Jump to content

Talk:Civilization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.157.195.70 (talk) at 20:56, 16 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:VA

WikiProject iconSociology B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

Deleted reference to "Red Indians" in the definition

The term is inappropriate here, and is now considered less preferntial than Amerindian. It perpetrates a racist slur, and is considered offensive by many. It also does not apply to the definition of terms. John D. Croft (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Beginning

I would like (if no major objections) to replace the beginning of the article with:

"Civilization" (or "civilisation") refers to either: 1) the procession of human societies generally toward more development and use of more complex technology, higher population densities, increasing per capita gross domestic product, and other significant advancements; or 2) any human society (for example, "Ancient Greek Civilization") associated with any particular geographical location at a particular time, historical or current. (When used in this second sense, the word is often restricted to apply only to societies that have attained a particular level of advancement, especially the founding of cities, with the word "city" defined in various ways.) The level of advancement of a civilization is often measured by its progress in agriculture, long-distance trade, occupational specialization, and urbanism.70.179.92.117 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done 70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with World Civilisations and Ancient Civilizations

World civilisations is an article with nearly the same scope as this one. I propose we merge World Civilisations into Civilization. ~ Draksis314 14:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound good to me. The tags on both articles indeed show others have already discussed the idea and agreed also. I do not think anyone will go searching for "World Civilizations" and expect to find something different than if they went looking for "Civilizations".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you also propose merging in Ancient Civilization? I would say if that is what is agreed we can try it. If this article then becomes too big, we could consider splitting out a better Ancient civilization later?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems to make sense. I'll add a merger notice to Civilization and Ancient Civilization. ~ Draksis314 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be busy until Saturday, but we can hopefully finish the merge before the weekend is over. ~ Draksis314 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worthy mentioning that Illyrians are not part of Greek civilization. That paragraph is of a great offence to the writer/s, because he/she/they have deficiencies in the education background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.1.52 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amerocentrism

Check the Wikipedia article for human civilization, and what picture comes up? New York City. Come on, can we be a bit more representative than that? Is New York City really the icon of civilization? 142.157.195.70 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]