CulTure

#REDIRECT Culture

Culture

The word ''culture'' comes from the Latin root ''colere'' (to inhabit, to cultivate, or to honor). In general, it refers to human activity; different definitions of ''culture'' reflect different theories for understanding, or criteria for valuing, human activity. Anthropologists use the term to refer to the universal human capacity to classify experiences, and to encode and communicate them symbol. They regard this capacity as a defining feature of the genus ''homo (genus)''. ==Defining culture== Different definitions of ''culture'' reflect different theories for understanding - or criteria for valuing - human activity. Edward Burnett Tylor wrote in 1871 that "culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society", while a 2002 document from the United Nations agency UNESCO states that culture is the "set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs". http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002/unversal_decla.shtml UNESCO, 2002 While these two definitions range widely, they do not exhaust the many uses of this concept - in 1952 Alfred L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of more than 200 different definitions of ''culture'' in their book, ''Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions'' [Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952]. ===Culture as civilization=== Many people today use a conception of "culture" that developed in Europe during the 18th and early 19th centuries. This conception of culture reflected inequalities within European societies, and between European powers and their colonies around the world. It identifies "culture" with "civilization" and contrasts the combined concept with "nature". According to this thinking, some countries are more civilized than others, and some people are more cultured than others. Thus some cultural theorists have actually tried to eliminate popular or mass culture from the definition of culture. Theorists like Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) or F. R. Leavis regard culture as simply the result of "the best that has been thought and said in the world” (Arnold, 1960: 6), thus labeling anything that doesn't fit into this category as chaos or anarchy. On this account, culture links closely with cultivation: the progressive refinement of human behavior. Arnold consistently uses the word this way: "... culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world". http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/nonfiction_u/arnoldm_ca/ca_all.html Arnold, 1882 In practice, ''culture'' referred to elite goods and activities such as ''haute cuisine'', high fashion or ''haute couture'', museum-caliber art and classical music, and the word ''cultured'' dexcribed people who knew about, and took part in, these activities. For example, someone who used 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might argue that classical music "is" more refined than music produced by working-class people such as punk rock or than the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia. People who use "culture" in this way tend not to use it in the plural. They do not believe that distinct cultures exist, each with their own internal logic and values; but rather that only a single standard of refinement suffices, against which one can measure all groups. Thus, according to this worldview, people with different customs from those who regard themselves as cultured do not usually count as "having a different culture"; but class as "uncultured". People lacking "culture" often seemed more "natural," and observers often defended (or criticized) elements of high culture for repressing "human nature". From the 18th century on some social critics have accepted this contrast between cultured and uncultured, but have stressed the interpretation of refinement and of sophistication as corrupting and unnatural developments which obscure and distort people's essential nature. On this account, folk music (as produced by working-class people) honestly expresses a natural way of life, and classical music seems superficial and decadent. Equally, this view often portrays non-Western culture people as 'noble savages' living authenticity (philosophy) unblemished lives, uncomplicated and uncorrupted by the highly-stratified capitalism systems of western culture . Today most social scientists reject the monadic conception of culture, and the opposition of culture to nature. They recognize non-�lites as just as cultured as �lites (and non-Westerners as just as civilized) -- simply regarding them as just cultured in a different way. Thus social observers contrast the \"high\" culture of �lites to Popular culture, meaning goods and activities produced for, and consumed by, non-�lite people or the proletariat. (Note that some classifications relegate both high and low cultures to the status of subcultures.) ===Culture as worldview=== During the Romantic era, scholars in Germany, especially those concerned with nationalism movements -- such as the nationalist struggle to create a "Germany" out of diverse principalities, and the nationalist struggles by ethnic minorities against the Austro-Hungarian Empire -- developed a more inclusive notion of culture as "worldview". In this mode of thought, a distinct and incommensurable world view characterizes each ethnic group. Although more inclusive than earlier views, this approach to culture still allowed for distinctions between "civilized" and "primitive" or "tribal" cultures. By the late 19th century, anthropology had adopted and adapted the term ''culture'' to a broader definition that they could apply to a wider variety of societies. Attentive to the theory of evolution, they assumed that all human beings evolved equally, and that the fact that all humans have cultures must in some way result from human evolution. They also showed some reluctance to use biological evolution to explain differences between specific cultures -- an approach that either exemplified a form of, or legitimized forms of, racism. They believed that biological evolution would produce a most inclusive notion of culture, a concept that anthropologists could apply equally to non-literate and to literate societies, or to nomadic and to sedentary societies. They argued that through the course of their evolution, human beings evolved a universal human capacity to classify experiences, and to encode and communicate them symbol. Since human individuals learned and taught these symbolic systems, the systems began to develop independently of biological evolution (in other words, one human being can learn a belief, value, or way of doing something from another, even if the two humans do not share a biological relationship). That this capacity for symbolic thinking and social learning stems from human evolution confounds older arguments about nature versus nurture. Thus Clifford Geertz (1973: 33 ff.) has argued that human physiology and neurology developed in conjunction with the first cultural activities, and Middleton (1990: 17 n.27) concluded that human "'instincts' were culturally formed". People living apart from one another develop unique cultures, but elements of different cultures can easily spread from one group of people to another. Culture changes dynamically and people can (must?) teach and learn culture, making it a potentially rapid form of adaptation (biology) to change in physical conditions. Anthropologists view culture as not only as a product of biological evolution but as a supplement to it, as the main means of human adaptation to the world. This view of culture as a symbolic system with adaptive functions, and one which varies from place to place, led anthropologists to conceive of different cultures as defined by distinct patterns (or structures) of enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning, which took concrete form in a variety of artifacts such as myths and rituals, tools, the design of housing, and the planning of villages. Anthropologists thus distinguish between material culture and symbolic culture, not only because each reflects different kinds of human activity, but also because they constitute different kinds of data that require different methodologies. This view of culture, which came to dominate between World War I and World War II, implied that each culture had bounds and demanded interpretation as a whole, on its own terms. There resulted a belief in cultural relativism; the belief that one had to understand an individual's actions in terms of his or her culture; that one had to understand a specific cultural artifact (a ritual, for example) in terms of the larger symbolic system of which it forms a part. Nevertheless, the belief that culture comprises symbolical codes and can thus pass via teaching from one person to another meant that cultures, although bounded, would change. Cultural change could result from invention and innovation, but it could also result from contact between two cultures. Under peaceful conditions, contact between two cultures can lead to people "borrowing" (really, learning) from one another (diffusion (anthropology) or transculturation). Under conditions of violence or political inequality, however, people of one society can "steal" cultural artifacts from another, or impose cultural artifacts on another (acculturation). Diffusion of innovations theory presents a research-based model for how, when and why people adopt new ideas. All human societies have participated in these processes of diffusion, transculturation, and acculturation, and few anthropologists today see cultures as bounded. Modern anthropologists argue that instead of understanding a cultural artifact in terms of its own culture, one needs to understand it in terms of a broader history involving contact and relations with other cultures. In addition to the aforementioned processes, migration on a major scale has characterized the world, particyularly since the days of Columbus. Phenomena such as colonialism and forced migration through slavery became prominent. As a result, many societies have become culturally heterogeneous. Some anthropologists have argued nevertheless that some unifying cultural system bound heterogeneous societies, and that it offers advantages to understand heterogenous elements as subcultures. Others have argued that no unifying or coordinating cultural system exists, and that one must understand heterogeneous elements together as forming a multicultural society. The spread of the doctrine of multiculturalism has coincided with a resurgence of identity politics, which involve demands for the recognition of social subgroups' cultural uniqueness. Sociobiological theory argue that observers can best understand many aspects of culture in the light of the concept of the ''meme'', first introduced by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book ''The Selfish Gene''. Dawkins suggests the existence of units of culture - ''memes'' - roughly analogous to ''genes'' in evolutionary biology. Although this view has gained some popular currency, anthropologists generally reject it. ===Culture as values, norms, and artifacts=== Another common way of understanding culture sees it as consisting of three elements: # ''Value#Personal_and_cultural_values'' # ''Norm (sociology)'' #''Artifact (archaeology).'' (See ''Dictionary of Modern Sociology'', 1969, 