Wikijunior talk:Ancient Civilizations

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Oct 6, 2005 Progress Report

I hope this is a positive contribution. I want this book to be completed.

There are 23 civilizations, and 8 questions per civilization. Let's give 2 points for full information, 1 point for a few sentences per question. I will use first three letters as code of civilization.

Sections more than 1/2 completed: Azt (16/16), Egy (12/16), Ind (9/16), Mou (10/16), May (12/16), Rom (9/16), Ved (14/16)
Percent completed in this category: 75%

Sections started: Akk (3), Aks (2), Bab (3), Chi (1), Inc (0), Jap (3), Per (3)
Percent completed in this category: 14%

Total completion on all started sections: 44%!

Sections NOT started: Ana, His, Ass, Gre, Heb, Khm, Pre, Pue, Sum

I agree with Rob's suggestion that "it would be better to research one civilization and make it well written"... I think we should focus first on the sections more than 1/2 completed. Once they are all completed, we could then pick half of the started sections. Of course, any experts in an area would be welcome to fill in an entire civilization, but I know for me, this is mostly research, not personal knowledge. --Benbakelaar 15:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Outline

This was not originally in the discussion page, but rather a totally seperate Wikibooks article. I moved this whole section (by page move) to become the "seed" of the discussion of this new Wikibook. Please feel free to add comments below. --Rob Horning 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an outline of subjects that could be included in a new Wikijunior booklet about Ancient Egypt. I immediately thought this would be a subject which appeals to children. As suggested by User:Zanimum, I've moved it here for expansion. Please don't work on individual articles until the first issue (of the earlier projects) has been printed. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 18:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subjects

The following are subject ideas. Possible chapter names are in brackets.

  • Geography (Where was it?)
    • Alexandria
    • Valley of the Kings
    • The Nile
  • People (Who were they?)
    • Cleopatra
    • Tut-ankh-amum
  • Technology
  • Society (How did they live?)
    • Ranks
    • Pharaos
    • Slaves
    • Senet (Fun and games.) - Senet
  • Religion (What did they believe?)

[edit] Categories


[edit] Size

Is this Wikijunior project going to be 48 pages like Wikijunior: Solar System? I think it'll be even easier to fill that requirement with this project, eapecially if we add more civilizations--Shanel 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The original "goal" of Wikijunior, at least suggested on the Meta side, was that about every other month a new "Wikibook" would be formally published and paid for by the Beck Foundation. I've been pushing it here to "expand" the number of Wikijunior books, but it appears as though this Wikijunior book is going to be at least as successful as the other ones, with just as much content as the Solar System book if not more. I am proposing (like I have at the Solar System book) that we "select" some of the best articles for formal publication to fit the 48 page book requirment, but that we also allow some "breathing room" on the Wiki side and allow substantial lattitude on the length of the content. It certainly is easier to reduce down to 48 pages than it is to expand content up to that length, as might be the case for the Big Cats Wikibook. --Rob Horning 02:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I definitely agree. Over on Solar System, even though I started some of the articles on the different moons, I would be horrified if they actually went into the print version. For some of them, there's just not that much info to be found for now :(
Do you have any ideas on the process of picking the best articles? Will it be a simple vote, or are we going to try to involve experts in the process?--Shanel 04:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Since it hasn't been done yet for any Wikibook, your guess is as good as mine. I'm trying to dig up some info from the people who are in on the Beck Foundation grant, but the "earliest" that anything was supposed to be published was December 2005. That "deadline" is coming up, so things might start moving before then. I'm trying to keep the heat on and see that this project moves forward. I like the community vote thing, where you can vote on the articles that you like, and the top vote getters (with some tie breaker for the last ones out) get published, at least for the current "version" that goes out.

