Talk:History of the world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 History of the world was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 7, 2008
Good article History of the world was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Inital spreadout

So primates appeared in west Africa, then evolved into Homo Sapiens over millions of years, and then and only then did they spread out? There were no migrations of Homo Habilis, Erectus, or hominids like Australopithecus?

[edit] 'Religion in the Opening'

I was very surprised to see not a single mention of RELIGION in the opening summation of HUMAN HISTORY. Surely even the most die hard atheist can appreciate the extremely integral role it has played in shaping us and our history. We should all know that the first book ever printed (an event which IS mentioned) was... a bible. Whether or not something is "real" will always be debated, and this article is not the proper place for such a debate. However, spirituality and the realm of the supernatural have always been near the core of what it means to be human, and its recognition CANNOT be ommitted from our history. - Lucas Davis, 5-21-07

[edit] 'Rise of Europe'

This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg Kenneth Pomeranz). For a short rticles on Wikipedia will tend to be pretty generic since its not possible to detail all the various POV's on somthing as large as World History. If you want to write about a particular author, you could create an article, like Fall of the Roman Empire, that lists multiple POVs on a particular theme. Or, write up the summary under the authors entry, or a book article. Just some thoughts. Stbalbach 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a question of this or that tool and who invented it. Rather it is generally agreed among scholars today that before the Industrial Revolution, China led Europe technologically. Even in shipping - and despite the overseas voyages by europeans - Chinese technology was more advanced (see here). It must be remembered that Chinese vessels almost reached Europe in the early 15th century, but these voyages were ultimately stalled by imperial conservatism (see Zheng He). The advantage Euorpe did have was its greater entreprenuerial spirit (which itself was driven by Europe's original backwardness). Gavin Menzies has even purpoted to show that the maps Columbus used were ultimately derived from maps made by Chinese navigators.
But my main point is more subtle: The Industrial Revolution did not occur in isolation. It was the endpoint of a long process of technological change which had continued for several centuries in the Eurasian continent (for the reasons for this see my user page). During most of this period, Europe was a backward and peripheral part of Eurasia. The 'Middle Ages' were not in technological decline in comparison with antiquity. And a decline in culture was an isolated European phenomenon. The Renaissance was really just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the world.
Once humanity reached a certain level of sophistication, the Industrial Revolution was bound to happen. That it occured in Europe is a surprise. It may be true that there were certain characteristics in European culture, as it had developed since the Rennaisance, that gave Europe an advantage. That would be similar to explaining why the Bay Area in California is a modern technological hub. But that is not claiming that California is generally more advanced than France. And to further pursue this analogy, the IT boom in Silicon Valley didn't spring out of nowhere. It could not of happened without the general level technology reached, in Europe and in the US, in the first half of the 20th century.
I appreciate that these articles have to be generic, as you say. But they also need to represent the emerging academic view on the subject. One of the great advantages of this online medium is that it can be up-to-date. RCSB 07:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Nothing youve said I disagree with. Jared Diamond as another example presents a theory why Europe came to dominance in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. There are various POVs on this. Certainly the article could better reflect current thinking. If we need to create a new article and link to it from here as a "See Main article.." that is possible also, in order to go into more detail. Stbalbach 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RCSB: How about you rewrite the section in a way that you feel would be more balanced? -- ran (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stbalbach and Ran: OK let's try it. To rewrite the article in the way I envision it would be a mammoth project. However, I think we can make some changes and additions and then later on, as you suggested, link to a wider main article. I hope to soon contribute to this. RCSB 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one responsible for most of this article. My own POV is geographic determinism, and I'm sure this article reflects that. I agree with you about the placement of the Crusades, the mention at the start implies some sort of causality with what follows, which is something that many, including myself, disagree with. It's been a couple years since I read Pomeranz, but I think his thesis that some parts of China, and perhaps India, were comprable to Western Europe as late as 1800 is a far cry from stating that Europe was "technologically backward even in the 18th century." Europe was well ahead of the vast majority of the world long before 1800. Pomeranz's view is also still far from the general consensus. I also wouldn't consider Gavin Menzies to be a useful source. I do agree that we should have a general article overviewing these various theories. Someone who is a big fan of Max Weber would, for instance, find this article even more lacking. - SimonP 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added three paragraphs which I think help to present a more balanced narrative. I have tried to steer a middle course between old-school eurocentrism and views such as those of Pomeranz. In future I think this seciton should be divided into two expanded sections: before 1750 and after 1750. RCSB 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

SimonP: I cannot agree with your latest edit (in which you overran some of my work). You write very well, but you have diluted the message I tried to present: domination of the seas does not necessarily mean a more advanced society. The Mongols dominated the Eurasian steppe, but were less advanced than the societies they conquered. The period in which Europe rose to become the leading world centre has continually been pushed forward by scholars. I notice you are keen on geographical determinism. So why not expand on Pomeranz? His thesis is quintessential geographic determinism. I do not agree with his explanations, but I do accept that the Euorpean economy was not ahead of China's before 1750. I added an important link on this matter which you have regrettably removed.

