Human history 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 collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Incorporating the epic contribution by User:Hadseys
Hello everyone!
User:Hadseys made an epic contribution to the article, but I reverted it because it was too long. The current article is 90KB (which maybe should be brought down to about 50KB) and their contribution was 800KB.
Judging solely from a quick skim of his content, there seems to be a lot of good stuff there, which could possibly be merged into the article (once it is properly sourced, of course).
It would greatly be appreciated if some of the editors of this article could look over User:Hadseys's contribution and incorporate as much as possible into the article, so all the hard work does not go to waste.
The absence of sourcing makes me believe that it is all OR, in the sense that the WEIGHT is entirely made up, that it does not follow the preponderance of scholarly opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the contribution being original research, but I think that we should assume good faith and help identify what sources were used. Given that the article concerns history of the world, the contribution made by User:Hadseys would not be a primary source but would be based upon or influenced by other sources. If we can work with User:Hadseys to identify the influencing sources, the large effort made might not be lost and an active editor of Wikipedia might not be discouraged from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Heard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose someone could write it into the introduction or even create a section pertaining to such a subject. Maybe something like, "Study of History." It could have a summary on the nuances and characteristics of historical analysis, terms, etc. It would probably also need to have a "main article" link to somewhere like World history. It is well known, though, that history is often at least somewhat biased with the writings of the "victors." Hence the African proverb, "Until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter." InvaderCito (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and beyond"
Saddhiyama asserts that the edit made from 24.7.59.158 is premature. I disagree. Humanity has been to the moon. Our history is not limited to Earth. I propose to restore the edit, or otherwise reword the lead to say that this is the history of mankind in all places. Ibadibam (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern history of mankind?
I think this article has a strange name. The article doesn't have much to do with the history of the world, only the humans living in the world. It also skips over the vast majority of human history (fire, tool use, migration from Africa, ice ages, interaction with neanderthals etc etc etc), and goes straight to the "culturally important" bits (Antiquity, Rome, WWII etc). As it stands, a better name would be "Modern history of the western world". If the article was expanded in geographic and cultural scope, maybe it could be "Modern history of mankind". If it were also expanded to deal with a much much longer time (on the order of a million years), it might be "History of mankind". As for "History of the world" (or even "of the Earth"), that's really too much to cram into one article, so let's not go there. 46.194.35.104 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article has a bizarre title, although I assume it is based on popular consensus (just as the term guinea pig is based on popular consensus, rather than any factual connection of the animal to any place called Guinea). The history of the world quite literally implies the "history of the Earth" (which obviously has its own, separate article). Seems like "History of humanity" or "humankind" would seem more appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about "History of Humankind"? Wouldn't that be appropriate linguistically and technically? I agree that it would be better if this article was renamed, even if it's not a major issue. I also find that, even if "History of Humankind" begs for a counterpart, is that really necessary anyway? And if that's necessary, what's wrong with creating those articles? I would also agree, in regards to the starting comment, that this article sufficiently covers most if not all of cultural and geographical mankind (at the very least as a start). InvaderCito (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that the word "world" has multiple meanings, one of which is that of the human population inhabiting planet Earth. Thus, the U.S. publication, U.S. News & World Report, deals with news concerning the United States and the rest of Earth's human population. Earth as a planet is not one of this publication's concerns.
It seems that despite the African, Southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern subsections, the Middle Ages section still focuses a bit too much on the Western world (or at this age, specificallly Europe). The section makes little mention of Chinese changes, a major country in history. The sections on the Middle East, the Americas, and Southeast Asia should be expanded further. Finally, compounding this issue is the fact that the "main article" leads to the Middle Ages page, which focuses almost entirely on Europe. I recommend the main article is changed to the Postclassical Era for a more global perspective (despite the article's current shortcomings). Cito (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality
I've noticed that this page has the belief of evolution in it. I'm not sure all religions would agree with this. I don't know if there is a way to write this page without using a specific belief, but I do know that Wikipedia would like all pages to be entirely neutral. If you can do anything about this, please do. If I'm wrong, please explain. Thanks, 174.57.143.188 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21[reply]
