User talk:Puffball



Archive: December 2005, January 2006

Global context

 * Hi, Chris -- Apropos Selborne Common, I deliberately left out England, having read somebody's talk page (can't remember whose now) which complained about dumbing down. Rationale went as follows: if the user is bright enough to be reading this, he'll know where Hampshire is; and even if he doesn't, one click on Hampshire will tell him all. I think it can be annoying and impede comprehension when there are too many links in an article. What do you think? Puffball 10:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got into the habit of adding the country name into the lead paragraph of all place type articles I write. I guess that is because english language placenames can be quite ambiguous. For example, I've never heard of a 'Selborne Common' elsewhere, but it wouldn't be altogether surprising if there was one hiding away in the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. I've fairly often followed a placename link in an article only to find myself in the wrong continent. Putting the country name in just gives the reader a quick and easy check against this kind of mis-linking.


 * However I have to concede your arguments are at least as good as mine. I guess this is one of these questions that doesn't have a good answer. So if you want to revert out my change, go ahead. -- Chris j wood 13:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I'm not all that bothered; I just wanted to get another POV, so maybe we'll leave it! Puffball 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

History of the Earth (Part 2 :))

 * Knowledge Seeker, this article is really motoring! I admire your ability to condense so much info into such a small space. I have tweaked the text up to Humanity, and substituted the Australopithecus reconstruction for your migration map. The Australopithecus is used elsewhere and might be a bit hackneyed by now, but I do think it will revive the lay reader's interest a bit, as the migration map is of a piece with earlier diagrams. Also you have to click on it to see any detail. But if you think the map preferable, by all means rv it. Remove your comment from Humanity when you're happy with that paragraph and I'll get out my polishing kit. -- Puffball 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured it was time for a new section for discussion. Thanks; I really appreciate it! It's been tough writing this article but it's nice to have encouragement. I hope I'm not condensing too much; it feels like I'm glossing over so much. I only hope that people more knowledgeable than I will be able to write detailed sub-articles at some point to do the topics justice. I'll probably want to go into a bit more detail on the "Humanity" section, since I skipped over a lot, but I don't want to give undue weight to humans: in the grand scheme of things, yes, they've affected Earth in the last split second, but not enormously more than the creation of the Moon or the colonization of land, you know? The next section, on civilization and basically encompassing human history is going to be tough. I'm not certain I have a good enough grasp on history as a whole to lay it out in a couple paragraphs (I'm thinking two for now). I have an idea for the broad themes of the section. I'm almost wondering if I shouldn't invite a couple guest editors to write the section. I'll have to ponder it a bit more and do a bit more reading first.


