Talk:Cultural diversity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 weasel words 2 Old Fashioned 3 Organiz(s)ation 4 Strange 5 Doesn't

[edit] weasel words

"By analogy with biodiversity, which is thought to be essential to the long-term survival of life on earth, it can be argued that cultural diversity may be vital for the long-term survival of humanity; and that the conservation of indigenous cultures may be as important to humankind as the conservation of species and ecosystems is to life in general." Salvor Hardin 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with that? Please re-word it so that it is acceptable to you, it rather than adding back the neutrality dispute notice. Best regards,GrahamN 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any way of describing it without sounding POV against it or giving it more credibility then it deserves.74.38.99.188 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Fashioned

"Overpopulation, immigration and imperialism (of both the cultural and old-fashioned kind) are reasons that have been suggested to explain any such decline." The term "old fashioned" is very unspecific and not very encyclopedic. I have no idea what is meant there. A more proper, decisive, less colloquial term should be used in its place. JoeyETS 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organiz(s)ation

Both spellings are acceptable, there was just an edit changing the z's to s's in this article. One is British English, one is American. What basdhasdgasvdis the policy for English dialect in Wikipedia? JoeyETS 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. ... If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another." This article does not currently use American spellings. GrahamN 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm used to using Canadian English, so I'm always flip-flopping back and forth between British and American spellings, the link should be useful. Good edit on the old-fashioned wording as well. JoeyETS 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange

This article is not up to the standards of wikipedia. There are almost no sources, there are numerous POV statements, and there are poorly written sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.249.80 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands this article looks like someone's essay. --78.86.137.221 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't

the first paragraph seem superfluous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.247.233 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)