a short story of world history, give an overview and serve as linklist to periods, civilisations and persons. Who wants to know more may use the links to the SEWP-articles and go from there to the en:WP and all other WPs.

That the article cannot be good in the beginning does not mean, it could not become good rather soon. And even if it were very good there would be always something to be improved. I'll try to join. --Cethegus (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article

First, the introduction: World History is about studying history as a science. In the sense that the word is used here, it is about the study of the cultural achievements of the entire human race. This includes the time from prehistory to the end of the 20th century.

• The first sentence seems, to the uninitiated, like total nonsense. To the uninitiated "world history" means the same as "history of the world". So the subject of "World History" needs to be fully explained.
• The majority of your editors have failed to comprehend that there is a difference between "World History" and "History of the World" and have enthusiastically gone about writing the latter, rather than the former.

Until you have this matter sorted out, you cannot have a Good Article.

Next: Prehistory was the time before there was writing.[1] For tens of thousands of years humankind was a simple hunter-gatherer society. Women picked wild berries and nuts. Men hunted animals. When all the food in one area ran out, villages migrated (moved) to another area. Archeologists say this is why people came to North America.[2] Fire was very important during this time. People used fire as a light source, to cook food, and keep warm.

• "Simple" hunter gatherer? Delete simple. Nothing is ever that simple. What may seem like a "simple society" is made complex culturally by things that a money-driven, machine-driven society doesn't stop to consider. Yes, in a V.G. article an adjective matters, because it is "conceptual".
• "Women picked wild berries and nuts". The main food sources were grain and vegetables including roots, fruits and greens. Berries and nuts have always been a treat.
• When all the food in one area ran out? This implies a large population who could eat its way through herds of cattle, flocks of birds, acres of wild grain. It implies that there was no land management whatever, which is unlikely. These guys knew that if they killed the last bull and left only cows, there would be no calves next year. They weren't stupid.
• Archaeologists say this is why people came to North America. Fix it, somebody!
• Over thousands more years, humankind developed further intellectually, militarily, and spiritually. This sentence is really worrying!

Next: We have two sections on very specific aspects of Prehistory: Cave painting and Stonehenge. These two sections, and three examples of cave painting are overkill. What is required is a broad view that uses these things as examples and directs the reader to the specific pages.

Next: We have Sumer dealt with in detail, and a list of other civilisations as an afterthought.

Next: La Tène culture: Are they the same as the Celts, different or what. If their culture lasted till 100AD, what then? Why do the Celts get no furhter mention.

Next: Mayan Culture, Dealt with so fully that it should be a stand-alone article. It does cover a long period. But a small geographic region.

• Never, NEVER, NEVER say that an indigenous group is "well-integrated". The implication carried by the word "well" is highly contentious.

Next: Very few achievements happened during the Middle Ages, During this time, there were no great achievements. Whaaaaat?

• I've got Crak de Chevaliers, Bamberg Dom, the 557 foot high spire of Lincoln, the Book of Kells and the walls of Carcassone, say you are wrong. (whoever you are)

It's not a "world view" that gives 5 sections to the Mayans and sums up a thousand years of European history by saying that nothing was achieved except a few wars, some pillaging and the plague!

OK! That is enough to go on with. Amandajm (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points brought about above, here are some of my suggestions to help make this a good article:

1. While the article has already been simplified a lot since it began as an article, there are still many, many complex words throughout the article. Some examples of this include: demigod, notable, division, flourished, structure, demonstration, inhabited, significant, inscriptions, monuments, constructed....just to name a few. There are a ton of these complex words throughout the article. If this article is indeed to become a good article, then this needs to be fixed. This point goes hand-in-hand with the next point.
2. The sentence structure is not very simple. Some examples have been given above. If this article is indeed to become a good article, it would need to be copyedited thouroughly to help both shorten the sentences, and make the sentences flow better and more completely.
3. I would like to see some more Other websites. The Other websites section is a bit short for an article of that size.
4. There are a few redlinks that should have articles made for them:

• • Quetzalcoatl
  • Oxaca
  • sarcophaguses
  • Cave paintings

If this article is to become a good article, then these articles would need to be created.

