Talk:History

Size of the page

Congrats for the article, folks! One suggestion: the Citations section appears in one column for me and I think this is making the page too long. Perhaps making it a double or even three column would make it more friendly for desktop users. LuanSP (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It is shown for me in two columns, but this may depend on your display device. I set the column width explicitly to 30em now, which is the same value used for the sources section below to ensure consistency. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you for an advise .I am a university student studying science of which i like history. ~2026-35631-98 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"Etymology of "history"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Etymology of "history" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 13 § Etymology of "history" until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

importance of history

helps to understand our past uncovers physical remains of our past life ~2026-35631-98 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Distinction recorded history vs. prehistory & archaeology right at the start

Hi Phlsph7. I was of course aware that somewhere far down in the 3rd lead paragraph the topic comes up, hidden toward the end of that paragraph: and while being very much aware of that, I added this into the first paragraph:

Its field of study can be broadly divided into recorded history, i.e. the time after the apparition of writing, and prehistory, which preceded it and is mainly the domain of archaeology.

I still am convinced that it's needed in this form. I arrived here after struggling with fellow editors who seem to be having a hard time distinguishing between archaeological and historical periods, see Talk:List of time periods#Clearer distinction between "archaeological periods" and "historical periods". I arrived here after noticing a deep confusion, checked on the "mother article", and had to conclude that it's not really helpful. Only prominent, concise points do stick, especially in the lead; the rest drowns in the masses of text and doesn't get noticed.

For someone who knows what they're looking for, it's a different story. But I'm talking here of notable, but counterintuitive matters, which lead to deep-seated confusions, which then have consequences in lots of places. Those need a stronger approach. Arminden (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Arminden and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. There are many ways how history can be divided and they should be covered in a balanced manner, as they are currently in the 3rd paragraph. Picking out one specific subdivision and putting it right into the 2nd sentence distorts this balance by overemphasizing one specific division. Another difficulty with your sentence is that treating recorded history and prehistory as equal parts distorts their relative weight. Traditionally, historians were almost exclusively concerned with recorded history. The study of the non-recorded past by historians (rather than by other fields) is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm sure that confusions about various aspects of history lead people to this article, not just this specific difficulty. Wikipedia articles are usually written to reflect reliable sources rather than as attempts to anticipate possible reader confusions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We certainly agree on the principles, but this is A. a matter that showed up in actual work on Wiki, so by no means just an attempt at avoiding a theoretical problem, and B. history in places like the Palestine region I'm usually dealing with is to a huge degree based on archaeology.

It is a clear fact that archaeology plays a major role, and often more so than written sources, all the way until the present day. I went into more detail on the other talk-page. Material findings can be more reliable than chronicles or histories, which are by necessity biased and mostly lacking in comprehensive information. The problem with archaeology is the need for the interpretation of the findings, but its reliability varies from 0 to 100% and it's getting closer to an exact science year by year.

I am absolutely sure this distinction deserves a clearer treatment and a more prominent position than that offered right now: As I just noticed, archaeology has no single mention in the lead! It only gets a very questionable mention in the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd section, "Definition". Really not OK. Here it is:

History has been primarily concerned with written documents. It focused on recorded history since the invention of writing, leaving prehistory to other fields, such as archaeology. Its scope broadened in the 20th century as historians became interested in the human past before the invention of writing.

We're living in the 21st century, and past aspects of historiography, which is the primary angle in this paragraph, are the domain of interest of much fewer people than, say, ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, biblical archaeology (horribile dictu), pre-Columbian and African civilisations, where archaeology plays a huge role in supplementing written sources or replacing them altogether; even much more recent events in Western history are only properly documented through battlefield archaeology. And there is more, just think WWII: Katyn Forest or Nazi concentration camp digs.

So no, I'm not at all satisfied with the current solution, and it's an objective downside of this article, not just some subjective idea of mine. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a mention of archaeology in the lede would probably be good, but the academic sources I have looked through treat it as a separate yet heavily related field. This might very well change as archaeology becomes more incorporated, and would probably result in the concept of 'prehistory' falling out of favor. I don't think that's where the academic community stands at the moment.. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with both Phlsph7 and Generalissima here, specifically that:

• Traditionally, historians were almost exclusively concerned with recorded history. The study of the non-recorded past by historians (rather than by other fields) is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would add that, even today, most people who primarily study the non-recorded past would not be considered historians, or consider themselves historians. Certain works of history might incorporate insights from archaeology, but that's no different from pointing out that they also often include material that could be considered e.g. art history, theology or economics.
• As Generalissima notes, we're certainly not (yet?) at the point where archaeology and history are considered the same thing (in fact, if anything the distinction has widened over the last century), and certainly not at the point where there is meaningful academic rejection of the term "prehistory" as distinct from "history".

