Talk:Civilization One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Civilization One appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 January 2007.
Wikipedia

This is only my second article, so expansion is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you - Anonymous Dissident

The quotations need to be properly referenced. Seems to have a POV as 'widly accepted by historians' seems to be a bit of a stretch, in peer review sources I have seen they have all dismissed the claims as pseudoscience with selective evidence praying on poor understanding of mathematics of most people. Not surprising in the least that the main writer comes from advertising and marketing background in consumer pyschology. This is probably why they don't submit work to peer review journals but perform to publish books and make money. Then again I haven't finished reading the book and haven't even started reading the publish refutations.--Dacium 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are reading the book Dacium? Good for you. Perhapes some of your questions will be answered. note: In the introduction the book states that if you are poor with mathematics, to please get a calculator. Hardly preying on someones poor mathematics, quite the opposite.


Contents

[edit] Comments

I have a couple of comments:

  • When they say that a circle has 366 degrees, what are they saying exactly? My understand that was that a degree was defined to be an equal slice of a circle such that 360 of them put together equals a full circle. That is, a 360 degrees equals a full circle by definition. Their site makes it clear that they are very aware of the origin of our 360 degree circle, so the article would do good to explain what they're talking about (I assume someone has the book?)
  • Is this book notable because of what it is or who wrote it?
  • The "quotation and comments" section seems a little one sided. Certainly someone didn't like the book?
  • I'm having a hard time deciding if this is legitimate or pseudo science. It's skirting very close to the edge either way. The official website is likewise. If it is cemented in legitimate sources, it would be good to explain that in the article, and prefereably link them. As its written, it seems primarily an advertisement. --Numsgil 11:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole book is complete pseudoscience and this might be an add. The book has absolutely no logical arguments nor emperical proofs of anything it states, its just all speculation. Alot of this article must be down right lie (such as being supported by historians!)--Dacium 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dacium, I'm glad you have voiced your concerns about my article, and I have taken them very seriously. I think that you are confused about when I said that the book was widely accepted by historians. I meant the contrary. The book, infact, is not in line with the commonly accepted timeline. And I was wondering which section made the article look like an advertisement. If you could point that out, it would be great, and I would attend to the error by making it more neutral, or simply deleting it. I will also try to find someone who was critical of the book. Note that this book is notable because of its reneging on the aforementioned historical timeline almost altogether, not of who wrote it. (the co-author, Alan Butler, does not even have an article in WP!) Thank you very much for your contributions.

I think what they're saying is that the 360 degrees in a circle is an arbitrary figure, but the 365/366 days in a year is NOT arbitrary, and they're wondering if the closeness of these two figures is just a coincidence or perhaps some deliberate attempt to define a circle in terms of the calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair to the authors, virtually everything about human culture from that period is speculation as we have no written record from the period and virtually no physical record either. No theory about the period is ever likely to be proven correct scientifically, the best they can ever be is plausible but unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 100 nanometers = 1 Megalithic yard?

How does a very, very small measurement (100 nanometers) come to be known as a Megalithic yard, which is over 2.5 feet? there seems to be somethign wrong with the first bulleted item in the list of things that are "statements that are not in line". I can't figure out what it's supposed to say, though. Mrendo 13:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mrendo, the problem has been fixed. It was supposed to say that they did use that they did use it, but the text inferred that the measurement was one of the same as the Megalithic Yard.

I think it's a mistake. The Official website (listed in the External Links section) states that the Megalithic yard is 82.96656 cm ±0.061 cm Blaise 14:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blaise, are you positive? the blurb on the back of the book states that these people used a measurement equal to 1 ten thousandth of a millimetre, so I don't know. It's obvious this article is quickly coming controversial with many people, but I wonder how many of these people have actually read the book? Anonymous Dissident

After some searching, I think what they meant was that they were using a unit of measure that was accurate to withing 1 ten thousandth of a millimetre. --Numsgil 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-European

It's true that the Rig Veda was composed in (an ancestor of) Sanskrit, and that Sanskrit and Greek are Indo-European languages, but how is this relevant? — Hindi appears to be misused for Hindu throughout. —Tamfang 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put that there in the see also, or why, but I won't remove it. Maybe they will explain? Anonymous Dissident


[edit] Controversy

Obviously, the article is becoming very quickly very controversial, but it is also becoming something of a talk page. People seem to be putting in information that is not relevent to the article, which, I remind everyone, is on the actual book, and it would be appreciated if some of these dramatic changes were first discussed at least a little on this talk page. Thankyou. Anonymous Dissident


[edit] Read The Book

Many people are claiming this book to be simply ficticious, and perhapes it is, but before you dismiss this book as a lie, perhapes it would be a good idea to actually read the book, and maybe even its sequel. The site, obviously, is no where near as long or as well described as the actual text in question. When you have read the book, then perhapes you will have a better understanding and/or trust in thebook and therefore, the article, or perhapes the opposite, but that's not the point. I advise that everyone here who are raising these questions read the actual book, for a WP article can never, obviously, be as expansive as the book or text it concerns. Anonymous Dissident

  • The whole book is silly nonsense, nothing more than that. Let's be reasonable. Nonsense is nonsense, there is no other word for it. -- Ekjon Lok 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • nonsense or not, the book exists, so why shouldn't it be granted the rights to an article?
Is it notable nonsense? —Tamfang 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense

The whole thing reads like nonsense, I will very likely nominate the whole thing for deletion, in the spirit of WP:Undue Weight, after some time. -- Ekjon Lok 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)