Talk:Civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since August 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civilization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Civilization has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Civilization, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Out of India Theory

The out of India Theory is not supported by the majority of Indo-European linguists. It also needs to be referenced, and if these changes are not made it will deleted.

John D. Croft 10:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Hebrew Civilisation

This section reads like a POV breaking copywrite from another source. Could the author please cite references, otherwise I feel we should act to delete it. John D. Croft 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis Mu and Lemuria

These were not prehistoric civilisations, as apart from Plato, Churchward and the obsolete biological theory of land bridges, there is zero evidence for their existance. To call them pre-historic cvilisations is definitely POV. They are recognised by most scholars as fictitious, and people who claim their existence are falling into the trap of pseudoscience. I know - I've been there and done that. So I am reverting to "Fictitious Civilisations" and ammending appropriately. John D. Croft 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

In the article, it says "China 7000 BC–Present." However, at 7000 BCE, there was only culture, and culture does not always equal civilization. Actual Chinese civilization was established much later around 2800 BCE-2500 BCE. Someone change this please. -intranetusa

[edit] Proposed move: from Civilization to Civilisation

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. 2 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

  • Civilization → Civilisation. Americanisation; article acknowledges Latin root word civis, but name blatantly ignores this fact; Ephraim Chambers used the s spelling in his Cyclopedia of 1727-51, with the z spelling only appearing in 1775. Alphax τεχ 03:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose (followed by an optional brief explanation), and sign your vote with: ~~~~


  • Strong support"" Wikipedia is a multinational and international collaboration of ideas, and therefore the international 'civilisation' should be used. Furthermore English was developed in England, and its root should be respected.
Well, if you want to be historical, English is just a bastardization of Latin; perhaps we should write all Wikipedia articles in that language, to "respect the roots" of western language.--Xiaphias 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I had to chuckle here at the implication that American English is a bastardization (or should that be bastardisation) of British English Macgruder 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Civilization is the original author's selection. Spelling/terminology should not be changed between different varieties of English without substantial justification beyond conformity to one variety or another. —Lifeisunfair 03:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English Dragons flight 07:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Much as it grates to see a z in civilisation, to reduce conflict and uncivilized (shudder) behaviour, I think we should stick with Primary Author[1]. Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose with similar personal reluctance. If there is no better reason, we go with the first author. The 's' isn't from civis. DJ Clayworth 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons given. Tho' it would make disambigging with Sid Meier's Civs easier. –Hajor 16:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Civilisation is not somehow etymologically more correct. --Jpbrenna 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. We must stick with the Primary Authorship Policy or we'll have endless debates like the one over the spelling of Yogurt after it was moved. Jonathunder 18:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Americanization is not a valid criterion for a move. Until we find a better way to resolve these debates, we should stick with the primary author's choice, as per policy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose this move, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. - Mike Rosoft 18:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason. Gamaliel 04:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose —Michael Z. 2005-06-21 05:32 Z
  • Oppose WBardwin 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support PAP is important, but regional terms should only be used for concepts that are regional in nature (e.g. New York Harbor). Civilisation is a global concept, so the International English form should be used. The latin etymology point on the s/z issue is bogus. Rhialto
  • Strongly oppose. The OED recommends -ize spellings as standard (cf. askoxford.com) - prestonmarkstone 17:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • OpposeImage:English dialects1997.png most native speakers speak american english

