Talk:Civilization/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments left at top of page 

message: The Fertile Crescent includes Egypt. --Brunnock 15:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so bro.Cameron Nedland 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read Fertile Crescent. --Sean Brunnock 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry dude, shows what i know.Cameron Nedland 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertile Crescent includes Egypt 

message: 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)
thread_title: Egyptians on Silk Road?

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hyperbole in the Indian Civilization section, where are the sources? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Civilization and Socialism]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing