Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel/Archive 1

message: Tannin, you seem not to get it: it does not matter what criticisms you find nonsensical or sensible, just as it does not matter whether I like the book or not.  Diamond published an important book so, whether I like it or not, there should be an article that gives an account of its argument.  Similarly, an important geographer has published a well-received critique of the book that is shared by many scholars, and whether you think it is nonsensical or not, it should be in the article.  This is not a listserve in which we argue over who we think is right or wrong, it is an encyclopedia in which we provide accounts of topics whether we agree with them or not.  Stop cutting content you do not like, understand, appreciate or whatever. Slrubenstein
We are not obliged to report palpable nonsense - and at least one of the criticisms you insist on reverting is just that. Tannin
Tannin, if we were not obliged to report palpable nonsense Wikipedia would have perhaps half as many articles as it does.  Please review the NPOV policy, though -- what one person considers palpable nonsense, others consider incisive critique.  I repeat: it is not your job to be a censor.  Let readers decide for themselves whether it is nonsense or worth thinking about. Slrubenstein
Tannin, there is no reason to revert the critique because you think it is nonsense. The page should be restored to include the critique. You can then add why you find it to be "palpable nonsense" Danny
Danny, I reverted again.  Tannin -- my advice to you is to work on the main body of the article to make it stronger.  I am not sure whether Danny means you should explain why the critique is palpable nonsense in the article itself or in the talk section.  I am opposed to turning articles themselves into dialogues about a topic.  I think that the account of Blough's critique should be clear (I think it is) and that the account of Diamond's book should be clear (I thought it was, but if it isn't, let's work on it).  Feel free to explain why you disagree with the critique here in the talk page, of course, Slrubenstein
Yes, I mean that the discussion should take place here. The mention of Blought's book critique, however, does belong on the article. Danny
The para:  It suggests that European civilization has "won" some competition. Human history is far from over, therefore it is impossible to say that one form of social organization has "won" over another form. To put it another way, Diamond suggests that history provides us with a natural experiment, but he is mistaken because experiments must have clear endings and the human "experiment" never ends. is utter nonsense. Indeed, Diamond goes to considerable trouble to sprinkle GG&S with comments making precisely the opposite point. It is irresponsible to include such a grossly misleading comment, no matter who has said it, without also including the information that is palpably untrue. There are much more cogent criticisms to be made than this.
PS: I've been intending to work on the main body of the article for some time: it is indeed very weak - though enormously improved since Danny's re-write. Tannin
:Okay, here is a suggestion: after this paragraph, insert a short paranthetical list of a few page-numbers that makes this point.  I think you can phrase it in a fairly unobnoxious way, for example "but see pages x, y, and z for evidence to the contrary." Slrubenstein
:: It would take forever! Not the sort of thing you can use an index for, and there are over 400 pages. Perhaps if I get really bored one day. A better suggestion would be to create an article on EEH, where the critique can be expressed in such a way as to make a sensible case for it. As it stands, it's just nonsensical ravings to anyone who has read GG&S and paid attention. I'm sure that Blaut makes more telling points (at least I certainly hope so!) but whatever they may be, they are not conveyed in the present article. Tannin
I thought i read he was both physiologist and antropologist. o well. -Sv
and this may be a little late but... i didnt mean to start a fyght. 
as to the last comment by tannin, i suggest we include the full text of the book. this should resolve any third party interpretation issues. Bovis
can truck the wikipedia servers around like scud missiles to avoid getting shut down for copyright. :) Sv
----
I don't understand this sentence.  It reads like the old joke, "If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs":
:There are no domesticable animals native to Africa (with the arguable exception of the cat, which is not significant in this context).
That is, "Oh well, yes, the cat, but the cat doesn't count."  Why?  Ortolan88
: I'm guessing it means the cat doesn't count because it's not eaten. (though why not? some societies eat dogs.) Though I'm not sure it's a valid argument. Cats may not have been domesticated for food, but they served a vital role in food production -- pest control. -- Tarquin 20:04 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC) PS. Orto -- What's the difference between a duck?
:::far be it for me to speak for JD, but I'm guessing the issue is domesticated as a draft animal, rather than as a pet.  Of course, dogs were domesticated all over the place, often for use in hunting (not just food). Slrubenstein
The cat as a draft animal is a concept that just did not work out. 
:::I was just venturing a reason for why "the cat doesn't count"
::::I was rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of hitching a cat up to anything.
:::::obviously, you need a lot of finesse to do this.  But really, how do you think the Egyptians dragged all those huge stones up the pyramids?