As far as involving "experts" in the process, I have a personal aversion to the concept as preached by the Nupedia crowd, and it goes to show you how far Nupedia has gone to see what that brought. At the same time, putting content through a more formal "review" process of people well versed in the topic, including formal "experts" in the field, would have some merit once we have built the basic foundation of the article. I also think that learned "laymen" who have studied the topic certainly can make valuable contributions, and Wikipedia is a classical example of what can be accomplished if you let them. --Rob Horning 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African civilizations

I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post, someone please feel free to move or tell me where this would be more appropriate. Reviewing the list of ancient civilizations I noticed many African civilizations missing. Here is a graphic to reference: http://www.inmotionaame.org/gallery/detail.cfm?migration=1&topic=1&id=1_001M&type=map

I do not know the names of these civilizations, but I will type in a few of their geographic locations and time periods below:
Kingdom of Kush, ~1000 BC to ~400AD
Kingdom of Axum, ~1AD to ~750AD
Empire of Ghana, ~250AD to ~1100AD
Empire of Mali, ~1200AD to ~1500AD
Kingdom of Benin, ~1200AD to ~1800AD
Kingdom of Oyo, ~1200AD to ~1700AD
and so on...

It would be my intention to answer as many of the "major questions" as possible.
--Benbakelaar 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with ancient African civilizations other than Egypt as perhaps I should. This would be a good opportunity to try and introduce some of those civilizations, but try to keep in mind this is more for empires rather than single tribal groups or single city-states. The only reason for that "provision" is to try and weed out some of the minor civilizations or distinctions like between Troy and Athens, which would more easily be covered in a general topic of the Greek civilization instead. I don't know how many African civilizations this would cover, but I do know of historical groups in Africa, like those mentioned above, would be welcome additions.
Keep in mind this is going to be a book for kids, so try to find a topic that may be media-rich in content as well. Many photos, perhaps some music from the culture, and information about a civlization that at least covers the "standard" set of questions. I know of some archeological research that has covered Zimbabwe dating back traditional governments and societies going back centuries or even millenia that would be facinating. Particularly because the architechtural styles are so unique to that part of Africa and different from the rest of the world. Seperate walkways and paths were made for royalty and nobility as opposed to ordinary workers in the city, for instance, have a significant impact on the structure of the cities, where the royalty couldn't even be seen by ordinary people, to give an example.
Don't go overboard on adding blank names for more civlizations. It would be better to research one particular civilization and make it well written rather than simply going everywhere and writing a couple of sentances about everything. If you want to pick a particular African civilization and write about it in depth, that would be especially encouraged. --Rob Horning 11:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I will attempt to discern the major from the minor, and perhaps choose just one as a representative example! --Benbakelaar 12:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I just came here to mention the lack of African Civilizations. I added the Axum kingdom some time ago (I found it spelled as Aksum though), but I'm not sure how major or minor the civilization was.--Shanel 18:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Aryans

Reading the list of civilizations I noticed that the Aryans was missing. True they didn't create an Empire but they did make significant contributions to the religions, languages and cultures of those that did. Any reason for this or can I go ahead and add them to the list? ~~Tina~~Saturday, March 11th, 2006

Due to its connection with National Socialism (Nazis) and Facism, this can be (unfortunately) a rather charged political topic. If this were the 1930's it would have been incredibly charged politically, but there still are some Neo-Nazi groups that might try to inject their $0.02 into something of this nature. Read everything with a very jandiced eye if you look at anything regarding this civilization, especially if the literature references material from or stuff written during the 1920's and 1930's heavily, or worse stuff that was written in the 1940's. Legitimate archeological and scholarly research that has been done in the past couple of decades will likely be more rational with how this civilization is portrayed, and it would be an interesting topic to bring up. Feel free to add this civilization to the list if you can find content that could flesh this topic out. --Rob Horning 12:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Never thought of the neo-nazi angle. I'll think this through before I do anything. Thanks for pointing it out to me. ~~Tina~~ 13th March

[edit] Who Lives There Today?

In the cases of the Hellenic, Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Chinese civilizations, the people who live there today trace their lineage to the citizins of the ancient empires, speak a language related to that of their famous ancestors, and are well aware of the empires and the effects they had on their part of the world.

This is as much the case for civilizations that were overrun by outsiders (like the moundbuilders) or which receded into the mists of time (as with the Mayans). In the Moundbuilders module, I had included a "who lives there now" section to talk about the fact that the people who live there now often have no idea their city was built on top of a Moundbuilder town.

Someone deleted this section, probably because it does not adhere to the outline set out for the entire book. I put it back, because I think this is an interesting fact. It is still a "stub section", which would benefit from a short list of famous North American cities built on top of moundbuilder towns.

I also added a "who lives there now" section for the Roman civilization, as an example of how different the information is.

Maybe this information should be incorporated into "What is left of them?". I know it is dangerous to introduce a NEW CLASS OF INFORMATION to a book that just needs to get finished. But this information is useful to understanding the world we live in today.

If you travel to Egypt, you will find plenty of people on the street who know about the language, history, and religion of ancient Egypt as well as shops selling trinkets representing same. If you travel in the lands formerly occupied by Moundbuilders, you will have to search hard to find anyone with knowledge of or trinkets representing the Moundbuilders. --SV Resolution 15:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SV, and there are several civilizations in North America where this is true, such as the Pueblo and the Anastazi. I'm trying to imagine similar situations that have existed in other places, but it is hard to come up with developed civilizations with trading networks, imperial alliances, and common culture and heritage to be called a "civilization" that has been overrun. Perhaps some in Africa, and in Europe there have been some nations that have been overrun completely but there are a few stragglers left behind. Much of the 20th/21st century has been the reemergence/reestablishment of ancient civilizations where they were previously considered a colony of another nation or a deliberately repressed group. Compare the number of countries in the year 1900 compared to 2000 and you might get a glimpse of how dramatic this in fact has been.
The major driving force in North America has really been a massive depopulation of the continent due to disease and climate shifts. Some substantial cooling of the climates throughout the world, but particularly in North America, occured between 1400 and 1800. Nowhere is this more clear than in Greenland where an established Viking colony was completely abandoned from a peak population of about 100,000 people. European diseases such as Small Pox, Chicken Pox, Horse Flu, and others also had a compounding effect, together with meeting invading European peoples carrying firearms and steel implements that made realistic competition impossible. All of these social "forces" resulted in genuine wilderness being at locations that were previously major cities. Most dramatic of all in regards to large populations going into depopulated wilderness than the valley of the Great Salt Lake, where had Mormon settlers had any sort of resistance from native peoples they would have simply moved on or even died. Due to drought and crop disease there was litterally nobody living in the area that now is a major city of over one million people. Similar stories could be told about other areas, including Los Angeles, where even a Spanish settlement died out due to drought, disease, and famine. --Rob Horning 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil? How were they civil?

Can someone explain to me how they were civil, unless we are going to call murder/wars/etc all civil, I don't think we can call them civilized. This only applies to some of them, some were and are still civilized. 220.233.48.200 12:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. --Shanel 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The Latin root from which civilization derives is cīvīlis, meaning "pertaining to citizens, their private rights and so forth [source: OED]." The term (sadly) has little to do with being civil in the broader sense suggested above. In short, any culture sufficiently organized to have some rudimentary legal structures and other institutions for governing commerce and other relevant civil (rather than martial) activities -- tends to qualify as a "civilization." At least that seems to be a fairly well-entrenched definition. --bud 03:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important: Copyright violation of images

ALL of User:Nivritchari's images have either no sources or are in clear copyright violations. I am trying to obtain permission for Image:HititMountainGod.jpg, Image:Atlantis.jpg and Image:Atmap.jpg from their authors to use those three images here. The other images will ahve to be deleted, see Special:Contributions/Nivritchari for a full list of the images and if you can try to supply sources. I have listed the following for deletion (Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion): Image:Hittitemap.gif, Image:Cambodia.gif, Image:Arabic.jpg, Image:Hittite_1.jpg, Image:Hittib.jpg, Image:Alhambra.jpg. More to be added later.--Konstable 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline suggestion and Time Period Question

A timeline showing a comparison of where each culture was at specific times would be good to add. Too often the individual cultures get separated in the instruction and the big picture of what was going on with humanity globally gets lost.