--Prunetucky 19:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but only on principle: The previous point is not a valid one, with all due respect. Just because most "native" speakers speak American English (because the US has nearly 300 million inhabitants), it does not mean that they actually have the most widespread form of english. Outside of the US, it is a form or another of British English grammar that is used. I agree with the "Knowledge seeker" principle, but saying that just because the US has more native speakers justifies US linguistic imperialism, is just misguided. Themalau 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose for these reasons:
1. You pronounce it with a zee/zed.
2. It's more internationally recognized. Compare Spanish Civilización, Esperanto Civilizo, Latvian Civilizācija, Lituanian Civilizacija, Hungarian Civilizáció
3. Might as well keep it with the authors style.
4. Two-thirds of native English speakers are American.Cameron Nedland 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've rarely seen civilization spelled with an s. With z is the standard spelling. Sr13 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an American/non-American distinction. Americans use the z, everyone else uses the s. However, the Wikipedia policy is to use the English spelling form the original article used unless the topic specifically relates to the US (American English always used) or another English-speaking nation (British English always used). —Cuiviénen 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - My familiarity is with s. My country uses British English spelling. --Mincan 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Civilisation is not somehow etymologically more correct. The word itself is a very late neo-Latin neologism, not found in classical or medieval Latin. The Latin noun is civis. The adjectival form is civilis. But a Roman would have called civilization urbanitas, civitas, humanitas or used the Greek πολιτισμός or πολιτεία --- not civilisatio, which simply never existed in Latin and is very bad Latin word formation. For the verb "civilize," a Roman would have said excolere or expolire. Civilisation does not somehow preserve a non-existent Roman spelling. In one sense, the American usage is more correct, because it preserves the proper transcription of the Greek zeta -ίζω that we English speakers have adopted as our own by appending -ize to almost any noun we choose to make it a verb. This goes back to the entrance of numerous Greek verbs into Latin in late classical and early medieval times, most notably the verb baptizo. The Romans kept the "z", but at some point the proud sons of Albion felt they should have their own Brittanic spelling, while the more humble colonials saw no need to tamper with the patrimony of Jesus, John the Baptist et al. The only reason I support this at all is because Chambers seems to be the originator of the term, and he used the standard British English spelling. I will continue my support only if British Wikipedians solemnly swear to support -ize and -ization for words coined by Americans, so help them God. (Nonconformists may affirm). --Jpbrenna 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that the French retort the the old boast that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" is because "God does not trust the British in the dark!". -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well you know why I say he made the English Channel so narrow? Because no one can trust those #&%! farther than he could spit at them! (Haha, just kidding of course!)--Jpbrenna 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For "civilization" (which is listed under that spelling), the OED refers to "civilize" for the etymology:

[app. f. 16th c. F. civilizer (Cotgr.) now civiliser; app. representing a med. or mod.L. civilizare, to make civil (a criminal matter), whence transferred to ‘make civil’ in other senses; f. cīvīl-is CIVIL + verbal formative -izāre, ad. Gr. -ίζειν, in mod.F. -iser, Eng. -IZE, q.v.]

For the Greek-challenged, that's "-izein". The entry for "civilization" also has a 1704-1710 cite to Harris' Lex. Techn. (predating Chambers) which unfortunately doesn't give the spelling used. DopefishJustin (･∀･) June 29, 2005 21:52 (UTC)

An Oxford Dictionaries website states that -ize spellings during the 19th century standardization of English, "the consistent use of -ize was one of the conventions that became established. Further, it states that "The Oxford English Dictionary favoured -ize, partly on the linguistic basis that the suffix derives from the Greek suffix -izo, and this was also the style of Encyclopedia Britannica (even before it was American-owned)." prestonmarkstone November 15, 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Actually, it would require fewer disambiguations, so maybe it should be moved.Cameron Nedland 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The word civilisation comes from the Latin, civilis, via the French civilisation. The English word is thus Latin in origin. If it were Spanish, Estonian or otherwise a case could be made for the z rather than the s, but etymologically it is more crrect to say civilisation, unless, in the origin section, an amendment on the origins of the American spelling is to be added.

John D. Croft 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilizations in human history

Did a major re-write of the table, replacing it with a list that offers a bit more explanation, interpretation, and qualification. Some of the civilizations listed before (Communist, Mongol) were a bit odd. Others, like Sumerian, Babylonian, and Levantine, could easily be considered to be periods or cultural regions of a single civilization. The new text needs considerable wikification and tweaking, (or complete reversion ;-) ) but hopefully it explains more than the previous table, which had much useful information, but presented it as though these civilizations had rather crisply defined edges...Tom Radulovich 22:46, 25 Jul 2004


Nice Work. you've really added to the article by revamping that section. Unfortunately there's much more to the article, and it seems that it may need some fixing as well...:) Fishal 19:18, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of nitpicks on an article that's well done. (I shudder to think what it must have been like when most of the comments on this page were written.)

Is it accurate to say that the monks were trying to get away from civilization? Lao Tzu (whom we are to spell Lao Zi this year) did that, according to legend; but the Christian monasteries stayed in contact with the local civilization and used its technologies. The hermits were a better example of rejecting civilization, and the organized monasteries were in some degree a reaction against that tradition. Or is my information all out of date?

As to Gandhi: is there any reason to believe that the wisecrack about Western civilization is authentic? I've never seen anything that looks like an attribution to a specific source, and I've never seen a reference to it that dates before the 1970s, by which time he'd been dead for decades. If it can't be authenticated, I'll volunteer to qualify the citation in this article. Dandrake 02:07, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the part about monastics, Taoists, and Transcendentalists "attempting to create societies apart from civilization." In my mind the key word was "attempting," because in all of those cases, getting away from civilization was the Ideal, but it was never achieved. My point was that in the ideas of these groups, Civilization was seen as a negative force. It was something to be, if not shunned, than at least resisted. Is there a way to make that more clear, or do you think the paragraph should be scrapped?

As for Gandhi: that's been part of the article since time immemorial, and I wouldn't be sad to see it go, especially if its authenticity is in doubt. Fishal 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is the oldest civilization known to man?

everyone has a different definition of civilized, but I consider Çatalhöyük and/or Jericho worthy of consideration. WBardwin 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish colonization

Can we find a nice alternative to "destroyed" without completely evading the issue as the article does at the moment? Before the Spanish colonization, these New World civilizations existed, and a couple of them were thriving. After the colonization began, these civilizations were no longer there. Perhaps someone (someone else, with a surname that's not a fighting word) could figure out a polite way of letting the article indicate clearly that the civilizations actually ceased at a particular time and for a particular reason. Dandrake 18:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Conquered?"

[edit] Peaceful, or civil interaction

"Perhaps, then, a more accurate and limited definition is needed. We must not mistake the results of civilization from the core concept. Civilization is peaceful, or civil, interaction of peoples, made possible by rule of law and property rights."

This is a completely new definition from the main one in the article ("a complex society"). It should be noted in the opening paragraph, moved to a different section, or be given its own secion. In my opinion it's a highly connotative definition, akin to the popular definitions in the "Problems with the term" section. Once you use "peaceful interaction of peoples" as the definition of Civilization, you have to start making judgement calls. Was the West a civilization when certain Westerners made money in the slave trade? Were the Japanese a civilization when the Japanese leaders mercilessly conquered other nations? Is the Muslim world a civilization when some Muslims belong to militant groups? In truth there never has been a society with completely peaceful interaction of peoples. "Complex society" is much easier to define and study and is, I believe, the more common meaning for the word when used academically. Fishal 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's been a long time with no comments, and the statement in question was put there by an anonymous user. I'm removing it. Fishal 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Racist/ethnocentric

I'm no anthropologist or philosopher, but this article presupposes that "civilization" means a certain level of technology. That's just wrongheaded. It would be more informative to tell whether anyone has determined that all human societies - whether hunter/gatherer, stone-age, or urban - share certain elements, and what they are, or at least to contrast the differing points of view on what constitutes "civilization." I just don't buy the point of view that it's not "civilization" unless you are urban and agricultural. The so-called "Bushmen" have a civilization, just one based on different means of obtaining sustenance. I hope someone with a stronger background on this topic offers a rewrite. I also corrected a number of grammar and spelling errors.

I also hasten to add that the Inca were not illiterate. They didn't write using pens and paper or the equivalent, but kept records, including stories etc., by using knotted string called "quipú."

I think the article makes it clear that Civilizations, in the technical, encyclopedic sense, are NOT superior to the cultures you described. The Bushmen have a culture, but that is not the same as a civilization. A culture is all the "means of obtaining substance" that a people has, along with their artistic achievements, technology, etc. etc. etc. A civilization is a very specific kind of culture, one based on intensive agriculture, cities, formal institutions, and centralized authority. Everyone has a culture. Not everyone has a civilization. Anything you read will tell you the same thing.
This does not mean that civilizations are somehow superior to other cultures. Civilizations have a whole set of problems all their own. Many, some would say all, civilizations have been guilty of oppression, violence, war, forced enculturation of outside peoples, the list goes on. Civilization is not a term of superiority; the section that I wrote called "Problems with the term" deals with that very issue.
However, it is a fact that societies are different, and we have terms to describe these differences. These include "hunter-gatherer," "pastoralist," "farming village society," "civilization," and so forth. As the article clearly points out, these terms are not ironclad; there is always overlap and many shades of grey. But you still wouldn't say, "Canada is a hunter-gatherer society, just one based on different means of subsistence." To call societies that are not civilizations civilizations just because we are afraid others will think they are somehow inferior just muddles the term.
As to your question of "whether all human societies... share certian elements," that is precisely what culture is, not civilization. As I already stated here (but could make it more clear in the article), culture is a general term for human societies; civilization has a specific meaning. Look in the Culture article, along with Cultural anthropology and Category:Anthropology for what you are looking for. I guarantee you'll find it there.
To address your other complaints, we are not sure if the quipu were a way of recording numbers or a dull-fledged writing system. But I'm not seeing where Inca and literacy are mentioned in the article. I must just be missing it. And strange as it sounds, "Bushmen" is the accepted term; see the Bushmen article. Fishal 17:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went back and tried to make these ideas more clear in the article. Fishal 17:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledge the limited, technical, Academic viewpoint expressed in this horrific piece

As has been so widely expressed above, this is a remarkably one-eyed view of civilization, one that belongs with the expression "The End of Civilization as we know it". OK, in Academia, use the word civilization as some form of jargon with a particular meaning. but this is Wikipedia, for all the world to use, not some Academic's treatise.

The very least you can do is acknowledge this right up front, not somehwere in the depths of the article or the attached discussion.

To help you, and future people referring to this page, I have added in a couple of informative bits right at the top of the article. Firstly, along with the pointer to the disambiguation page, I've pointed to the two sections on Negative Views of Civilization and Problems with the Term Civilization. And added a "title" of sorts - A Technical Academic Definition of Civilization. So at least those of us who have some sensitivities might spot that there are alterative views right up front.

Please respect that a large number of people do have these alternative views, and allow these pointers to the alternatives to stay right at the start of the article. Do not try to impose your technical academic treatise as the ONE AND ONLY TRUE understanding of what civilisation is. You have no monopoly on what is Right or Correct or True, and no right to relegate the alterative views to footnotes, in this public domain shared resource.

I also take issue with your statement "Anything you read will tell you the same thing. " Try for instance The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary - Third Edition. The third definition is "a people or nation (esp in the past) regarded as an element of social evolution" That to me would not only include bushmen and the many others mentioned, but any stage of social evolution from cavemen onwards.

And under "civilise" it has a definition "impose upon (esp an indiginenous people) a way of life alien to them".

In Dictionary.com we find 2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch

In HyperDictionary we find [n] a particular society at a particular time and place;

So let's not get high and mighty about "anything you read". Some of us probably read more widely than the average ivory tower dweller, who doesn't seem to understand that langauge is a living thing that moves on, and that the public understanding of the word civilization varies and has moved on. --Richardb43 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded snooty. I really am sorry. The page was a mess at one time, and my thinking was that if we limit the term to a nice, neutral definition it would make discussion easier. But you are right, the term has many, many meanings to many, many groups, and they are not all neutral. I am sorry for trying to set up the definition I am most acquainted with as the "one and only true" definition. And in my quest to keep the page nice and simple, I not only offended you, but it seems that I've excluded certain viewpoints and haven't allowed the article to fully express itself. So... we can work on this. Fishal 21:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recognize multiple meanings up front

Okay, this just came to me. Now it seems to me that most of the problems here are basically vocabulary issues. "Civilization" has both a specific, technical meaning, and several broader meanings. Now Wikipedia is a place where controversy tends to thrive, so putting all kinds of absolute statements under such a loaded term like civilization is asking for trouble. What if we turned this page into a short discussion of the term/disambig, and moved most of the other information to urban society? That term is used for the same thing as "civilization" in the technical sense, but it does not have the multiple, nuanced meanings that civilization has. It's just a thought, but the last 5 billion posts on this talk page suggest that maybe Wikipedia can never have an ironclad definition for such an elusive term. Fishal 22:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not moving the content from this page, but definitely recognise the multiple meanings as reflected in multiple dictionary definitions. The article in general is worthy of being included directly under civilisation - a far more recognised term than "urban society". How do other pages cope with multiple meanins ?--Richardb43 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is another meaning I am just about to try to add to the Wiktionary entry. Civilization as the opposite of the absence of normal facilities or normal niceties. As in "I'm glad to get back to civilisation after spending a weekend camping" or "I'm glad to get back to civilisation after spending a weekend with that mob of drunken idiots".--Richardb43 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then maybe the best thing to do is turn Civilization into a disambiguation page. That way we could explain right there that the word has a specific, technical meaning, a broad meaning that is synonymous with culture, a meaning that implies the superiority of one culture over another, a meaning that implies "high culture" (like your drunken idiots example), etc. The material in this page could be moved to Civilization (urban society) or Civilization (technical term) or Civilization (complex society) or something like that. Because even though I am right in saying that in the most formal, narrow sense "civilization" is a neutral term that refers to complexity, not superiority, when used in everyday speech civilization can mean many other things, not all of them good or pleasant. Looking at this enormous talk page is proof of the fact that unless we make it clear that "civilization" has multiple meanings, people will get angry.