But they do play a role in food production, as stated, and the sentence still is hard to parse.  No soap, radio, Ortolan88
: You're right, the sentence is very badly put. Forgot to say that :-) -- Tarquin 20:31 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
::As the contributor of the sentence excepting the cat, I accept that the point should be clarified.  The cat is significant in protecting food surpluses once a society has adopted agriculture, but, in Diamond's analysis, this is not a significant resource in comparison to the energy from large domesticable mammals or the availability of plants suitable to get agriculture started in the first place.  Diamond also points out that ferrets (descended from the weasel family) serve equally well. -- Alan Peakall 09:46 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
:::I think my latest update fixes this and that the article now captures the sense of Diamond's argument better than previous versions (without giving offence to any of our respective pet cats or dogs).  Thanks to Tarquin, Ortolan, SLR -- Alan Peakall 17:24 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
::::Well-done! Slrubenstein
Diamond's list of domestic animals refers to animals weighing more than 100lbs. The domestic cat falls below this threshold, as far as I'm aware the domestic cat isn't native to Sub-Saharan Africa anyway so what's the fuss about? Remove the parenthesis. Mintguy
Reviewing the article and talk -- I suppose, in retrospect I could have dealt, and may still deal with the critics criticisms simply: Its certainly relevant to include them  (attributed of course), and that they are by "respected and legitimate" writers, though as per the wieght of each; relative to the weight of the article; these should not go uncountered, despite their flaws:
:"It suggests that European civilization has "won" some competition. This suggestion is implicit."
:: What's "implicit" is a subjective area. 
:"This is a false analogy, because a comparison is not the same thing as an experiment. Human history is far from over, therefore it is impossible to say that any one society has "won" over another form. In other words, experiments must have clear endings and the human "experiment" never ends."
::Well, such is the nature of pop sociology/anthropology. Anyone would recieve this criticizm, if they dared venture off into the world of analogies. The "final result" of something that is continuing, is a mis-stated notion, and insincere too: of course there is no "final verdict": If there was, nobody reading this would likely know if the West was "unsuccessful." It all depends on the definition of "success..." perhaps the readers of this might be evidence of said "success".
:"It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor. In other words, the "ascendency" in question is one that has primarily benefited Europeans, but is not specifically "European" in nature."
::This is valid, though is no doubt unreasonably out of bounds for the scope of an encyclopedia, let alone a pop book. But Diamond does address the fundamental ties between Asian and Western cultures, and so forth. This is the most valid criticism of his work, though its' really a criticism of context: Was democracy, for example, originally an "Athenian" notion, or was it concieved of by thinkers outside of Athens; who's culture gets to put the final stamp on what it is?... Carrying this to the current era, what is "western civilization" anyway? And who belongs to it? and who doesnt? It's the whole "western" context, thats fast becoming irrelevant due to communication. To criticise Diamond for using this context, as the vulgar name for a variable in the overall equasion, is disingenuous.
:::Funny you say that this is valid. I thought that a major point of the book is that no culture develops by itself and that the most powerful cultures are the ones that are able to benefit the most from neighboring cultures. AdamRetchless
:"It makes little attempt to explain relatively recent geographic transitions in technology, power and wealth; in particular the rise of Europe and the decline of south-west Asia since about 1500."
::No it doesnt, and thank goodness. Because all of this is too much detail to finish a book in a lifetime. But in truth, all of these transitions can be explained rather simply, and as such, are practically axiomatic: Hypercommunication, hypertransportation, and overwhelming power structures. 
:"The effect of the above three problems is that Diamond's book suggests the inevitability of European ascendency." 
::Perhaps, once again - claiming Diamond has some responsibility for how his work is interpreted.
:"Although Diamond's reliance on geography is not "racist" per se, it has the same effect of naturalizing differences."
::This is also irrelevant, and treats the material as if it should take upon itself a team-sport mentality. Why should any reputable scientist be concerned with how his work might be interpreted to bear nationalistic overtones - maybe I'm not following, but it seems that its either: 1.completely out of left field, or perhaps 2: Diamond invites this sort of criticism of himself by basing his book on answering a ridiculous (but widely asked) pop-sociology question to begin with.
Anyway, just thoughts... not advocating any changes yet... nor am I checking on this article regularly.
-Stevert
The criticisms, as they are written, are stupid and I wonder if the critic read the same book that I did. Even worse, they are not attributed to anyone. Are they all from "Eight Eurocentric Historians"? As they stand, I think that they detract from the article. Just my two cents. AdamRetchless 20:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  section 

