Talk:Human history/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Periodization

Aside from the pre-history, the article seems to be structured around a periodization scheme which is simply the traditional three eras used for Western civilization (Ancient-Medieval-Modern). The term "late modern" isn't actually used by historians so I'm assuming it's been added purely out of editorial convenience.

When I checked two of the major sources focused specifically on world history, like The Cambridge World History or The Oxford Handbook of World History, they don't seem to use the Europe-focused traditional three eras to all of history. And I'd be surprised if they did since it would be blatantly Euro-centric.

So how did we wind up with this situation? Why has this article decided on a rigid Western-style periodization rather than something more nuanced that matched what's used in serious historical research? Peter ^Isotalo 08:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Isotalo and thanks for raising this concern. In response to this edit tagging the term "late modern period" as original research, I had a short at the sources. I found the following high-quality sources that use this term:

• Hanson, Paul (11 September 2019). "French Revolution". In Dixon, C. Scott; Kümin, Beat (eds.). Interpreting Early Modern Europe. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-49737-3.: ... there is a tendency ... to look backward into the early modern era, or ... to look forward into the late modern era ... The year 1789 marks a dividing point - it is both the end of an era and the beginning of another
• Ridgway, Peter (28 November 2022). "Toward a Periodization of Indian Ocean Maritime History". In Esler, Joshua; Fielding, Mark (eds.). Indian Ocean Imaginings: People, Time, and Space. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-6669-2217-2. : Indian Ocean in World History Schemes ... Early Modern Era 1450 to 1770 ... Late Modern Era 1750 to Present ...
• Hawas, May (19 April 2018). "Marian Malowist's World History and its Application to World Literature". The Routledge Companion to World Literature and World History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-41464-3.: For [Malowist], all nation-state divisions are artificial or at least related to the late modern era in world history. Nation-states and countries dated back more or less only to the nineteenth century, and some only to the twentieth century.
• Osterhammel, Jürgen (15 September 2015). The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century. Princeton University Press. p. xvii. ISBN 978-0-691-16980-4.

This is probably enough to show that it is not original research. However, the fact that this term is used by some high-quality sources is not sufficient to name a main section after it, especially since various sources do not use the term. An alternative would be to rename the section to "Modern period". This is roughly the periodization used in Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (IV. The Early Modern Period, 1500–1800; V. The Modern Period, 1789–1914). However, distinguishing the early modern period from the modern is unintuitive. An alternative would be use the name "Long nineteenth century to present".

There is no established periodization and many high-quality sources use their scheme. This problem is discussed in the section "Academic research". For a high-quality with a periodization similar to ours, see Stearn's The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are engaging in cherry-picking here. None of the sources actually use the term "late modern period" but rather specify a late stage as it exists in all historical periods or concepts of chronology. If you look up virtually any article, book or chapter about periodization and modernity, they don't use the term "late modern period". This concept is mostly just a Wikipedia-generated neologism and based on a misunderstanding of periodization and the concept of modernity.

There's been an extensive discussion about this over at talk:late modern period and the article has been redirected because it's simply a Wikipedia-generated neologism.

Regarding the choice of periodization, you're not really addressing my core concern here: other than convenience, what's the reason for choosing a single periodization scheme for all of human history? That's not a scheme that some of your main sources actually use. Peter ^Isotalo 08:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources actually use the term "late modern period" but rather specify a late stage as it exists in all historical periods or concepts of chronology.

I'm confused by what the distinction would be here, if you'll humor me. Remsense诉 08:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Late" is a pretty common adjective used when describing time. It is frequently applied to certain periods. Some of these are established and recognized sub-divisions of historical periods, like the Late Middle Ages. Others, like late Sengoku period, are more like ad hoc constructions used in descriptive prose, like the examples above. One of them isn't even about modernity in general but specifically "Indian Ocean Maritime History".

If the term "late modern period" was actually a thing among historians, it would cover a period in time that is likely the most thoroughly researched and intensely discussed in the field of historical research. That would generate hundreds of thousands of hits, including thousands of titles of academic articles, books, conferences, courses, professorships and entire institutions. Peter ^Isotalo 09:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: How do you think we should periodize the article? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should look at what periodizations world history-focused sources are using.

If they aren't in agreement, you need to figure out how to describe many different perspectives rather than just picking one that seems convenient and familiar. Peter ^Isotalo 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems they were doing that. Does it really seem plausible to you that there would be a canonical periodization used by a majority here? Sometimes we have to write an encyclopedia article and structure it differently because all our sources are books or multi-volume works. Not all source material boils down the same way. Remsense诉 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, if sources don't agree on something, we need to try to describe those differing perspectives.

As a short, specific example, the first "Oceania" heading cites sources that cover some of the following periods:

• McNiven (in Benjamin) is writing in a volume specified as being 1200 BC-900 AD and actually goes back all of 50,000 years in some cases.
• Bulliet covers the dawn of history until 1550 AD
• Burley covers 2850-150 BP
• Kirch & Green covers 3200 BC-1800 AD

None of them in any way fit the structure used in the article and none of the conclusions from those sources seem to have been included in the article. Peter ^Isotalo 14:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've seen "late modern" used, if rarely−though usually to refer to a range roughly like 1750–1914, i.e. what we associate with aesthetic modernism.

There are two broad options I can see beyond a fresh coat of paint: top-level structuring by theme or region rather than by era, or figuring out a periodization that's more acceptable? By the by, from what I remember The Cambridge World History doesn't use these labels per se, but it really does not reject them either: its volumes very roughly divide history into sections pre-500, 500–1500, and 1500–present. Remsense诉 08:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think using date ranges is a bad idea. Even if they're functionally the same, it renders them more objective and avoids region-specific terminology like medieval. Another option would be to follow the prehistory section and assign 'thematic' labels to each division (though the roughly 3000 years between the first agricultural societies and the first ancient civilisations seems to have been misplaced in the current scheme there). – Joe (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If we want to use thematic labels, a good starting point is Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks' A Concise History of the World, she uses the same periodization we do but with descriptive era names. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To aid the discussion, since this has come up before, here are the schemes used by some recent works in world history.

Work	Scheme
Cambridge World History	Introducing World History, to 10,000 BCE A World with Agriculture, 12,000 BCE–500 CE Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 BCE–1200 CE A World with States, Empires and Networks 1200 BCE–900 CE Expanding Webs of Exchange and Conflict, 500CE–1500CE The Construction of a Global World, 1400–1800 CE Production, Destruction and Connection, 1750–Present
New Oxford World History Incomplete, but there is a list of planned titles in the back of each volume.	The World From 4000 to 1000 BCE The World From 1000 BCE to 300/500 CE The World From 300 to 1000 CE The World From 1000 to 1500 The World From 1450 to 1700 CE The World in the Eighteenth Century The World in the Nineteenth Century The World in the Twentieth Century
Peter N. Stearns, World Past to World Present: A Sketch of Global History	Early Civilizations The Classical Period World History from 600 to 1200 The Mongol Period 1200–1450 The Early Modern Period 1450–1750 Imperialism and Globalization before 1914 Regional Patterns and Comparisons in the Long 19th Century Global Developments 1914–1945 A More Global World 1945–2000
J. R. McNeill and William H. McNeill, The Human Web: A Bird's-eye View of World History	The human apprenticeship Shifting of Food Production, 11,000 – 3,000 years ago Webs and civilizations in the old world, 3500 B.C.E. – 200 C.E. The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America, 200-1000 C.E. Thickening Webs: 1000-1500 Spinning the Worldwide Web, 1450-1800 Breaking Old Chains, Tightening the New Web, 1750–1914 Strains on the Web the World Since 1890
Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, A Concise History of the World	Foraging and farming families (to 3000 BCE) Cities and classical societies 3000 BCE–500 CE Expanding networks of interaction 500 CE–1500 CE A new world of connections 1500 CE–1800 CE Industrialization imperialism and inequality 1800 CE–2015 CE

As for "late modern period", I'm fine with changing it to "modern period". --Cerebellum (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to where periodization issues been discussed before? I don't want to rehash previous points unnecessarily. Peter ^Isotalo 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of what Piotrus said in his pre-GA feedback: I wonder if Chinese or Japanese histories (for example, considering major non-Western developed cultures and historiographies) use the same periodization? From what I know, they do not for their own history, but I am not sure what they do for the world history. Overview of what is mentioned at ja:世界の歴史 or zh:世界歷史 would be quite interesting and likely valuable, although it is a task more for FA level then GA level. But it is something we should do one day, I think. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Very briefly, from all I have ever read Chinese historiography is structured exclusively on the successive dynastic cycles integral to the Chinese state. There is no other metanarrative to speak of, not even in the context of major transformations in the relationship between China and the outside world, e.g. the late antiquity introduction of Buddhism from India, the brief incorporation of China into the Eurasia-spanning Mongol Empire, or the period of Ming exploration and global diplomacy.

So that's probably a no. Remsense诉 15:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I've heard about this, and something similar in Japanese historiography. But playing my own devil's advocate: the question is whether we are not conflating this with national historiography. See pl:Periodyzacja historii Polski (my article that I have yet to tl to en). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

China essentially invented nationalist historiography. Much of Europe only got it going in the 19th and 20th centuries Remsense诉 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Thanks for this overview table, this is quite helpful.

Generally speaking, there are different ways of dividing human history into periods. All the major sources that I'm aware of use a periodization. I'm not sure how one would present human history in a reasonable format without it due to the lack of organization. If one wanted to use not one but several parallel periodizations, there would be a lot of overlap between the different presentations for each periodization. If someone could provide high-quality sources that follow one of these approaches, we could consider them. If we use a periodization, we have to decide the points where one period ends and the next one starts. This should follow sources on world history, not sources on local histories. To my mind, the points chosen in our article make sense and reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history. We also have the section "Academic research", which covers this topic and explains different perspectives, making the reader aware that there are alternative approaches.

By the way, I implemented the earlier suggestion to use the term "modern period" instead of "late modern period". Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that periodization is necessary and no one has questioned its relevance. Some sort of logical article structure is also necessary. That hasn't been questioned either. The problem is the choice of just one single periodization scheme to all of recorded human history. There's clearly no scholarly consensus for that so we need to stop pretending like Wikipedia should make one up.

Going from my example regarding "Oceania", that section does not appear to "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The comments on long-term social structure development provided by McNiven[1] have been left out while more specific details have been included. The specific details have been lifted from region-specific sources rather than works on world history, so their inclusion seems to have been made by individual Wikipedians.

From what I can tell, every single section in the article consists of a unique combination of sources referenced one sentence at a time, sometimes even just a few words at a time. That's strongly indicative of individual Wikipedians having chosen a very specific set of facts they think are important without regard to the context of the sources they've used. Peter ^Isotalo 18:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus that our article should use periodization and should make the reader aware of alternative periodizations. I think it does both.

I'm not sure what to make of your criticism that the article uses "one single periodization". All the books listed in the table above seem to do that, so at least we are in good company. If you could provide an example of a reliable source on world history that uses several alternative periodizations to structure its main outline instead of one single periodization, it might be easier to understand what alternative you are proposing.

I'll have a look at McNiven to see how the long-term social structure development can be included in regard to Oceania. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how you could write a single article (or book) that uses multiple periodisations in parallel without totally decohering. The only way I can see to do so here would be to treat each region wholly separately, which would defeat the purpose of having an article on human history in the first place, and make it redundant to History of Europe, History of Oceania, etc. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The article really just uses a single periodization scheme for all of recorded history: the traditional Eurocentric ancient-medieval-modern scheme. None of the sources listed in the table actually use this scheme. Some sources might still use it, but it's still a matter of WP:UNDUE to just flat-out ignore the others and relegate them to the "academic" section.

Your question about "several alternative periodizations" doesn't really make sense to me. At least one of your major sources (The Cambridge World History) employs and discusses multiple periodizations in the regional chapters. You have abundant examples of many different global periodizations, so why would you be asking me for more evidence?

