This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
I vote for keeping this separate. The main article is quite long, and deserves to be. Very long articles are a problem for the wiki format. 69.87.199.69 13:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this separate. The other article is rather long and looks at different angles. --Pan Gerwazy 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep it separate. Separately I might quibble about the criteria and lines of reasoning regarding domestication of animals. (First the assumption that there are few domesticated species because they are difficult to domesticate is dubious; perhaps there are few domesticated species because the few that we have fill all the most important niches into which we'd put domesticated animals. The causation presented presumes that humans would domesticate a wider range of species if we could. Domestication has its costs as well as its benefits and challenges. So it only makes sense to domesticate where the benefits (or perceived benefits) exceed the costs and/or (perceived) risks. However, once you have a number of domesticated breeds of dogs (hunters, retrievers, shepherds, watchdogs, war dogs, etc) and of pack animals suited to various different terrain and climates (horses, mules, oxen, llamas, elephants, camels, etc) and vermin control (cats) ... it doesn't make sense to put alot of effort into domesticating others into those same niches. Also the examples given are rather inconsistent (elephants have long breeding cycles ... yet many are domesticated throughout Africa, and especially India; dogs and cats are carnivores ... modern commercially produced cat and dog foods notwithstanding; as for the various issues of socialization: domesticated animals used as pets seem to be bred specifically to leave them with certain "juvenile" characteristics throughout their lives. In fact dogs and cats are, in a certain sense, "retarded" be comparison to wild canines and felines; which is why the retain a high degree of dependence on (and docility towards) their human "pack" or "pride." Given that we managed most of these feats long before we developed writing --- and far back into our prehistory it's apparently not difficult at all).
A link to Imprinting (Psychology) would be useful for this article. 203.87.65.74 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Terry[reply]
Is there any hope for pointing out that unhappiness does not imply doom (as per the "guns..." book. I have to wonder about the Russian word here. Anna Karenina is certainly doomed; but not all members of unhappy families are "doomed". Certainly to the extent that Anna Karenina is doomed, Tolstoi would be justifiably accused of having Borderline Personality Disorder--Histrionic subtype. I.e. by believing that all unhappiness leads to DOOM, he isolates all non-happy persons (which is everyone). (Certainly the name (AKP) is misleading in that failure to meet criteria is easy--meeting the criteria can be done in many ways but is hard (which brings into question the validity of Tolstoi's sentence--YouRang's own addition.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRang? (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where 0 will indicate everything is okay, and non-zero values will indicate different kinds of errors. Smooth alligator (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