message: I don't have the book here with me, so I won't change the article, but I am fairly confident that there is a major error in the beginning and end of the article. Diamond did not try to explain why Europe was technologically advanced and politically powerful-- he tried to explain why Eurasian cultures were technologically advanced and politically powerful. Only in the last chapter did he offer any explanation for Europe's position relative to the rest of Eurasia, and he admitted that those were half-baked ideas. On that point, it is odd that the book is criticized for not being what it never claimed to be. AdamRetchless 20:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow up, I think that a distinction needs to be made between what Diamond said about the social impact of his book (European dominance, or whatever he called it), and the scientific theory he was defending. Sorry, but I won't be able to get into this (and I wouldn't be much help either since I don't have a copy of the book) AdamRetchless 22:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasia, not Europe 

message: All criticisms of this book are utterly absurd.  Chameleon 11:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdity 

message: It's past time to be a little bolder in revising this article. I am revising the criticisms so as to make clearer the disctinction between what Diamond says and what is said to be implicit in what he says. I have removed a bullet:
* It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor.  In other words, the "ascendency" in question is one that has primarily benefited Europeans but is not specifically "European" in nature. 
because it talks explicitly and exclusively of Europe, while it is impossible to read even a few pages of the book without realizing that he's talking about Eurasia. I'd try to fix it except that it appears to me so irrelevant and stupid, where not actually false, that I don't know how it's supposed to come out after being corrected to take account of the percentage of Eupropean appropriations that came from Asia. Dandrake 23:04, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Your opinion is irrelevant as articles are not meant to express our points of view.  What is important is that others (e.g. Blau) have published these criticisms and so the article must provide an account of them.  Blau specifies "African" aonctributions so I will clarrify that, Slrubenstein
::In a way, you're right. The complete half-assedness of the criticisms as expressed in the current state of the article should not be addressed by revising them in-line so that they'd resemble a criticism of the book that Diamond wrote rather than of a sheer invention with Diamond's name glued on; that would merely make them look more reasonable; they need to be addressed directly after being given full scope to assert nonsense. And I get the catch: a critique of the criticisms by citation of what the book actually says is not allowed, because that would be Original Research; one must find a Published Authority from whom to quote the quotations. But Catch 23 is that thet isn't original; it's Diamond's research. I'll keep this in mind. Dandrake 20:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
You should certainly add information to the article that provides a fuller and more accurate exposition of what the book argues, and how.  Slrubenstein
In a way it's fun to start the article (as he did the book) with his rebuttal, almost point-by-point, of what the critics were going to say. They seem to have got their list of subtle messages and things he ignored by cribbing the list of things he answered explicitly before even starting his presentation. That, of course, assumes that they read the book. Still, refuting nonsense (and I know the word rebut and am not using it), no matter how much fun, is a poor use of time when one could be taling about ideas. Dandrake 22:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Please attempt to attribute specific critiques to the people who made them.  "Some people" is a bit too generic, and possibly offensive to the critics.  A-giau 08:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms revised 

message: I read this book years ago, and having just now read the article, I feel it does not quite convey Diamond's thesis in a way that makes it clear how the arguments are interdependent.  In particular the synopsis of arguments seems a bit disjointed, though I recall they were quite lucidly presented in his book.  I have to re-read sections of the book.  A-giau 09:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader's comment 

message: From Talk:Bantu#Recent addition:
:They couldn't spread southwards because their cattle and plants were not adapted to the Mediterranean climate. It was Huguenots who brought the Mediterranean techniques to South Africa.
Is that what GGS says?
--Error 04:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bantu expansion

message: Now this is just ridiculous:
"It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European (especially African) knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor."
The bolded part of the sentence seems gratuitously and spitefully tacked on. I can understand the labor part. But can someone please explain how the Europeans "forcibly appropriated" knowledge and technology? Ah, you must be speaking of the event where Greek warriors stormed into Phoenicia and violently wrested the alphabet away from the native peoples, who emerged from the battle bloodied and illiterate. Or when Gutenberg held the people of China at swordpoint, threatening them into giving up their knowledge of the printing press (fortunately, they still had calligraphy to fall back on).
Do Diamond's detractors even make the claim that Europeans "forcibly appropriated" (as opposed to borrowed/adopted) knowledge and technology? And if so, how does that argue against GGS's thesis?
:What is important is that we represent the views of major critics.  The criticism you refer to is cited (Blau?  something like that) -- if you don't agree with or like his point, you have to take it up with him. Slrubenstein 15:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more absurdity

message: The Geography section of the article is rather weak.  It doesn't make much sense to discuss it this way, considering that the whole book is about consequences of geography.  Having rewritten the Outline and Agriculture sections to emphasize the book's premise that geography is a pervasive factor, perhaps we could just remove this section from the article? DPoon 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Cheking the Wikiartikels of Sheep and Peccary Diamonds claim about lack of "useable" animals seems to be simply wrong. Any solutions anybody?  
(please sign your name above by typing ~~~.  In response to your question, I think his point about all the qualities of a domesticable animal needing to be present--in other words being necessary but not sufficient--is an interesting but mostly-untestable one.  Because some of the qualities necessary are difficult to define, we will never know if a peccary or bison is domesticable unless we try.  But, as he discusses regarding wild plants, local peoples can be expected to attempt to domesticate virtually all the animals in their area.  It seems likely to me, that at some point, native americans had gotten their hands on a wild, young peccary, and like some of my more-insane clients (I'm a veterinarian), had tried to raise them, nursing them with human breast-milk, and the relationship probably didn't work out for one of the numerous reasons Diamond speaks about.  Just look at all the crazies who "rescue" every orphaned animal they see.  You think that started in modern times?  I mean why was the wolf the only member of the canidae domesticated?  There are plenty of foxes around, and people were looking for a smaller wolf.  Why not just domesticate a fox?  Why are none of the cervidae (deer, moose, etc ...) domesticated?  Why only bovidae and the closely-related ovidae?  I think the answer is because Diamond is correct, and it is the rare species which is domesticable.  It's not an inherent characteristic of the species, but rather characteristics as they relate to typical, local, human characteristics.  I mean for all we know, rhinos might be domesticable by VERY large, iron-clad people, with a lot of patience and no furniture.--Davidbessler 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheeps and Peccary 

message: The issue of whether or not this book is 'Eurocentric' should be irrelevant. This book is leftist non-sense, and there are dozens of countries that destroy his theory. Consider that China has had domesticated animals for thousands of years while Germany was mostly a group of warring tribes until Roman occupation. How did Germany then become one of the world's richest nations only a short time later? What about the Aztecs? Did they not have maize and armies? Are there no European countries that have inhospitable conditions? Shouldn't Iceland then be one of the poorest countries in the world? What about the Egyptians or the Persians (Iran)? Anyone with even a basic sense of history should be able to see that this book is nothing but pc drivel. The fact that it won a Pulitzer only shows how political correctness can corrupt any institution.
The author talks at length about South East Asia, and China specifically, who had many advantages and were a world power during the period he focuses on and are today. He refers, in general, not to European dominance but Eurasian. 
The Aztecs did indeed have maize and armies - in fact that's exactly why the question of how the massively outnumbered Cortez conquered them is interesting. Maybe it had something to do with Cortez's access to, oh, I don't know, germs, guns, and some third material that currently escapes me [/sarcasm]. 
The book is certainly not a complete theory of history, and can fairly be criticized as a populist metatheory that of course fails to address many incredibly complicated events in history. Increased consideration of Environmental factors has, however, become increasingly common in the study of history. 
--Camipco 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is irrelevant.  Please read our NPOV policy.  You seem not to accept it.  But for us editors, it is inviolable. user:Slrubenstein
I happen to agree with you on the point about having a NPOV is inviolable. But that isn't really the point I think your trying to make here, this is a talk page and discussion should be on improving the article. I think a policy you should refresh yourself on is Wikipedia:Civility.Colin 8 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite some authors who believe what you do, then you are free to add those beliefs to the criticism section. -- bcasterline • talk 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the spread of colonialism, the main article already sites some relevant works.  Regarding the rise of domestication, there is a very large liturature, most of it in the form of journal articles; for the characteristics and suitibility of animals to domestication as well as some discussion of the alteration of characteristics through breeding try Simon J.M. Davis, The archaeology of Animals, 1987.  There are more recent works but you will have to ferret them out yourself.  For domestication processes in general, Lewis Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference and Tim Ingold, Hunters Pastoralists and Ranchers, are some works I find useful, among others you can refernce from the bibliographies.DHBoggs 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Criticism

message: The Theory of History section seems more like a plug for free markets than a legitimate criticism. First of all, the information is incorrect: Japan and South Korea, despite being capitalistic, are incredibly interventionist. South Korea's Chaebol system involves government co-ordination and the forming of  large multi-sector conglomerates which co-ordinate all manner of economic activity. Taiwan existed under a dictatorship until 1987 and received heavy U.S. support. As well, comparing the growth of nations during the 20th century with growth during the previous ten centuries is very problematic. In a way, it makes Diamond's point. The areas to which technology has flowed easily and readily have developed. Those that have not received the technology have not.Troyc001 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a legitimate criticism from a free-market perspective. A criticism from a technocratic-statist perspective would read almost identically, saying that Diamond has ignored the effect of enlightened state planning and social forces that are not results of the environment. Both criticisms have limited applicability as Diamond focuses not on Europe vs. Asia but Eurasia vs. the rest of the world. --JWB 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some source of the criticism be provided? If some semi-respectable source is making this criticism, then fine. Otherwise, would this not qualify as original scholarship?Troyc001 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add it and am not standing up for its retention, though I doubt it's original research - this viewpoint is so common I'm sure it is in many sources, maybe even in some of those already cited in the article. I would prefer the article to focus on the book's Eurasia thesis.--JWB 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question about the section detailing criticism of Diamond's "law of history."  The article currently states 
"Many historians dispute Diamond’s “law of history” regarding the dominance of agricultural societies over their non-agricultural neighbors. [citation needed] There are numerous cases of nomadic societies conquering agricultural ones: the Hittites conquest of the ancient Middle East, the successive movements of Germanic people (such as Franks, Goths and Huns) across Europe, the Aryan migration into India, the Seljuk Turks conquest of much of the Muslim world that began in the 11th century, and the vast Mongolian conquests of the 13th and 14th centuries."
It seems to me that there is a confusion in this section between non-agricultural and nomadic.  I will post back soon with sources, but I am fairly sure that a few of the people mentioned above possessed some form of agriculture, mainly the Hittite and Germanic peoples, and possibly the Mongolians if you count livestock.  Also, I was quite sure that the Germanic peoples were on the whole sedentary not nomadic.  I might be confusing different time periods.--tbonepower07 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free-market critics

message: It seems to me the page discusses Europe too much. The book is primarily about Eurasia vs. other connected regions, not about Europe as a separate unit. --JWB 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
I agree, and this shows up perhaps unfairly in the criticisms section. I didn't feel, for example, that he underestimated the importance of South East Asian technology.
--Camipco 17:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe or Eurasia? 

message: Proposed edit for intro:
:"...which began broadcasting a documentary based on the book, produced by the National Geographic Society," which uses the term "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about 870 times in one hour. :( 
-St|eve 01:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The Anna Karenina principle is currently an orphaned stub describing one argument from Diamond's book. Can it and should it be merged into this article? MC MasterChef 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it should be merged or not, but after my edit it is at least no longer orphaned.  DPoon 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anna Karenina principle]] 

message: can anyone point out exactly what were the african contribution to european ascendency? The more familiar non-European inventions of paper, gunpowder, compass, and the movable type were Chinese in origin, not African, and they were not forcefully appropriated, but learned through mutual exchange. Cowell 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The areas from where most Africans were taken in the Atlantic slave trade were densely-populated chiefdoms, kingdoms and empires, all of which rested upon agricultural and iron-working systems that could maintain dense populations.  Since most were farmers, ironworkers or other craftsmen, then they had a "pre-adaptation" to the requirements of plantation slave labor, without whose existence the Industrial Revolution would not have taken place (the stable, chattel labor force freed up capital that could be used in technological innovations and investments).  Thank the African bodies themselves for the Industrial Revolution.Kemet 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was given to understand that the industrial revolution was primarily a British phenomenon, while African slavery was primarily an American one; and that industrialization in America happened more readily in places where slavery was less common (i.e. the Northern states vs. the South and the Caribbean islands).  No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.171.214 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  african contribution 

message: This is quite good, I think with minor adjustments it would survive FAC. Anybody interested in addressing eventual FAC objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is FAC? Which objections are you anticipating?--JWB 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC = Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. As for the objections - I guess we will see after nominations. My question was about whether there are any editors that will read the comments and try to address them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'd look at objections. (not guaranteeing I would fix all objections) What page would they be on? --JWB 08:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Let's start with Peer Review first. There are usually not that many comments, but if they are, they are useful. Check the templates at the talk above for links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have comments - see Wikipedia:Peer_Review#Guns.2C_Germs.2C_and_Steel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC? 

message: :A more fundamental argument against Diamond’s thesis is that he does not understand the true nature of history; if history is defined as “a study of human actions” then it must be a study of conscious action and the evolution of ideas, rather than environmental factors.  The ability of man to shape his environment and create a positive environment for growth presents many counterexamples to Diamond’s thesis, such as the numerous cases of rapid prosperity achieved by countries with few resources but free markets such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. (Compared with nations blessed with natural resources that have stagnated under interventionist governments, examples: Brazil, Nigeria, and Russia.) He also fails to explain the importance of the individual, as many countries received a direct increase in their standard of living because of key individuals. By implying that those individuals were just members of their respective groups undermines the significant contributions that those individuals provided.
This part of the criticism is very weird. Is defining "history" as “a study of human actions” anywhere close to the mainstream ? Does studying environmental factors is somehow not correct according to the historical orthodoxy ? It doesn't seem to me that either of these is true. If these two concepts are not mainstream, at least who supports them ?
The rest of the paragraph seems completely misdirected - it refers to the very modern times, oversimplifies the interventionism/free market issue (interventionism refers to government action in a free market economy, so there's no opposition here; the East Asian countries are pretty interventionists) and refers to the resources issue, that doesn't seem to be considered important by the book etc. The influence that individuals may have does not make the study of historical trends somehow invalid.
This section would need a complete rewrite before returning to the article. Taw 06:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Theory of History 

message: Besides domesticated animals, plant foodstuffs (eg. cereals/grains) of different geographical regions is a major topic in the book. This is not mentioned in the article. Dyl 08:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant foodstuffs not mentioned in the article

message: This article focuses too much on Europe. Why is it people always look to Europe when thinking of a dominate civilization. Europe has only caught up to the rest of Eurasia by 1500, and took the lead only at around 1800. Even in Ancient times only Greco-Roman civilizations were advanced while the rest of Europe were living no better than Native Americans and Native Africans below North Africa. On the other hand Southwest Asia (Arabia, Persia, ect.) South Asia (India, ect.), and East Asia (China, Korea, ect.) have dominated the world in technology far longer than most European "civilizations". China was vastly ahead of the world in technology for most of history.. If this book talks about civilization up to 1500s  then Europeans shouldn't be mentioned too much, except for Greco-Roman and late Middle Ages Europe. Yet from this article it seems that Europeans are talked about most. Zachorious 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, said that in the "Europe or Eurasia?" section above. The book is not Eurocentric, but Eurasiacentric. IMO a lot of the discussion of Eurocentrism in this article is out of place and not relevant to the book, but so far I have been reluctant to just delete it. --JWB 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what parts are problematic. Some of the large criticism/response sections could probably be split into smaller sections or summarized using Wikipedia:Summary style. I would expect Europe and Asia to be central topics because part of the purpose of the book is to examine why these continents have been more developed.--Nectar 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Europe and Asia" is a central topic of the book, but "Europe vs. Asia" is not, in deliberate contrast to most conventional history. --JWB 02:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the criticism being summarized & split off onto a seperate article. As I see it this article focuses far too much on the criticism and not enough on the actual substance of the book. This book is popular non-fiction, not academic. Books and other references can act as counter-examples and comparisons to the assumptions and ideas in GGS and use those in place of a long-winded crit section. --Nick 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe And Not The Rest Of Eurasia 

message: "But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilization, as a whole, has survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority."  Where is this belief that is being refuted?  Who believes that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority?  Did Jared Diamond invent this idea?  Someone help me with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowyCaballero (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2006.
:It's a very common unstated or implicit belief, especially among cultural conservatives. Probably not common among academics (although Allan Bloom springs to mind as a likely candidate to hold such a belief), but it definitely is among the hoi polloi of Western culture. — 
goethean ॐ 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Social Darwinism. The most common belief even among intellectuals not so long ago. -- bcasterline • talk 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this is a belief only held by white supremacists.  Anyone familiar with chaos theory would agree with Diamond. - User:ShadowyCaballero
Do you really feel that the view that the belief in a theoretical European cultural superiority is an invention?. It was the most clear cut and widely held view until fifty years ago and is still held by a great many people. This has little to do with whether its correct, just that it exists and has for an extremely long time. what about manifest destiny or the British attempt during its rule over a third of the world to make all of their subject peoples as British as possible or the laughable claims that Africans were akin to beasts of burden or the still widely held modern nationalistic belief that this country whichever one it may be, is the greatest country in the world. Colin 8 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that is a pretty sloppy and misinformed use of "chaos theory" which does not apply to the material Diamond is referring to.  Moreover, this is not a belief limited to avowed or self-identified white-supremists.  James Blaut argued that it is pervasive in Academia . Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasian hegemony 

