Talk:Culture

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Culture. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Culture at the Reference desk.

	Culture was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept January 24, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-2 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Is there a reason why there's almost no images for western or east asian culture here? The only agrarian cultures depicted are from thousands of years agp. Wouldn't it be condusive to have pictures of chinese society, since they make up a large percentage of the world, or european or american culture, since they have both positively and negatively influenced so many others? All I see are pictures of obscure undeveloped societies--67.173.155.191 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "undeveloped?" Also, do you think that European or East Asian cultures are generally under-represented at Wikipedia? Did you know that there is an article on

Japanese culture. Oops! We already do... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with 67.173.155.191. Since culture includes everything made and created by human societies, there should be much more of a balance between their representation. Only using photos from agrarian or pre-modern societies simply does not challenge readers and gives them the impression that 'culture' mostly refer to other societies. There should also be photos of everyday, European scenes, such as en walking in business suits, suburbs, electronics, toilet seats... theBOBbobato (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance of the imagery on Culture, the majority appear to represent pre-modern culture. While the history of culture certainly has its place in this article, it is over-represented in the imagery. The only image which represents modern culture in the article is that of Tepoztlán. Does anyone else agree that there should be more imagery representing modern culture, perhaps at the cost of removing some of the existing historical imagery? Matt (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Matt. It is also problematic that all non-white/non-Western people represented are identified "culturally" (the name of their culture) while white/Western people are identified by name as scholars of culture or as some kind of universal archetype (the "mother and child" picture). This is a definite case of bias in representation: non-white/non-Western are represented as exotic others while white/Western are represented as individuals or universals.

Culture gives us directions on how we are supposed to carry ourselves. Each person has his culture which should be respected. No culture is superior to the other.(13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malha10 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote:

Raimon Panikkar identified 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about, including growth, development, evolution, involution, renovation, reconception, reform, innovation, revivalism, revolution, mutation, progress, diffusion, osmosis, borrowing, eclecticism, syncretism, modernization, indigenization, and transformation.[45]

is proven by this source:

Panikkar, Raimon (1991). Pathil, Kuncheria, ed. Religious Pluralism: An Indian Christian Perspective. ISPCK. pp. 252–99. ISBN 9788172140052. OCLC 25410539.

Yet, the book of Kuncheria does not contain any text of Panikkar, Raimon.

Furthermore, the scientific value is very doubtable. Neither is the classification helpful for the article nor is it of a good epistemological quality (the different terms are not clearly distinctable but overlapping, ...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.196.58 (talk) 21 August 2017

This is a request for assistance to write a parapraph to be insterted in the article on Culture 21. Herewith an asssist.

Since 2010, Culture is considered the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development by UNESCO^[1]. More: Agenda 21 for Culture or in short Culture 21. --SvenAERTS (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is not about Culture. Rather, it is about the scholarly study of culture. "Culture" is the fifth of the ten most vital articles listed as

After the article is moved, perhaps the actual description of culture can be split out into an article that can stay here. -Arch dude (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs some simplification. According to the manual of style, the article's lead should give "a summary of its most important contents". Right now, it is rather overwhelming. Perhaps we could take a look at this [1] 2008 version of the article. Three concise, short paragraphs. Most of the extra information that has worked its way into the lead was in the body of the article. Any thoughts on a re-work? -- Henry ^TALK 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you just add etymology discussion into the start? Might be better to discuss etymology in a separate section if the lead is on the long side?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now apparently too little. What a grab bag of fail this article is, a shining example of how culture is in general just that, the failure of intelligence in situ in natural history. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the picture of the Beatles, please add a comma before "they" because it's a long and separate clause. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Danski454 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be pointed out that high status psychopaths invent most cultural practices to determine how much power they have over a group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.35.201 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide mainstream highly reliable sources that support this claim, we might consider whether this is relevant. If not, we cannot even start thinking about it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you would think such a thing, maybe it would be easier to find sources about how high status people influence culture? It would be too hard to find information claiming such people are psychopaths. Sydj1996 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture#Psychology section needs copy editing, but I can't edit the article to add it. Can someone please add {{copy edit section}} to that section? 216.160.67.169 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Spaced about (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything meaningful that can be said on the topic? We've got very detailed articles on the extinction of species or of languages, but nothing that I can find on Wikipedia about the extinction of cultures or societies (apart from niche aspects of the topic, like Societal collapse or Cultural assimilation). Are there good reasons why there doesn't seem to be any relevant content in the encyclopedia? I'm asking because the article Extinct cultures was recently recreated, and I wish it hadn't been – it is just three short sentences long, and its sourcing consists entirely in two web pages: one from momtastic.com and the other from toptenz.net. – Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's terrible. In most cases cultures transform, often very drastically, rather than just go extinct. The two you mention aren't "niche", but the main paths cultures take, I would have thought. Cultural assimilation is another terrible recentist article. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't culture always in flux? And what isn't culture? It seems to me that for a culture to go extinct, the people would have to go extinct. If the people embodying a culture don't all die out then it is hard to image the culture entirely disappearing, although over long periods of time it could be said that no vestiges of an earlier culture are detectable. Cultural appropriation examines a factor by which aspects of cultures can shift in meaning and become diluted by adoption by people of unrelated backgrounds. Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What are we going to do with Extinct cultures then? Should it be deleted? In the absence of any other ideas, I'm tempted to just replace its current dubious content with a list of the three or four relevant articles, slap on a "disambiguation" template and leave it for somebody else to sort out. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I could start a Cultural extinction & redirect it there. That is the "topic" term. Give me a while. It's been there for 2 years or so, & gets only a handful of views. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take up the task, that would be brilliant! Just noting that the article has only been around for a few days (having then spent the rest of its existence until yesterday as a redirect), so that may explain the low pageviews. – Uanfala (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, an antonym of