But the important message is this: World history has to be presented as global history. The Industrial Revolution is not a European phenomenon. It is a Eurasian one. The basis for the Industrial Revolution was a millennium of continuous technological advance, most of which occurred in China. It is not enough to remind readers that Europe was a peripheral region "during its Middle Ages". Rather, a balanced presentation would paint a picture of a millennium of Eurasian advance, during which China in the 12th century came very close to an industrial revolution of its own. Europe pressed forward during the 'Age of Discovery' not because it was more advanced but for precisely the opposite reason. It was in need of the superior products that the rest of Eurasia could offer. This is very reminiscent of the Mongol onslaught. But then began a process in which it could leverage its position in world trade in order to accumulate capital and wealth which enabled the Industrial Revolution. RCSB 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but asserting that the Industrial Revolution could have begun in China is counterfactual, and not good history. You also have to be careful with words like "advanced." The revisionist school of Pomeranz and the articles by Carol Shiue is focused on institutions, and is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony. They make a fairly strong case that European institutions were no more advanced than Asian ones. There has yet to be a strong case made that Europe wasn't scientifically and technologically ahead by 1700. Galileo and Newton had established modern physics, no other civilization had anything comprable to the caravel, the flintlock dates to the early 17th century, while the Newcomen steam engines dates from 1712. - SimonP 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"Occidental development had come ultimately from China, as did apparently, the idea of a civil service examination system, introduced in the eighteenth century. In such ways the Occident seems to have been the unconscious heir of the abortive industrial revolution of Sung China" Marshall G. S. Hodgson Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam and World History (Cambridge 1993), p.68.
I agree with you that the Pomeranz school "is mainly a rebuttal of an institutional structural explanation of European hegemony". I too find it hard to accept a simple geographical determinism explanation for the Industrial Revolution. In sum, here again is what I wrote in a previous revision of the article and which summarizes my position:
Outwardly the Renaissance was just a 'catching-up' of Europe with the rest of the Eurasian world. But it could also be argued that it engendered a culture of inquisitiveness which ultimately led to humanism, the Scientific Revolution and finally the great transformation of the Industrial Revolution. However, the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century did not have any impact on technology. Only in the second half of the 19th century were scientific advances beginning to be applied to practical inventions. The advantages Europe had developed by the middle of the 18th century were two: an entrepreneurial culture and the wealth generated by the Atlantic trade after the discovery of the Americas. But in 1750 productivity in the most developed regions of China was still on a par with that of the Atlantic countries in Europe. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you can claim that scientific advances of the Renaissance were not applied until the 19th century. One clear example is the discovery of projectile motion by Tartaglia and Galileo in the 16th century, which was immediately used to lob cannon balls with greater precision than ever before. As I mentioned earlier technologies like the caravel, flintlock, and steam engine were wholly new, and far superior to competing technologies, and were all in wide use long before the "second half of the 19th century." - SimonP 16:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

RCSB - can you please detail, in actionable terms, the reasons for the "totally disputed" tag? Such tags should not be abused, they are usually used when communications break down between editors, and should not be used to express a disagrement. Rather, editing of the article is the correct and first choice. There are multiple POV's on this subject, it is possible to present all those multiple POV's in a neutral, factual manner without the need for a disputed tag. Stbalbach 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be advantageous to have other editors join this discussion. But if that isn't happening then I agree the tag should be removed. RCSB 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I partially agree with RCSB. I study history in Leiden, the Netherlands and a teacher, Peer Vries, teaching Worldhistory has the opinion that Europe superceded China, India and Arabia because of the industrial revolution. For him the inventions leading to the steam engine in England in the 18th century are the most significant for the European advantage towards Asia. I don't agree with RCSB that Europe was searching for raw material in the other continents. Raw material was produced and distributed within Europe until the 19th century, when Russia, Argentina and the United States brought cheap agrarian products on the European market. All products shipped from outside of Europe were luxury, because substitues could be produced within Europe. The question should be: why did Portugal and Spain started maritime empires and why did the English invent the steam engine? Spanish and Portugeese explorers were looking for gold and christians and the Portugeese tried to destroy islam in the Indian Ocean. They brought back riches, like spices, silver and gold to Europe.
Typical to Europe is the military advantage towards non-European parts of the world. Peer Vries says that it can be explained by the continuous internal warfare within Europe. Europe can be compared with Southern India and South-East Asia in this light. The trace italien was invented to counter the modern cannons in the early 16th century. Military drill was introduced by prince Maurice of Orange during the Dutch struggle of survival. The whole development of weapons and tactics were done throughout the ages of continuous warfare which let to enormous victories in the outside world, like the battle of Plassey. I don't agree that Europe had a unique geography that didn't allow major empires. Take for example the Roman Empire. The Mongolians would have defeated the Europeans easily. The reason why they didn't were purely internally Mongolian and had nothing to do with the Western Europeans.
I have a new issue to adress. The Age of Kingdoms is an unfamiliar term to me. Kingdoms are known since 3000 BC and continue to be known until now. Why should the term middle ages, which is known throughout the world, be replaced by the term age of kingdoms? Maybe the term clash of civilizations could be used if you look at the enormous wars that have occured between China and Arabia and between Europe and Arabia and the clash between nomads from the steppes and the farmers and cities in other areas.--Daanschr 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The European evolution of institutions was an internal process. China had nothing to do with it. Roman law was very important, which was tought in universities grown out of monasteries. The people who studied on this universities helped as civil servants monarchs to modernize their states by introducing tax systems. Many institutions with a large amount of autonomy made a lot of innovations possible in the European governments. With these institutions i mean the knight order, the league of city states and small states, the parliament, constitutions. If the Chinese had institutional influence in Europe, where were the Europeans studying Chinese then to gain the knowledge.--Daanschr 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The nearly industrial revolution in China is very interresting (to me at least). I read in a book that there were many factories and a large amount of the population was working there living in cities. Capital Hangchow was the biggest city in the world with over a milion of inhabitants in the 13th century. There was a social problem adressed by writers who complained about the bad situation of the workers. Confucian philosophers were debating about individualism and a focus on life on earth without the concept of god. There was a relative equality between men and women. Punishment for crime was very low. there were many bars and restaurants. People went on day trips to an island in the neighbourhood of Hangchow which was specialized in tourism. I don't know if this information is correct since the book i read was from the 1970s and too much focused on undermining Europe to my opinion.--Daanschr 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Bravo! At last we're expanding this discussion. You have strengthened my claim that the narrative in this article does not represent the direction modern scholarly opinion is moving. You also add much interesting insight, like the origins of Europe's military advantage. One note though: I didn't claim that Europeans were in search of raw materials. I said to the contrary that they were in need of superior products from the major centres of Eurasia. That is why I compared European expansion with the Mongolian onslaught in the 13th century: The Mongols had a military advantage -- they had mastered the art of horseback warfare. But nobody claims they were more advanced than the civilisations they came to dominate. (I won't apologise for using the term 'advanced'). I view Europe's position vis-a-vis the great Eurasian centres of the 16th century in a similar vein.
I agree that 'Age of Kingdoms' is inappropriate. It sounds like a history of Tolkien's Middle Earth. RCSB 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I was too quick in reading the discussion. The products in the in the rest of Eurasia were not superior. They were merely different. Europe had all it needed. So for me the question remains: why did Portugal and Spain start maritime empires?

I don't agree that the European difference started with territorial expansion. The crusades can be compared with the Arab expansion throughout the centuries and with other great civilizations, like Tang China, the Mongolians etc. Typical for the Portugeese and the Spanish is that they were the first to explore the entire earth and establish lasting empires.--Daanschr 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a weblog dealing with the problem. I think it is useful in this discussion. I will try to find more information. [1]--Daanschr 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I followed a course on European expansion. It appeared that some Dutch people tried to help the king of Thailand to build up a modern navy. It was very hard to modernize. Many materials were (like ropes) had to come from afar. The enterprise was no succes. A good question is why other countries didn't take over the European advantages. The Portugeese dominated the Indian Ocean since 1500. Industrial revolution wasn't a succes in many parts of the world. Take present Africa for example.--Daanschr 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Previously you mentioned the European military advantage over southern India and South-East Asia and now you have brought the example of Thailand. I am not sure these are the right reference points. If centres like China were technologically more advanced than Europe in the 16th century, that is not claiming that Europe was backward compared with every area in the world. For example, Europe was definitely technologically more advanced than the stone-age civilisations of South America -- with devastating results for the latter. But unlike South America, China of course was not conquered. Neither was India at this stage, despite its internal weaknesses and fragmentation.

