Talk:Civilization

Maiming

Which civilizations maim civilians in the modern era? Can they be listed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.128.138 (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very confusing

The article seems to be very confusing. The writers here may be trying to rewrite the meaning rather than explaining it. It goes on from one aspect to other in a rather peculiar way without paying attention to anything. It does not highlight the specifics of anything. It seems that those who wrote this wanted it to be in a particular mannar rather than general and may have led this article to this state. This needs to be written in a much better and comprehensive mannar. It doesnt serve the purpose of explaining the civilization properly at all. 223.177.71.92 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute regarding lead image(s)

Alright I am prepared to address any issues with any of the content surrounding the lead images disagreement. Post here with specific requests for citations to that content and I will provide it within reason. Most of this stuff is common knowledge to anyone who understands the subject anyway, but this being wikipedia I guess we'll just have to do this regardless. 24.9.30.143 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you now for edit warring. I asked for sources for the Parliament of Westmminster caption and I do not believe it belongs in the article. No image should stretch across the whole page dominating it the way it does, but that's a separate issue from sourcing. You appear to be confused about the Chinese Great Walls - but if you can find a source for your claim fine, no one has to find a source disputing it. Having an image of the Ming wall and a caption discussing the 3rd century wall is not helpful. Page numbers are required for books. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See the post on your talkpage and let me know about anything it doesn't cover, also page numbers are not always required, they are preferred & definitely encouraged, but I have seen many book citations without page numbers pass arbitration. As I said, most of this is common knowledge anyway and the books cited are highly specific to the subject, but if it's really necessary I can be as specific as you like. I really don't think it is contentious to say that the great wall of china is the largest pre-industrial structure in the world when it is at an absolute minimum 3800 miles long averaging at least a 20 foot height & 15 foot width, it would easily fit the material from hundreds of Great Pyramids of Giza with tremendous amounts of space left over. In fact it would even be a safe wager that it is still among the top ten or even top 5 largest structures on the planet. If you require actual written sources for this, I can certainly see about providing them. Also, please post any other citation requests here before tomorrow so I don't have to do this more than necessary. 24.9.30.143 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ming Great Wall probably is the largest pre-Industrial structure, but the caption discussed an entirely different wall built in 220–206 BCE, an entirely different project. It isn't the image that is wrong, it's the caption. When you are asked for page numbers you need to provide them. I still think the photo of the Palace of Westminster is inappropriate as it is far too large and I am not convinced it is appropriate anyway. The caption reads " the first of the modern mega-cities, birthplace of the industrial revolution, capital of the largest empire in history, and center of the first consistently democratically organized Great Power since the collapse of the Ancient World. The city is generally regarded as the prototypical model upon which the Great Cities of the modern world have based their development. Having singlehandedly forged much of what allows a modern city to function at even the most basic levels, it's precedent and influence are immeasurable.". Who calls it the first of the modern mega-cities? Who calls it the prototypical model etc? What does " Having singlehandedly forged much of what allows a modern city to function at even the most basic levels" even mean? If this is true and important, why have none of the editors of our article on London added it? Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"London model for modern civic design standards"- I will find the sources for this and post them later. Also, please post any others you require before I go to find them. "If this is true and important why have none of the editors of our london article added it?"- It is hardly fair to ask me to speak for what other individuals choose to do or not to do, but I will muster some courage for you and field an educated guess that the assertion would probably be considered a controversial if accurate one, and the admins over there may want to avoid the time consuming hassle of flame wars on their article even if the cause is legitimate content with genuine accuracy. Wikipedia is not always known for having a backbone, and I mean that in the best possible way. Now I will ask you this question, is that (hypothesized) desire one you (hypothetically) also harbor yourself for this article? Please tell me before I go to this trouble so I don't waste both of our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.30.143 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that what you call controversial a lot of us would call 'original research' as defined at WP:NOR. It probably has nothing to do with Admins, just editors trying to keep an article based on what reliable sources (WP:RS if you aren't aware of it) have to say about London. Certainly when I took a course in urban planning at the London School of Economics I don't recall this idea being mentioned. My post above about London mentions the specific claims that need sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We've all taken courses in all manner of things, that doesn't make one's knowledge in them comprehensive or even functional; nor does it make one an expert in those fields, or create the impossibility of accruing new & substantial knowledge on those subjects. To suggest otherwise is surely folly, even from the London School of Economics point of view. "Original Research"- Is it still Original Research if I can name five different pieces of relevant literature of some substance, from reputable authors, which support the claim? And if it's not Original Research, then does that mean it's automatically not controversial? I'm going to pay you the courtesy of presuming you're not unreasonable in this regard. "Sourcing"- So were the claims regarding The Ming Wall (once again, as I have said repeatedly here and in the discussions on our talk pages, I was not the source of the assertion that it was built between 220 and 206 bce without an admin or anyone else taking any corrective action such as reverting it or demanding a source for such an interesting claim, yet my content was reverted under partial guise of this ,clear, yet up til now, ignored, aberration. The honor for this contribution which you repeatedly take issue with, again, belongs to another, an honor which was paid no attention by yourself nor by the other individual apparently opposed to my actual contributions, the user Andrew Lancaster, who so studiously objected to the content I really did add, while ignoring something as blaring as this date issue that you have repeatedly mentioned in contexts which supposedly relate to items in my contributions which need fixing. Apparently the content of mine that is in question made such ridiculous claims about the size of the pre-industrial Ming Wall as to warrant the immediate and focused attention of an admin, but a claim that places the completion of a referenced structure in an article 1800 years before it actually happened is found of interest to no one, save for when it can have its author confused. May I ask why? You understand of course.), and the claim about London all you needed improved sourcing on? I'm sure there are others, if there are please name them now as I will need to go soon. (and apologies on not signing my previous comment I was distracted and neglected to check before posting) 24.9.30.143 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what I studied is irrelevant and I deserve a trouting for mentioning it. I'm not acting as an Administrator in any of this, just as an ordinary editor with this article on his Watch List. I must be tired, because I don't understand much of your post. I'll comment on the OR question - we of course can use reputable authors as sources, how we use them depends on what we use them for and what they say. And it's no problem if they disagree with each other, although we have to make that clear. I'm off to bed. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)