The point regarding the Oceania section was not that info specifically about social structure was missing. It was meant as an example of how the article completely disregards the perspective of its own sources. The Oceania section was just one minor example of systemic problem throughout the article. You can see the same pattern in sections like "medieval" Africa and "post-classical" America. In the America section, the very first cited source (Begun & Brashler, "The Americas" in Benjamim 2015[2]) focuses mostly on 1200 BCE-900 AD and very clearly describes general overview periodizations for North, Meso- and South America respectively. None of this is reflected or even mentioned in the article.

If we look at a more general example, the introductory sentence to "Post-classical history" is not representative of the cited sources either:

• Benjamin and Wiesner-Hanks (p. 348)[3] explains that China, India and the Maya have classical and post-classical periods, but not that they are literally the same period as the Mediterranean region. The cited chapter itself isn't about the world as a whole either.
• Christian (p. 102)[4] has a chapter called "A Periodization of World History as a Whole" that doesn't correspond to any classical period.
• Stearns (p. 33)[5] is the only source that seems to argue a global post-classical period (500-1450 CE), but also uses a different dating for the classical period (1000 BCE-600 CE).

None of these look like they "reflect points chosen by high-quality sources on world history". The pattern throughout the article seems very consistent: various events are mentioned in chronological order under arbitrarily chosen headings.

I don't see that these problems are really fixable one example at a time. The whole article needs to be restructured and rewritten from the ground up. From what I can see, the following issues need to be resolved before the article gets out of the rut its currently stuck in:

• Start the article with a proper definition of the article topic, including the state of research. It should be defined the way historians define the topic, not what a bunch of Wikipedians think it should be.
• Let go of the current structure and focus on identifying a structure that is more useful than just a single chronological timeline, otherwise, this is really nothing but a kind of timeline of world history in prose form.
• Sources need to be limited to works that are explicitly about the article topic: world history or various forms of "megahistory". Works that are not about vast timespans or large regions should not be used. Sources like Rael (2009), Ning (2023) and Blier (2012), Barro (2015), are way too specific to be worthy of inclusion (these are just examples).
• Stop pulling out snippets of history from various sources and sprinkle them across the article. You can't pick-and-mix your way to a coherent, high-quality article.

Everyone needs to start taking periodization a lot more seriously and stop treating it as just some subjective layout issue. Whether something belongs in a historical period is something that needs to be determined by a source, not by individual Wikipedians. Just the fact that this article has had a pure neologism like "late modern period" is a sign that of clearly substandard, uncritical and subjective use of sources. Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in and make some edits :) The article can always be improved. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really a "make some edits"-problem here. The article structure is hopelessly biased and trying to polish it will just further justify the bias. It would be like adding info to an article about fish that included marine mammals and plesiosaurs in its core structure simply because enough editors thought it convenient and logical to include "all swimmy-type sea creatures".

As a starting point, are you prepared to collaborate in a serious attempt at restructuring the article and move away from a one-size-fits-all-regions periodization scheme? Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't really understand what structure you are proposing. But I like your passion and ambitious vision for the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing we do a seriously deep dive into determining the most common periodizations applied to the discipline of world history, which is the discipline that this article falls under. A very good place to start is Cajani 2013. The thing to look for are statements like this one:

During the second half of the twentieth century, world history research has experienced an extraordinary development. Three main periodization paradigms have emerged.

Cajani explains the three main paradigms as "the productive relation between humans and nature", "[r]eligion and culture" and "relations among civilizations or societies". That's an overview of three different perspectives of world history which could be used to construct a more scientifically accurate description of the topic: one timeline for each focused on these three paradigms.

This is a structure that could absolutely be applied assuming it's something that there's some sort of scholarly consensus around. We need to look at more overviews of world history historiography and see what they say about it. Are there patterns we can follow without just making purely arbitrary choices? Peter ^Isotalo 13:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I get what you are saying now. Sounds like quite the intellectual adventure that I don't want to embark on right now, but I support you if you want to rewrite the article accordingly. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you just want to discuss these paradigms as paradigms, you could do that at World history (field). But it seems you are suggesting that our article here uses three timelines to tell human history three times, once for each paradigm (one main section per paradigm?). Is that correct? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like putting far too much weight on the field of world history, which despite the name is a still a very niche and (ironically) US-centric discipline. This article is about human history and the vast majority of historians of humanity do not work within a 'world history' framework. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7, I'm pointing out a core aspect of research in the field that this article is positioned in. I've pointed out that Cajani 2013 summarizes the use of periodization within the academic field that this article falls under. That's not merely a comment on the discipline itself works but specifically about how periodization is applied. The article is clearly choosing its own path in this matter and that's very obviously WP:UNDUE.

Structuring history thematically is neither problematic nor controversial. All sorts of sources do it all the time, and so does Wikipedia, especially for more complex historical topics. So I don't really understand the pushback here. The only argument in favor of the single-timeline structure seems to be editorial inertia.

So what I'm suggesting right now isn't immediately rewriting the whole article, but to try to look through sources for a consensus regarding the periodization issue. Are you interested in collaborating in that regard? Peter ^Isotalo 09:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are actually getting surprisingly little 'pushback' considering you are making some quite strong criticisms of an article that everyone else agrees is at a GA level. What I mostly see here is people trying, and struggling, to understand how your very broad broad critiques could translate into actual changes to the article. So I'd echo Cerebellum and say that what would be most useful now is for you to either make changes to the article or propose a new structure for discussion here. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The intention of my last comment was not to push back but to get you to clarify your proposal. Apologies for the confusion. I have various concerns about your proposal and your criticisms but, before diving into them, it might be better to first clarify what your alternative suggestion actually is. Concerning the amount of pushback you have received so far, Joe's comment hits the nail on the head. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To scour sources similar to Cajani to glean some sort of scholarly consensus regarding periodizations to replace the one you use right now.

That's the starting point at least. My bullet list above is the further steps I think are necessary.

But there's no point on working further on the article before we deal with the periodization. Peter ^Isotalo 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If we want to scour sources, we should try to answer 2 questions: (1) how many periodizations and (2) which one(s). From my point of view, the how-many question is simple to answer: all the main sources pick one so we should too, see the overview table above. I presume you disagree since this would exclude your multi-periodization proposal. The which-one question is more complicated, since each of the main sources picks different periods. I think our best bet here is to pick the periods that are most standard and most well-known. I guess these are roughly the ones we picked. Eras like ancient history and post-classical history are well-known. Eras like "Webs and civilizations in the old world" and "The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America", as used in the source McNeill & McNeill 2003, are not well known. Just as an example, ancient history and post-classical history have their own Wikipedia articles but Webs and civilizations in the old world and The Growth of Webs in The Old World and America don't. Given the great variety of periodizations, there is some wiggle room for us. This means that there may be different ways to structure the contents that are acceptable. Our current periodization is just one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any way forward here if you've already decided that a single-periodization approach is the only relevant structural solution for this article. In your own words, that a POV and isn't an appropriate way to approach neutrality.

If you're not willing to even explore the idea of multiple periodizations, you're effectively shutting down discussion. Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion was to look at the sources. In my last comment, I reviewed the sources in the overview table above and shared my interpretation. I know that you have a different perspective but I don't know how we can reach a common understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to simply acknowledge the necessity of a more complex article structure, just like you were perfectly fine with over at history of philosophy. And that's "only" the history of philosophy rather than the entirety of the human past.

If you choose a single perspective from sources that are providing multiple perspectives, and some even summarizing some of them into paradigms, what's your justification for simply allowing a single perspective? How is that not giving something undue weight? Peter ^Isotalo 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the picture we get from the scholarship poses unique challenges. We are in disagreement about how to deal with it. One of our differences seems to lie in the importance we give to periodization. As I see it, for the purpose of this article, periodization is needed to structure the contents but is not at the center: the article is about human history, not about periodizations in world history. If picking a single periodization was biased in principle, then all our main sources would be biased. I find that conclusion, and in turn the argument it is based on, troubling.

I would be more favorable to your proposal if there were main sources that implemented it. However, I don't think any have been mentioned so far. Cajani 2013 is a source about periodizations in world history. Strictly speaking, it belongs to historiography rather than history. It compares different periodizations, but it does not do what you are proposing to do with this article. Without any sources implementing something like your proposal, the proposal sounds like an exciting intellectual experiment and I would be curious to see how it would play out. However, I'm not sure that an intellectual experiment should be carried out on a Wikipedia article. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to understand your editorial position here, are you opposing any structure other than a single timeline based on just a single periodization? Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the sources and arguments presented so far favor a single-periodization approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe we have an unresolved content dispute. I've added a tag to the article and have requested a third opinion. Peter ^Isotalo 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

Thank you for those failed verification tags Peter. This is a good test of the verifiability of the article. I'm happy to provide quotes for all tagged citations but maybe we can start with #372, so I can understand where you are coming from.

Article text: The early modern period, spanning from 1500 to 1800, was characterized by...the rise of centralized bureaucratic states.

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

Could you help me understand what is wrong this citation? Cerebellum (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was creating a new section about this but then forgot to actually post it. The issue with #372 (Bentley, Subrahmanyam & Wiesner-Hanks (2015) p. 449) is that the periodization doesn't match with the start of the sentence. I just tried another round at checking citations, this time it's under the "Americas" sub-heading of "Early modern period" and it's almost as bad as the introduction.

Besides all page citations pointing to nonsense, what's with all those largely random refs with quotes? The quotes seem to serve any purpose other than to highlight a very specific part of a cited source. It's almost as if the quotes are used as a way to argue that the citation is relevant. That serves no relevant purpose.

And these quotes are kinda clear that they're just mentioning specific facts in passing, like with Wheeler (1971), not that they actually focus on the statement they're supposed to be supporting. Wheeler (1971) is a pretty old source about a narrow aspect of Russian-US relations. Why is it being cited in article about world history?

I think you guys are seriously overestimating the quality of the article. I have plenty more examples of just plain weirdness in choice of both facts and references, especially how a lot of sentences have been cut down and edited in a way that makes them kinda incoherent. And then someone has come along and slapped citations on them to make them look verifiable. It's like the article has been written largely without any proper interplay between content and sources. Peter ^Isotalo 02:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For the discussion here, it might be better to precisely respond to the specific concern raised about the maintenance tag you added instead of lashing out at all kinds of potential problems you see with the article. Reference 372 is used for the phrase "the rise of centralized bureaucratic states". This seems to be a good summary of what the source says. In this context, I'm not sure that there is a serious problem with the fact that the timeframe in the source is slightly wider than the one in our article, given that the section where the phrase occurs is about the latter timeframe and confirmed by the earlier sources. The claim itself seems uncontroversial and more sources could be added but I don't think this is necessary.

Having a short look right at your next maintenance tag of reference 374 for our sentence on the Great Divergence, I have similar concerns. The source clearly introduces the discussion of the thesis on the ‘great divergence’ and its question regarding the extent to which European prosperity was caused by unique and superior institutions or colonialism. Again, the sentence itself about this debate seems uncontroversial and more sources could be added but I don't think this is necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see where a lot of the perceived problems came from: I misread a lot of instances of citations to parts 1 and 2 of the various volumes. It's a lot harder to follow the citations to individually-authored chapters in major anthologies. It did seem a bit extreme, but I honestly didn't catch my initial error. Sorry about that.

I just want to stress that taken in isolation, most statements in the sections under the "Early modern period" intro and the "Americas" that I looked through are pretty basic and uncontroversial. It's just that they are what I've described: mostly a huge pile of facts with little or no cohesiveness to them. And everything is peppered with some rather idiosyncratic use of sources.