I meant that Southern India and South-East-Asia were more militant and had better military tactics then Northern India and China. The example of Thailand was about the difficulty for civilizations to take over eachothers advances.--Daanschr 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't other countries take over the European advantage? I think success breeds success. Once the processes of the Industrial Revolution set in, the pace of change became exponential. For a long period of time no other part of the globe had any chance in resisting Europe. Africa is altogether a very sorry matter. The disruption to what until very recently was in many parts a pre-agricultural society has been devastatingly vast.
I would like to recommend a book which has profoudly influenced me: Ponting, Clive World History: A New Perspective (London, 2000) RCSB 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Daanscher - You mention Africa as an example of where the industrial revolution failed. But that isn't because no one ever tried to industrialize the region. The reason actually has everything to do with European expansion. Taking a leaf from Jared Diamond, most of Africa was more or less isolated from the achievements made by the foreign world roughly after the fall of the Kings of Mali. Even before then, foreign advancements were never replicated in the African kingdoms, as was the case in the Eurasian countries. This meant that the people in Africa would be forever in a technological rut unless a major change took place. Unfortunately that change was as brutal as Imperialism came to be. But the reason that Africa has never properly undergone the Industrial Revolution is that it wasn’t fully colonized. The reason that Africa is (and this is a rather unfair but sadly realistic) such a horrid place is not because Imperialism came, but because it left too quickly. Had the European powers left their former colonies with at least a semblance of an infrastructure, and in the hands of able and trust worthy leaders, like in India, then the modern day countries likely have more of a future.

Europe was way ahead of the rest of the world long before the Industrial Revolution. Even back in 1200, there wasn't any Islamic mathematican to compare to Fibonaci. The scientific revolution of the 1600s past Islam by. In 1000, Europe was a backwater compared to Islam. By 1200, it had pulled ahead.
I would date the "rise of Europe" to around 700, at least in the sense that Europe was clearly making progress starting with Charles Martel, which had not been the case from, say, 150-700. If you think essay is too euro-centric, the solution is write something about your favorite part of the world. As it is, there is not nearly enough about any region -- including Europe. Kauffner 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
For me, Europe became worldwide dominant in the 19th century. Large parts of the world were still independant before 1800, like the Arab world, China and Africa. What should be explaned to my opinion is why Europe could conquer and dominate all others. Making a judgment about Europe in 1200, 300 years before the explorations and 700 years before complete worlddominance seems pointless to me. Europe is a small continent compared to Asia and Africa. China was technologically more advanced in 1200. Scientific and institutional modernization has occured in China, India and Arabia untill 1800. Europe was unique in the speed of modernization during the early modern and modern times.--Daanschr 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So even after the Age of Discovery in 16th century and scientific revolution of the 17th century, you think Chinese science was more advanced? Chinese science produced geegaws for the emperor's amusement. There was no Chinese Newton or Galileo (or even Fibonaci). Asia certainly weren't keeping up in the military field -- witness the Battle of Plassey (1757). The Chinese military was even more backward than the Indians were at Plassey.Kauffner 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that people interested in this topic read Andre Gundar Frank's recent book "Reorient". In this he suggests that on almost every measure of civilisation and technology China led the world at least until about 1780. The only reason why European powers were able to enter into the system of world trade with such long established players as the Muslim and Hindu-Buddhist worlds was because they had the huge advantage of American Gold and Bullion, with which they bought South East Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern and Chinese products that they would not have been able to afford otherwise. European manufactures were considered of inferior quality by these people until the 1780s. This supports the earlier views by Van Leur and Mealink Roelofs in South East Asian history who showed convincingly that on the whole, the period of Portuguese and Dutch maritime empires concerned only a tiny percentage of the maritime trade of South East Asia, which by far the most part was conducted by Arab and Malay middle men and Chinese traders. It has been suggested that the rise of Western Europe and in particular the Industrial Revolution could only occur with three interlocking factors - (1) the Triangular Trade of Guns to West Africa, Slaves to the Americas, and Slave Products back to Europe, (2) The British East India Company's destruction of the Indian Textile Industry (allowing inferior Lancashire Cotton to gain a market), and (3) The Opium Wars in China, which rendered that civilisation open to European manufactures and exporting of indentured labour to pay for its drug habit. It is a pity that so much of our history writing is still strongly Europo-centric. World Systems Theory is attempting to remedy this situation, but we still have a long way to go. Regards, John D. Croft 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of Globalisation/Westernisation

This section seems to be very biased towards a pro-globalisation, pro-western, pro-libertarian view. I'm about to remove the most obvious ones, the description of the LEague of Nations and UN as 'feeble', but I don't think I'm able to re-do the rest, it would probably require more knowledge than I have. - User:Dalta / 83.70.229.225 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Yes, much strangeness here.

"Socialists and American liberals believed (and continue to believe) that the society is, in large part, responsible for the behaviour of its citizens and that the society should be changed in order to make the world better. American Conservatives, European liberals, and all Libertarians believed (and continue to believe) in freedom and market forces and want individuals to take responsibility for themselves and hold that a society should guarantee freedom in order for individuals to develop fully. Christians, regardless of political ideology, believe that the individual's relation to their Church and/or God is the critical factor in a satisfactory life. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have religious concepts of their own."