I hope this helps you on your quest to have this article become a good article. Cheers! Razorflame 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Language

Razorflame has pointed out a few words here that are not very easy.

"demigod, notable, division, flourished, structure, demonstration, inhabited, significant, inscriptions, monuments, constructed.."

Some of these words are essential to writing about the subject. We are not writing for five-year-olds. We are writing for the sort of people who would have an interest in the article and therefore must acquire the vocabulary of the subject. For example, if you are reading about dinosaurs then "Brontosaurus" is a word you need. If you are reading about classical music, then you need to learn "orchestra", "symphony" and "concerto", otherwise you get nowhere. Trying to avoid "correct" vocabulary and restating things in a circuitous manner simply doesn't work.

I want to point out something. I know I've said it before but here it is again:

• account acid addition adjustment advertisement agreement amount amusement angle apparatus approval arch argument attack attempt attention attraction authority automatic boiling brass bulb bitter balance canvas chemical comfort committee common company comparison competition complete complex condition connection conscious distribution division digestion development disgust

• These are a few of the words that occur near the beginning of the 850 word vocab.

To me, they seem fairly arbitrary. Why, I must ask, do we have "distribution" but not "demonstration". Why is "adjustment" on the list? How often do we need the word "brass" in everyday speech? Why is "bulb" an essential word?

My opinion is that the creator of the list foresaw the use of the words in certain situations, but not others. The words include "apparatus" which has very limited application in describing the Mona Lisa, for example, but would certainly be useful in describing the distillation process.

• For the subject that is presently at hand, "World History", we need words like "inhabited", "inscriptions", "monuments" and "constructed". We can get away without "sarcophagi" (not sarcophaguses!) because we have "stone coffin".

Without using the correct vocab, the sentences become convoluted jumbles. The point I'm trying to make is that a great deal of thought needs to go into deciding what words should be chopped out of an article, and how simplification can take place in a way that doesn't render it useless.

Amandajm (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the sarcophagi: I think this is one of the words that need to be linked the first time it occurs, and explained (separately; the Celts used different sarcophagi than the Egyptians, etc.); Much like Cave paintings (or longboats, which we will need to talk about once we add the Wikings). In my opinion,the idea is not to cripple the article to a vocablary of 500 words, but rather copyedit the article in such a way as to explain those words that are deemed to difficult. --Eptalon (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes, also, the particular meaning of a "big word" isn't all that important. The reader can either understand it because of the context, look it up or simply skip over it. It is one of the processes by which people extend their vocabulary. Eg. Wrting specifically in an art historical context, one might show details of two carvings with the captions: "This sarcophagus from 120 AD shows deeply carved forms" and "This sarcophagus from 520 AD shows simplified, flattened forms". In this case, the captions are about comparing the styles of two similar objects. The actual nature of the object itself is less significant in the context than the style in which it is carved. The reader may or may not chose to follow a link, which can mean breaking the flow of the reading. On the other hand, if one writes "The sarcophagi of Ancient Rome were often re-used many times" then the reader needs to know what they were used for. Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

World History

To get back to my first and most significant point: "World History" as a subject has specific meaning. The specific meaning is fairly well defined on the Wikipedia site. It does not mean "History of the World".

Whoever decides on the content of this page needs to understand that "World History" is a discipline. The content needs to fit the parameters. Most casual editors do not understand, and probably won't understand what should and should not be included.

This situation is not unique. "Art History" is not the same thing as "History of Art".

My suggestion is this: if there is no-one here who has a real grasp on the discipline of "World History", then the page could be moved to "History of the World", "History of Civilization", "History of Humankind" or something similar.

This is a decision that must be made, before we start fussing around with the niceties.

Amandajm (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Amandajm. Even it there were no difference between "World History" and "History of the World" it would be confusing for someone who changes from en:World History here and the same is true for the other direction. Therefore I plead: please move. --Cethegus (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As it seems that you want to stick to this lemma, I now created an article Universal History and set a link to that at the beginning of the text for those readers who want information about the field of study of world history. But both articles can easily be moved if you decide to change the lemma. --Cethegus (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

World War I

I just added a massive section on WWI. Just calling attention to it because I think it may need "trimming down" a little (a lot), and I'm not quite sure what's not important enough to be left out. So, I would appreciate some help with this...anyone? --Isis♠(talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I need something to justify my procrastination of homework. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bunch, however I removed lots of information from the last section since it was unrelated to World War I itself (it was about WWII, the UN, medicine in the late 20th C. etc) so you may want to read over it quickly to see if I removed a bit much. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That part you deleted, in the last section, actually wasn't part of the section at all, but a part of the original {20th century onward" section. I meant to delete it myself, actually. --Isis♠(talk) 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement

After I rearranged the chapters according to historic periods it seems obvious to me that during the Middle Ages there is a disproportion between Europe and America and that Asia has to be added. --Cethegus (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I replaced the legend of the beginning of Rome (transferd to a footnote) by its history and moved Byzantine Empire to the Chapter Middle Ages/Middle East. I would suggest though to rename the period to New departures and continuity (or something similar) as Middle Ages does not suit for Asia, the Americas and Africa. (Please note that I created the articles for their history and put links to them unter See also.) --Cethegus (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Middle Ages" as a title is much too Europe-based and I think your name is much more appropriate. However, a subheading of the Middle Ages would be great. Also, the whole article is Europe-dominated. I don't know what to about that, all I know about is China and India, somewhat. --Isis♠(talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new structure

Maybe we could have a new structure for the time from Middle Ages onwards. Then I would place Asia in the first place for New departures and continuity, because then the highest dynamics was there and Europe in the first place for Globalization, because then the highest dynamics was there. Then it might look like that (free space and dots standing for headings that are left out to save typing):

New departures and continuity

Asia

Middle East – Rise of Islam

China

...

America

Maya – classical period

Atztec

Inca

Europe – Middle Ages

Renaissance

Globalization

From colonialisation to imperialism

Rise of Europe

Colonialisation

Reformation and counter-reformation

Industrial revolution

From Nationalism to imperialism

Asia

China – continuity

Japan - separation

...

Americas

Africa

Australia

Twentieth Century onward

...

--Cethegus (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As nobody opposed I start to change now. --Cethegus (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Still Africa and Australia missing, but most of the structure is there. Now, I think, I'll be less hectic and we can work at the text. --Cethegus (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a section on the development of the human species

That section probably needs proofreading, simplifying and creatiuon of a main article; this is is foloowing a comment that the image of the Australopitecus had an unfitting description.--Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-shortened the section, cutting out most of it,pending a discussion on what to include. Unlike of what I wrote, at least Neanderthals seem to have been capable of crafting artifacts; they may have had religion, they may have had some form of speech (or communication through sounds); there are first signs of ritual burial. Various tools, some ornamented have been found. I am just raising the question, should such things not be included? - After all, we know little about those people that crafted figurines like the Venus of Willendorf. Comments welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Development of human species isn't a genuine part of history, it's more about anthropology. As far as it belongs in this article it could be included in prehistory. - There are a lot of sections that are still too short or even missing and should be worked at instead, not to speak of missing notes and the remaining red links. Still missing or too short: Babylonians, Assyrians, ancient Persia, indigenous people in North America, muslim history before the Ottoman Empire (en:Rashidun Caliphate, en:Umayyad and en:Abbasid Caliphate) and a lot in the 20th century (Russian revolution, decolonization of India, China, Indonesia and Africa. China under Mao Zedong, rise of China since then. Not to speak of Migration Period, vikings, a decent length of the chapters to China, India and Japan. That does not mean that the article would be less complete than that of the en:WP, but it does mean that we need space for more of history and should not spend it on a subject that could easily be refered to by see also. Just my two cents. --Cethegus (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ice age?

Hello, the image showing the ice on the northern hemisphere (taken from ice-age, probbly) looks a bit amiss. Do we want to go into explaining that the climate on earth was not always as it is today; that there have been periods where it was warmer, and those where it was colder? --Eptalon (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: added small section (with links to main page, and ref. to the prehistory section; also put the stray image there. --Eptalon (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the only reason why I put in the pictures of Ice age and Neanderthal man was that I found it a bit boring for kiddies to look at such a long contents without any pictures. So I thought I could find pictures that would form a gallery on the right side that could serve as a sort of trailor for the article. When I put those two pictures in I asked you for others that might fit. I think with {{TOCright}} I have found a better solution now.- That chapter about Ice age might be integrated in prehistory somewhat better so that kiddies might not be mislead concerning that what the article is about, that means: history, not climate. But that is not urgent.

I have a problem with that chapter prehistory anyhow, because cave paintings are not something that is specific for that time. They occur also much later. And to speak of Stonehenge alone when you deal with megaliths seems somewhat eurocentristic. However, there is no urgent need to act. For the time being we can leave it like that.

My role at the moment I see in getting rid of red links and putting in some more notes. I've read Postwar in German, but now I have the chance to get a copy of the English version (that might lead to some notes for that period and some more text as well, I'm afraid). But overall, I think, I can be less hectic from now on as the article has a rather decent shape already. (I'm a little bit too involved in an other wiki and in real life at the moment to continue like I did last month.) --Cethegus (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Work done

I have added a section on Venus figurines, and I have also started to make articles for the Maya cities. On a side note: we do have an image of Palenque; so either we link it; and need to make an article for it, or we replace i, for example with one of Uxmal (where I have made a stub). Other than that stubbish articles on those maya cities would be welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before I was not happy with so much on cave paintings (and so little on Neolithic Revolution I may add). The same with the figurines for me. They should be mentioned in 1 or 2 sentences with a link to the article. There is still so much to be added in the following chapters, only to make sure that there are the most important links. --Cethegus (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section on the Neolithic revolution; the facts should now be consolidated again - Simplify as necessary, move most of the stuff into the Main article, only mention the bare necessities. Do we want to split the Section into a Paleolithic (figurines & paintings) and a Neolithic (the other two sections)?--Eptalon (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have split the section into a Paleolithic and Neolithic one, please undo if you do not feel confortable with it. --Eptalon (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Stonehenge

The construction time of 1000 years seems way off for this. Even given that construction was an ongoing procedure for much of its use, from the time the stones were set (2600-2400BC: variable references tend to set the overall construction around the mid to late 2500s BC plus or minus a century or so) until it was was no longer being used (about 1500BC) would mean it was in a constant state of construction. References can be found for the initial construction of the bluestones and a later batch of construction about 150 years later that replaced the bluestone with the current stones, but there does not seem to be any support of a continuous construction over the life of the site. -- Creol(talk) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

Great job getting this article up to speed! Keep up the good work! Cheers, Razorflame 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do need help; at the moment it is kinda hibernating... --Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh....I have another 7,315 or so more rivers to create :) Cheers, Razorflame 11:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat reminds me of Tehsils of Pakistan... ;) --Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it won't remind you of that because there are no water in the Tehsils :) Cheers, Razorflame 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To do list

It is now the second time this has been proposed for GA status, here is my opinion on what needs to happen:

• We need at last one reference per Section/subsection
• We need a lot more on the European Middle ages:
  • Migration period in Europe
  • The Huns / The Moors
  • Church matters are very important (in that context, mention the witch-crazes/witch hunts; extend the Crusades)
  • Absolutism (could also link ot Manorialism)
  • Printing press/Protestant reformation
  • The Age of Colonialism (do not limit this to the Americas, also mention the Dutch (ie. Africa, India, generally in Asia). The race for spices
  • Together with colonialism oculd mention the rise of antisemitic/nationalistic/racist ideas. Slavery (if not done earlier)
  • Industrialisation (with that, the new working poor; free people who had only their manual labour to give)

I think for this to become GA there is still a lot to be done; it owuld be great to have omre than 3 people working on this. --Eptalon (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a to do list for Middle Ages and I started to improve that article. IMHO it makes not much sense to write something down in World History that is not mentioned yet in the main articles World History refers to. --Cethegus (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't this article be titled World history? Razorflame 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I have come back to this article after about a year and find that it was promoted, despite the fact that it still has the same inappropriate name and many of the problems that I listed have not been fixed.

I strongly recommend that the article is given the name History of civilisation so that the first paragraph doesn't have to stuff aroubd telling us how the title is being used, now necessary, only because because it is being used inappropriately.

World History is a discipline. World History is the study of the history of the world. It is not the same thing as "the history of the world".

What I am saying here is that an article called "world history" ought not talk about civilisations ancient and modern. It should describe how they have been studied. An article called "world history" should describe the transmission of folk history through word of mouth, the early records of historical events, the writing down of oral histories such as those found in the Bible, the recording and studying of history by classical scholars, biographical histories written about famous people, the rewriting of history to suit particular points of view, how the recording of a major events such as a wars may differ depending on who is writing it, or who it is written to please, changing trends in history, such as the 20th century trend to study social history as well significant events, the various ways in which World history might be conceived, eg Political History, Economic History, Social History, Art History etc etc.

This article is not' about the study of the discipline of History. This article attempts to present a broad overview of the events that have shaped civilisation/s and the lives of humanity. It is "A History", not "History".

If you don't like "History of Civilisation" (in which the definite article is implied but not written) then I suggest "History of the World's people/s" or "History of Humankind".

I'm now going to take a look at some of the specifics. I notice at a glance that there are still three similar cave paintings, and two similar prehistoric Venus statues. What has happened to the Renaissance? I notice also that the Mayan civilisation which occupied a small area and had limited effect on the overall history of civilisation still has a dsiproportionate amount of space. Didn't anybody pay any attention to my previous comments?

A decision needs to be made over the rationalisation of images. Maps, if used, need to be large enough to be seen, and then they preclude almost everything else.

Amandajm (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. History of the world, which is used in the hatnote, would be a clearer title. This title should be for an article about the discipline. Although that topic may already exist under the title Universal history, enwiki presents "world history" and "universal history" as two different concepts. Osiris (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense!

They also gathered what they could find - wild berries and nuts. When all the food in one area ran out, people migrated (moved) to another area.

I wrote a lengthy comment on this (above), and no-one who writes or watches this article fixed it. I can't believe that you guys ignored this nonsense, patted yourselves on the back and promoted the article! They didn't live on wild berries and nuts. These things were then, what they are now, seasonal treats. They lived on grain, legumes, roots, leafy greens, fruit in season, small creatures, fish and, after a hunt, red meat. Grain, then as now, was the staple diet of most communities. Amandajm (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Amanda on this one! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Outline/Focus

This article is going in every direction right now. It talks about various topics. I suggest we narrow. Also, I suggest we outline the parts we want to make this article more organized; and be able to standarize headings and paragraph lengths

Example:

X: Europe, 1300-1700

A. Renaissance

1. In Italy

2. In France

3. In England

B. Reformation

C. Age of Exploration

D. Age of Absolutism

1. Charles V

2. Louis XIV

Just a thought Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Image used in the section The Aztecs

I hurriedly replaced an image with another one ([1]) because the former is clearly in Mayan style and seems less relevant to the Aztec civilization. See also this site and you will find that it is not referred to as Quetzalcoatl nor being related to the Aztecs at all.

I know also that the image which I provided is not so likely to meet the description the serpent-god Quetzalcoatl. So there are two ways, which may help us solve the problem:

1. To choose a more appropriate picture among the files in commons:Category:Quetzalcoatl.
2. To make the description more agreeing to what I provided.

Please note that what I made is just first aid, so feel free to talk over this topic! --Eryk Kij (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)