Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

American progress

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)

Hey...Drastic pruning warning

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)

there are almost no citations here! god people do something! Also, don't say if you dont like it change it yourself, as i am a wiki n00b, and would probly end up distroying everythang if i tryed Thedudewithglasses 07:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Blaut's criticism, but this section needs reworked. The above is right, its way to long. Blaut's key criticisms could be summarized in three bullet points. I'll do it if I can ever finish my damn dissertation on sumpweed201.207.97.7 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No response to my suggestions last month - so I have made some changes. Criticisms are now shorter and more pointed and divided into specific sections that I hope convey the thrust of the controversy as simply as possible. Would anyone like to volunteer to do the same with the responses to criticisms? --AssegaiAli 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, I was wondering about the same. Pergamino (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bantu and SA

This is listed as a controversial claim in the article:

In chapter 19 (How Africa Became Black) he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu they would have been unable to establish themselves in Cape Town, and says that since both sets of invaders displaced the Khoisan people the Dutch claim of prior occupation (although true) "needn't be taken seriously".

First: "he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu"

This makes it sound like it was a matter of timing, which is not what the author claims. Diamond notes that the Bantu were already near the Cape of Good Hope, but had stopped expanding because the climate there was such that the Bantu agriculture and crops were not suitable for the area. Is was however suitable for crops the Dutch brought.

Second: I'm not sure what is actually controversial here. That needs to be clarified. A more complete quote is:

"once South African whites had quickly killed or infected or driven off the Cape's Khoisan population, whites could claim correctly that they had occupied the Cape [of Good Hope] before the Bantu and thus had prior rights to it. That claim needn't be taken seriously, since the prior rights of the Cape Khoisan didn't inhibit the whites from dispossessing them."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.74.92 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone problems?

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)

Done. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GG&S argues that genetic superiority in disease resistance was a factor in Eurasian conquests.

Our summary has it that Diamond wants to refute the belief that:

Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority

This surely can't be true and the article's 'Germs' section neatly explains why...

European people had acquired immunity through natural selection

That is, cities had coevolved pandemic diseases and people genetically fitter at surviving them (than hunter gatherers).

Since one third of the title is dedicated to the thesis that a pillar of hegenomy was genetic superiority, we probably shouldn't say that the book refutes this.

--Wragge 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The book does not suggest that natural selection for certain immunities implies genetic superiority. Consider a hot sunny day: a person of Kenyan descent tells a person of Swedish descent that dark skin is a sign of genetic superiority because it protects the skin from the sun's radiation. But Swedes did not evolve in a climate with lots of exposure to a hot sun, and so their skin pigments eventually faded. On a chilly winter day, the Swede could argue the other way, saying light skin is a sign of genetic superiority because they are better able to produce vitamin D, especially in poor sunlight. Kenyans, however, did not evolve in a relatively sunless climate, and so their skin pigmentation is strong. Europeans were exposed to some microbes, and other cultures were exposed to different microbes. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's a speedy reply to my point, but I'm not completely sure where the disagreement is. The Blue Whale is better adapted than the Eurasian to the deep ocean; synonymously: whales are genetically fitter (or superior) for survival in that environment. African genes are clearly superior to Eurasian for sun stroke resistance (in the example above). 'Wiktionary:Superior' isn't a magic word, it just means 'better'. Especially in the context of evolution it doesn't make sense to compare genes in the abstract: 'genetic quality' is determined in the context of a given environment. (Fitness (biology) has the corrolary: "As phenotype is affected by both genes and environment, the fitnesses of different individuals with the same genotype are not necessarily equal, but depend on the environment in which the individuals live.")

I repeat my assertion that a central plank of this book's theory is that Europeans had evolved both more virulent diseases and (genetically inherited) resistance to them. I assume that Twas Now agrees with that, and that this debate is over the semantics of 'superiority'. It seems (to me) that Twas Now has given two examples of 'relative superiority' in the 'rebuttal' above (effectively agreeing with me).

After rereading the 'lethal gift of livestock' chapter, I find that Diamond has avoided using any terms like 'genetic superiority' or anywhere directly mentioning comparative genetics. However, page 210 (of my '97 edition) calls Spanish smallpox resistance a 'decisive advantage' over the Aztecs, and the rest of the chapter describes this as being an evolved resistance.

What am I missing? Please explain how genes giving increased immunity aren't superior to those which don't. Also, if that really isn't 'superior' then the term 'genetic superiority' seems inherently meaningless/confusing & should still be removed (as nothing then can ever be genetically superior to anything else).

--Wragge 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't what happened when the Europeans arrived that the environment (specifically the microbiological environment) changed to one to which the immune systems of the Europeans were more suited? — goethean ॐ 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, this is all neither here nor there because to add this content to the article, you've got to cite it to a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's all this "genetic superiority" material coming from? The introduction says that observed differences were not considered due to any genetic superiority of Europeans. Indeed, resistance to disease is not a matter of genetics so much as of a healthy immune system containing appropriate antibodies. I concur with Goethean on this: reliable sources will need to be found before we consider any non-negative use of such a loaded phrase as "genetic superiority". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Superiority" has connotations of intelligence or better ability, which is likely why Diamond avoided it. Simply referring to disease resistance is more precise anyway. Of course disease resistance could be described as "superior" rather than inferior or neutral, but it is not the best choice of words, and tends to bring up an irrelevant and loaded issue.

The sentence in the introduction should be rephrased, unless possibly if it a direct quote from Diamond. --JWB 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamond argues for genetic superiority in the prologue (page 20)

SheffieldSteel asks above where "all this genetic superiority material is coming from?" - in a way, that was my question initially, since our introduction argues that Diamond denies it. In fact, he celebrates it. Right in the prologue he writes:

From the very beginning of my work with the New Guineans they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent [...] than the average European.

On the following page (21) he explains why he think this is...

Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on these genes. [...] traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents and problems in procuring food. Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies has little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance [...] natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent. Besides this genetic reason [...]

To be honest, I re-read the entire book before coming back to the Prologue to find the clear statement I remembered. I did that partly because I was a stupid European, but mostly because I assumed people who contribute to the talk page would have read the book, at least to page 21. As far as I can see, this is a very central point in Diamond's these (he puts it in the title) and it isn't controversial to say that. Admittedly, throughout the rest of the book he doesn't spell out the genetic component this clearly, but it underlies the entire 'germs' argument (examples I mention above). --Wragge 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Diamond is arguing that anyone is genetically superior. The evolutionary pressures in the New Guineans' environment would favour someone of higher intelligence; by contrast the evolutionary pressures likely faced by Europeans over the same time frame would be in the direction of disease resistance. So, it's not clear where "genetic superiority" lies, if anywhere, in this situation. Diamond does explicitly deny that European success is due to genetic superiority; nowhere does he explicitly attribute anything to it.

It's also rather a loaded phrase, since historically it's been used by white supremacy groups. It would be a gross misrepresentation of Diamond's position (and yes, I've read the book) to associate him with such views. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Diamond wouldn't (and doesn't) write "genetically superior" - it's Wikipedia that's doing this: That's what I'm objecting too: it's misleading (and possibly disingenous). I'm saying that we should take that out.

I dispute that Diamond doesn't explicity attribute anything to it, unless you want him to include the word "genetic" in every sentence about disease resistance before you'll accept that he's making this (obvious) point. The entire logic of differential genetic tolerance for infection diseases is very explicitly that dense Eurasian cities (near livestock) bred disease resistant people. I've offered two direct examples of this (one in the the very paragraph I've given above, and one in the previous section) where no counter-citations or refutations are given.

All I'm suggesting is (at a minimum) the removal of the phrase "no genetic superiority". It seems clear that there is (at least) concencus that Diamond argues for genetic differences, and hence a variety of genetic superiorities.

--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Diamond points out that dense populations in very close contact with many animal species caused diseases in humans. After this went on for many, many generations, people in those populations with some immunity to disease fared better than people without any immunity, and left more offspring. Later, when some of these people brought some of these animals with them to new lands, the people already living in these places fell victim to said diseases.

This is a proximate cause - a passing epiphenomenon set in motion by other things that were already happening. The buck doesn't stop here. Why did some people have the time to build up any sort of immunity ( be it genetic, or behavioral ) while others didn't?

Note also that disease is used in GG&S to explain why Europeans failed to colonize places like New Guinnea, where diseases to which they were not immune stoped them in their tracks. It's not that Europeans were "superior" ( bleeding over from "better suited" sense to "morally or inherently better" ) for their resistance to small pox. It's that small pox itself played a larger role in the last 13,000 years of history than, say, SARS. And Eurasians happened to already have encountered the pox.