 * I definitely agree with the Australopithecus picture! You know, I was trying to find a good picture like that to use, but all the ones I saw on Homo habilis and Homo erectus appear to have questionable copyright tags, so I got frustrated and used the map. That's not to say I don't like that image; in fact, I think it's among my favorites on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can squeeze it in somewhere else, perhaps if the "Humanity" section gets long enough. As always, thanks for your help! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All right I'm not sure how to treat the rest of human history. Initially I was going to keep it just a few sentences in the Humanity section. Then I thought about writing a couple paragraphs under a new "Civilization" section. Now I'm leaning towards the former again&mdash;I don't want to get too bogged down in details. I guess I'll just take a stab at writing it later tonight and see what works better...feel free to give me any suggestions. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What about having three sections on humanity? [1] Hominid evolution, with a history of Homo sapiens up to the invention of systematic agriculture (i.e. Palaeolithic & Mesolithic hunter-gatherers) [2] Man the farmer (Neolithic to Industrial Revolution) and then [3] Man the technologist. [1] depicts man as the subject of Nature; [2] depicts him in contention with Nature; and [3] depicts him recklessly overcoming Nature and faintly adumbrates the possible consequences. I know this is a bit of a stretch. Can we excuse such an anthropocentric POV? Yes, because we are interested in ourselves! Also the mass extinction which is already happening may not be the biggest ever, but may be uniquely rapid. (Assuming the extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused by an asteroid strike but volcanic activity, as dinosaur experts rather than geologists seem to believe.) Your "Civilization" section could be subsumed into [2], since agriculture permitted the rise of a sacerdotal/ruling class, true division of labour, and hence the city. Anyway, please feel free to bin any or all of this! -- Puffball 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a pretty good idea. Maybe one paragraph on agriculture/civilization/most of human history, and one paragraph on science/technology, with emphasis on 1) genetics (changing the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution), 2) Environmental-type stuff including extinction, ozone layer, global warming (affecting the planet), and 3) Spaceflight (leaving the planet), because I want to try to keep the emphasis on Earth, not on humans. Of course, if others end up disagreeing, we can change the article&mdash;I don't own it. I agree that a bit of an anthropocentric view is beneficial, because the article should be about what's interesting to us, and it's more informative to pause a bit over the last split-second. And yet anthropormorphism already permeates the article: I follow the evolution of eukaryotes and abandon the prokaryotes; then follow the animals and abandon the plants; then follow the vertebrates and abandon the invertebrates, and so on with mammals, hominids, and finally humans. No mention is made of insect evolution and such. I've tried to avoid giving the impression that evolution stopped for other creatures but continued for us, but it's not easy. Maybe I'll devote three paragraphs to humans (such a conceit), but combine them into two sections (maybe one on the origins + civilization, and a second one on the science/technology). I want to briefly mention religion in the civilization section as well. As always, I appreciate your suggestions. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the anthropocentric POV; would be interesting to compare the same article on some future Wikipedia devised by intelligent descendants of today's insects. Space travel is largely irrelevant to the history of Earth, except as evidence of our technological abilities. So far we have made only tiny hops out there. There is no way that mass emigration of humans is ever going to happen. The technology won't have time to develop. About religion: it was probably the driving force in the creation of a ruling class and therefore an essential ingredient of civilization, but the ghastly bigotry of today is the antithesis of civilized behaviour. Me, I'd leave religion out of it altogether! -- Puffball 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I disagree about space travel being irrelevant to the history of Earth; it seems to me that if one is following the life of a planet from formation out of the nebula, then certainly atmospheres developing, oceans forming, life originating and so on are important events, but I feel that those life forms launching objects and then themselves off the planet is a momentous event. Perhaps not momentous in human history (although I tend to think it is, but that is my bias); but in the planet's history. I feel that for an alien or a research probe that had been watching this region of space for the last 5 billion years, this would be a major event. Don't you agree? We'll have to see about religion; value judgments aside (and like most things, it can be used for both good and bad purposes), it's an important part of human history, no? I guess it depends on how much we condense human history. If I were to include it, I intend to include it broadly, from a research point of view. Not saying that and then in this year, some believed this god performed these taskas but rather mention the origins of the concept of religion and such. Do you think that's a bad idea? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * > Perhaps not momentous in human history (although I tend to think it is, but that is my bias); but in the planet's history.


 * Yes, I'm sure you're right about that. Also I must concede that religion has played an essential role in our progress -- just look at the way the medieval Catholic church kept learning alive. And as I say, religion was instrumental in enabling the formation of a ruling (i.e. priestly) class during the Neolithic. This seems to have happened everywhere that civilization of any description arose. Religion then enabled those civilizations to grow (e.g. ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, even the more primitive societies in NW Europe like the people who built Stonehenge). The problem is how to condense all this into an acceptable space for the article in hand. I wonder why some people are religious and others aren't. Is there some genetic predisposition to religiosity? It gets even more complicated (and explosive) when religion gets conflated with ethnicity. [Off topic: I just wish people would get on with each other a bit better!] -- Puffball 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the new sections and introduced a couple of minor ideas/amplifications -- please rv any of it if you're not happy. One more section to go ... it's looking good! Puffball 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that; thanks. Yes, featured status is still a very long way away. As I think I mentioned to you before, I will eventually reference the individual facts/assertions as much as possible, but for that I will have to do more in-depth reading. The history of Earth spans so many disciplines that it will take quite a while for me to find more specific information and citations. I'm going to try to finish up this first draft in the next few days, with you polishing it into the second draft, and it will be a pretty good article hopefully by that point. I then will have to go back and make the sections very rigorous, and then if you're free you'll probably have to clean up my mess again =) I agree with all the edits you make except one thing: I don't really care for using "we" in the article. The self-reference seems rather unencyclopedic, although it would be appropriate in a book, perhaps. I think I'm going to change it back to third person, like (Human and History of the world). I realize it's a bit of a conceit to do this, since humans obviously are writing the article, but I'd prefer not to make it obvious, both for neutrality and for formality. For instance, if a group of, say, Jewish editors began writing an article about some aspect of Jewish traditions wrote phrases such as "nowadays, we celebrate the festival in such-and-such a way" it would seem quite out of place. Of course, non-Jewish editors may edit that article but all editors are human, but I still think it'd be good to try to maintain some disinterest. Kind of the way Earth doesn't say "our planet" but discusses it as it may discuss any planet. What do you think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * > I don't really care for using "we" in the article.


