Talk:Civilization

Civilizations of the XXI Century Map

I would like to hear all your objections concerning this map :-) Emilfaro (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• What does the map try to explain, or what kind of information does it try to get across that will increase the readers understanding of this article subject of Civilization?
• Who has defined these regions to be "Civilizations of the XXI Century", as you put it in this article (WP:OR)? --Van helsing (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be research at its most original. The description page adds to the opinion-making by such statements as "de facto colonies" for Africa, or calling all of South America "Brasil" or all of Southeast Asia "Nippon", or even its title, "Real Politics". This implies that the creator knows Reality and everyone else is being deceived. Fishal (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Van helsing and Fishal; this map does not maintain NPOV. The naming seems arbitrary and the definition of civilization it presents is highy suspect. Perhaps a similar map could be created which did not purport to define separate civilizations but simply identified groupings of countries by intergovernmental organization. Neelix (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's already a similar map, and it cites the Reliable Source that it is based on: Huntington's "clashing civilizations" shown on Image:Clash of Civilizations.png. That used to be in this article: where did it go? Fishal (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That file cites no such source. It merely gives the source as "taken from Wikipedia map and colored" ie no provenance at all. SpinningSpark 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I assume it's based on Huntington's book, but you are correct that the file doesn't actually say that. Fishal (talk)

Unfortunately I have no time explaining, why this is not an original research. I could do this making a map for each particular civilization, referencing that. And only afterwords putting the information together. Personally, I think you shouldn't a least edit others comments: if I want this map big on the talk page --- let it be. Emilfaro (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to give detailed explanations to prove this is not OR. What you do need to do if you want this map in the article under "Future of civilisation" is provide a reliable source that actually predicts this is going to be the configuration of civilisation in the future. Anyone can divide up a map however they feel, my map could be very different from yours, but to put one of them in the encyclopedia needs a reference to an academic work that has done some serious study of the issue. SpinningSpark 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to hear from you, what I need. What I want is for those, who are interested --- to be able to see it at least on this talk page. Emilfaro (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, it will be archived. If your main goal is that you want others to see it, then please put it on your user page. Fishal (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is there since the 19th of August. Emilfaro (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then, because there's no guarantee that anything on this talk page will still be here 6-12 months from now. That's about how often it gets archived, and nobody ever reads the archives. Fishal (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no short time these days :-) And once again I ask everyone not to edit my first comment on the talk page. Emilfaro (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jiroft

Should the recently added Jiroft civilization be in the "History" list without comment? Its article says it is an alleged civilization and this claim seems to be controversial. I think the list should use the word "alleged" while the article is describing it thus. Or otherwise removed altogether. SpinningSpark 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections

Markets were not the only way in which non food producers sustained themselves. I have added tribute, taxation, tarrifs and tithing, all of which have been used at various times by different civilisations. I have also corrected the entry on Toynbee, and made a few other minor corrections.John D. Croft (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

About time!  :) I apologize that I haven't been able to dedicate myself to the overhaul I had planned for this article. Thanks, John! Fishal (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates of the Axial Age?

Axial age lists that time period as 800 BC to 200 BC, but Civilization#Classical Antiquity calls it 600 BCE to 400 BCE. Where did Karl Jaspers write about it, and how did he originally define it? (cross-posted to all three Talk pages) 75.5.198.37 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellenism the big lie of the colonizers and the West

