Talk:Human World

message: OK, so here we have a lengthy discussion of the ideas in the "Earth & Sky" radio series, posted by User:Earthsky.  That looks like either original research or vanity.  Naturally I assume good faith, but could we have some citations from other verifiable sources besides a radio series please?  Thanks, Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, those are not external to the show. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's as may be, but all the reerences are back to the same programme.  So either this is an article about the Human World series on Earth & Sky, in which case it should be written as such (and some Wikipedians would suggest that it be merged to the main article), or it's an article about the Human World concept (which is how it currently reads), in which case it is original research unless you have evidence of the same concept being discussed under the same name outside the context of the Earth & Sky series. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe the easiest way round it is to document it explicitly as a radio series based on the concept of the Anthropocene, and note some of the contributors and discussions of it.  There have been enough POV environmentalist articles created and deleted that people can be a bit sceptical about this kind of content, so references and a clearly defined focus are important in my view. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Have a look at the first couple of paragraphs, see if you get my drift here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what you're saying, but the point here is that you did not originate the concept of the earth being currently dominated by humans, and even if you did Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original thought.  What you have done is to play a part in documenting that line of thinking.  I don't think you're the only people to have applied this label, and if you had it would be a neologism (and thus not for Wikipedia).  It is arguable that this content whould be merged with the article on Earth & Sky, I'm keeping an open mind.  In the mean time I see you as an observer, not an actor, in the political debate on global warming and other anthropoene issues.  As an observer you are able to draw together many strands, that is worth documenting.  This is not a commercial for the programme, it's a discussion of what it is about and why.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this is a lot better.  I have moved on para to make the context clearer up front, but apart from that any differences between your view and mine are essentially stylistic and not substantive.  I removed the importance tag as well, it's no longer needed.  As to whether this should be merged, I am still in two minds, but at least this article is now (to my mind) closer to the Wikipedian ideal of NPOV and verifiability from reliable secondary sources. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The article has been redirected to Anthropocene based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 17#Human World. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected