This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Societal collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The first part of the demographics section is reaching pretty far without providing any sources that share the sentiments described there. The sources provided merely mention numbers, policies, and rhetoric meant to justify policies by the political leaders of that time, but do not mention any modern scholarly consensus or works that blame divorces, birth rates, and the like as factors for societal collapse.
And even if they did, it would be more prudent to mention actual examples of birth rates and divorces causing societal collapse instead of writing about laws introduced at the time of Augustus when Rome had already been dominating the Mediterranean for centuries, and would still dominate for centuries more.
It seems that the section is trying to link the fall of the republic to divorce and birth rates, which is an incredible stretch, and unless more credible sources are provided within the next few days, it should be removed.
84.215.26.170 ( talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a lot of problems with this article. In the lead it says ‘Societal collapse is generally abrupt.’. This is just not true. The Roman empire was already declining for about a century before its ‘fall’. The fall of Constantinople happened when the Byzantine empire was already reduced to only Constantinople. The Ottoman and Holy Roman empire where also long past their prime when they where dissolved. I think ‘Generally’ is not the right word here.
Also, the article talks a few times about societies being absorbed by another society. In the first sentence it says that the collapse of a society is characterised by among other things, loss of social complexity and the downfall of government. If a society is absorbed by another one, it doesn’t have to mean losing social complexity or a government, they’re just replaced. Does that mean that absorbed societies didn’t collapse, or do the things in the opening sentence not matter for the definition?
The other one is the loss of cultural identity. The article then goes on to state ‘the influence of a collapsed society, such as the Western Roman Empire, may linger on long after its death.’ So the cultural identity isn’t lost, so why is this societal collapse? The articles definition is confused, and it should be better explained when what kind of collapse is talked about.
The last one ‘rise of violence’ also at least doesn’t apply to societies listed under ‘abandonment’. If the characteristics aren’t vital to the definition, then is societal collapse just the end of any society? In that case the sentence ‘Virtually all civilizations have suffered such a fate’ is totally meaningless. I also feel this article is generally lacking substance, and I know that that is vague. I am not an expert on the topic, and I wanted to know what other people think. Wikifan153 ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Societal collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The first part of the demographics section is reaching pretty far without providing any sources that share the sentiments described there. The sources provided merely mention numbers, policies, and rhetoric meant to justify policies by the political leaders of that time, but do not mention any modern scholarly consensus or works that blame divorces, birth rates, and the like as factors for societal collapse.
And even if they did, it would be more prudent to mention actual examples of birth rates and divorces causing societal collapse instead of writing about laws introduced at the time of Augustus when Rome had already been dominating the Mediterranean for centuries, and would still dominate for centuries more.
It seems that the section is trying to link the fall of the republic to divorce and birth rates, which is an incredible stretch, and unless more credible sources are provided within the next few days, it should be removed.
84.215.26.170 ( talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a lot of problems with this article. In the lead it says ‘Societal collapse is generally abrupt.’. This is just not true. The Roman empire was already declining for about a century before its ‘fall’. The fall of Constantinople happened when the Byzantine empire was already reduced to only Constantinople. The Ottoman and Holy Roman empire where also long past their prime when they where dissolved. I think ‘Generally’ is not the right word here.
Also, the article talks a few times about societies being absorbed by another society. In the first sentence it says that the collapse of a society is characterised by among other things, loss of social complexity and the downfall of government. If a society is absorbed by another one, it doesn’t have to mean losing social complexity or a government, they’re just replaced. Does that mean that absorbed societies didn’t collapse, or do the things in the opening sentence not matter for the definition?
The other one is the loss of cultural identity. The article then goes on to state ‘the influence of a collapsed society, such as the Western Roman Empire, may linger on long after its death.’ So the cultural identity isn’t lost, so why is this societal collapse? The articles definition is confused, and it should be better explained when what kind of collapse is talked about.
The last one ‘rise of violence’ also at least doesn’t apply to societies listed under ‘abandonment’. If the characteristics aren’t vital to the definition, then is societal collapse just the end of any society? In that case the sentence ‘Virtually all civilizations have suffered such a fate’ is totally meaningless. I also feel this article is generally lacking substance, and I know that that is vague. I am not an expert on the topic, and I wanted to know what other people think. Wikifan153 ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)