 * Yes, quite right. Unencyclopedic, as you say; and sure nuff, it ain't our planet! We're just temporary tenants. BTW shall we continue this at Talk:History of Earth? Nice to see other people are reading it and getting interested. -- Puffball 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:ZorkFox

Thanks for your edits at History of Earth, which are a real improvement on what was there. I still have trouble with American English (I'm British), giving rise to inconsistences like "co-operation" for "cooperation" and "towards" for "toward". But what about "alternately" in "Colonization of Land"? It means something very different in this country.

What is your preferred usage of the dash? I've been doing ndash , but you prefer   , as does Knowledge Seeker. Chapter & verse is here.

Under "Civilization", you say that "the concept and practice of agriculture" began, but this is not so. Hunter-gatherers began the concept and practice; farming people made them systematic (see Colin Tudge: Neanderthals, Bandits and Farmers -- How Agriculture Really Began, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1998, ISBN 0297842587). The original phrase is ambiguous to the point of being wrong; can we find a better way?

You have introduced commas into BCE dates: can this be right? Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29.

I'd be very glad if you'd put this article on your watchlist and help out with the polishing. Many hands make light work! Thanks again.

P.S. I see you are a Jack Vance fan. The Eyes of the Overworld is one of my favourite books. Extremely funny in parts. -- Puffball 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Puffball! My usage of the em-dash is from a stylistic standpoint: I find the en-dash to be too short (people think it is just a hyphen) and so it doesn't set off a parenthetical expression as well as the em-dash.  Also, I leave off the surrounding white space because a renderer (browser) should know that it is all right to break a line after a dash, whereas if you place white space around it, the renderer may decide to break before the dash, which is inappropriate.  Or, so I have been taught.


 * About alternately versus alternatively, I see that you are correct and I have used the wrong word. Please put it back to "alternatively."  (I'm at work right now and don't have much time for editing.)


 * About agriculture, the definition I have says, "The science, art, and business of cultivating soil, producing crops, and raising livestock; farming." To me, hunter-gatherers have no such codified method of obtaining their food: they are dependant on what they can find, kill, forage, or scavange. This would seem to indicate that hunter-gatherers did not use agriculture per se.  On the other hand, I don't have access to the book you referenced and may be operating on an obsolete notion. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! And the addition of the commas to the years BC was merley an error.  I'll see to it.  In retrospect, it's obvious I shouldn't have added them.  After all, I wouldn't dream of adding one to the year 2000.  (Though I'd probably start using them if the numbers climbed past 9999 in either direction.) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 01:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I took care of "alternately," too. By the way, there's nothing (technically) wrong with using "towards" or "co-operation," it's just they're not the preferred methods.  I find using "toward" is cleaner, especially when speaking aloud (or reading aloud) and helps keep one from running one's words together.  :)  —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 02:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your speedy response ... OK, let's standardize on spaceless emdashes for the article. I'll have a think about the agriculture thing. One of the interesting disciplines about this article is the need to fit an amazing amount of information into a small space, while keeping it in line with orthodox science. Tudge, a Darwinist, argues convincingly that hunter-gatherers began to protect food resources long before the conventional beginnings of farming. They also influenced the landscape very profoundly by using fire to flush game, which led to the use of fire to control the environment in a more deliberate way, i.e. to encourage species which were tasty or easy to catch. His views are more or less accepted now. -- Puffball 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: History of Earth


Thanks for all your help in fixing up the article. Feel free to rewrite the last section if you can think of a better way to express it. I agree with the changes you made to the last sentence; it was somewhat awkward before. What I was trying to get at is that human colonies may not be on other planets; they may be on moons, or even spacecraft. Can you think of a smooth way to emphasize the extraterrestrial nature of the colonies, and not the specific locations? If not, it's fine. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A barnstar -- what can I say but thanks? (It's undeserved in my opinion, but it's going on my user page anyway!)


 * Yes, "distant worlds" was the best that I could think of in that way, but of course colonies could be on any sort of object, or none at all, in one of those gigantic spaceships so beloved of Hollywood. What about "outer space"? Not really, because the solar system will come first. Or just "space"? It's a puzzle and I'll ponder further. Thanks again for the star ... Puffball 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! If we can't think of another way to word it, that's fine. I've been away for a bit but I'll be back next week. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back -- I wondered where you'd got to. Oddly enough I was working on the page when your message came thru. I have been thinking about the article for a couple days, unhappy with ZorkFox's changes to the final para. Have left a message for him on the talk page. -- Puffball 20:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)