Talk:Social Evolution

Category:Evolution

Hi! See the diff: [1] Yes, evolution is still just the one principle. As well as gens spread themselfs, also mems are evolving continually, via small increments (unless the cases of revolution - a jump, devolution - step back, or conservatism - stagnation).

Both the categories are relevant: Sociology as well as Evolution. See the article: "Social Evolution", it is not by chance: Isn't it obvious? I can ask you: Why was it removed?

See the Article: "social Darwinism" is the key. The newly evolved mems of Capitalism and Communisms were in competition... Ergo evolution. See also "evolutionary survival of a society". What shall I say more? This is an example of evolution of the mems, the sociological concepts hunting for brains to spread themselves over. (my final goal is still the Evolutionism, closely related. But not here, not now yet... ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at this is that topics like Evolution have had many very smart editors who have done a lot of work to set up articles and categories which have been reasonably stable for quite some time. Perhaps more thought is required before imagining that those editors have overlooked things. You added Category:Evolution with edit summary "Quick-adding category Evolution (using HotCat)" and I removed it with edit summary "no reason given why this is a topic of evolution (the word is not sufficient)".

I see that Category:Evolution has text at the top that is quite general and might support inclusion of this article, but the fundamental point is that "evolution" has become an over-used term that people like to add to titles. A counter-argument to this category for this article is to look down the list of articles at the category and observe how totally out of place this article would be. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]