Biogeographist (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I've proposed the article for deletion. Pings to

Biogeographist. – Uanfala (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Uanfala Link please! Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get it. What link? – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the deletion proposal, or was that the prod I've removed already? Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one: Extinct cultures. – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to read this article I expected to see more about cultures in the world. It would be really nice to add a section of maybe links to other pages of different cultures or basic information about cultures around the world. AnonymousQueen18 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article focuses on what culture (as a concept) is. More details about cultures around the world can be found in subpages, which are t

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In response to this edit

Wolfram's A new kind of science (2002) is addressed to members of some institutions who are concerned with "outlook, attitudes, values, morals, goals, and customs shared by [members of]" those institutions (cultures for short).^[1] Those institutions may be formally founded, with a history; the institutions may be schools, religions, armies, or political groupings, among other possibilities; they might even be informal or implicit cultures. The instititutions may be moribund or otherwise unready for change. A robust institution will attempt to manage change, or perhaps fight change. In a science, the assumptions for its explanatory narratives have a history; those assumptions and narratives were espoused by historical members of its community, as evidenced by its scientific literature. As the literature changes, a taxonomy of the scientific community's response follows, as documented in Everett Rogers' Diffusion of innovations (1962).

In 2017, Wolfram mused that his work documented computational experimentation;^[2] one could experiment with mathematical expressions to yield unexpected results; the experiments yielded discoveries, as in other kinds of science.

Wolfram showed his readers that previous pictures of science, namely depictions of a monolithic unchanging edifice which exposes Truth, have to change, as computers advance. Consistent with Rogers' 1962 work, this viewpoint has not been uniformly accepted (see the response to mathematical constructivism, e.g. the Brouwer–Hilbert controversy, as well as Imre Lakatos' Proofs and Refutations). There are leaders and laggards in mathematical or scientific cultures as well (see Rogers).

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC), with edits on 08:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In the United States, cultural studies focuses largely on the study of popular culture; that is, on the social meanings of mass-produced consumer and leisure goods. Richard Hoggart coined the term in 1964 when he founded the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies or CCCS.[41] It has since become strongly associated with Stuart Hall,[42] who succeeded Hoggart as Director.[43] Cultural studies in this sense, then, can be viewed as a limited concentration scoped on the intricacies of consumerism, which belongs to a wider culture sometimes referred to as 'Western civilization' or 'globalism'."

Hoggart and Hall both worked in the UK, not in the U.S., and the Centre was in Birmingham, England, not Birmingham, Alabama. Either "In the United States" was a typo for "In the United Kingdom" or someone started a paragraph about the U.S. and it got unfinished and/or misplaced. THat's a pity, as a paragraph on the distinctive development of the cultural studies in the U.S. is badly needed, and it shouldn't be treated as some kind of subset or outgrowth of the UK tradition. Unsigned -- addition by User:207.195.65.124 21:22, 25 June 2021‎

 Done --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Of all of the several images shown on this page for culture the only one that depicts some violent aspect of a culture is the Fulani, the only African culture shown. All of the other images shown for culture display something mundane, beautiful, creative, intelligent, interesting. I am certain that there is a non-violent, positive, aspect of any number of the African cultures that can be depicted here instead of a violent example. After all many of the African cultures are the first and the oldest on this earth, surely a positive image can be utilized. Please change this and choose an image from an African culture that is not violent. 47.151.43.181 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I don't see an issue with showing a wedding ceremony, but if you'd like to change the picture I suggest you look through Wikimedia Commons and find some pictures to suggest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I looked up

Pygmy tribes (this name is deprecated) from the Central African forests. The cultures are in danger of disappearance. The music and dance shows strong affinity to the Black culture of the Americas (both North A. and South A.) as well as Carribean. That can't be coincidence. The performers are unsmiling, showing their concentration to, and adherence to, the task of music performance. Some unique instruments include tree branches with axial striking of a tree trunk by the butt end of the branch cylinders, dancing in 'conga lines' separated by gender, age, and expertise. The dances are organic, such as 'imitation of hunting', or fishing. Syncopation appears to arise naturally, untaught. Likewise with harmony. Multi- part music is accomplished by individual players sticking to repetition of their individual motifs on their instruments or voices— Baka Pygmy guitarists in the cameroon rainforest also NYT song from the forest and Song from the forest (2014) and Anduwa Aka Pygmy music Jamming with the Baka in the Rainforest. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC) --12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It has been estimated from archaeological data that the human capacity for cumulative culture emerged somewhere between 500,000 and 170,000 years ago.[1] PzychoPat (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]