Before I came and rewrote a big part of this page, it was basically a list of definitions, and it didn't provide any real information. You finished reading it and you said, "I still don't know what a civilization is." I edited it so that it did provide a concrete definition. I thought the "problems with the term" section would convey the various nuances with the word. But I think turning this into a disambig would be best, because we could cover all the bases that way. Fishal 16:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Richard, I moved your whole discussion on nuances of the word to the top where it belongs. I also added links to common synonyms of the various "other" meanings of the word. Now when people come to this page, the first thing they see are the many dictionary definitions of the word, and then they can read the discussion of the academic term. I think it's the best way to treat a term that offends some and confuses the rest. Fishal 16:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now looks great. Think it addresses most of the concerns, and now refinements can be made to each of the different meanings. It's a word with many complex words behind it, so needs a lot of complexitiy explaining it. But a disambiguation page is not the way to go, as all the words are very related, and need to be discussed together. It's not like Bow (A stringed weapon) and Bow (A tied ribbon)

Now it's restructured, how do we get the Talk Page cleaned up ?? What do the experienced Wikitionarions reckon on getting rid of now compltely outdated discussion ?--Richardb43 00:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oops - what happened to the other languages bit

The list of other languages has disappeared. However, if you look at the "code", the list is still there at the end. So anyone know how to make it show up again ? Please :-) --Richardb43 13:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They appear at the top of the page. Before, they were on the side. Fishal 16:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Huntington

Is his input so incommensurable (and moreso so NPOV) as to be necessary and valuable in a attempt at a factual definition of civilisation?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras.
I have reverted your change to BC/AD dates. As you erroneously believe that this is Wikipedia standard, please see: Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras.
I have reverted your change to BC/AD dates. As you erroneously believe that this is Wikipedia standard, please see: Wikipedia: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[2] 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)

[edit] Confusion

It may be that I am just stupid - which I tend to doubt - but this article has brought more confusion, and honestly - as a black African - outrage. I recognize that the contributors have tried to address some of the controversies and ambiguities with the term; but as a result we have an article that goes in ten different directions, and is still ethnocentered in the "Western world". The standard used to define civilization seems to always be Europe/the Greeks/the Romans. On what basis have these become the "ideal"?

The "civilized" West has been an initiator and/or a worsening factor in most of the conflicts we have today, through the aftermaths of Colonization. Yet it seems we have to unequivocally accept its supposed standards of civility, and decency, and its measurement tools to evaluate all human societies. In other words, despite the - admirable - efforts of several people, we are still left with an article that defines "Civilization", and recognizes civilizations, on the basis of their relative similarity, or difference from Western Standards. In other words, one's culture and society is more or less a civilization, depending on whether it resembles more or less Western standards and ideals. Not that I have anything against many of the modern-day standards, that are - in their current form - Western inspired, such as the "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights. In the contrary. But that said, I cannot be convinced that the culture and social systems of the Lunda Confederation, the kingdom of Great Zimbabwe, the Zulu kingdoms, the Native tribes of North America, or the Khoi-Khoi, do not constitute CIVILIZATIONS that are inherently equal to those of the Romans, the Greeks, or the Hindus: They all had principles of life, that they eventually happily broke at will, when it fitted the purposes of the time. And I believe that there is no objective argument against that.

Themalau 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't argue against that, nor would I wish to. But if you add those civilisations the article ends up huge, and if you remove the ones that are there now, there will be outrage from their authors. Alas, I don't know enough to fix the bits I think are horribly biased either. Tricky isn't it? The Real Walrus 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has no article on the Lunda Confederation. Regarding Khoikhoi, whilst being an example of nomadic pastoralism, they don't meet the criteria established by most historians and anthropologists for being a "civilisation" (i.e. were not townsmen). I have added a link to Great Zimbabwe and the Sudanic civilisations (Ghana, Mali and Songhai). Regarding the North American Indians, while it could be argued that the Anastasi, Pueblo Dwellers and perhaps the Mississipian cultures were civilisations under the general meaning of the term, this was not general. The Iroquois Confederacy could have been said to have been a proto-civilisation, and the same could be said for such people as the Mandan. John D. Croft 13:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Complexity"

