Talk:Recorded history

message: This article should either be moved to Recorded history (which currently redirects to Ancient history or merged into Ancient history.--Confuzion 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll do that, thank you. Ben Tibbetts 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I changed IV to 4 in regards to certain persons' inabilities to read roman numerals. Was there any specific reason it was IV to begin with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.170.172 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Numerals 

message: I am not sure why there is a list of languages attached to this article.  This article is not about languages and an undifferentiated list like this imparts no information.  
To confuse matters further, the list contains entries such as Devanāgarī which developed in the last 1000 years, and "Aztec" (which links to the Nahuatl language!) who developed their so-called writing system even later.  In fact, all the Mesoamerican writing systems were rather late entries, the earliest being dated to something like 600 BC.  
So, I have decided to be bold and delete the list.  MapMaster (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of languages is useless

message: None of the Indian writers listed are historians. Kalidasa, for instance, was a great poet and dramatist, but no one in his right mind would describe him as an historian. Vātsyāyana is the author of the Kama Sutra. Vyasa was the collector of the Vedas, and Valmiki the author of the Ramayana. If these writers are historians, then so are Sophocles, Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, and Apollodorus. To assert that these two writers are historians is in effect to assert the historical truth of Hindu mythology, and would be analogous to listing Moses as a great biologist on the strength of the opening verses of Genesis. This strikes me as a bit of Hindutva POV. 
An argument could maybe be made for Chanakya, but he is really a political scientist, not a historian. The same can be said of Sun Tzu. On the other hand, Sima Qian and Herodotus should be given equal billing as the founders of the historical tradition in East Asia and Europe, respectively. Manetho is only an "important" historian in that his "history" of Egypt is all we had for centuries (until the decipherments of hieroglyphic and cuneiform).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.139.140 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Historians 

message: I find it kind of annoying that searching "Human History" redirects to this article (Recorded History), while searching "Human history" (notice the lower case 'h' on "history") redirects to History of the World. Since the History of the World article is much more comprehensive than "Recorded History" (this article) I think it makes more sense that both "Human History" and "Human history" redirect to "History of the World". Two virtually identical article titles should not redirect to different articles, it's highly annoying, at least in my opinion. LiamSP (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying Redirects 

message: Last paragraph that starts with the words "Primary sources..." needs to be clarified. As it stands now, it's not clear what kind of classification this is, and how and in what specific areas the sources are classified this way. cherkash (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying classification of sources (primary/secondary/etc.) 

message: "Although valuable, these accounts can be biased..." This is self-evident. All truth claims are biased - including every single historical account ever. Perhaps what is meant is that there is a conflict of interest that hindered them from recording history absolutely accurately? Or that somehow the bias of these writings is simply significantly incorrect? Or that some particular modern historians disagree with some things they say? Or something else?  Gott wisst (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is question has now been improved, thanks to the user Sadads. Gottistgut (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased? Yes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Recorded history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050212093611/http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml to http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050212093611/http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml to http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Recorded history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703015116/http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources to http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828123138/http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/tutorials/nursing/glossary.html to http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/tutorials/nursing/glossary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: How can the Zuo Zhuan be the earliest narrative history in the world if it is believed to have been written in the 4th century BC, as stated on its Wikipedia page? The Greek historians were writing since at least the 5th century. (67.243.135.180 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: It is unclear from the article how recorded history differs from history generally, as history "is the past as it is described in written documents". Can this be clarified please? Or should this article perhaps be merged into History? Nurg (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between recorded history and history generally