Talk:Civilization/Archive 4

Comments left at top of page
The use of the term "technical" seems vague, jargony and illiterate. It should be replaced, perhaps by the term "literal".

Article could be more cohesive.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 22:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman Definition
the romans defined civilisation in the narrower sense of the term. Civilized means city dweller, so why should non city dwelling people be considered civiliZed? it is only in the spririt of political correctness that civilisation became ambiguous in the first place. the pains indians were not civilized before the white man came. this is not racist, its the fact. bushmen were nt civilized, as they do not dwell in cities and why do you care so much about a petty spelling disagreement. --69.110.235.225 03:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia.  I noticed your edits on Civilization and (I assume) your Space civilization effort as well.  IP numbers make it difficult to track who is creating articles and making edits.  That is one of the reasons signing in as a User is a good idea.


 * Re. your comment above. Since both of the words ("civilization" and "barbarian") are rooted in history, they should be discussed and defined from many points of view.   I think a discussion of the Roman definition of the word "civilization" would be an excellent addition to the article.  Why don't you write up a paragraph?


 * If your spelling concern is about Space civilization vs Space Civilization, established Wiki guidelines state that only the first word in an article's name should be capitalized if the entire title is not a proper noun. So, the correction is not directed at you, but in standardizing the article format.  Admin's and other editors go around tweeking article titles and formats all the time.  Hope to see more of your work.    WBardwin 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fertile Crescent includes Egypt
The Fertile Crescent includes Egypt. --Brunnock 15:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so bro.Cameron Nedland 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read Fertile Crescent. --Sean Brunnock 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry dude, shows what i know.Cameron Nedland 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not put this map and the discussion of the Fertile Crescent in the article at the site of Early Civilisations? John D. Croft 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians on Silk Road?
What evidence is there for Egyptians on the Silk Road. The Egyptians used lapis lazuli from Badakhstan in Afghanistan, traded by intermediaries, probably through Byblos. There s no evidence of Egyptians along the Silk Road to my knwledge. This needs to be corrected.John D. Croft 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive
A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale
Added the Kardashev scale in the See More section, an official measuring scale of any civilization, although it hints toward the futurist side.

Hyperbole in the Indian Civilization section, where are the sources?
From article: "The Indus Valley Civilization boasts the earliest known accounts of urban planning. As seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and (recently discovered) Rakhigarhi, their urban planning included the world's first urban sanitation systems. Evidence suggests efficient municipal governments. Streets were laid out in perfect grid patterns comparable to modern New York. Houses were protected from noise, odors and thieves. The sewage and drainage systems developed and used in cities throughout the Indus Valley were far more advanced than that of contemporary urban sites in Mesopotamia and Egypt and also more advanced than that of any other Bronze Age or even Iron Age civilization."


 * "more advanced than that of any other Bronze Age or even Iron Age civilization"? What are the sources?  Is there actual comparison of urban planning in different civilizations in these sources? or is this original research?   Also, I didn't know New York City was laid out in "perfect grid patterns," certainly not Manhattan.  If sources are not provided, I will consider editing this section. 68.252.250.228 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay
I've removed the below para from the --India-- section, which seems to describe the so-called "Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay" as if it were generally accepted that these are genuine man-made structures:
 * In December 2000, ruins were found in the Gulf of Cambay, off the western coast of India. Materials from the site have been carbon-dated as from being around 9,500 years old (although this date has yet to be confirmed), making it one of the very earliest civilizations. The site of the city is 40 to 120 feet under sea level, and is two miles wide and five miles long. Sonar images have revealed structures similar to staircases, temples and bathrooms. The site was discovered accidentally while surveyors from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology were conducting a study of pollution. It is theorized that the city was submerged at the end of the last ice age. Recently there were identified two underwater riverine palaeochannels and two metropolis: Northern and Southern. The Southern city seems to be the earliest of the two with findings of well fired pottery even from 13000 BP that could be an earlier stage of the site. For more recent details see Badrinaryan 2006: http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1

As its article makes clear (with references), most geologists and archaeologists maintain that the NIOT team's interpretations are mistaken, and there is no actual "city" there- or at least, the evidence gathered thus far does not justify such a conclusion. The "pottery" recovered is held to more likely be naturally-occurring calcified structures, the geometric patterns either natural rock fractures or "noise artefacts" in the sonar images, the dated wood was not found in a context which associates it with the "city", etc etc. Although there are some who maintain that it is a genuine ruin (and predicably enough, ancient-mysteries type proponents such as Graham Hancock have jumped on the bandwagon), the interpretation that this constitutes the remains of some ancient civilization is in a decided minority. I would think that this present article should only deal with mentions of archaeological sites and civilizations which are accepted and confirmed, and not spurious or disputed, such as this claim, or the alleged 'underwater cities' off the coast of Japan and Cuba.--cjllw | TALK  03:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Civilization and Socialism
This section seems out of place and NPOV so I'd recommend the deletion or rewrite of it.

