This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civilization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
World civilisations was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Civilization. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
The words advancement and progress are very prominent in the first few paragraphs. These imply directionality. Use of these words and directionality is opposed by many anthropologists. I will change these to better convey what "characteristics" informally are called civilization. Please explain any disagreements if it is deemed necessary to undo my changes.
There is such a thing as "rural civilisation", which means that "urban civilisation" needs specific and separate treatment. Why base the entire approach on the principle "civilisation = urban civilisation"? Talking here of mainly historical developments, including periods of involution or regress.Arminden (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in a narrower meaning, "urban civilisation" is used for a particularly urban sector of modern life and art. One really cannot equate the two, civilisation = urban civilisation. Arminden (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't there be a section dedicated to dissent/criticisms of the concept/underlying assumptions about "civilisation" ?? Thinkers like Graeber and other modern anthropologists/historians could come under that section. It seems like an all togethor rather presumptive notion. The article touches on this in the "contrast with" section, and makes frequent use of "civilized" and "uncivilized," in quotation marks, implying controversy and ambiguity with these categories, and yet a reader is left wanting for substantive detail in this area of discourse. MJTCQ (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG?lang=en){kind=small}