message: It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: The article Anna Karenina principle is linked only from here and is of no use outside the context of GGS book. There is no info whether someone else have picked the name, so several articles just for a book (even if it was the best one ever) is useless.
It is also rather short which makes a very good candidate for a merge. Section here would be better to read than to navigate to another article. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about this article.  However, now that I see it, I think the real issue is that it should not be called "the Anna Karenina principle."  In fact, Diamond is refering to a principle well-established in ecology and cultural ecology.  I imagine his calling it the Anna Karenina principle is part of his attempt to popularize and reach a general audience through non-scholarly more friendly language.  And there is a real (meaning, predates Diamond, is what is used by scientists) name for this: Liebig's law of the minimum: growth is limited by the minimum availability of one resource rather than by the abundance of all resources (there are other ways of putting it).  I do not know of any references to an Ana Karenina principle that predate Diamond's book.  Frankly, I would just propose speedy deletion of the AK article, merge the contents here but provide the correct link to the Liebig's law article. Will you do it, or should I? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would redirect AK to here (since it is called that in this book), but mention and link to Liebig's law from this article. — goethean ॐ 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I haven't read the book and know about it only from The Big Wire. Level of knowledge about the Liebig's law was even lower :-( Thanks for educating me ;). For the merge - I can do it, NP. Just avoiding to be way too brave, and trying to be more cooperative. It seems that I haven't read the talk page either, there was already a merge proposal before (#Anna Karenina principle). But you'll have to add the reference what is the relevance of Diamond's AKP to Liebig's. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This makes sense, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Anna Karenina principle here 

message: This article needs much more info about the history of guns, and/or links to such.  People coming to wikipedia seeking the history of guns end up here and find little help. 69.87.199.69 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun History needed

message: *What I removed: 
:Professor Tom Tomlinson argues in a review of Guns, Germs, and Steel that Diamond's approach ignores "much of the current literature on cultural interactions in modern history" and that Diamond omits "almost all of the standard literature on the history of imperialism and post-colonialism, world-systems, underdevelopment or socio-economic change over the last five hundred years."  Though Diamond's book is a popular history that is not primarily interested in engaging academic debates, this point exposes a failure of the book to deal sufficiently with competing hypotheses that is especially problematic in light of Diamond's calls for history to be written as a science.
*Why I removed it:
:*If you read the review, you'll see that that excerpt is meant to be descriptive, not critical.  It's not even an argument: the Book's prologue makes clear that the question is why the eurasians got guns, germs, and steel, not what it did after they got them.  Don't revert me until you've responded to my points here.  Go ahead and revert it in the meantime if you want to discuss and we'll put a dispute tag on it while we discuss. --Urthogie 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal 

message: I seem to recall the picture of "American Progress" by John Gast being either in the cover of some edition or discussed in the book.
Should it be included in the article?
--84.20.17.84 10:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American progress 

message: I'm a newer user, so I'll refrain from just jumping in with edits, but this line in particular:
This speaks to a larger issue of illogical attacks on Western/European civilization by people who are themselves products of that civilization, and in fact never could've made those same attacks without the benefits they enjoy as members of that civilization.
...seems to be entirely political in nature and not helpful with the encyclopedia nature of the article.  Should the paragraph be removed/reworded?   Mike Wolfe 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone problems? 

message: Needs a correct description of a determinist critique. The Timothy Taylor critique that was originally in this spot is not a determinist critique, and seems better suited to Eurocentrism. 14 April 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.83.121 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determinism 

message: The section "The theory outlined" contains a lot of material that's also in the "Agriculture" and "Germs" section. I've commented out the "Agriculture" and "Germs" sections after incorporating additional material from there into "The theory outlined". The alternative would be to make "The theory outlined" much shorter; but then we'd also need a separate section "Why Europeans became dominant", and there's little more to say about that in a separate section because the book only gives the subject a handful of pages. Philcha (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the summmary 

message: I don't know whether Taylor ever questioned whether Hernán Cortés actually won in his conflict with the Aztecs in the first place or accuses Diamond of "Eurocentrically" assuming that Cortés was the victor because the European culture supplanted the Aztec. The ref given does not mention any of this -  Philcha (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the paragraph was not supported by the citation, and sounded weird enough that it really would need to be supported to include in the article. Removed. CAVincent (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timothy Taylor 

message: I just would like to say that you guys do a wonderful job of summarizing the book in such short space and I appreciate this very much! Im 14 years old and had to read this book for a school project and I read this before the book. It really gave me a heads up and helped me enjoy the book a little more. Thanks so much for such a good article! Seanpnoot (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work! 