I agree. It also reads as though the author believed it was all accurate and applied to the whole world. It looks a teeny weeny bit Marxist to me. The Real Walrus 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates on Civilization
I have recently reverted several attempts to change the BCE/CE dates to BC/AD. Below is a statement I left for the most recent anon, who asserted that BC/AD is Wikipedia standards. I know this issue can be controverisal, but do we want to formally establish a standard for this article? Has this been done in the past? I would vote for BCE/CE myself. WBardwin 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * specific reference for discussion: Manual of Style (dates and numbers).


 * I have reverted your change to BC/AD dates. As you erroneously believe that this is Wikipedia standard, please see:  Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  Both patterns are available for editors to use here and, although people are quite heated about their personal preference for the systems, it is up to the editors of each article to establish a standard.  In general, articles which deal with history and archaeology, but not Christian era religion, tend to vote for and use the BCE/CE system.  If you strongly disagree, bring it up on the talk page for another round of discussion.  Best wishes.

This article currently (randomly) uses both styles in the presentation of dates. Another recent change added one more BC/AD date. Before time is devoted to clean up, can we establish a firm style by concensus? WBardwin 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing
How about the Great Civilizations, like the Roman or the Mongolian or the Hun Civilizations? How about the Holy Roman Empire, or the Napoleonic Empire? How about even mentioning one or two of those?


 * The Holy Roman Empire was part of the Civilisation that we can call Western Christendom. the Napoleonic Empire was part of the transitional stage of this civilisation to become the global industrial civilisation we have today.


 * John D. Croft 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe, how about talking about dispued and possibly fictional civilizations, such as Altantis, or Mu or even Lemuria? This page is missing alot!

Dates on Civilization
I have recently reverted several attempts to change the BCE/CE dates to BC/AD. Below is a statement I left for the most recent anon, who asserted that BC/AD is Wikipedia standards. I know this issue can be controverisal, but do we want to formally establish a standard for this article? Has this been done in the past? I would vote for BCE/CE myself. WBardwin 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * specific reference for discussion: Manual of Style (dates and numbers).


 * I have reverted your change to BC/AD dates. As you erroneously believe that this is Wikipedia standard, please see:  Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  Both patterns are available for editors to use here and, although people are quite heated about their personal preference for the systems, it is up to the editors of each article to establish a standard.  In general, articles which deal with history and archaeology, but not Christian era religion, tend to vote for and use the BCE/CE system.  If you strongly disagree, bring it up on the talk page for another round of discussion.  Best wishes.

This article currently (randomly) uses both styles in the presentation of dates. Another recent change added one more BC/AD date. Before time is devoted to clean up, can we establish a firm style by concensus? WBardwin 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Poll: Should the article be returned to BCE/CE dating style, and retain that style as the article standard?
 * Agree - WBardwin 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree (non member)
 * Agree - Bog 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - John D. Croft 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On Dating I have tried to give some rationality to the dating systems, by attempting to avoid including pre-literate neolithic dates as the dates for the origins of a civilisation. Thus China as a civilisation started with the Shang, although this does not imply that their civilisation shows profound continuities from pre-civilised cultures in the area. But if we allow China to start at 7,000 BCE, then Sumer should start at 8,500 BCE which is clearly ridiculous. Similarly I have redated Korea to start at 900 BC.

I have also separated Old and New World Civilisations under separate category headings.

There are still major errors to complete. For example

Why is Persia an Early Civilisation, whilst Ancient Greece, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Meroe, Axum not listed as "Early Civilisations? Why is ancient Babylonia and Assyria not counted?  Where are the Phoenicians or the Canaanites in Palestine?  Why is Ancient Rome listed but not the Etruscans, Carthage?  Why China and Korea, but not Japan or Vietnam?  What about Angkor Cambodia?  Funan?  Sri Vijaya?

Another matter, why is ancient Persia listed as a civilisation from 780 till the present? Ancient Persia is commonly understood to have ended with the fall of the Sassanid Empire and the Ommayyad Caliphate. Since then Persia has been a part of the Islamic Civilisation. It is interesting that Persia is allowed to continue to the present day but Rome stops with the fall of the Western Empire. Gibbon showed that the Fall of Rome (in the East) continued unceasinbgly until 1453 and the fall of Constantinople. Come on folks - lets correct these errors.

John D. Croft 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What would "pre-literate neolithic" mean? As far as China is concerned, scripts have been found in the Jiahu culture, as well as in Xia dynasty pottery.
 * You make a good point about why certain civilisations are listed and not others. Maybe we should just delete those sections for specific individual civilisations.  Are they really necessary for an article about civilisation overall?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Hong Qi Gong. Civilisation as the article states (and as I understand it) is believed to have started with the Shang Dynasty.  Although research is proceeding on whether or not there was a Xia dynasty, the court is still very much out on that matter and nothing which could confirm its existence has yet been recovered.  For this reason I would regard Iiahu pottery at best a Proto-Civilisation, similar perhaps to Uruk or Ubaid periods in Mesopotamia or Napata II and III in Egypt.  It was for this reason that I chaged the dates on this article as otherwise we are putting unsubstanciated POV material in Wikipedia.  Hope this helps


 * Regards John D. Croft 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, most archaeologist now accept the existence of the Xia dynasty, especially since the Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project. I know that some sources say its existence is accepted and some say it's not universally accepted though.  But it seems to me those sources that say it's disputed are older and less updated sources than those that say it's accepted.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)