78.38.80.22 (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Hellenism the big lie of the colonizers and the West Imperialists and colonizers influence all social and cultural as well as other ‎aspects such as internal and external policy making of the ‎underdeveloped and colonized countries which they dominate. This ‎influence takes several forms and shapes, open and hidden as well as true ‎and false. The influence takes shape in form of interfering in social, ‎administrative and historic events of the dominated countries. They invent ‎schools, philosophies, religions and much such nonsense in order to show ‎themselves to be superior and us to be inferior, we must passionately ‎defend our history and take it away from enemies paws. ‎ Since the beginning of 19th century colonizers who had taken over almost ‎the whole world with massacres, lies and force were looking for their ‎genealogical tree and the making of their superior race. For a couple of ‎centuries before that they tried hard to make Rome as a symbol of culture ‎and government and science and present a base for their antecedent ‎but in Italy and Roman history there were not many useful evidence ‎except for a few ruins that were not of much use for proving their race as ‎superior, so they invented the lie that is known as Hellenism and made it ‎big and important.‎ Underneath the mosques of Istanbul, the capital of the Ottomans, which ‎were previously the Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire, they found ‎papers that were not worth much during the Ottomans rule and there ‎were not those who could read them well. They took these papers to ‎London and Berlin and Paris and translated them and attached a whole ‎lot of lies and stories to them and presented them as history and old ‎events. These bits of papers were in their time written lies that were used in ‎the Eastern Roman Empire to justify the Church and Synagogues and the ‎making of a fabricated country in Anatolia and the Western part of ‎Greater Iran and the Middle East. ‎ Dear friend do not be so simple as to be fooled by these lies, please ‎search for the real truth. Let us not allow the fabricated Hellenism be used ‎to attack the world especially the Greater Iran. Why did they not invent ‎the Parthianism? Have you asked yourself yet, where and how did the first ‎documents of the fabricated Herodotus come from? Anush Ravid will no ‎longer allow such lies be sold to the nations and it is hoped that you help ‎with important task.‎ Hellenism was first used by a German historian in 1836 and thereafter it ‎was used to distinguish a historic, political, cultural and artistic period in ‎Greece marked by the appearance of governments in the fabricated ‎Greek Empire's regions after the death of the fabricated Alexander the ‎Great. The historians of the colonizers placed this period between 330 and ‎‎27 B.C. Why they did not extend this period to after the birth of Christ ‎merits further thinking and questioning. The geographical regions ‎Hellenism is supposed to have covered were north to south Russia, India ‎and southern Egypt, Northern Africa and the Mediterranean coast. They ‎considered the city of Taksila in Pakistan as belonging to the Hellenic era's ‎works. They stupidly claim that after the conquest of the East by Alexander ‎of Macedonia, there appeared a fusion of thoughts, religions and arts ‎from East and West which changed the Greek architecture. Those stupid ‎writers in order to attack the cultural richness of the Greater Iran write that; ‎events, complexities and surprising advance of the Hellenic culture ‎resulted in an architectural method with a huge and varied scale which ‎was far superior to what a classic town and country could do at the time ‎which needed a special advancement. Those idiots do not realize that ‎this statement is in itself an obvious confession that Hellenism is a lie.‎ At the time of the invention of Hellenism we see the influence of the ‎colonizers over the Ghajar dynasty which is clear to everyone; of course ‎one can extend this interference to before and after the Ghajar period ‎because essential and radical changes to Iran's social history had not ‎been brought about to counter their interference. However, after two ‎Imperial wars and the inability of the old colonizers to rule the world and ‎their acquisition of new methodology which we call neo colonization, ‎possibilities have risen for the nations to bring about useful and practical ‎strategy to counter this influence.‎ In the fabrication of Hellenism much nonsense has been written, for ‎example they say that "the art of Hellenism has influenced the art of the ‎Parthian era a great deal and undoubtedly it is true but we cannot say ‎anything about it because we have nothing tangible from them". ‎Elsewhere they say "there is a great deal of original Iranian art in Hellenism ‎and there is little Greek art in Hellenism which in any case is very transitory ‎and superficial". Hertsfeld one of the agents of the colonizers is a famous ‎researcher into Hellenism who has done a great deal of research in to the ‎art of the Parthian era and he believes that the art of this period is a ‎combination of Iranian and Greek paintings however it can be confirmed ‎that the Iranian art has remained untouched in its original form in this ‎period. One can see that all the stupid enemies of Iran believe that ‎Hellenism is nonsense.‎ Throughout history colonizers have fabricated history in order to ‎accomplish their objectives, they paint a pretty picture of democracy in ‎the countries under their influence, create such institutions as parliaments, ‎governments council, an independent judiciary and even political and ‎military opposition etc in order to fooled the people. For example in this ‎age of internet and satellite TV they create virtual caricaturist political ‎movements in order to mislead mass movements and create an ‎atmosphere of division and animosity between the peoples of the Greater ‎Iran and they do this by fabricating history and lies. One of the games ‎played by the same satellite agents is the lie that Arabs, Turks and the ‎Kurds have been historically hostile to each other. Anush Ravid always ‎asks the dear readers to be vigilant, for example, Iraq and Southern ‎Persian Gulf region is a natural political and historic extension of the ‎Greater Iran and all their affairs both in the past and present has to do ‎with the Greater Iran. If one takes an opposing view saying that in the past ‎they have been hostile and historically estranged, I believe it to be ‎unrealistic, unprincipled and politically motivated and in a way fooled by ‎the enemy's and colonizer's tricks. This is in no way a reason to send troops ‎to or attack these areas politically but one must encourage the finding of ‎historic realities and social history. Anonsh Raavid / IRAN ‎ Iran's invasion by the Arabs, the second biggest lie in history.‎ Iran's invasion by the Moguls, the third biggest lie in history.‎ [1] ‎ Translated from Farsi by Farzin Malaki; farzinmalaki@yahoo.co.uk‏ ‏ Revelando las mentiras de la historia En la historia y en la historia social hay muchas mentiras, mentiras que ‎han influenciado el destino de la humanidad y desviado la planificación y el ‎futuro, mentiras como las siguientes:‎ La invasión a Irán por Alejandro de Macedonia, la mentira más grande de la ‎historia;‎ La invasión a Irán por los Árabes nómadas, la segunda mentira más grande ‎de la historia;‎ La invasión a Irán por Chengiz el mogol, la tercera mentira más grande de ‎la historia;‎ Mentiras significativas como la guerra de Gadesiyyeh y la batalla de ‎Chaldran;‎ Mentiras sobre las culturas, como el helenismo…‎ [2] Análisis e investigación de todas las mentiras de la historia en el blog:‎ Movimiento para erradicar las mentiras de la historia de Irán.‎ Únase a este movimiento y vea el mundo desde una perspectiva distinta.‎ Tour de Irán, visite todos los lugares históricos e interesantes, a muy buen ‎ precio y con un excelente servicio. Favor contactar a: ‎ Tour of Iran; visit all the historic and interesting places, competitive prices ‎and excellent service, please contact: ‎ aliagamalaki@hotmail.com ‏ ‏