This is from someone who didn't stop reading at page 21. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(PS: About 'not reading the book' - that joke was too good to resist (the genetics is on page 21!) and I took some of the earlier comments a bit personally; of course, I assume good faith, and that we're all very familiar with the text & have differing interpretations. --Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not genetics on page 21. There's nothing about As, Cs, Gs, or Ts. Just a highly speculative story about differing selective pressures in different parts of the world. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take another look at my copy of the book before commenting further on this. I'm sure we can agree on some form of words that fits policy. Don't worry about the WP:AGF thing. We're on the same side. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last paragraph on p21:

“ That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up. Certainly, there is no hint at all of any intellectual disadvantage of New Guineans that would serve to answer Yali's question. (emphasis in original) ”

Compare this with the article's lead, which states that the book refutes the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian genetic superiority. The book and the lead are quite consistent with one another. One could argue that Diamond is being illogical or inconsistent because disease resistance constitutes genetic superiority, but such a statement runs the risk of being original research (or possibly synthesis, depending on how it's worded). That is, unless a notable critic has made that point. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We agree there are genetic differences: the problematic word is: any

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):

I suggest we change 'no genetic superiority' to 'some genetic difference'

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)

-- Criticism/Political Factors

>In fact, Diamond specifically cites the evolution of complex socio-political structures as a yield >of the increased resources and environment which was being experienced by western europeans.

Doesn't make sense. I'm not an expert on this book but how about:

In fact, Diamond specifically states that the increased resources experienced by western Europeans yielded the evolution of complex socio-political structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Thomas (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Genetic Superiority" resolution

Frankly, the entire preceding fussiness over "genetic superiority" seems like self-indulgent hairsplitting to me, but it is accurate that Diamond makes reference to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences (Eurasian disease resistance, the Chinese forsaking the seas, etc) in the later parts of the book, and the article should acknowledge this. I've tried to do so in a way that is as brief as possible and keeps the focus on these differences all being dependent effects of geographic differences, so that geography is the ultimate determinant (and not any inherent superiority of European stock), as is Diamond's actual argument. Hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us now. JSoules (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jared Diamond made a racist comment saying that New Guineans are probably on average more intelligent than Europeans and then hypothesizes that the high murder rate would lead to natural selection for intelligence. It's an arguement I don't really understand (are stupid people being murdered? are smart people killing them? are smart people avoiding the situation all together? isn't propensity to violence a cultural and personality trait? Does the fact that people of low intelligence are more prone to violence in modern society mean that the same would be true of tribal societies? - I'm asking this out of interest, not for the article).

In any event, blatant racism in any modern book is notable, particularly when it seems to be clearly bias with such a weak supporting argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Diamond does refer to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences. But to call that "blatant racism" is ridiculous. No-one would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison about 2 breeds of dog. There are proven inter-racial genetic differences, e.g.: negroes have adaptations for dealing with extreme heat while Eskimos have adaptations for dealing with extreme cold; dark skin is the original human trait and N. Europeans developed very fair skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency in their less sunny climate.

Diamond is arguing against the common assumption of West-European-based cultures (and probably earlier dominant cultures) that they have genetic advantages in intelligence and / or industriousness and / or social behaviour and therefore have a right to rule the world (see for example Lord Salisbury's 1886 speech against Irish home Rule.-- Philcha (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not 'ridiculous' to call an weak ad hoc argument to say New Guineans are more intelligent blatant racism.

You use the example that nobody would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison between two breeds of dog. True, but to say a fighting dog is more intelligent than a cattle dog, because less intelligent fighting dogs are more likely to die in fights would still strike me as a strange argument. Also species of dog are generally not accepted as a good proxy for race.

/* Also, by your own counter example it's impossible to be racist - you say differences are proven, give an example and seemingly then accept any argument about racial differences without any proof. Think about it. */

You go on to say that there are "proven" differences between geographically-dependent culture and genetics. This may be the case, but higher intelligence among New Guineans is not at all proven. So this is why the statement is blatant racism, it's not "proven" and it's evidence is Diamond's prejudiced observations and justification a weak hypothesis.

We are well aware that Diamond is explaining why Europeans make more "cargo" than New Guineans. However, Diamond's rebuttal is itself is both racist and pseudo scientific.

The other sin of Mr Diamond, I've just remembered, is that in discussing the hypothesis that you mention (some cultures dominate others through higher genetic intellectual abilities) is that he says such suggestions are "loathsome" and uses this to reject the argument. This is an example of the moralistic fallacy, and is further undermined by this racist argument we are now discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and Context

It is (pardon the emphasis) RIDICULOUS to suggest that noting evolutionary selection for certain skills amounts to an argument for genetic superiority. In one instance you have Diamond's objective recapping of a process, and in the other you have a term fraught with connotations of Eurocentrism. It is a disingenuous way for his detractors to find faults where there are none.

Also (and related), central to his discussion of the evolutionary selection is the notion of "context." Where he explains that Europeans would observe the inability of New Guineans to function in European civilization and assume this denoted a lack of intelligence, but modern Europeans (and their descendants) couldn't possibly function in New Guinean civilization. In New Guinea, it is Europeans who "lack intelligence."