Regarding my "lashing out", you seem to getting my points fine, like with 372. In this case, you're making the mistake of glossing over the problems inherent in the article's treatment of periodization. At some point in the distant past, you seem to have collectively decided that the early modern period is canonically 1500-1800 and when I try to point out that your own sources don't follow that pattern, you dismiss the variation as trivial. You're not going to solve this simply by chopping up the content even further and citing each deviation from the source material separately; you need to start treating paragraphs as cohesive units instead of micromanaging individual sentences. Peter ^Isotalo 11:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing some of the misguided maintenance tags you added. I suggest that we focus on the individual maintenance tags rather than re-introduce and repeat the unproductive discussion on the alternative-periodizations-proposal.

You first tagged a reference to Bentley, Subrahmanyam & Wiesner-Hanks 2015a, p. 277 and later removed the reference without explanation or replacement. Why?

You added various "better source needed" tags to indicate insufficiently reliable sources. You added this tag to a university press book, a book by Cengage Learning, and a JSTOR journal article. Why do you question the reputation of these sources? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the p. 277 reference, I just merged it with the exact same citation at the end of the sentence. Here's[6] where it was added and there's really no logic to repeating it.

I've pointed out why it's inappropriate to use a non-world history, somewhat dated source like Wheeler 1971 in an article on world history. Black 2004 isn't dated but it's the same problem: it's not a world history source.

I've tagged Bulliet because it's a basic introductory textbook. That means it's a slightly more advanced schoolbook. If it's the only source available, it makes sense, but the article is swimming in high-quality world history literature.

Regarding my periodization proposal, I replied to a direction request from you about it above, but you haven't replied. I think you should. Peter ^Isotalo 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Are these source concerns based on the GA/FA criteria? Do the criteria say you cannot use textbooks, or books from an adjacent historical discipline? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a GAN or FAC. Why are you bringing that up? Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

True, I should rephrase: what Wikipedia policy says we cannot use textbooks, or books from an adjacent historical discipline? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The same rule that says we shouldn't stuff beans up our noses; not all contingencies are covered by explicit rules. I've specified why it's inappropriate above. Peter ^Isotalo 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So it is just your opinion. Since WP:RS explicitly says we can use textbooks. Feel free to swap out sources if you would like, but I hope you'll understand if I don't feel compelled to do so. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cerebellum that these sources fulfill the basic requirements. For example, from WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. It's possible that there are better sources and I don't know whether they would fulfill the FA requirements of high-quality reliable sources. But we are just talking here about the basic requirements of reliable vs not. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggestion that world history (field) should be the only or main field we look to for sourcing for this article. It isn't "about world history", it's about human history. And as the lead says, this is understood through history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics and various other academic disciplines. World history is just one current within one of those fields, and not a very popular one; even its proponents acknowledge that it is virtually unknown outside of the peculiar context of the United States educational system (pg. XV). We need to be giving due weight to as many approaches to human history as possible, in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I live in Sweden and have been around the historic academic community for quite a while. Never heard anyone complain of world/global history being only relevant to US students. Some of the most significant sources used in this article are written by non-Americans. You are gravely misinformed.

As for the scope of the article, you're confusing history with its application. We're not going to summarize "as many approaches to human history as possible", because that's not how historians actually write history.

There is no separate discipline called "human history" that is somehow separate from the scope both of this article and history. Peter ^Isotalo 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I live in a place and talk to some people too. What's your point?

We're not historians writing history; we're encyclopaedists summarising what historians have written about history. To do that we must try to reflect all significant views on the topic (not discipline, who said anything about that?) of human history. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"Summarising what historians have written about history" is pretty much the definition of world history. What you're suggesting is original research. Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:OR: original research means material ... for which no reliable, published source exists. It's hard to see how Joe's suggestion to summarize sources or reflect significant views on the topic would be original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Isotalo, you presumably read my criticism of "world history" in the GA review above, but I would direct your attention there again, especially (for what Joe is getting at) chapter 10 of Conrad 2018. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I did and replied to it with a question.[7]

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

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

I think you should attempt to answer the question:

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

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

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

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

No, it's not. You have a theory that I and others are perpetuating a systemic campaign to distort and manipulate the writings of academic historians. To further this theory, you are purposefully misreading and misunderstanding every reply to you. As a result, productive discussion is impossible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Time spans for early modern and modern periods

The article currently assigns a span of 1500-1800/1800-present to the modern eras, but that's not really in line with any of the sources cited. These time spans aren't wildly inaccurate, but they imply there's a more or less canonical timeframe, especially for the early modern period.

Repeating the 1500-1800 timespan is not in line with current scholarship. A recent standard work like What is Early Modern History? doesn't at any point assign the 1500-1800 span as some sort of default, but makes very clear that it varies depending on perspective. The variation is considerable, as early as 1300 and as late as 1850. That variation needs to be accounted for in the article, not just glossed over to make it more convenient to sort information.

Even more importantly, historians never try to claim that historical periods are defined as "events that happened between year X and year Y", but with distinguishing features. We should explain this instead instead of dumbing it down. Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point. I see two good ways to account for variation: use terms like "approximately" to not imply that the dates are exact and use footnotes to explain in more detail. I adjusted some formulations to do that and I used the source you mentioned in an explanatory footnote. I also updated our reference to Bentley & Ziegler (the early modern era of world history, approximately 1500 to 1800 C.E.) and added a reference to Stearns 2001 (IV. The Early Modern Period, 1500–1800). I think the part about distinguishing features is discussed in the section "Academic research". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What's your justification for keeping the 1500-1800 span as the default date and characterizing any deviation as "disputed"? By using this language, the article implies that there is widespread agreement that the early modern is defined as 1500-1800 (with or without "approximate" doesn't really change the meaning much). But most of the sources cited, including those dedicated explicitly to defining the period as such, use differing time spans.

Can you provide sources to back up a scholarly consensus regarding this? Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Our earlier version said that "The exact dates are disputed", not that only the other time spans are disputed. I think it didn't imply that there is widespread agreement. Having approximate time spans can be helpful for the reader to orient themselves.

Your recent edits, replacing approximate time spans with prose, are a different way to address the problem. If we want to use that approach, I suggest we keep the prose short (for example, by focusing on the most common start and end points) and move the additional material (periodizations in literary studies, uncommon time spans like starting 1300) to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disputed" is not an appropriate way of explaining a range of interpretations. Neither is placing it in a footnote. The variation is in itself central to the topic.

I don't agree at all with your approach here. Major points of scholarship are how we explaining events; the latter shouldn't be presented as "actual" history while the former is just a bonus. If we move core definitions of historical periods to "additional material" we'll be treating it as obscure theory and methodology when it's actually necessary to actually understanding the topic. And clearly, we need to be much clearer that historical periods aren't "events between year X and Y".

The article right now is dominated by events without context, which is not representative of what historical research actually looks like. Professional history isn't just a big pile of facts assembled without a predictable, transparent method.

The article needs to focus more on explaining conclusions, explaining context, summarizing multiple perspectives (without simply downplaying some) and highlighting historical processes of change. Peter ^Isotalo 09:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess one of our disagreements concerns the importance of periodizations for this article. Roughly speaking, I would say that the article should give an account of events of world historic importance show how they are connected. There are different ways to do that. As I remarked to you earlier, I personally think that it might be better to structure the early modern section according to themes rather than regions. This could help shift the focus on connections, so there may be some overlap with your ideas here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Per this edit,[8] I don't think you're actually interested in facilitating other views than your own. You're trying to make overly exact statements that aren't actually supported by the sources we've both cited. At the same time, you want to tone down the lack of exactness of dates by hiding it away in a note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If one wanted to use not one but several parallel periodizations, there would be a lot of overlap between the different presentations for each periodization. If someone could provide high-quality sources that follow one of these approaches, we could consider them.
• If you could provide an example of a reliable source on world history that uses several alternative periodizations to structure its main outline instead of one single periodization, it might be easier to understand what alternative you are proposing.
• I would be more favorable to your proposal if there were main sources that implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic research section

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

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

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

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

Changes to the section "Modern period"

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

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

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

Phlsph7, thanks for raising the above questions.

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

Perhaps Stalin could be left where he now is.

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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