User talk:Mimiian

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

13:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't present opinions as fact
Please stop adding controversial statements to articles without backing them up and properly attributing them to their sources. It's not Ok to say "China is the oldest civilization in the world", nor is it Ok to say that the opposite is the case. I'm not arguing for or against either opinion. Rather, what should be done is to say something like "So-and-so has argued that China is indeed the oldest civilization in the world" and to give a proper citation and add it to the list of refernces. That way the opinion becomes verifiable, and people have a chance to agree on whether so-and-so did actually say that. This is much simpler and much less controversial than coming out and presenting an opinion that's not universally agreed on as fact.

Also, if you strengthen a statement the way you're tyring to do, the burden of proof is on you, that is, you have to supply the references that show that so-and-so really holds the opinion you claim they do. Simply adding a controversial opinion and essentially saying "prove me wrong" won't go over too well. --MarkSweep 12:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do no edit any article without extensive research. I am merely stating the fact. It is a fact that China is the world's oldest CONTINUOUS civilization. It is a fact, not an opinion; remember, it is a solid fact, no matter what's your opinion on it, the fact will not alter.


 * I have already provided some of the important historians' views and the reference. If you think the fact that China is not the world's oldest continuous civilization is not true, please give me some references and historian's views. Please do not present fact as opinions, no matter what's your opinions on the fact, the fact will always be fact. -- Mimiian

The very fact that people do not agree with your additions should tell you that what you think is a factual statement is really a matter of opinion. You have not cited any sources in the article itself, only in the edit summaries.

Let me explain my objection again, since you wrote "If you think the fact that China is the world's oldest continuous civilization is not true, please give me some references and historian's views." My point is exactly that I don't have a firm opinion either way, only a firm opposition to asserting that either of those statements is universally accepted as true. I have nothing against saying "so-and-so claims that China is (or isn't) the oldest continuous civilization", if it's verifiable and relevant. But this is not a matter of fact, and the article should not represent it as fact. --MarkSweep 13:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please!!! Fact is something objective, external, and exists in its own right, fact itself is unalterable. There is fact and there is fiction, and if you cling to the fact even against the whole world, you are still right. Just because some people do not recognise the fact that China is the world's oldest continuous major civilization, it does not mean the fact is not true. No matter what people think of the fact, it is still a fact. Remember, it is not an opinion, it is a solid, unalterable fact! If you think China is not the world's oldest continuous major civilization, please tell me one civilization which is older than China and it's still existing. Remember, a fact is something cannot be altered! eg: the US attacked Iraq, it is a fact, not an opinion! -- Mimiian

One of the problems is that there is no universally accepted definition of "civilization", "major civilization" or "continuous civilization". Unless the definitions of those terms are nailed down, a statement that makes use of them cannot be factual. --MarkSweep 14:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry, I do not see the definition "civilization", "major" and "continuous" have any problem in this case. It is almost universally agreed that human civilization is the way of life in a society that has advanced to the point of building cities. If there is no permanent towns or cities for a group of people, then the people is obviously a nomad group in contrast with the settled cities dwellers of civilization. In fact the world civilization is derived from Latin "civis", meaning city dweller. This is an accepted definition of civilization. If you do not agree, please give me an example where a known civilization has no cities.
 * The world "major" civilization is even more obvious. It describes the influence of this civlization and its impact on humans. A major civilization is obviously a civlization which has relatively important influence. There might be a small, unknown civilization hide in African jungle, but since it has relatively little influence on humanity, therefore it's obviously not a major civilization
 * For the word "continuous", it obviously means that the civilization is continuous and still surviving. Ealier civilizations such as Egyptian and Sumerianian are not continuous because they have already vanished from the pages of history, therefore how can something that no longer exist long ago be continuous to present day. Other earlier civilizations all have vanished or replaced by other, thus leaving behind the Chinese civilization as the world's oldest continuous civilization. This is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree, please name one accepted civilization which is older than China and it's still existing, remember to cite historians who support your view if you can. Thank you.
 * How can you say that the Egyptians have vanished from the pages of history? Because they have been conquered? That´s wrong (at least in my opinion) They simply remained, and adapted themselves to a life in a larger empire, adopting several traits (language, religion) and of these empires and influencing these empires themselves. According to your logic someone can also say that the Chinese have also dissapeared because they have been conquered by the Mongols. In reality, both of these peoples/civilizations simply survived like the vast majority of the old civilations. Flamarande 12:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All three terms are apparently simple and accepted. If you cannot understand any of them, you should really stop edit any article now.

What about this? "Australian Aborigines are the main indigenous people of Australia. Their ancestors probably arrived in Australia over 50,000 years ago, although this figure remains in dispute. Some historians believe people have lived in Australia for up to 100,000 years." - that would make that an older civilization - also continuous and major. This is if we are using this definition of civilization: The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch. --Tothebarricades 21:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tothebarricades, I am not really sure if I should laugh at you or feel sorry for your lack of education. The Australian Aborigines have never formed a distinct civilization. No scholars have ever claimed that the Aborigines formed any kind of civilization. They lack a sophisticated writing system and have no recorded writing of their history. Even more, the Aborigines do not have cities and are not an agrarian society. The "civilization" article in Wikipedia says "In the technical sense, a civilization is a complex society in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture". Clearly the Aborigines do not have any civilization according to this definition. They lack a complex society, form no cities, and is not an agrarian society. No major scholars have ever stated that Aborigines have formed any kind of civilization.
 * So, Tothebarricades, next time when you want to make a comment. Please research the topic, otherwise you will only make a fool of yourself. Thank you. --- Mimiian

3RR
You have been reported for a 3RR violation at China and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this block is unfair, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) hey

Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Crime Project?
I have seen that you like to contribute to serial killer articles I am trying to organize a task force on this subject under WikiProject Criminal Biography. If you would be interested in joining contact me. Thanks, Jmm6f488 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)