Talk:Civilization/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: everyone has a different definition of civilized, but I consider Çatalhöyük and/or Jericho worthy of consideration. WBardwin 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilizations in human history

message: "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)
thread_title: Peaceful, or civil interaction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Racist/ethnocentric 

message: 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)
thread_title: Acknowledge the limited, technical, Academic viewpoint expressed in this horrific piece

message: 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)
thread_title: Recognize multiple meanings up front

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oops - what happened to the other languages bit