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.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

History Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Archaeology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, 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 civilisationsWorld civilisations was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2010 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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.

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

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

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)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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Copying Tpbradbury .. what do you think? skakEL 00:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

thanks, on holiday. If you can make the tags more specific that's good ie for sections or inline, Tom B (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply