Talk:Culture/Archive 1

message: In case it's an issue for anyone, I standardized the spelling to American, only because that's how it begins -- with the word "color" in the first sentence. SlimVirgin 22:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I changed a couple of instances of "artefact" to "artifact". But if any of you prefers British spellings, that's OK with me. I only mention it because I know it's been contentious elsewhere. Maurreen 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Can anyone make sense of "Moreover, they assumed that such patterns had clear bounds (thus, some people confuse "culture" for the society that has a particular culture)." If you can, can you rewrite it so that I might understand it also? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe we should just delete it. Maurreen 07:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Hyacinth, can you elaborate on the Geertz reference, please? Maurreen 10:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Geertz

message: Why are not all contemporary countries listed? Why are local cultures listed that appear to have been chosen at random (Sydney, Stockholm, Wales)? Is the separate list of national culture articles necessary? Fredrik | talk 01:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that those listed were the ones that had articles at the time. Maurreen 05:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. But, red links are better than no links at all... Fredrik | talk 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think red links are appropriate in this context. And because of the number of countries that exist, the red links could outnumber the blue links. Maurreen 05:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in trying to hide the fact that those articles are missing. On the contrary, making the problem visible invites people to start them. Fredrik | talk 05:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Fred -- red links are typically included in wikipedia entries to motivate people to start them. I don't know if that's how it works in practice, but that's how its typically done, iirc. Also, doesn't it make /more/ sense to have the separate page for national cultures contain /all/ references to the cultures of countries? There is a separate page for anthropology and the list of anthropologists, for instance.
The list is mostly mine. I did, precisely, list the existing useful articles. Think of this as mainly a "see also", not mainly an open-ended list. We do not routinely add non-existent articles in the "see also" section of an article. 
I think it would make sense to create a separate article List of contemporary national cultures, link it from here, and make a very full list in that separate article, but the present article is not the place to add a bunch of links to nonexistent articles.  -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
But isn't the important point that this isn't a "list of cultures," as the heading proclaimed?  It's actually a "list of wikipedia articles about national cultures."  Since that doesn't make a very catchy (or relevant) heading, maybe we should just have it as a link. (anon 25 April 2005)
I realize this is an old discussion but since then I have completed(or I think I have completed) the list of national articles that wikipedia has it should probably be kept instead of merged.Falphin 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of cultures

message: I think the word "monadic" will be unfamiliar to many readers, but I'm not sure how to replace it. And the context around "vulgar" doesn't make clear which meaning of the word is intended. Maurreen 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who put in the word "monadic."  I guess I hoped if someone didn't know the word they would figure it out from context.  But if you can figure out a better word ("totalizing?") that is okay by me.  I did bot introduce the word "vulgar," but I assume from context it means "coars." "crude," or "common." Slrubenstein 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No biggie either way, but I wonder whether it might be better to use "crude," "coarse", or "common," in that they are differences of at least degree. But maybe the ambiguity is intentional.  Maurreen 06:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vulgar" and "monadic"

message: The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Well, it seems that the language and culture section was duplicated word-for-word in the section of the same name in Language. Stop me if I am wrong, but I do not believe we do that. We put in the appropriate links, usually the "main" template. Before I caught on to this extensive mimeograph, I started correcting the section in Language. Those corrections as far as they go are quite valid so I am duplicating the corrected paragraphs here. I may not get around to working on this article for a while so I am leaving them here in case you want to put them in.Dave (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know who did that.  The section was originally written here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language and culture

message: I see you are locking this article, as you did Linguistics! I begin to see a pattern. This article is not that good; in fact, it needs a good deal of long tedious work. I can only presume that you more skilled editors are going to take the opportunity to fix this article. For that not to be true would be unthinkable. In fact, there are several important articles in the same category. Well, I am glad to see I am not alone in my perceptions. It always puzzled me to see how high-quality editors could be working on such low-quality stuff. Why, to fix it, of course! I didn't get too far starting in on Linguistics, so I am not going to repeat the scenario. Unless someone invites me to work on them and can guarantee freedom from hassle while doing so I believe I shall let your locked articles alone. I dare say, it is about time you did this for the liberal arts, especially social studies. There are quite a few articles that need to be locked for this purpose. Bonjour, arrivaderci, adios amigos, best of luck. I will move around your perimeter where I can have a freer hand to achieve excellence.Dave (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you talking to? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I was unaware an article could be locked.Sean P.J. (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Also who is put in a position to have a page locked?Sean P.J. (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Locking the article!

message: Someone keeps removing an illustration from the article.  The painting illutrates the idea of "the arbitrariness of the sign."  It is in a section of the article that discusses how tthe arbitrariness of the sign is central to the modern understanding of the symbols and language, which are central to the evolution of culture.  Since the painting illstrates a complicated concept in the article it is useful.  I added a tag to the painting to explain which idea in the article it explains. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: Culture determines who we are and where we come from, therefore, we must value them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: under External links heading: replace dead URL with this one
Dictionary of the History of Ideas "culture" and "civilization" in modern times
84.41.34.154 (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Favonian (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 84.41.34.154, 14 November 2010 

message: "His method begins with the supposition that culture exists in two different forms: the many distinct structures that could be inferred from observing members of the same society interact (and of which members of a society are themselves aware), and abstract structures developed by analyzing shared ways (such as myths and rituals) members of a society represent their social life (and of which members of a society are not only not consciously aware, and which typically stand in opposition to, or negate, the social structures of which people are aware). He then sought to develop one universal mental structure that could only be inferred through the systematic comparison of particular social and cultural structures." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture#1899.E2.80.931946:_Universal_versus_particular
Whats the author trying to say here? BTW, there is a "by which" missing, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.38.240 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some mistakes I will try to fix.  Beyond that one would need to read the structuralism or Levi Strauss articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of this quote? 

message: Fiji is a wonderful place so I was told they say you can hear music wherever you go. They also say that the people are very very kind also they say that the beaches are so beutiful. one day I wish to go there. So if you have a chance to go there you should. It's a chance worth taking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.233.6 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiji 

message: The article makes it very clear that 'culture' has meant a variety of things over time, including high culture, folk culture, archaeological cultures, culture in biological anthropology, and culture in the sense of cultural anthropology. The development of the concept of culture is important and encyclopedic, and this article should certainly cover it.  However, as an umbrella article discussing the evolution of the idea, I don't think it makes sense to have long sections on the individual meanings, which are better covered in individual articles.  This is not just because the article is currently much too long (which it is), but because the meanings have diverged so much that a reader interested in one may well not be interested in the other. I suggest this article be split into multiple articles along those lines, keeping this article for discussion of the history and relationships of the various concepts of culture.  Discussion? --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of large articles end up having parts summarizd within the article and spun of to other articles. I have no objection to doing that here, although frankly I think any one part of this article could perhaps be improved and it would be good to have a complete and excellent article before summarizing parts and spinning them off.  For example, the opening should have a paragraph at least on French romanticism, the tradition from Rousseau to Durkheim, both of whom really influenced later views of culture.  Also, the section at the end on culture and change is terrible - few anthropologists accept the concept of "acculturation" today, and virtually all think that cultures are always change. So there is actually a split among people who use the word culture, some for whom culture is that which does not change (and is thus opposed conceptually to history) and those for whom culture is always in flux.  I am not sure the article handles this well, and maybe the last section is the place to do it, but my point is that there are some issues that perhaps should be addressed before following your plan.  Ultimately, however, I do agree with you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sense development vs. articles on individual senses

message: I think, I've got it completely correct. Here's my definition of culture:
* Set of traits common to some living organism (distinct human, monkey, or alien, for example), or to a group of them (like social group, subculture, civilization, race, "type of people").
I belive it's the shortest and most complete definition of the word "culture". I'm not sure how well it may fit with several types of sentences about culture, though. I think the word is largely misinterpret and used where it shouldn't have been, so it should have a solid definition with an "amen" and a dot, before it got even more confusing and stopped having some meaning that is socially recognisable. So that people can understand what you're talking about when you're using the word.
Thanks. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source?  I know many who would reject this definition ... who accepts it? Is it a significant view from a reliable source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who has to be a source? God? Well, there's actually none, so I'm afraid we'll have to figure things out on our own. The fact that you know many who wouldn't agree doesn't mean much. There also are many who would agree, so what? The question is is it correct and if it isn't - why? Give me some democratic debate. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:RS. Tomeasy T C 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A set of traits? In an individual, that could be personality, no? And how would you distinguish between a social group, subculture, culture, civilization or race with such a definition? Sunray (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog is, as Tomeasy suggests, reliable sources. In a blog they are optional; in an encyclopedia... not so much. Sunray (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Memetics is based on the same assumption as I did. I scaled it up to also include genetical stuff, but it might have been too wide though. Searching the web I don't find no genetical use for it in English language unlike in Ukrainian, though. Anyways, I, probably, have to make a best-selling book and wait a couple of decades to get this included into encyclopedia.. =D And it will still only be "Next of kin" and none of those other incomplete explanations will get deleted. Explanations which can easily and correctly be united using memetical thinking. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: In reading this article on "Culture" I was struck by the number of times the developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello is mentioned (35).  Is he really that central to the topic?  Note - it appears that all these references were added by Slrubenstein on 01:32, 3 February 2009‎ 
Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomasello 

message: It seems to me that the notes section is exceedingly long due to the same sources being listed multiple times for different pages. However, I'm unsure what the preferred method of dealing with it is. Rp looks like it would do the trick, but the documentation for it suggests sfn might be better. 786b6364 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use rp template? 

message: Pictures are too much and sometimes not corresponding to text, while it is good to show different pictures of the world it is not a good idea to illustrate with them sections that talk on different topics. Also the intro section has a lot of place for different cultures of the world to be shown, somthing that is not done by now. --Aleksd (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: American anthropoligy is a naming I'm not quite agreable with. Any anthropology and ethnology is interested in cultures. That means anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss too, the paragraph should be Anthropology, and if you need to be diveded by countries let it be so but American anthropoligy as an only paragraph where Claude Lévi-Strauss as a French anthropolgist is included, thats quite interesting. I am changing this, but the whole must be rewritten as it is utterly incorrect. --Aleksd (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And by this I mean that Lévi-Strauss has a significant influence on European studies on culture. I am not sure if this should be separated and observed as a school of its own but still. --Aleksd (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Too much wording in Language and culture that says almost nothing except for repeating Boas. And how exactly the Language and culture, as part of American anthropology takes onto semiotics, where study of language and culture is done in the USSR. And the structuralist approaches to Saussure that were largelly developed in Prague school (linguistics) still goes in Am anth section without anything being concrete on specific American linguistics "Second, in Europe, Saussure influenced the Prague School of Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, whose work would prove hugely influential, particularly concerning phonology, and the School of Louis Hjelmslev. Structural linguistics also had an influence on other disciplines in Europe, including anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marxism, bringing about the movement known as structuralism." (Structural linguistics)--Aleksd (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced text 

message: I've done some cleanup, up to the point of dealing with a suspected confabulated and apparently unsourced (I doubt the source given supports what the text purports) etymological sketch. Breaking off here though noting same. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: etymological sketch historical precis of the term. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I just did a major rewrite. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I reverted. It is not an improvement to reduce a the definition of a complex and contested concept to a couple of lines based on the wiktionary definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Lede state 

message: The 'Aspects' section, wholly uncited, appears little more than a set of WP:OR opinions arranged as a haphazard group of lists. In other words the material lacks both thought and verifiability. It might be partially recoverable but it probably needs to be replaced entirely by better-organized material. Here it is:
"== Aspects of culture =="
"Aspects of human expression include both material culture and ephemeral elements.  These include:
* Language and dialect
* Science
* Technology
* Cuisine
* Aesthetics - art, music, literature, fashion, and architecture
* Values, ideology
* Social conventions, including norms, taboos, and etiquette
* Gender roles
* Recreational activities such as festivals and holidays
* Commercial practices
* Social structure
* Religion"
"Cultural regions are often defined with respect to an ethnolinguistic group or religion; the larger cultural groupings are sometimes referred to as "civilizations".  Subcultures have distinct aspects, but share a connection with a larger culture (whether by virtue of inhabiting the same society or by inheriting certain cultural elements).  Individuals can participate in multiple cultures and subcultures; countercultures specifically reject at least some aspects of mainstream culture."
"Cultural identities and subcultures can be defined along any of these lines, or others; for example:
* Profession - e.g. truck driver culture
* Workplace - organizational culture
* Time and place - e.g. the Victorian era in the British Empire
* An archaeological culture, defined by similar artifacts
* Broad geography - e.g. Western culture
* Narrow geography - e.g. Culture of the United States, National dress
* Unified system of writing conventions - e.g. IETF language tags used for internationalization and localization in computing
* Ethnic minority - e.g. African-American culture
* Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures
* Individual adoption of cultural style - e.g. Goth subculture
* Social class, caste, or socioeconomic status - High culture (usually referring to artistic culture) might be differentiated from low culture, folk culture, or middlebrow culture
* Audience - e.g. popular culture
* Technology - e.g. cyberculture, video game culture
* Cultural landscape"
"Mutual communication (whether through technology or transportation of people or goods) is an essential activity which maintains the coherence of a cultural group.  This explains why cultural boundaries can follow divisions in language and geography, why globalization has created larger cultural spheres, and highlights the role of mass media in defining and maintaining culture.  Education and tradition communicate culture through time."
"A given nation-state or society may have a single, dominant culture to which immigrants assimilate (the melting pot model), or be multicultural (the salad bowl/cultural mosaic model)."
"Cultural conflict can arise within a society or between different societies with different cultures."
I'd suggest we don't put any of this back without citations, and preferably incorporation into structured text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited 'Aspects'

message: is this a level1 article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to write a report, but if you can quickly check whether the problem already existed before the first edition of the book was published (2011) using the last version of our article from 2010  we could at least make a very strong case that Wikipedia cannot have plagiarized the book (as our information was online before the book was made public). Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that version of Wikipedia also matches the book (that is, I compared the beginning and end of each paragraph, and they usually match. A couple sections are reversed, and the missing "Sociology" section didn't exist back then.) I reported it here. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: I did a lot of proofreading. Here are some things I couldn't fix without easy access to the original documents.
Search the article for "unique and distinctive pattern". That is the end of a quote, but there is no corresponding quote mark to show where the quote begins.
:: Fixed that one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading 

message: The American anthropology section, and the 4 sections after it, form an extended essay introduced like this:
"American anthropology is organized into four fields, each of which plays an important role in research on culture:
1. biological anthropology
2. linguistic anthropology
3. cultural anthropology
4. archaeology"
What looks like 5 separate sections in the article in fact therefore represents one very long aside to the explanation of Culture. While anthropology (from all countries) has some relevance, the essay has already been labelled as WP:OR, probably correctly. I suggest we split it off, leaving a "" and a modest section "in summary style". The Culture article will be a lot better for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Split out 'American anthropology'

message: This article is a mess. It seems to be about the history of the word rather than about the anthropological meaning. The awful first paragraph sets the vague tone for the rest of the article. Bhny (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the topic? 

message: I noticed that the link used for the second footnote (to "bodylanguagecards.com") was broken, so I changed it to the version found at archive.org. However, while doing so I noticed that it doesn't seem to support the article statement well. It may need further editing or a different citation to correct it. Whateley23 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Issue 

message: So I found the article is really missing these two fundamental characteristics of culture:
* That culture is passed onward from group to group (as subset of this: biological & cultural [such as music genres and/or any subculture] generation to generation)
* That it's an emergent (and inevitable) consequence/outcome from any kind of human cohabitation and interaction (culture referring here to macro-culture and hence larger-scale cohabitation & interaction)
I find this article way too important and shaped by a necessity of being defined in a sharply-distincted manner for me to touch. But I'm sure you'd find enough references for these two points.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the article: culture's characteristic of: being passed on by group to group  &  being emergent of any large scale human cohabitation and interaction 

message: Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article  Poles in mythology.
Rgds
Mahitgar (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles in mythology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So emotions of a people are not a part of their culture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.185.19 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotions of people not a part of culture? 

message: Does anyone have any good sources for the claim that Hobbes and Rousseau said Native Americans were living in the state of nature? On the "noble savage" page, it says that Rousseau didn't view them as being in a state of nature, but without a citation. Thanks! Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbes and Rousseau 

message: The multiple image template causes problems with the print function. Much better to avoid this template and put the pictures individually in the article. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple image template causing problems with print function