Wow. I don't know what to say to that. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is asking you to type in paragraphs too "colonial"? - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Africa?

Are there no sub-Saharan African civilisations at all? None whatsoever in Western Africa and the ancient states of Nigeria? The Nok culture that started the sub-Saharan Iron Age -- was that not a civilisation? How about ancient Great Zimbabwe or Mapungubwe?

If a civilisation is simply a large, complex, and stratified culture with towns/cities then there are numerous examples of sub-Saharan African civilisations (even before Islam), and it seems like the authors of this page are trying hard to pretend like they never existed. We all know that everyone wants to believe that Egypt and North Africa are part of the middle East, but you cannot ignore the civilisation in the rest of the continent.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) what is the meaning???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.220.106 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple Definition of Civilization

Any group of people that have any sort of pact or agreement that dictates reward or punishment based on behavior. Also, this group actively plans for future providence of food, shelter, and water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.158.114 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Whereas the etiology of civilization is Latin or Roman..." I understood that 'etiology' is causation or the study of causation. In medicine the etiology of a disorder is its underlying causation. Taken literally, the statement in the article is saying that the Romans caused Civilization. This is patently false. The Romans certainly caused their OWN civilization, and theirs has affected ours, as we are in some sense their Civilizational heirs, but they surely had no hand in the Chinese Civilization or others. Is 'etiology' here a malapropism for 'etymology' (caused by a 'slip of the brain' of the contributor)? The etymology of the WORD 'civilization' is certainly Latin. As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. Should you not simply delete 'etiology' and replace it with 'etymology', and also put 'civilization' in quotes, to make it clear that it is the WORD that you are referring to, and not the thing? Plitplov (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)plitplov

Vere Gordon Childe is unreliable

In the "characteristics" section Vere Gordon Childe is used. He is a Marxist so its very likely that hes not a reliable source for this kind of article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cringeworthy

Am I the only person to cringe, upon typing in "civilisation" and being bombarded by a picture of a group of brutal metal constructions in New York City? When I think "civilisation" I think Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia... not the United States. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Only ancients can be civilized?

I have no thoughts on the photo. Maurreen (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, most people, would objectively call the Taj Mahal, Florence Cathedral and St Paul's Cathedral an example of civilisation that is not ancient. But the photo of boxed, metal-glass, high rise brutalist architecture in the United States, is probably not the first thing people think of or expect to see when typing in the word "civilisation". At the very least it is controversial. The Colosseum, the Parthenon or the Giza Necropolis is probably a more common example. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Civilisation itself is a contentious and controversial term, and to identify it with the American idea of what constitutes civilisation serves only to make it even more so. I would not, however, agree with replacing the homage to Americanism with an architectural wonder, as that is not necessarily indicative of what is meant by civilisation in its broadest definition. I believe New York should be replaced with another city, and the advantage of an ancient one is that it reduces objections, prejudices and controvery to a minimum. I suggest a city plan of Mohenjo-daro. It's just about as ancient as they come, and displays urban planning, infrastructure, organisation, etc., all the hallmarks of civilisation, as well as not being quite so well known as the standard examples.

Removed "Georgian and Armenian civilisation" from European category

Georgia and Armenia are neither geographically, culturally nor (crucially) historically European, granted that label itself is often arbitrary. The ancient cultures of the Georgians and Armenians, though inevitably linked, in my opinion are not interchangeable, so further modification will be necessary. An article on such a loaded topic deserves detail, not an overview. Additionally, I am not entirely convinced Persian, Georgian or Armenian fit into the Middle Eastern category at all, as the term Middle East is a modern construct invented by Europeans (with little understanding of what we now refer to as the Middle East). It carries only contemporary connotations that would not accurately portray the ancient cultural and social traits of said civilisations. The Persian language, religion and culture were entirely indigenous Iranian and had very little, if at all, in common with the Semitic and other Fertile Crescent cultures, the exceptions being certain superficial adoptions as court dress and writing system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.52.5 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)