What time period is being used to define "ancient"? I see cultures listed that are not necessarily considered ancient. Both the Vikings and the Pueblos are good examples. My understanding is that "ancient" defines prehistory to approximately the Greek Dark Age, but is frequently studied combined with the classical ages to the fall of the Roman Empire, so dawn of civilization until approximately 400ce. There are groups listed here who were at their height much later than that. While this may sound picky, I know my 9yo would pick up on it quickly. Also I think the standard conventions should be used. Randomly calling a group ancient just because they are "old" does not add to the projects credibility.


Starchildmom 11:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD versus BCE/CE

There has been a bit of an edit conflict recently between people who beleive we should be using the BCE/CE notation for telling time, as opposed to the more common BC/AD convention. I personally say that we should use the BC/AD convention, because it is more common, children are more likely to be familiar with it, and if we use a foreign notation, we will have to explain the political and religious motivations behind the change. I feel like this is an unnecessary diversion for children, although I can certainly understand the attitude that we should "start children off right". --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a history teacher, I find that even my ninth grade students are still unclear about what is meant by BC/AD, and BCE/CE. Can we add in a piece in the introduction, and explain both sets of terms in a few sentences? It's a tricky thing to explain to a kid that years move backwards once you've moved back in time 2,005 years, but it goes (3.. 2... 1... 1... 2... 3... [...] 2006...) and so on. How about...

Students of history count years in many systems, but the system most commonly used in English is the BC/AD dating system invented by an English scholar named Bede in the 8th century AD. Bede was a Christian, so AD stands for Anno Domini which means "Year of the Lord," and counts the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ, which Bede thought was the most important event in the history of the world. So, BC stands for Before Christ. As you will learn from reading this book, though, not all English-speakers are Christian. Some teachers and students today use exactly the same dating system that Bede invented, but they substitue the letters CE for AD. CE means Common Era. These scholars also use BCE instead of BC, to mean Before Common Era. The dates in BC and AD notation are exactly the same as BCE and CE notation, but BCE and CE are intended to be more friendly to history students who may not be Christian. In both systems, there is no Year 0, like in a number line in math class. Instead, numbers work like this: BCE/BC years 3 - 2 - 1 -- 1 - 2 - 3 - CE/AD.... and so on up to our own time of 2006 on the CE/AD side. This means that Bede lived in the 8th century CE.

Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't. I'm new to the project, so I don't know if this fits or not, though my own preference is for BCE/CE with an explanation. -Andrew Watt 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew (except I believe it was Dionysius Exiguus who came up with the dating system). Children don't really have a system that they're really set on, and using BCE/CE now will prepare them for when they encounter it later in text books and other academic publications where BCE/CE predominate. The popularity of BCE/CE is also rising in general usage, and it would not make sense to use an archaic system which is on the decline. For example, it would be far better to use and teach metric, rather than imperial, units, even though I and many other still "think" and feel more comfortable with imperial units, and even though imperial units may currently be more popular. Like it or not metric is the way of the future, just like BCE/CE.
I believe the style adopted by any Wikibook should reflect that which its target audience expects, wants or requires. For example, a textbook on GCSE Mathematics would be written in British English, using terms the average British 15 or 16 year old would know or would have to learn as part of that syllabus. A textbook on US History written for GCSE History would adopt a similar style, whereas a textbook on US History written for American adults would use American English, perhaps use longer, more complicated words and clauses, and may assume knowledge that every American schoolchild (but not every British schoolchild) knows. Only where this determinant is not decisive (such as, should a book on US History written for a worldwide audience be in American or British English) should other factors (usually what style the authors happen to find easiest to write in) be taken into account. It would be useful for other Wikibookians to comment on whether they agree with this approach, and if not what approach they would take instead and why.
Adopting the 'let the target audience determine the style' approach, I ask here, what is the target audience of this book? This is easily answered - it is a general worldwide audience of children aged 8 to 12.
I now go on to consider that audience in the specific case. BCE/CE notation, according to Encarta (and as far as I can tell backed up by google searches) is favoured in texts where there is a predominantly Jewish audience with Jewish writers and/or a Jewish audience. It also appears favoured by some academics at some universities - in some cases this is most academics in a given university, and the terminology appears to be comparatively more favoured in the United States and by Americans overseas than others. However, broadly speaking, those not fitting that description (and this class makes up the overwhelming majority of the world's population) prefer BC/AD notation. In numerical terms, over 90%+ prefer BC/AD notation. It's also worth noting that there has been resistance amongst the worldwide general public to the introduction of BCE/CE notation, even on a limited scale - only last month the Governor of Kentucky personally intervened to stop a state education board proposal to adopt BCE/CE, with comments that the Governor did this so as not to harm re-election chances later this year; changing just one instance of BC to BCE in one New South Wales exam paper (plus adding an explanation that BCE was equivalent to BC) was enough to provoke angry questions in both chambers of the New South Wales parliament. There have been other negative reactions in Canada and England when there have been other smallscale attempts to introduce the terms to a general audience. I mention this not to invite comment on whether we believe the reactions were justified or not, but instead to note that, if we are writing a history book for a general audience, there are very good reasons why we should only use BC/AD terminology: Not everybody prefers the notation, but the overwhelming majority of the target audience does (and many actively dislike the alternative).
I would note, however, that if we had a textbook targeted at an audience that overwhelming uses BCE/CE notation, such as a textbook targeted at a Jewish audience, the conclusion here, quite rightly in my opinion, would be that it would be perverse to use BC/AD notation for that textbook.
Andrew does raise another good point. Would it be worth including in this book, towards the start, some explanation of what BC actually means (maybe also coupled with a note as to why many dates in the book are necessarily approximations)? I think I'd agree that it would be useful - those unsure of the dating system can then learn it, those already familiar with it can skip that section (though I note that I would not favour Andrew's example explanation of it, which seems too technical for what is essentially a brief aside to explain a key term), Jguk 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The BCE/CE system was created as an attempt to not make the calendar system so completely dependant on jesus. However, the very fact that we do number our years from the approximate date that he is said to have been born cannot be changed by a label. The target audience argument is a double-edged sword. On one hand, children may expect to see dates written using BC/AD notation. On the other hand, however, if BCE/CE is to become the new standard, it makes good sense to "start children off on the right foot", so to speak. Children in America might expect to buy milk by the gallon, but one of these days we americans are going to move over to the metric system like the rest of the world. It makes sense then to think that we would teach the metric system to children when they are young and impressionable, and therefore set them on the correct path. It is my understanding that academia is moving towards a wholesale adoption of the BCE/CE notation, and as children grow up, they will be expected to adopt this system as well. At the very least, we should have a chapter introducing both notations, explaining why they are what they are, and explaining that they are equivalent, regardless of which one is used throughout the book. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Revised Text: ===What is BC/AD? === With some years, you may see a note that says BC or AD. You may wonder what that means. AD stands for Anno Domini which means "Year of the Lord" in Latin, and counts the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ. So, BC stands for Before Christ. People around the world use this as the standard dating system; though Chinese, Muslims, Buddhists and others have their own ways of counting years, many adopt the BC/AD system as a way of keeping a common year all over the Earth. Some teachers and students today use exactly the same dates for years but they substitue the letters CE for AD. CE means Common Era, while BCE means Before Common Era. The dates in BC and AD notation are exactly the same as BCE and CE notation, but BCE and CE are intended to be more friendly to history students who may not be Christian. In both systems, there is no Year 0, like in a number line in math class. Instead, numbers work like this: BCE/BC years 3 - 2 - 1 -- 1 - 2 - 3 - CE/AD.... and so on up to our own time of 2006 on the CE/AD side. -Andrew Watt 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The targeted audience standard takes away one key factor - it becomes irrelevant as to what we (as individuals) believe should (ie ought to) happen. We really shouldn't be in a position where Wikibooks takes a positive stance to prefer one style over another. Whiteknight says "if BCE/CE is to become the new standard". Is it? It's been proposed in some places for a while, and has made some inroads, particularly for Jewish audiences and certain courses at certain universities, but on a worldwide view, these inroads are tiny. We really should not take a view as to whether the current standard BC/AD should or should not change, and at present there is nothing to suggest we have a new standard as far as the worldwide general public are concerned. If this changes, then maybe our approach will need changing, but we should not pre-empt it.

Another point you raise is about starting children "off on the right foot". Again, what the right foot is is a matter of opinion. In particular, I would strongly disagree that the right foot is necessarily what happens in certain subject areas in universities. Most children will not go on to study any particular subject at university. I stopped studying history formally at 16, and could have chosen to do so at 14. What history academics do (and my feeling is that in many areas covered by this book BC/AD notation is still the most common used as university level anyway) is irrelevant here. After all, we would not teach physics to 8 year olds by introducing general relativity and quantum mechanics on the grounds that, if they choose to study the subject at university, they ought to learn them, Jguk 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I (jguk) have my own suggested revised text (based on, but not directly replicating, Andrew's):

Revised Text: ===Dates === With some years, you may see a note that says BC or AD. You may wonder what that means. AD stands for Anno Domini which means "Year of the Lord" in Latin, and counts the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ, although since this system was set up it has been found that it is a few years out. The year we are now in, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, is AD 2009. In the past, AD always went before the date, but nowadays it can either go before or after the date - so some would write {{CURRENTYEAR}} AD instead of AD {{CURRENTYEAR}}.
If we go back in time, we then need a name for the year before AD 1. This is 1 BC, and the year before that was 2 BC, and before that 3 BC and so on. BC stands for "Before Christ". Although AD and BC terms come from a Christian background, in their abbreviated form they are not generally thought of as having any religious meaning, except when deliberately placed in a Christian context. People around the world use this as the standard dating system.
Another point to note is that as we go back in time, often we cannot be precise about dates. In this book we used the most widely accepted dates for any event, but dates before 1000 BC may, in particular, be a number of years out.

I'm currently half-way through a B.A. with a history major. I can quite confidently say that of the countless textbooks I've bought or referenced only two--yes, two--use BCE/CE; the one was a study of religions (including Judaism) so it doesn't even count, and the other was published in America where all this madness began. And of all my professors I can't recall any using these new terms, except when directly referring to a material that uses them.

This is a new term (meaning 95% of the books at your local library will use the old ones), and it doesn't even have acceptance among big-name publishers outside of America (such as Oxford and Cambridge). Also our sister/parent Wikipedia still uses BC/AD (e.g. w:30th century BC). All this adds up to powerful precedent for keeping the current terminology. Children are going to be seeing the old terms in the older books their library has anyway (it will be a good couple of decades before these all wear out and are replaced); until the term has major acceptance (if ever) the majority should rule. GarrettTalk 09:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that things in academia can be so volatile, and the fact that BCE/CE could, conceivably become the new standard, perhaps we should find some kind of way to change over from one to the other easily. Maybe we could create two templates, {{AD}} and {{BC}} That would take a numerical date as an argument, and automatically format the dates as is appropriate. This way, we can simply change the template to match the current scheme of things. That way, we could simply use a template such as {{AD|2006}} that could format the dates in a common format that all wikibooks can use. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia allows users to choose which terms they want to go with. See w:MediaWiki:Common.css (under "Choose whether to have AD/BC dates or CE/BCE dates" comment), w:Template:ADCE, w:Template:BCEBC, and w:Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation. Although asking children to change their user CSS might be a bit much, we should at the least institute the system on our other history books. --hagindaz 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Adding my own $0.02 here, the whole issue of BCE/CE is really showing a strong anti-christian bias, just as BC/AD shows a pro-christian bias (in the eyes of some people). That is why this is so contentious, and why trying to find neutral ground is so difficult. A more neutral solution to the problem is to simply state that such and such event happened x number of years ago. If you are talking approximations like when the K-T event for Dinosaurs happened, this is a reasonable solution. If you are off by 100 years because the book is 100 years old, it doesn't really matter much. Obviously this doesn't work for historical dates like fourscore and seven years ago (right now that would be 1919, or the end of WWI, not the Revolutionary War that was referenced in this famous speech when the date was originally invoked). I lean personally to the BC/AD notation, but I don't hold that as a strict immutable philosophy. Either way seems reasonable, and certainly is not justification for an edit war to keep changing it one way or another. I would strongly suggest that even mixed usage should be tolerated for now until we are reasonably confident that this whole project is up to the quality that we are ready for printing. Concentrate on the content and don't get bogged down in the minuta. Certainly don't get steamed over this issue and stop contributing. We need help here, not edit lawyers. --Rob Horning 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, since we are having this discussion now, it would be useful to conclude on it - rather than to put it an abeyance to restart it later. I think that it's good to note that, whilst some have noted just a personal preference, those who are making positive suggestions about which style to use are considering what is best for the target audience of this book. That's an important point, which I may well try to codify into more explicit guidance. As far as the discussion here goes, it is clear that the overwhelming majority see one particular style as being appropriate for this particular wikibook - and most of the discussions translate directly to the question of which date style should be used for other books with a general audience (the alternative may well be appropriate for books with a more targeted audience). I am mindful, however, that at least two of our regular contributors to history books tend to use the other style. I will therefore leave notes on their talkpages inviting them to comment - both on whether there are other points they think we should be considering but haven't, and on whether they would have a problem with changing this one aspect of their writing style. We should then be in a position to reach a conclusion everyone finds acceptable, Jguk 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to wrap up the discussion, too, and come to some sort of conclusion. I like the idea of templates {{BC}} and {{AD}}, but I think that some serious arguments have been mustered in favor of BC/AD as opposed to BCE/CE. I think it makes sense 1) to include an explanation of what the terms BC/AD means, and 2) to link them to BCE/CE in the event that said system becomes popular — but that the book itself should reference BC/AD dates whenever possible in the main text. I intend to go through the Minoan section I wrote this week, and make changes accordingly. -Andrew Watt 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the above, I have now gone through the book making the other changes necessary to ensure consistency on BC notation. I have also taken the opportunity to replace the occasional "B.C." or "A.D." with "BC" and "AD". The introductory section on dating referred to above has yet to be written, Jguk 12:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to read through all this, but I will drop in my own ideas. BCE/CE notation is an attempt at not only neutrality, but clarity, and accuracy. On the other hand, BC/AD is simply an historic, Latin/Christian usage. BCE/CE notation is becoming more and more popular, especially in academic texts, and it is indeed strange in a place like WikiBooks, that notation such as BC/AD would be mandated over it. Canaen 07:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikijunior is for kids. IMO, as long as they are using BC/AD in U.S., British and Australian public schools for ages 8-12, that's what we should use here. The rest of Wikibooks should do whatever it feels is appropriate for that audience. --Xixtas 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pueblos

There are three terms commonly used for this civilization: Ancient Pueblo Peoples, Ancestral Puebloans, and Anasazi. Pueblos are the buildings they built. I think this entry should be changed to "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" that is how this civilization is listed in Wikipedia. --Xixtas 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrians

I made some huge additions to Assyria. All segments of the article are now of decent length. All it really needs would be some pictures


[edit] Made various additions to China and Japan sections

Corrected various mistakes and added information regarding clothing, architecture, writing, etc Intranetusa (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of additions... and what about pre-history?

Today I've made significant additions to Carthaginians, Chinese, Minoans and Phoenicians, as well as tidying up other articles. I'm not as expert as such, though I am studying Ancient Civilizations like these at university level. This allows me to write children's style articles with great ease.

Also, I was just thinking about writing some stuff for pre-history, when I realised - you would have to split each region down into its principal prehistoric peoples and give explanations of their origins etc. Confined to just one article, it would be a very long page. I'm going to make a start anyway, it can be sorted later if need be.

Please reply on my talk page.

Alakazam | Talk 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_talk:Ancient_Civilizations"