Seems simply bizarre. It's political science, not history, for a start. It also states some strange things - surely every ideology claims to be in favour of "freedom". "Socialist" isn't even a well-defined term, as it can describe anyone from a Stalinist to a Prodhounist (Prodhounists favour an individualist market socialism). Tito implemented a collective market socialism with little individual freedom. The "other religions have..." statement isn't exactly suitable for an encyclopedia. My guess is that this was written by an American conservative Christian. Regardless, none of this has much to do with history.

"Today the welfare state is unpopular because it withholds economical progress due to inefficient investments."

The first part of this statement may be true wherever the writer happens to live. It isn't where I live (Scotland). The latter part is a political opinion, best reserved for full reasoned debate in the economics section of wikipedia.

"It [Communism] led to genocide and substantial poverty, and was widely viewed as unsuccessful. Soviet and Chinese leaders and intellectuals discovered that the 'western' style of production with self-responsibility led to continuing progress, while the communist societies were in a continuous economic depression, so they were forced to become capitalistic."

Is poor analysis showing little knowledge of history. Certainly there was genocide in Russia and China, but not to my knowledge in Yugoslavia, Cuba, Poland, or any of many other countries that were considered communist at one time or another. The USSR was not in continuous economic depression- it was a superpower, how do you get that way with 80 years of economic depression?!? I'm no Soviet expert, but their economy definitely grew until the 50s or 60s (obviously WW2 took them back a few steps). It was definitely in depression by the mid to late 80s and continued to be well into the 90s. China is not the same economically as it was under Mao, but it has also not adopted true American/Western European style capitalism either.

I'm quite new to editing wikipedia, so I don't want to just change this section too radically withot prior discussion. However, it seems to me that the best thing would be a ground-up rewrite. Much of the content of this section is badly written and the rest is innacurate or biased. I would suggest that some alternative structure needs to be found, instead of lumping so many disparate things (decolonisation, the fall of the USSR, globalisation, communist revoution, social democratic ideology) in one incoherent section. ADavidson 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the section. It was not written from a pro-globalization, pro-libertarian or christian conservative angle. In fact, i am an atheist socialist from the Netherlands. I tried to express how the world became a unity and what the dominant ideologies are today. This could very well change in time. One sentence has been deleted. The discussion about it is here on this talk page (Talk:History_of_the_world#Capitalism).
I agree with the bias accusation. I have tried to start some discussions about the content of this article and other articles. Problem is that Wikipedia has far too little editors who are willing to read many books on a subject before editing. I have never seen a debate about the contents of relevant books and how to come to a good article based upon those books. I agree that my edit was not good enough by far, but at least it was much better from where it started. When i read this article last year, i thought about leaving Wikipedia and never to return. Instead i tried to make this article less ridiculous. Since this is only a leisure activity, i didn't put much effort in the edit. At the moment i really don't care very much anymore. Wikipedia needs a serious change in its organization in order to come to have some quality.--Daanschr 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. In addition the lead section is too short. I would recommend that these be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Globalization and westernization"

This current final section of the article seems an excessively detailed discussion of philosophical concepts, grafted onto a brief outline of the history of the world. Perhaps the contents of "Globalization and westernization" could be developed as a separate article or merged with existing articles, and "History of the world" closed with "Ascendance through technology"? logologist|Talk 09:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed out this section. I trust that the essential contents will find homes in other venues. logologist|Talk 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History begins with the invention of writing

An editor has requested a source for this assertion in the lead. Encyclopedia Americana states: "[H]istory is the memory [of the past experience of mankind] as it has been preserved, largely in written records. In the usual sense, history is the product of historians' work in reconstructing the flow of events from the original written traces or 'sources' into a narrative account. The existence of written records distinguishes the historic era from prehistoric times, known only through the researches of archaeology." logologist|Talk 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is covered by the history article in the introductory discussion about history and prehistory. Please don't pretend that this issue is settled or that the current statement is satisfactory. —Viriditas | Talk 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The "History" lead presents essentially the same view as the "History of the world" lead: per the latter, "Human history, as opposed to prehistory, has in the past been said to begin with the invention... of writing..." This does not negate the valuable contributions of archeology and kindred sciences. logologist|Talk 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 1 created

I used the cut and paste procedure to make an archive of discussions older than August 2006 (ish). Xaxafrad 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more references

IMO, the lack of in-line references is the biggest obstacle between this article and a good/great/featured article. I guess the easiest solution would be to copy references from other articles. Xaxafrad 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The footnote 'system' is a joke, isn't it? Why can't we do it here the same way as elsewhere at Wikipedia? With such a complicated footnote system one can't seriously expect people to make contributions. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What footnote system? I've seen footnotes, references, see also, AND external links, all in one article. There's a system I'm thinking of, I would call it a reference system (because it automatically moves in-line citations to a section at the bottom called 'References'), and I don't think it's a joke. I'm not exactly sure how to use it, mostly because I don't add references (I do more copyediting than anything else), but I expect a wp:ref page might describe it briefly (I can see an 'attributable to a reliable source' link from here that might start the path to such a description). Xaxafrad 01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinocentrism?

I marked two assertion in "Background to European advance" as dubious as I find them pretty sweeping statements. Is there a scholarly consensus that China was the "most urbanized" and "technologically advanced country" of "Eurasia" then? I am not aware of that, unless one wants to portrait the opinion of a handful of World System authors plus a "Joseph Needham always ready to inflate Chinese achievements" (Quote Robert Finlay) as defining an international consensus of scholars here. In particular, I wonder what parameters underlie such a verdict and what empirical material on whole "Eurasia" has been collected to come to such a conclusion.

If sweeping comments like that were made in a European context, they would be rightly castigated "Eurocentrism", so I don't hope we are coming out of the frying pan into the fire. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is noted. I agree with you as well. Furthermore, this article seems to have heavly politically "liberal" statements and a general left wing view, especially at the last paragraph. 66.91.119.183 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AgreeD prime 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic Period

The line about the population bottleneck occurring is not widely accepted in the scientific community. I think the line should begin with 'It is contended that...' or 'It is theorized that...' or something like that. I don't have any original sources to support my claim, but these articles do support me- Toba catastrophe theory and Population bottleneck. --64.131.213.198 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro rewrite

Attempt to clean it up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_world&oldid=135404807'

Reversion by Nihil novi (talk · contribs) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_world&diff=135420102&oldid=135404807

[edit] Section intro begin

The history of the world is human history (as opposed to prehistory[1]) that is marked throughout the globe by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps — paradigm shifts, and revolutions — that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. After humans left the "Cradle of Humanity", humans had colonized nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe and developed in several regions various systems of writing and unique social systems.

World history, which examines history from a global perspective, looks to the invention of writing as the key component that gave rise to civilization, i.e., to permanent settled communities which fostered a growing diversity of trades.[2] This invention created the infrastructure for lasting, accurately transmitted memories and thus the capability for the diffusion and growth of knowledge.[2] There are various written accounts of languages developing. The early writing systems were not a sudden invention. They were rather based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing, so that they may be described as proto-writing. The independent invention of writing at several sites on Earth allow various regions to claim to be a cradle of civilization. The various writing styles, in turn, had been made necessary in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution.

The scattered habitations, centered about life-sustaining bodies of water — rivers and lakes — coalesced over time into ever larger units, in parallel with the evolution of ever more efficient means of transport. These processes of coalescence, spurred by rivalries and conflicts between adjacent communities, gave rise over millenia to ever larger states, and then to superstates (empires). The fall of the Roman Empire in Europe at the end of antiquity signalled the beginning of the Middle Ages.

In the mid-15th century, Johannes Gutenberg's invention of modern printing, employing movable type, revolutionized communication, helping end the Middle Ages and usher in modern times, the European Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. By the 18th century, the accumulation of knowledge and technology, especially in Europe, had reached a critical mass that sparked into existence the Industrial Revolution. Over the quarter-millennium since, knowledge, technology, commerce, and — concomitantly with these — war have accelerated at a geometric rate, creating the opportunities and perils that now confront the human communities that together inhabit a planet of scarce resources.

[edit] Section intro material end

J. D. Redding 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

J. D. Redding (Reddi)'s recent rewrites added 1,003 superfluous words to a previously spare and rather elegant article, without introducing a single useful idea.
The proposed lead rewrite, above, adds an excessively lengthy discussion of writing, best left to its own existing article, and gratuitous mention of "Cradle of Humanity," whose article is under consideration for deletion. Nihil novi 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you even look at the http://books.google.com/books?id=cboXAAAAIAAJ ... everything before writing is prehistoric (such as stated by the archaeological.org citation (http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10299#p)) ... the pre is done away with after writing starts ... history proper begins with writing ... this is seen in the cited book ... "they now had a history"
Do you have any historical training? Or is this just a opinion that you are putting in?
If you know about world history, and Cradle of Humanity is where man sprang from is a common term for the beginning of man (scientifically, it's Africa according to sources) ... eg., the start of man in the history of the world. The Cradle of Civilization, I suppose you would call that "gratuitous" too, begins with writing and the transmission of knowledge ...
In history, writing is vital in the development of society and history itself.
I think I am beginning to understand why ppl chuckle when I bring up WP. J. D. Redding 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What is your point? There's a whole pleiad of Wikipedia articles dealing with Prehistory. This article, while it gives (I think, not inappropriately) a synopsis of prehistory, is devoted to the History of the world. Nihil novi 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Internet, computers, telephones and mass media

The global communications network? Isn't this an important advance? Why is it not even mentioned? The ability of the world to mass-communicate... the fact that I can pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other side of the planet, instantaneously, has got to be worthy of mentioning in a history of the world. It's changed the world forever and has arguably led to globalisation, which is mentioned. 212.139.167.196 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] this article to put it simply is PREPOSTEROUS

the preposterous amount of links on the page it is not funny, it's hard to read for average readers.

1: get rid of country name links and other pointless links, wikipedia has a search field on every page.
2: the grammar on the pages are in some cases worse then mine (no insult intended)
3: just needs some cleaning up.

("?") Markthemac 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, especially in the suggestion that this article is hard to read for 'average readers'. I found it quite legible and very informative. In addition, the number of links is quite right, really. Just Another Fat Guy 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Nihil novi 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


i don't mean the content i mean the layout, it's not working. Markthemac 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be retitled

This article should be called History of Human Existence or History of Humans or something like that. To be so biased as to say that only history concerning human beings is relevant to the history of the world is simply rude. We violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia should hold by starting the History of the World at any time other than when the world was first formed. The world was around before we were and it could be around a lot longer. If we really are going to have a History of the World article than it needs to cover the histories of geology, animals, humans, and everything concerning what happens on the earth. I sincerely hope that we can not just say "Oh, oops, this basically means the history of human existence" in the beginning and say that works for the article to be something other than what it is. If we go by the reasoning of "History starts with writing" then we should take out everything up to a few thousand B.C. being that it is conjectural.--76.23.84.86 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I really must thank whomever put the disambiguation stuff at the top I still think that this article should be retitled as its title is inaccurate. The proper name would be something like Human History or History of Human Existence. --76.23.84.86 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an article History of Earth, which I guess should be called Prehistory of the planet Earth, though there is a section linking to this article. 91.153.63.5 10:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the anonymous poster. Just because animals won't be reading this doesn't mean we shouldn't correct the bias. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That we should not be "biased" by not considering animals on par with humans in historical emphasis is simply silly, and completely goes outside the practical purposes of being neutral and unbiased.D prime 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitions and semantics... history means (to me) RECORDED events, which would (to me) necessarily indicate human events(animals don't record anything). Also "the world" indicates (to me) the realm of human experience (which differs from "the earth", the physical rock/dirt/water sphere humans, animals, and plants all inhabit)... meaning that (again... TO ME) "history of the world" is an entirely appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Even if someone was confused about the semantics involved, the introduction quickly and simply explains what this page is about, and where to go if you were more interested, for instance, in the geological life of the planet. Macduffman (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geometric increase in war?

I placed a {{fact}} tag on the intro's claim that ".... war ... increasing at a geometric rate".

From the War article, we read that "The Human Security Report 2005 has documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s." So if there ever was a geometric increase, it seems to have been broken. Unless someone has documentation, I suggest we delete war from the intro. --Alvestrand 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 20th century

Although the second half of this section seems good, the first half (about politics, basically) badly needed a rewrite and some addition. I did it, but it may not be up to snuff. I tried to provide an unbiased, balanced interpretation, but with something so broad and eventful there will certainly be other ones. Also, it needs some more addition - for instance, on the rise of East Asia, the turmoil in West Asia after the Osmanlis' downfall, and maybe some short blurbs on the progress of individual nations, at least the pivotal ones (Germany, America, Japan, the USSR, India, China, Israel). I also think more needs to be said on postcolonial Africa and Asia and Latin America during this era, but I'm no expert there. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to show a World War II map instead of a World War I one? WWII was more important, after all, and involved more of the world. Brutannica 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not both? Maybe also one showing NATO and the Warsaw Pact? Nihil novi 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent history rewrite

I pulled a lot of questionable content from recent history, and reworded much of the remainder to be more concise and neutral.

The development of states had always taken impetus from hope of gain and fear of loss. The sense of national identity had always been forged in conflicts with outsiders who were perceived as a threat.
Sentence one paraphrases concepts of Utilitarian philosophy, 200 years old. Not much originality there.
Sentence two: It is commonly acknowledged that a prime means of creating or controling a polity is to point to a (real or contrived) common external threat.

This is unreferenced and may be original. If not, it would be an interesting claim to add somewhere. It does not seem like a good introduction to the formation of the EU, since that implies causality, and that's an even stronger unreferenced claim which is potentially controversial or original.

It does not seem unreasonable to surmise that the European Union was formed in order to enhance the common weal, reduce economic and other losses, and increase the common security vis-a-vis the superpowers of the time.
The same period, however, raised prospects of an end to human history, precipitated by unmanaged global hazards: international conflicts prompted by the dwindling of resources, fast-spreading epidemics such as HIV, supervolcano eruptions, and the passage of near-earth asteroids and comets.

These threats are not new, and do not need to be sensationalized in this way.

True, they are not new, but the awareness of some of them is (e.g., supervolcano eruptions; threats from asteroids, comets and gamma-ray bursts; Earth's eventual loss of its captive Moon). And while humans may prove helpless against some or all of these, it may nevertheless be constructive to be aware of them; indeed, projects are currently underway to identify, and perhaps in the future to ward off, potentially hazardous asteroids and comets.
As the 20th century closed and the 21st opened, an increasingly interdependent world faced common hazards that could be averted only by common effort. Some scientists referred to this as a shift to a Planetary Phase of Civilization. It more and more seemed that the world must either perish or survive as a whole. This was brought home on October 30, 2006, by the Stern Review, warning of the threat of global warming and rapid climate change. In the historic escalation of human perils, localized internecine and international conflicts began to be edged out as a focus of dread by common threats to all mankind — by mankind's global conflict with the natural environment.

This seems to dwell excessively on global warming. The "Planetary Phase of Civilization" is a concept from a single working group, and a single global warming report does not really merit mentioning at the level of world history. The last sentence is overly broad and dramatic.

The Stern Report could be dropped, and the paragraph toned down.
The global threats posed by environmental degradation and by the exhaustion of material and energy resources were not the first "matergetic crisis" that the world had faced. One of many earlier ones had been triggered by Britain's deforestation to supply charcoal needed for the production of iron, and had led to the invention of coking by the Abraham Darbys, father and son, which helped spark the 18th-century Industrial Revolution. Similarly, as the 20th century yielded to the 21st, the world seemed again to be lodged at a historic bottleneck which might be opened up by new technological innovations — including research into fusion power (ITER), and greatly increased exploitation of solar-based renewable resources in the form of wind, tides, hydroelectric power and direct solar energy (e.g., photovoltaics).

This is interesting and all, but the first half does not take place in the 20th Century, and so it doesn't seem to belong in that section. The second half seems to be speculative.

The paragraph draws an analogy between a fairly well documented developing energy-resources and environmental-degradation technological bottleneck and a previous bottleneck, three centuries ago (described in the Scientific American Biosphere book), which was ultimately turned from a serious challenge to an opportunity. Past is prolog.

-- Beland 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All in all, a nice job of streamlining. But I wonder whether too much of the drama has not been thrown out together with some of the purple prose. Nihil novi 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

There is confusion between History of Earth and this article. If the present article is only about human societies in history, the title should reflect that. Why not move this to History of Humans or Human History? --Antonio.sierra 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, English-speakers find little or no confusion between "History of the world" and "History of Earth." The former relates to the human world, the latter to the physical planet. In any case, a reader who stumbles on the wrong article will find a note at the top, referring him to the right one. Nihil novi 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic Period: Toba catastrophe

This paragraph said the eruption had global effects, "killing off as many as 59 million people". However, I couldn't find this figure of 59 million anywhere else. I have no idea where it comes from. It's an absurdly high number because no earlier than 1000 BCE did the human population reach 50 million souls. I replaced this obviously erroneous figure with the reliable information that can be found in the Toba catastrophe theory article. Zonder 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

I think that 9/11 should be mentioned in thae article as it was a major event in world history. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest adding? Corleonebrother (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, considering all that is involved in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, 9/11 is a rather insignificant event. Guttenberg's printing press, the two World Wars, and The Internet are major events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEIGHT

this being the article on the "history of the world", the 20th century is given much too much weight. Also, the ToC organisation is questionable: it begins with classical periodization, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, but then breaks off and turns into a topical list. You would expect it to continue along the lines of Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern period and finally sections on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, partly because the article would probably lose some of its Eurocentricity in the process. I mean, there's a section called 'Rise of Europe' but barely anything about the recent impressive economic rise of South-East Asia... In any case, the reorganisation you propose would definitely be an improvement but it entails a major rewrite. Zonder (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with your first concern... let me know if you think I've gone far enough or too far. The article does need a rewrite, although that many divisions is unnecessary and I don't think we should keep a strict chronology as it limits flow. It just needs a bit of reorganising and renaming of section titles. As a starter, Rise of Europe should be merged with Age of Discovery, removing all the opinions about why or how Europe "rose" - just state what happened, and leave why for another article. I'll do it unless somebody beats me to it... Corleonebrother (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review (transcluded from Talk:History of the world/GA1)

I am quick failing the article because a cleanup banner has been in place since September 2007. Please address the concern (lack of references) before renominating the article. Everything in the article should be attributed to a reliable source. As present, almost nothing is sourced. Please note that references should also be properly and consistently formatted (with, at minimum, a title, publisher, url, and accessdate). See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template.

Because this is a quick fail, this is not a thorough review, and other problems may exist in the article. I recommend placing it for Wikipedia:Peer review when you are considering nominating the article again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)