Generalissima's suggestion looks good to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I found a way to mention archaeology in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Back to my main point, connected to my main field of interest, the ancient Near East:

• Archaeology has played a huge part in writing the history of all literate civilisations, throughout the time AFTER the introduction of writing. Think material remains informing us on diet, cults, society, think figurative Minoan or Greek art, but think also inscribed artifacts from Mesopotamia (cuneiform tablets and royal cylinders), Egypt (documents, inscriptions on temples), Greece & the Hellenistic world, the Roman Empire and so on. It's been impossible to take archaeology out of historiography for many centuries by now, both in regard to non-inscribed artifacts and to inscribed ones (epigraphy, papyri etc.) unearthed in both pre-modern, and scientific archaeological digs.
• Recent times: think Katyn massacre, where forensic exhumations solved the fundamental dilemma and incriminated the Soviets, or more recent full-blown archaeological excavations which helped find and identify victims of violence, including the Srebrenica massacre and the October 7 massacre. There are plenty of such examples. But you can go back to any period in between, see the Renaissance-period rush for classical remains, Pompeii and Herculaneum being discovered in the 18th-century, the discovery of Nero's Domus Aurea and what it entailed, or King Richard III, found in 2012, no to speak of the hopes pinned on deciphering the carbonised books from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, which connects digs with written sources through modern lab science.
• What this or that school of historians admits or not is irrelevant. Written sources are frought with errors, either intentional or not, and hard material facts help put things right. Everywhere and regarding any epoch. Literacy never, ever covered the entire society, nor did it ever guarantee any degree of objectivity in the way texts were written, from military or even economic reports to attempts at chronicling historical events. Not after the Battle of Kadesh (13th c. BCE), and not in the Soviet Union (20th c.). Archaeology is a major means in helping us get the facts right.
• A user who comes here to understand whether the term "history" does or does not include prehistory, must be given an answer right from the very start. You cannot have an article without a strong definition of the topic at hand, and the WHEN question, i.e.: when do we start speaking of human history? is fundamental. You cannot fumble with that. You can list the divergent opinions, but first mention the basic current approach. And I cannot see how that one can disentangle modern history-writing from the use of non-written testimony, gained through archaeological means. The possible squeamishness of some ivory tower scholars is of no import.

Arminden (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"we're not at the point where archaeology and history are considered the same thing"

Because they are different categories! Archaeology is a means of getting at historical data and thus helping with writing history. That's the whole point here, as it is anywhere else in a work of reference: get the definition right - What, When, Where, How. At the very least, the When and How easily and necessarily implicate archaeology. Arminden (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Now we have the word 'archaeology' mentioned as the very last word of a verbous 4-paragraph-long intro. Doesn't even come close to the significance of archaeology in modern history research. Arminden (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Scope of the article: “History” as the human past vs. “History” as an academic discipline

I’d like to raise a question about the current scope of this article.

Over time, the page seems to have shifted from covering history as the human past (the broad, general‑reader meaning of the term) toward covering history as an academic discipline (historiography, methodology, professional practice, etc.).

Both topics are valid, but they are not identical, and I’m not sure the present structure reflects the balance expected for a general‑title article like History.Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, broad topics are usually expected to:

summarize the general concept then fork specialized material into subarticles (e.g., Historiography, History (discipline), Historical method)

Right now, the article reads primarily as a discipline‑focused overview, with less emphasis on “history” in the everyday sense (the human past, collective memory, narrative, periodization, etc.).

Question for other editors: Should this article explicitly cover both meanings — the general concept and the academic field — with clearer structure and summary‑style balance?

I’m not proposing any specific rewrite yet; I’d just like to establish whether there is consensus on the intended scope before making any edits.

Thanks to anyone willing to weigh in. J. D. Redding 17:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We have Human history for the former of those, so it would be redundant to focus too much on it here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I’m not proposing a complete narrative of human events here — that indeed largely belongs in Human history.

My point is that the discipline of History requires a clear structural framework: method, historiography, subfields, and epistemology. These elements were previously part of the article and are now largely absent.

Restoring that disciplinary architecture wouldn’t duplicate Human history; it would clarify what the field of history is and how it operates as an academic and methodological domain. J. D. Redding 17:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of scope

The term history has two major, well‑established meanings:

(1) the human past itself, and

(2) the academic discipline that studies that past.

The current article focuses primarily on the discipline, while giving relatively little attention to the general concept of “the past,” collective memory, narrative, and the broader cultural meaning of history.

I’m not suggesting that History duplicate Human history, which is a narrative subarticle. Rather, I’m suggesting that the general article should summarize both major senses of the term, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and then fork specialized material to subarticles such as Historiography, Historical method, and Human history.

Before proposing any structural changes, I’d like to confirm whether other editors agree that the article should explicitly cover both meanings of “history” and reflect that dual scope in its organization. J. D. Redding 18:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The article already follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and has separate sections for the points you mentioned, including an overview of the past and different subfields, see the sections "By period", "By geographic location", "Methods", and "Historiography". The section "Definition" clarifies different meanings of the term. I agree with Generalissima that we should avoid duplicating the material of the article Human history. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

As a historian, the idea of "the human past" is far too vague for my liking. If you're simply referring to a strict "here's what happened and when" definition, that seems to me to be more in the vein of a chronicle, which has its own page. I would need far more information on what a section or two regarding your first definition would look like. Why don't you create a test page and show us what you mean. Vyselink (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw a fight once between an archeologist and a historian when the historian asserted they studied "the human past" in general. The main argument was that anything in the domain of "Prehistory" was outside the scope of historians. It was fun to watch, but I agree, the human past is too vague. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)