Talk:Civilization

"Advancement" and "Progress"

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.

Feudalism is a civilization

According to historians: "Feudal civilization" See the books results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feudal+civilization%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=djCJVr-8OMLzPYP4jsAK#q=%22feudal+civilization%22&tbm=bks

"Urban civilisation" needs article

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)

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)

I agree with you @Arminden. I think this is a consequence of the fact that this article starts off from a quasi-etymological yet very debatable definition of "civilisation" as equating with "a nation of cities" and then layers on other properties, when there is indeed no true justification for doing this (as you point out with the notion of "rural civilisation"). Marcool04 (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Criticisms of the concept?

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)

Perfectly agree! I also feel that in most social science, the concept is all but abandoned, and this should feature more prominently in the opening paragraph of the article. Basically as it stands this article describes the "popular notion" of "civilisation", but it is not - until the section on contrast - a very good representation of how the concept features in scholarly discussion. Marcool04 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Contradiction: British or US spelling

The header reads "Use Oxford spelling", but the title and first word in lead are spelled with z, US style, 'civilization'. This is self-contradictory. Pls sort it out. Arminden (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The 1st sentence goes on with plenty of AE: characterized, urbanization, standardized. It's rather funny, like making a point :)) Arminden (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to READ Oxford spelling! Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC):

You're right, sorry! Assumptions can be wrong. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"needs more citations" tag at the top is probably not helpful

This article has dozens of citations. Depending somewhat on the depth of either sourced of unsourced passages, 100+ citations may be pretty good. I believe anyone with a valid complaint about unsourced/ poorly sourced copy should probably:

1. use some section tags to bring it to others' attention
2. use or inline {{cn}}s.
3. remove some of the passages that are no good if they're not too big (I know this can be tricky, cuz some sections can then become too small, but sometimes cutting is good & a little re-org to go with it can be appropriate.

Any support for this approach would be appreciated and I/ we can remove the tag from the top of the article. let me know if I'm way out of school here or something-- I didn't want to just remove the tag at the top without letting someone know. Thanks,

skakEL 16:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree - the tag was added here in Feb 26 by a very experienced editor, but over 100 refs is pretty good, though some are bunched up - 6 together at the current 51-56. Almost all WP articles "need more references" but tagging is imo usually only helpful in more egregious cases. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)