This is like any of the other critiques leveled at Diamond's book. These critiques are (all of them) indicative of someone who did not read the book in its entirety, OR does not understand how scientific knowledge acummulates, OR has an axe to grind.

Rafajs77 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one concerned with our claim of 'no genetic... superiority', so the argumentum ad hominem above must be directed at me. Let me repeat that I'm not a Diamond detractor, my objection is only to the Wikipedia article; I still think that our article hides one-third of his argument by implying that New-Worlders were not at a genetic disadvantage in disease resistance against Old-Wolders. Diamond specifically writes (many times, especially in the introduction) that they were.

Although I seem to have persuaded no-one, I'm honestly surprised that anyone would find it RIDICULOUS to object that Wikipedia has summarized 'Genetic selection for disease resistance rather than intelligence' as 'no genetic superiority' of the Europeans. I agree that these are all loaded phrases, but I think this explicit discussion is one of the book's most interesting parts, so I'm surprised that nobody else finds it worthy of mention (to the point that it is effectively concealed by our claim that genetic superiority had no part to play in the speed of Old World conquest - the exact antithesis of Diamond's 'Germs' explanation).

Of course, my lone objection isn't concencus so this has been dormant until the above attack, which seems unwarranted, and missed the idea that we're discussing the article and not the book.

--Wragge (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the fact that Europeans have been developing science, math, philosophy, literature, politics, etc for centuries... while Africans and Native Americans society revolved around hunting, has nothing to do with selective evolution? It's extremely politically incorrect, but that doesn't make it any less true. I suggest for everyone to read these two reviews of the book: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html

guns, germs, and steel.

1. REDIRECT

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLA and graduate of The Roxbury Latin School. In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book was broadcast on PBS in July 2005, produced by the National Geographic Society.

According to the author, an alternative title would be A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years.[1] But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather originate in environmental differences powerfully amplified by various positive feedback loops. He also, most explicitly in the epilogue, argues that societies with food surpluses and high-to-moderate degrees of interaction with outsiders are more likely to encourage great people to realize their full potential and to adopt new inventions.

A major theme in the book is a fundamental difference between Eurasia and other landmasses being their main directional axes: Eurasia, comprised of Europe and Asia together (with north Africa often included as well by the author), is laid primarily over the west-east axis, while both the North America - South America landmass and Africa have north-south as the main axis. This, together with Eurasia's large area, results in much wider continuous ecological areas in Eurasia compared to other landmasses (see the Mediterranean climate areas for example). Therefore domesticated plants and animals and technology spread much faster in ancient times inside Eurasia compared to other landmasses.

Determinism

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)

Structure of the summmary

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)

Timothy Taylor

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 - "Why Did Human History Evolve Differently on Different Continents for the Last 13,000 Years? (comments)" (HTML). edge.com. 5-12-97. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Philcha (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Good Work!

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)

Added this phrase

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)

Reception / Criticism

Dear User:Archaic d00d and User:Pergamino,

I have this page watchlisted as it's a book I'd quite like to read, so I've noticed that you're having a mminor edit war about a heading. First of all, as per WP:BRD I'd suggest we leave the article as it is, so I've reverted it. We should discuss the proposed change (diff) here before we apply it if consensus is reached. In my opinion, "Reception" is broad enough, with positive and negative meanings, to include the subheaders, without another section. But that's my opinion, what does everyone else think? Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, and is misleading, to have subheadings "Political Factors", "Eurocentrist Determinism" and "Weakness in arguments" under the heading of Reception. It sounds like you are trying to explain the motivation of reviewers rather than criticisms of the book.

For instance talking the "Political Factors" of a reception, sounds like political factors influenced the perception. For instance you could say "Jared Diamond was room mates with a guy who has alot of influence over deciding who gets Pulitzer prizes, so the politics of the Pulitzer price explains that reception. When actually "Political Factors" refers to criticism that Diamond's book does not take into account economic systems and rule of law in how countries develop. It explains a criticism rather than what factors influenced the books reception.

In conclusion, the subheadings explain criticisms, they don't explain how people "recieved" (i.e. liked or not) the book. Archaic d00d (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Good point, although if we do add the heading a bit of re-writing will be required to balance up the reception section. Anyone else? Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we do need to rewrite much. The reception of the book is that it got generally positive review and won prizes, the crticism doesn't change that. The criticism about the book has to do with the arguments the book made, so if it has to be balanced against anything it's the summary of the book's arguments.Archaic d00d (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just that the Reception section will be about 3 lines, which is a bit pathetic for a section. Pergamino seems to have other things to do, so I think we've reached a consensus here, go ahead and make the edit as you see fit. Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)