This section troubles me: "Superior vs. less complex societies Another use of civilization combines the first and fourth meanings of the word, implying that a complex society is naturally superior to less complex societies. This point of view has been used to justify racism and imperialism; powerful societies have often believed it was their right to "civilize," or culturally dominate, weaker ones ("barbarians"). (The colonization or 'civilizing' of non-Western peoples was sometimes called the "White Man's Burden" when engaged in by Modern Europeans.) Alternatively, it can be said that most people choose to live in increasingly complex societies because of increased standards of living: one of the major population shifts of the last two hundred years has been the migration of people from outlying rural and undeveloped areas to cities." First, what exactly are the criteria for determining "complexity?" I assume that the author means technological complexity, but this is only one facet. Typical discourse of civilization also assumes that the social structures of "uncivilized" societies are less "complex" than those in "civilized" ones. Tell that to anthropologists who go to hunter gatherer societies and discover the dense matrices of social ritual and decorum that would stupefy most westerners (and it is counterintuitive to suggest that "modern" societies have not had to weed out numerous social codes that impede efficiency or productivity). Secondly, racism is an ideology that arose AFTER colonization to justify maintaining social assymetry and exploitation of technologically less complex societies, not the other way around. Certainly, ethnocentrism must exist for one society to feel itself entitled to conquer another, but this isn't the same as racism, the ideology that "races" can be objectively ranked according to their inherent aptitudes, and that higher-ranked races are justified in benefiting in asymmetrical social relationships with lower-ranked ones. Finally, does the author really want to assert that standards of living are objectively higher in "civilized" areas than in "uncivilized" ones? What are the criteria for establishing these standards of living? Are these criteria universally accepted? Kemet 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole article, nor have i read through the entire discussion so i'm not sure if it's already been discussed, but I believe you can simplify civilization by defining what civilized behaviour is. In my opinion, the use of force to get what you want is barbarism, whereas civilized behaviour is getting what you want through voluntary exchange.

[edit] David Wilkinson

David Wilkinson mentioned in this entry is not identical with "David Todd Wilkinson (13 May 1935 – 5 September 2002), a world-renowned pioneer in the field of cosmology, specializing in the study of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) left over from the Big Bang". The one mentioned in the entry is a political scientist from the UCLA. And he is alive. Hence, I have removed [[]] from David Wikinson.

Athkalani

boob

[edit] Caral and Olmec - which counts as first 'New World' civilization?

Hi!

Today I had (from another computer) added in the reference to the complex at Caral, as well as the place it has as the earliest known civilization in the Americas. The Caral site dates from c. 3000 BCE onwards, whereas the Olmecs are listed as dating from c.1200 BCE - quite a considerable gap.

I had revised the Olmec article to list it as the oldest known civilization in Mesoamerica (which is still the case) - the use of 'New World' would not be limited to parts of the Western Hemisphere which lie outside the Andean region. Even the New World article specifically lists the term as representing the Americas as a whole - which would favour Caral.

However, it seems that the Olmec entry has been modified to put the 'New World' term back in, which given the existence of Caral is not accurate.

Is the Olmec status as oldest known urban society in Mesoamerica not sufficient? --Nerroth 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gojoseon

Gojoseon is a legend. Please read history of Korea, or Gojoseon, Gojoseon is only a legend, it has no ruin or no evidence of existence. Please read again Wikipedia:Verifiability. Zone101 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At least to say before Gija Joseon (around 323 BC - 194 BC), Gojosen has no archeological evidence. So we can't say Gojosen is one of early civilizations.Zone101 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing of "Primitive"

I have edited the references to primitive,as they are based upon ethnocentric and culturally biased points of view John D. Croft 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the "end of civilization"

Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korea (Gojoseon) date of 2333BC is disputed

The 2333BC date for Korea/Gojoseon is legendary, and not considered to be a fact. Here's how the 2333BC date is derived, based on the Dangun (Tangun) legend (which appears in Samguk Yusa).... According to the Tangun article in Merriam-Webster Unabridged Collegiate Encyclopedia:

  • Tangun - Mythological first king of the Koreans, whose reign began in 2333 BC. According to one legend, Tangun's father descended from heaven to rule earth from a mountaintop. When a bear and a tiger expressed the wish to become human, he ordered them into a cave for 100 days; after the tiger grew impatient and left, the bear was transformed into the beautiful woman who became Tangun's mother. Buddhism and Taoism credited Tangun with establishing a national religion and originating the Korean maxim Hongik-ingan ("Love humanity"). His birthday is a school holiday.

So there you have it... that's where the 2333BC date comes from, a legend saying that the "first king of the Koreans" was born from a bear. That would not meet the caliber of the other civilizations listed in this article, and a correction is in order. This whole section appears to contain multiple inaccurate assertions and needs to be either corrected or deleted altogether.--Endroit 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Chinese nationalism but early periods like the Mummun Pottery period more than qualify Korea for a place in early civilizations. So I'll see to it that "deleted " does not happen.
China's early dynasty, the Xia dynasty is mythological as well, should we delete China then ?
Freedom skies 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Um well the fact that agricultural society existed in China dateable to around 7000 BC, the Xia dynasty does not seem far-fetched. Also there are at least 2 cultures that existed which coincides with the Xia dynasty. The idea of "Korean" culture existing in 2333 BC doesn't seem plausible. Also I see someone declaring that 2333 BC is a real year even though it says it is legendary. I think Chinese text indicate legendary Chinese rulers from 43,000 BC ... should we put that up there too? How ridiculous. 66.171.76.176 09:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Don't really see how this is 'dubious' --futurebird 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical verification of the Xia dynasty is another thing and the agricultural society existing in China is another. Relating primitive agricultural communities with fictional imperial dynasties is absurd. As for the plausibility of the Korean civilization, advanced pottery has been discovered from 1500 BC, the civilization then surely predated the Mummuen period. Freedom skies| talk  21:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies, you need appropriate citation to claim the 2333 BC date. The sources you provided are failing miserably:
  • This citation you gave says Korea is "considered one of the oldest civilizations in the world," but the oldest date is gives is 37 BC.
  • This citation you gave (in Korean) says that the 2333BC date is doubtful, and that Samguk Yusa deliberately manipulated this date to make their own kingdom look greater. I translated this passage in your cited source: "《삼국유사》에 전하는 단군신화에서는 기원전 2333년에 단군이 고조선을 건국하였다고 기술하였으나, 그대로 믿기 어렵다. 건국연대를 위로 끌어올린 이유는, 역사가 오래될수록 그 왕조는 권위가 있으며 민족도 위대하다는 인식의 반영에 불과하다. "
If anything, the second source you gave proves that the 2333 BC date is dubious. The first source you gave claims Korea is one of the oldest based on a 37 BC date, hence the {{POV}} tag.
There are some indications that an agricultural society existed in Korea as far back as 2000 BC. However, any mention of "Choson" (for Gojoseon) not related to legend (in reliable sources) are after 1000 BC. It is doubtful whether any distinctly Korean civilization existed prior to 1000 BC. Also, it is somewhere between 1000 BC and 300 BC that "Old Choson" (Gojoseon) really became a civilization in the sense of this article. 400 BC would be an acceptable date for me.--Endroit 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Endroit. I think this 2333 date is too unreliable to be used as some people here want it to be. I think it's better to play it safe rather than try out dubious "facts" just because they might be right. John Smith's 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Gojoseon dating to "4th Century B.C."

From pp. 194-195, Columbia chronologies of Asian history and culture, By John S. Bowman, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0231110049:

  • "c 4th Century B.C.: Tribal federations such as Puyo, Yemaek, Old Choson, Imdun, and Chinbon emerge on the model of the Bronze Age's walled town state. Old Choson, the most powerful of these federations, traces its lineage to Tangun, the mythical ruler of 2333B.C. The federation of Chin develops south of the Han River. Iron rapidly replaces bronze in the makin of weapons and tools, particularly among the members of the emergent ruling class. A unique heating system, called ondol, is also developed around this time: It consists of flues running under the floor bearing heat from a fire on one side of a house to a chimney on the other."

--Endroit 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheomseongdae

Cheomseongdae was made in the seventh century. Is this included in the Korean civilization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.3.121.108 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neolithic cultures

Should we be including neolithic cultures as the article does in, for example, the India section? If so, should we not include Pengtoushan culture and the other cultures in List of Neolithic cultures of China? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, some define the bronze age saw the birth of civilization.--Ksyrie 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the "early Civilisations" section needs a complete re-write as it mixes claims about pre-civilised neolithic peoples with mythology and later civilisations and does not adequately address the issues of the origins of civilisation. A better chronological sequencing is also required. John D. Croft 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps being "neolithic" shouldn't be a criteria here. Having its own "writing system" or living in large planned cities can be.--Endroit 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think so.Without writing people are hard to know what had happened.--Ksyrie 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Fall of Civilisations

A new page has been started for those interested in more details of the fall of civilisations. Please help make this page better. John D. Croft 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV statements?

Hi.

I saw this:

"The current War on Terrorism in this context would seem to be a part of such a transitional pattern, where existing great powers first try to monopolise the declining stock of depleting strategic resources."

Is this biased? Not everyone believes the WoT is for oil. I believe it is, but that is not everyone's belief. Some people still think it is good.

The section has been ammended. And as a result I have deleted the NPOV statement to this section. John D. Croft 11:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! 74.38.35.171 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this seems a bit odd:

"Civilizations are more complex again than chieftain societies, as, in addition to a variety of specialist artisans and craftspeople, civilizations are all characterised by a social elite, with status inherited, determined largely from birth."

This would suggest that high levels of social mobility would not be consistent with civilization. Woo! America is NOT a civilization! Woo! Canada is NOT a civilization! Oy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.35.171 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It says "Largely" from Birth. The birth status of parents is still a good predictor of the ultimate status of social and economic children in USA and Canada. The amount of "social mobility" in these "civilisations" is largely overstated in the name of ideology. There has been social mobility in every civilisation, and the USA and Canada are no different.John D. Croft 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Economist article on how social mobility in the US has decreased, and the social elite is becoming dynastic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, the problems with our world... Looks like we're heading for a caste system like the one in India... 74.38.35.171 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So is America a civilization or not?! Would a society where one can change their social status even more easily be not considered "civilization" even if it had laws, cities, a central government, etc.? 74.38.35.171 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course America is a civilisation, read the list of characteristics of civilisations (above). America fits them perfectly. It is the presence of a social hierarchy between the dominant rulers and the more submissive ruled, amongst other things, that defines a civilisation, not the possibilities of a limited degree of social mobility. For example, Mamluk Egypt and the Delhi Sultanate saw slaves elevated to the highest positions within the state, as part of a system of government - it would be like searching for your rulers from amongst the lowest paid and most dependent parts of your community. And that was a civilisation too.
John D. Croft 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But then why say that the governing group must be determined largely from "birth", anyway? 74.38.35.171 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Any response? Would a "civilization" where this wasn't the case not be a civilization?!?!
Civilisations appear with the appearance of social classes of people in which membership of a social class is determined by "in-group" and "out-group" classification, and social sanctions are put upon people to conform to expected behaviours. These behaviours are learned, predominantly in childhood, largely in one's family of origin, and are hence "largely determined from birth". To "cross the lines" from one social class group to another is a difficult and often painful process. In a civilisation, as a result of its internal complexity, and in its urban structure, these social classes are concentrated in urban areas, geographically separated by place of residence. To "step across the borders" from one geographic location to another can be a risky business. A black youth in a white affluent suburb would be likely to be stopped and questioned by patrolling police. Awhite affluent youth in a black poor suburb could run different though related risks. You can see the difficulties operating at the moment in Baghdad with Shia, Christian and Sunni quarters of the city. You only find "governing groups" not determined by birth in small, non-tribal societies where social status is earned - like the Big-men in the Papua New Guinean Highlands, or in such egalitarian cultures as the Mbuti, San or Australian Aboriginal people. As these are not "civilised" in the anthropological sense, such situations are not found in civilisations. John D. Croft 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So then, basically, you are saying that any and all societies with high levels of social mobility are not civilized nor can they be? 74.38.35.171 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

Is it just me or is the intro an extended vioaltion of WP:NOT a dictionary? I don't find it at all satisfying in terms of relating what's coming in the rest of article. Marskell 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro evolved out of much discussion about whether the article should be spelled Civilisation (as British English) or Civilization (as American English). The intro was a compromise agreed by users that gave relevant space and an appropriate etymology for both terms. It is not intended as a dictionary, but to be "encyclopedic" to cover both usages. John D. Croft 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood. But an article lead section ought to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This doesn't do anything like that. I would suggest just starting from nothing and bumping what's there to an etymology section. Marskell 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art, philosophy, science

I'd like to see a bit more emphasis on artistic, philosophical, scientific achievements (of, for example modernist France or Tang China). I know some will disagree and think they should rather be emphasised elsewhere (eg. under 'culture') but to me art, philosophy and science are more important in civilisation than the article seems to suggest. 198.54.202.250 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human society as a whole

For me, it would be better to replace the section between 'Recently it has been suggested that there are in fact three waves of the globalisation of civilization' and 'It is argued that contemporary global civilization is beginning to undergo yet another transition' with a link to the article on Alvin Toffler's book (with perhaps some editing to tidy up any loose ends.) As it is the section seems to over-emphasise conquest at the expense of other aspects. 198.54.202.250 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go! Tofflers book is only one on this. For more of the "Three Waves of Globalisation" concept see Robertson, Robbie. The Three Waves of Globalization, a History of Developing Global Consciousness. Zed Press, 2003. He shows that each wave was associated with a development of new energy source based technlogies and we have come to the end of the age of oil. End times are associated with World Wars and revolutions. John D. Croft 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/v/Talk%7ECivilization_35fa.html"