message: It is regards to political systems and the environment. Edit/change it as you see fit.
(factors such as centralization of government in order to build irrigation systems in river valley civilizations, which inhibited the development of democracy and political freedom - whereas areas that required no centralized irrigation effort, such as Greece, were politically and culturally fragmented, and were able to develop individuality and democracy)
Intranetusa (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added this phrase 

message: This article seems to be getting seriously out of hand (as so many articles that generate controversy do). This article is about a book and its ideas. It is not about all the arguments and nit-picking over terminology that have arisen from people taking offence at the book's thesis. These should be summarised briefly and clearly at the end. The article has become too flabby and tedious to interest a casual reader:-
* the section about James Blaut is longer than  any other! It has no paragraphs! It has been written by someone who has been unable to control his/her own feelings to the extent that other editors have interspersed refutations in the middle - it is horrible! To the author: fix it up or I shall remove all but 2 or 3 lines.
* There are a series of sections dealing with criticisms and counter-criticisms, many of which are highly specific and strike the reader as arguments over facts, not over ideas. This is way too long. Most of it belongs in an article on its own - perhaps on Eurocentrism.--AssegaiAli 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering whats wrong with the Blaut section.  While I might not agree with much of what says Blaut, thinking that Diamond addresses many of his concerns, he is still entitled to his opinion. What does bother me is stating that environmental determinism is "discredited", such a statement needs attribution.--OMCV (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I was wondering about the same. Pergamino (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey...Drastic pruning warning 

message: I agree that we've produced (separate) quotations which say that (obviously) Yali's people have no disadvantage in intellectual genes compared with Eurasians, but that's not what our lead says. Our lead says that Eurasians had no genetic advantage of any kind. That is significantly inconsistent with the book.
Consider our present wording: "Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority". These three (intellectual, genetic, and moral) are presented as separate qualities, so the lead reads:
:Eurasian hegemony is [not] due to any form of Eurasian [...] genetic [...] superiority
Quotes I've cited above (from page 20 & Chapter 11) establish that our lead is the exact opposite of what the book says: We are saying that Eurasian hegemony wasn't caused by genetic differences, where Diamond's "Germ" thesis is that they were.
It is this statement which constitutes original research, as all Diamond writes is that:
:in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners
You may feel that the reader will infer "intellectual genetic superiority" where the lead says "genetic superiority". However, this is a synthesis at best, and confusing to the average article reader (who won't have studied the book). That reader might be given the (incorrect) impression that Eurasian genetic disease resistance isn't essential to the "Germs" part of Diamond's theory.
I don't want to be bold and change this, though it's a small and important edit, since it's also certain to be contencious. I suggest the following rewording:
 while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any genetic superiority in mental ability.
I favour this wording because:
* A) it's closer to the phrase used above in the book ("mental ability") and because
* B) the "moral superiority" claim we were making isn't really addressed in the book (the GG&S chapter on the social organizations that form around societies of various sizes can be read either way). I don't remember a specifically "moral" comparison anywhere in the book. If somebody feels this is an element of GG&S, then the "moral" part could be re-inserted, (with a citation).
We could add a footnote reference to the quote that Sheffield Steel gives above to this rewritten sentence. What do you think?
--Wragge 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We agree there are genetic differences: the problematic word is: ''any'' 

message: Since Diamond gives a (fairly convincing) argument that the average inhabitant of the New World would have been smarter but less disease-resistant than her Old World counterpart (at first contact) for genetic (as well as environmental) reasons, the wording we want might be something like: "Genetic Differences". It's certainly a good idea to dispassionately avoid words like superiority and inferiority.
Whatever new formulation is adopted, it's completely dishonest for the article to say that Diamond argues against "Genetic Superiority", that phrase must be removed.
--Wragge 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest we change 'no genetic superiority' to 'some genetic difference'