93, cited at [http://www.info.gov.hk/coy/eng/report/doc/Youth_Statistical/2002/app/Chp6_Cultural_Capital.pdf]) Values comprise ideas about what in life seems important. They guide the rest of the culture. Norms consist of expectations of how people will behave in different situations. Each culture has different methods, called ''sanctions'', of enforcing its norms. Sanctions vary with the importance of the norm; norms that a society enforces formally have the status of ''laws''. Artifacts — things, or material culture — derive from the culture's values and norms. Julian Huxley gives a slightly different division, into inter-related "mentifacts", "socifacts" and "artifacts", for ideological, sociological, and technological subsystems respectively. Socialization, in Huxley's view, depends on the belief subsystem. The sociological subsystem governs interaction between people. Material objects and their use make up the technological subsystem. [http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~aforsber/ccsf/culture_defined.html] As a rule, archaeology focus on material culture, and cultural anthropology focus on symbolic culture, although ultimately both groups maintain interests in the relationships between these two dimensions. Moreover, anthropologists understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. ===Culture as patterns of products and activities=== In the early 20th century, cultural anthropology understood culture to refer not to a set of discrete products or activities (whether material or symbolic) but rather to underlying patterns of products and activities. Moreover, they assumed that such patterns had clear bounds (thus, some people confuse "culture" with the society that has a particular culture). In the case of smaller societies, in which people merely fell into categories of age, gender, household and descent group, anthropologists believed that people more-or-less shared the same set of values and conventions. In the case of larger societies, in which people undergo further categorization by region, race, ethnicity, and social class , anthropologists came to believe that members of the same society often had highly contrasting values and conventions. They thus used the term subculture to identify the cultures of parts of larger societies. Since subcultures reflect the position of a segment of society ''vis a vis'' other segments and the society as a whole, they often reveal processes of domination and resistance. ==Cultural change== Cultures are both predisposed to change and resistant to it. Resistance can come from habit, religion and the integration and interdependence of culture traits. For example, men and women have complementary roles in many cultures. One sex might desire changes that affect the other, as happened in the second half of the 20th century in western cultures. Cultural change can come about due to the environment, to inventions and other internal influences, and to contact with other cultures. For example, the end of the last ice age helped lead to the invention of agriculture, which in its turn brought about many cultual innovations. Some inventions that affected Western culture in the 20th century included the birth control pill, television, and the Internet. The pill helped families have more money and women have more freedom. Television not only brought similar visual programming into many homes, but also influenced how and when family members interacted with each other. Contact between cultures can result in diffusion, or on a larger scale, acculturation. In diffusion (anthropology), the form of something moves from one culture to another, but not its meaning. For example, hamburgers, mundane in the United States, seemed exotic when introduced into China. "Stimulus diffusion" refers to an element of one culture leading to an invention in another. Diffusions of innovations theory presents a research-based model for why and when individuals and cultures adopt new ideas, practices, and products. "Acculturation" has different meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of another, such as happened to certain Native American tribes and to many indigenous peoples across the globe during the process of colonization . Related processes on an individual level include assimilation (adoption of a different culture by an individual) and transculturation. ==Cultural studies== Cultural studies developed in the late 20th century, in part through the re-introduction of Marxist thought into sociology, and in part through the articulation (sociology) of sociology and other academic disciplines such as literary criticism. This movement aimed to focus on the analysis of subcultures in capitalist societies. Following the non-anthropological tradition, cultural studies generally focus on the study of consumption goods (such as fashion, art, and literature). Because the 18th- and 19th-century distinction between "high" and "low" culture seems inappropriate to apply to the mass-produced and mass-marketed consumption goods which cultural studies analyses, these scholars refer instead to "popular culture". Today, some anthropology have joined the project of cultural studies. Most, however, reject the identification of culture with consumption goods. Furthermore, many now reject the notion of culture as bounded, and consequently reject the notion of subculture. Instead, they see culture as a complex web of shifting patterns that link people in different locales, and link social formations of different scales. According to this view, any group can construct its own cultural identity. ==List of cultures== ===Cultures of contemporary countries=== ''Main article: List of national culture articles.''

*Culture of Albania *Culture of Angola *Culture of Australia *Culture of Belgium *Culture of Bhutan *Culture of Brazil *Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina *Culture of Canada **Culture of Quebec **Political culture of Canada *Culture of Chile *Culture of China **Culture of Hong Kong *Culture of Denmark *Culture of Egypt *Culture of Finland

*Culture of France *Culture of Georgia *Culture of Gibraltar *Culture of Greece *Culture of Hungary *Culture of India *Culture of Indonesia *Culture of Israel *Culture of Italy *Culture of Japan *Culture of Korea **Contemporary culture of North Korea **Contemporary culture of South Korea *Culture of Lithuania *Culture of Macedonia *Culture of Mexico

*Culture of the Netherlands *Culture of New Zealand **Maori culture *Culture of Peru *Culture of Portugal *Culture of South Africa *Culture of Spain *Culture of Sweden *Culture of Switzerland *Culture of the United Kingdom **Culture of England **Culture of Northern Ireland **Culture of Scotland **Culture of Wales *Culture of the United States

=== Contemporary local cultures === *Culture of New York City *Culture of Stockholm *Culture of Sydney *Culture of Pakistan === Other contemporary cultures === *Cassette culture *Deaf culture *Drug culture *Esperanto culture *Hacker culture *Queer culture *Underground culture *Working class culture *Youth culture === Historic cultures === *Assyro-Babylonian culture *Indus Valley Culture **Cemetery H culture *La Tene culture — from the Iron Age in parts of Europe *Natufian culture — in the Mediterranean more than 10,000 years ago *Paideia — Classical Greek culture *Romanitas — Roman Imperial culture *Weimar culture *Western culture ==See also== *Acculturation *Cross-cultural communication *Cultural bias *Cultural diversity *Cultural evolution *Cultural imperialism *Culture jamming *Culture theory *Culture war *Dominator culture *European Capital of Culture — city chosen by the European Union for a year at a time to showcase its cultural life *Kulturkampf — a specific cultural fight in 1870s Germany *Organizational culture *World Values Survey ==References== * Arnold, Matthew, ''Culture and Anarchy'', 1882. Macmillan and Co., New York. Online at [http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/nonfiction_u/arnoldm_ca/ca_titlepage.html]. *Hoult, Thomas Ford, ed. (1969). ''Dictionary of Modern Sociology''. Totowa, New Jersey, United States: Littlefield, Adams & Co. * Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, 1952. ''Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions''. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. *Middleton, Richard (1990/2002). ''Studying Popular Music''. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 0335152759. *Geertz, Clifford. (1973). ''The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays''. New York. ISBN 0465097197. *[http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/cultural.htm Cultural Anthropology Tutorials], Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marco, California, United States, as of December 12, 2004. * UNESCO, "[http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002/unversal_decla.shtml UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity]", issued on International Mother Language Day, February 21, 2002. ==External links== *[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-72 ''Dictionary of the History of Ideas'':] "Cultural Development" in Antiquity *[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-73 ''Dictionary of the History of Ideas'':] "Culture" and "Civilization" in Modern Times * [http://samvak.tripod.com/class.html Classificatory system for cultures and civilizations], by Dr. Sam Vaknin Culture bn:সংস্কৃতি hi:संस्कृति zh-min-nan:B�n-ho� nah:Cultura nds:Kultur simple:Culture vi:Văn hóa

Culture

==Before 2003?== Be gentle. This is only a stub! (*puts on :asbesthos suit*) --Anders T�rlind ---- ''Culture,'' as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading. What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other? ---- We separate ''Culture'' from Sciences? I consider Science to be a part of the Culture. ---- We could say culture refers to those things that exist in some form in every society, but which differ in particular expression from society to society. - TimShell ---- I would go off sounding like a dictionary to say: 'the pattern of knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends, in part, on the capacity to learn that enables members to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations' or 'the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize a group' or 'to grow in a prepared medium.' (That last one being both off-topic and an interesting restatement of the first.) --PhillipHankins ---- Should this article become a disambiguation page with links to Culture (biology), Culture (anthropology), Culture (arts and letters), and possibly Culture (fashion)?--user:netesq :I basically agree with you, although "culture(anthropology) would be too narrow; although the article emphasizes anthropology, it is discussing a concept used by sociologists, critical theorists, and others and in its current structure can accommodate development by people from other disciplines. Maybe culture (concept in social theory)? User:Slrubenstein :: ''As an anthropologist by training, I must admit that I am highly biased on this issue. IMHO, culture qua science and social theory is a term of art that is properly the province of anthropology, a term of art which has been borrowed by various other related disciplines. I think most sociologists and critical theorists would agree, but I will let them speak for themselves. ::In any event, I think we are in agreement on the need for a disambiguation page for culture with a link to Culture (biology). What about Culture (arts and letters) and Culture (fashion)? Can we agree that these connotations of culture are sufficiently distinct from culture qua science and social theory to warrant separate articles?--user:netesq'' ---- I removed the following section. I do ''not'' mean to delete it, but I do think it needs a lot of work before it is reincoprorated into the article. I suggest we work on it here, and then figure out where to put it in the article. I have some more specific comments afterwards. [Content moved to Culture theory.] Let me state at the outset that I agree with virtually everything here. My problem is not that I think it is wrong, but that it is ill-suited for an encyclopedia article. That is, although personally I agree with almost if not all of it, I understand that this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal. I think this is a view that emerged especially among anthropologists in the mid twentieth century. Many people, including anthropologists, in the 19th century used the word culture very differently. Many anthropologists by the late 20th century began moving away from this understanding of culture (there are extensive debates in anthropology journals over whether this understanding of culture has any meaning at all). Finally, many non-anthropologists use the term culture in rather different ways. YET, the above is written as if this is "the" meaning of culture. In short, it is written in an ''argumentative'', rather than ''expository'' tone. This is conveyed in part through such rhetorical devises as "we have seen" and "let us look" and "it must be realized" -- devices that are usually used to lead people through an argument or convince them -- or to assert a certain authority. Frankly, I think such rhetorical devices are inappropriate to this project. I think much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular view of culture, and in that highly condensed and historicized form it can be reinserted. Otherwise, it misrepresented the history of the term, and neglects current scholarly debate. Also, on a side note, to whomever wrote this: please review Wikipedia formatting guidelines so that when you do contribute to articles you do not screw up the format (I am sure the previous screw-up was entirely unintended, I have done similar things myself) User:Slrubenstein ==2003== Once again, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- User:Netesq 02:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)~ ------------ I was reading an news article the other day that said chimps could be said to have culture -- across Africa, different groups exhibit different behaviours in both feeding habits, grooming and courtship. Some of these (like using tools) gradually spread. -- User:Tarquin 10:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) (not the one I read, but similar: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/370807.stm ) At http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/chimpculture030102.html there is a similar report but with regard to orangutans. User:Tannin PS: I just noticed the article URL - "chimpculture" in an article about orangs. Sigh. --- Tannin ---- By definition, culture (in the anthropological sense) is a human phenomenon, and the "definitions" of culture used in these news articles is a radical departure from any commonly accepted definition of culture that is used by anthropologists. Absent a peer-reviewed report in a serious scientific journal which harmonizes with these news reports, the news reports should be dismissed as scientifically inaccurate.-- User:Netesq 13:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) I don't see why. These reports quote primatologists, and show that the notion of "culture" applies to other species. As an encyclopedia it's our duty to report emerging theories. Don't be so humanocentric! -- User:Tarquin 13:25 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) When there is evidence of religion among other primates, a primary component of all anthropological theories of culture, I think it would be worth noting. Until that time, it is scientifically inaccurate to state that any hominid, much less a primate, possesses culture. Simply put, as an emerging scientific theory, these news reports are on the same par as news reports about creation science. No doubt we could find a whole bunch of credentialed scientists who would be willing to offer half-truths and misleading definitions to suit their own agendas in this regard as well.-- User:Netesq 13:37 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) : No, they don't have religion. Which would suggest that they are SMARTER than we are. Do we have any anthropologists on board who can comment on this? -- User:Tarquin I have a bachelor of arts in anthropology (cum laude) and I have taken graduate level courses in both primatology and cultural anthropology. The issue is not one of intelligence; it is one of definition: Only hominids can possess culture, and only hominids which possess culture are considered human. As I said before, religion is a key component of any theory of culture which is commonly accepted among anthropologists. -- User:Netesq 13:49 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) : That is a ciruclar definition -- you appear to be saying "culture is what humans have" and "humans are those that have culture". -- User:Tarquin 13:54 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) Be that as it may, that definition is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists: One must meet the biological criteria of being human (i.e, be a hominid) to possess culture. -- User:Netesq 14:04 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) : Then the definition is badly-formed because it makes unnecessary presumptions -- User:Tarquin 14:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) So say you, but it is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists. On this note, the statement that "only humans possess culture" is not "the" definition of culture; it is simply part of any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists, one that disqualifies primates who do not meet the biological criteria of being human. Another component of such commonly accepted definitions that disqualifies chimpanzees and orangutans is the component of religion. Yet another component would be the use of symbolic language (emphasis on symbolic) to transmit culture, something for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. -- User:Netesq 14:21 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) ---- The trouble with anthropologists is that they think their own peculiar usage of any given term is ordained by God, and all other usages are debasements of His Holy Writ. (A good general purpose recipe, this one, by the way. Feel free to substitute whichever academic group ending in "oligist" is most convenient to your argument. Flavour with professional bigotry to taste.) My point, of course, is that there are many definitions of "culture", and although the term is, in broad, more central to anthropolgy than, for example, sociology, biology or history, it is commonly used in different senses in a host of fields. Differentiating between them sensibly, and yet producing a cohesive, readable article even so would tax Solomon's wisdom. User:Tannin Given the fact that there is so much disagreement about the proper use of the term culture, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- User:Netesq 13:52 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) : Good idea. User:Tannin ---- Hello, I wrote the big long thing. I realize now that it would be better titled "Cultural Behavior" and linked to fromt this page. Who's going to handle the disambiguation, then? user:Theanthrope In reviewing the previous versions of this article, I think that user:Slrubenstein previous version provided a good overview of the generic concept of culture qua culture. As for the discussion provided by user:Theanthrope, this could be the substance of an article entitled Culture theory, but it still suffers from the defects outlined, ''supra'', by Slrubenstein. To wit, "this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal." Moreover, "it is written in an ''argumentative'', rather than ''expository'' tone." Accordingly, "much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular [theory] of culture." To this end, simply follow the link to Culture theory; then cut, paste, and edit the appropriate content. -- User:Netesq 19:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) Well, I did a copy and paste to Culture theory; anyone else care to cut/edit? -- User:Netesq 19:29 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) I cut a definition of "culture" from the first paragraph. The problem is, as the first paragraph points out, there are many different definitions of culture and no consensus; moreover, these definitions have changed over time. The definition I cut seems to fall somewhere between Tylor's 19th century definition and an ad hoc definition used in many anthropology textbooks. Personally, I do not think the article needs such a definition. But if others disagree, I don't object putting it back in the article -- but I would insist that it be presented as ''a'' definition of culture (not ''the'' definition) and also contextualized (i.e., put the definition not in the introduction but somewhere in the body, along with information about when this definition arose and who still uses it). User:Slrubenstein ==2004== I do not fully understand this sentence: :Archaeologists' attempts to understand the processes behind material culture have also influenced their understanding of what constitutes an archaeological culture. What confuses me is the pronoun "their." Is this sentence saying that archeologists try to understand things that influence how archeologists understand things? It seems circular. Are the material processes in question important because they inform our understanding of culture, or because there are material processes in the profession of archeology that have influenced how archeologists do their work? I hopy my confusion is clear! User:Slrubenstein :Yes I agree it does seem rather circular now I think about it. Sorry about that. I should have said that advances in archaeological knowledge and divergences in archaeological theory have led to differing views of what a culture is; from the culture history view, thence to the processualist, anthropological view and now to the post-processualists and their rejection of systemic thinking. As is often the case, I thought I was being elegant when in fact I was being quite the opposite. I will have another go. User:Adamsan 19:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC) *Edited in order to make sense User:Adamsan 19:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC) * Well, I am relieved that my confusion had some real basis. The only thing I would add is, I think something similar happened for cultural anthropologists. If there is something peculiar to the process among archeologists, or its result, perhaps the passage could be a little more specific too, User:Slrubenstein :If it's the same for both then maybe something like: ::''Archaeologists and anthropologists understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. As the disciplines have grown, their understandings of what constitutes culture have changed.'' :That last sentence sounds pretty weak though. On reflection, I will revert and confine my planned disquisition on archaeologists and cultures to the aptly-named archaeological culture entry User:Adamsan 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Then please be sure to provide a link to this article! I hope you understand that i was not at all objecting to the content of your contribution, only suggesting that there may be a clearer way to present it. Perhaps another issue is that in the US archeologists are anthropologists (I was not intending to contrast archeology and anthropology but rather archeologists and cultural anthropologists; perhaps you could say "Anthropologists, including archeologists and ethnographers" or something like that. Any way, I don't mean to resist your basic point! User:Slrubenstein :: Don't worry, I'll shoehorn a link in there somewhere! I just need to collect my thoughts on archaeologists and cultures first as this discussion has set me thinking! User:Adamsan 22:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC) ==Spelling== 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. User: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. User:Maurreen 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Confusing sentence == 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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) :Maybe we should just delete it. User:Maurreen 07:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) == General comment == This article starts out strong, but then walks off of a pier. The effort to get this up to a 1.0 standard is going to be arduous, because past the first half a dozen paragraphs or so, this is a long way from what it should be. I think we've made a lot of improvements to this in the last few days, but what it comes down to is someone really needs to research and write this article: it's not just a matter of cleaning up and validating references. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:29, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) :I thought maybe I was the only one who found it lacking. Maybe I can add material next weekend. As of now, it's just about how anthropologists look at culture. I figure maybe it should have info about cultural development and acculturation at least. I added some links to related articles that might help. Maybe I can do something more substantial next weekend. User:Maurreen :: Go for it. But even as a discussion of the historic growth from an inchoate notion of culture to the rise of an anthropological and sociological notion, it is weak. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 08:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) I wouldn't say that it walks off a pier (although the stuff on cultural studies is a little out of joint). But I admit it is a short article. The question is, what "should" it be? Jmabel thinks it is a long way from that -- but I am not sure what his vision is of what it should be. I think we mneed to be clear about this because some of the things it ''could'' be (e.g. cultural theory, issues in the study of culture, methods, descriptions of different cultures) might better belong on linked pages. Can we come to some agreement about what an article on "culture" must include, and the rationale? User:Slrubenstein :I'd welcome that. To be honest, I'm not too sure what the article should be. I would assume that someone with a solid background in cultural anthropology would have a lot more to add... and that isn't me. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 18:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) I actually have a solid background in cultural anthropology -- although I would defer to others (I know that there are some Wikipedians who are graduate students in anthropology, for example). Culture is a pretty big topic and if I tried to put everything I knew into this, it would get way too long. Also, at some poine what I know merges with what I think and this would become a personal essay, which of course is verboten. Thus, I hesitate -- strongly -- to make these decisions/choices by myself. I apprciate your humility concerning the topic, but you were right to raise the concern so I am sure any other thoughts you have would be worthwhile. Or perhaps you can encourage others (Mable?) to make suggestions? User:Slrubenstein :Well as a newly-minted professor of anthropology I'd be willing to make some suggestions about the page, but I want to stress for the record that I care more for commitment and learning than I do fancy, authoritative titles :) It seems to me that the problem with this article is that it goes in circles over a relatively small number of issues. First: The idea of culture as 'civilization' or 'cultivation' -- a scale of less-or-more sophistication that spawns notions of 'high' vs 'low' art and 'civilized' Europeans vs. 'uncivilized' colonial subjects. Second: the idea of cultures as a set of distinct and incommensurable world views, associated with (often German) romantic reactions to the first view of culture. Third: the outgrowth of the second view, which is the modern (anthropological) culture concept of structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning. Fourth: culture as identity and the idea of distinct 'cultures', 'multiculturalism' and a politics of recognition. Fifth: What I would call the 'para-academic' discourse on memes etc. which is widespread in popular culture (and particularly that of wikipedians) but totally looked down upon by academics. So I don't have a strong vision to impose on the page, but perhaps we could pull out those themes as a way of at least solidifying it? Finally: culture is one of these words that everyone has a strong idea about what it means. So in the future some clash between what 'the experts think' and what the para-academic stuff says is very likely going to occur. So I hope we can all stay civil while stull making hard decisions that will improve the page for everyone User:Alex Golub 20:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) You distinguish five layers. I think each layer is important and would object to any one being deleted. However, if you feel that each layer needs more historical context and development, or that some layers need more development than others, I have no objection at all. One thing the article does right now is it provides a basis for understanding why the word culture is often used in contradictory ways -- I think this is important. But I find your comments otherwisae constructive. User:Slrubenstein :You all know more about this than I do. Just my opinion, but right now the article seems too academic, like a textbook. Hope that doesn't offend the writer. :In contrast to the study of culture, I think general readers would be interested in acculturation, cultural development, distinctions of cultures and subcultures, and contemporary issues such as cultural bias, cultural diversity and multicultralism. User:Maurreen 08:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I agree completely that the article should contain all of those. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:12, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) I certainly don't take offense, I think Maureen's characterization is right (thought I think academic style is a good way to write a stub and introduce a topic). I also like her list of topics to add to discussion. Frankly, I don't really have time to work on it now but perhaps others will. I certainly appreciate Maureen's suggestions for the direction for the article. User:Slrubenstein :Rock on. I'll see if I can't work on it in the next couple of days. User:Alex Golub 23:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Citation of Arnold in opening portion == What's with the citation "(Arnold, 1960: 6)." The only work by Arnold given in the references is (correctly) dated 1882. Also, to refer to Arnold as a "cultural theorist" identifies him incorrectly with Cultural Theory, a movement postdating him by a century. Also, given when he was writing, he was not so much reacting ''against'' the broader, contemporary view of culture as maintaining continuity with the notion of his own time. And, now that I look, the quotation is part of the same one I used, appropriately contextualized, in the next section. In the same paragraph, I'm not sure who "The Leavis's" means, presumable F.R. Leavis and someone else. Can we just delete that paragraph? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 22:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) :I'm going to take the liberty of doing so, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, revert me. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) Looks like User:Slrubenstein beat me to it! -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:37, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) Sorry, I should have said so but it seemed like such an obviousa thing to do, your argument was very reasonable, User:Slrubenstein ==Unclear sentences== Two sentences confuse me. *"This led to the modern cultural and social anthropology's concept of culture as defined by structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning and instantiated in cultural artifacts." I'm not sure what it is that is "instantiated in cultural artifacts." And maybe there is a clearer way to express "instantiated." *"With this more flexible model of culture, allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as, at least potentially multicultural, both in terms of different historically national or tribal cultures co-existing (with various possible degrees of blending) within a society and with the concept of subcultures." This sentence seems to be missing punctuation or words (in this section: "allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as"). Also, would it be correct to break the sentence in two, as in: "… at least potentially multicultural. This is both in terms …" User:Maurreen 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I too found these sentences difficult to follow. I have thus rewritten this section. I ask Maurreen to go over what I did and see if it is clearer -- and perhaps make more editorial changes to make it clearer/a better read. But I ask Rex to go over it too to make sure I did not delete important content or misrepresent what he was trying to explain. User:Slrubenstein ::It's much more clear now, thank you. I hope to go over it a little more tonight. ::And you guys are doing a good job fleshing this article out. I think it's become much more informative. User:Maurreen 16:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Revert== Why were my edits reverted? User:Hyacinth 05:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) :well, they are polemical. The article already makes clear that humans evolved with culture. If you think that this should be more clearly stated -- I certainly have no objection to the Geertz quote -- why don't you insert the positive (meaning, non-argumentative) point in the beginning in context where it belongs? As to your polemical point -- in general, I think it is unencyclopedic to refer to "some people" (although I know who you mean). Couldn't you just mention Rousseau and a few more recent examples? Even so, I would object to putting mention of them in the article. It is an article on culture and I don't see any need to mention critics of culture, especially when they are mentioned only to knock down (a straw man argument). If you are especially interested in those people who romanticise a "pre-cultural" humanity, why don't you write a new article just on them -- who they are, why they believe what they believe (and then you can link it to this article)? User:Slrubenstein ::Would you please readd the Geertz quote where you find more appropriate, I am a little confused as to how to add it to a history of definitions as it would seem to fit in with beliefs described as belonging to the "late 19th century" yet is more recent. ::Are you suggesting a preculture article? I don't see how I can write such an article if it is actually a straw man argument, if you have knowledge of those who romanticize a precultural state it would be a more appropriate task for you to undertake. User:Hyacinth 06:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Well, if you wrote an article exploring this notion of "preculture," the idea would not to make it a straw man but to develop it fully. That doesn't mean you have to agree with the idea. We have an article on Naziism, and I don't think any of the people who contributed to it are Nazis (hope this isn't too strong an analogy). User:Slrubenstein ==Geertz== Hyacinth, can you elaborate on the Geertz reference, please? User:Maurreen 10:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Lists of cultures== 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? User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 01:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) :My guess is that those listed were the ones that had articles at the time. User:Maurreen 05:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Probably. But, red links are better than no links at all... User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::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. User:Maurreen 05:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::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. User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 05:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Why don't we wait for someone else to weigh in and see what they say? User:Maurreen 05:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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.User:Falphin 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) =="Vulgar" and "monadic"== 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. User:Maurreen 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) :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." User:Slrubenstein 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::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. User:Maurreen 06:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Proposal of how this entry should be structured== I've been thinking about this entry and thought it might be good to have it broken down into the following topics: 1. History of the Concept 2. Culture as Cultivation 3. Cultures in the Plural 4. The anthropological concept of culture 5. Culture change Something like that. How about it? User:Alex Golub 23:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure everything will fit that structure, but it's a good framework as far as it goes. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 00:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) ::Uh, it doesn't sound reasonable to me. Can you explain the rationale? Here is why it doesn't sound reasonable to me. First, the "culture as cultivation" really isn't popular today, although it was very popular in the 19th century -- so wouldn't that go in the "history" section? Also, all the content on culture change deals with anthropological theory, so shouldn't that go into the anthropology sextion? Ditto, cultures in the plural -- isn't this too an anthropology development? These are issues I have based on the contents. Now, I have other issues based on the structure alone. "History" is a principle that suggests a distinction between past and present. "anthropology" is an academic discipline. "culture as cultivation" is a popular usage. Do ytou see how each of these three are categorically different? Each one suggests a different logic to organizing the article; to have all three in one article is like mixing apples and oragnes. It seems to me that we could divide the article into two sections: past and present uses of the term. OR we can divide it into three or more sections: "culture" in the social sciences; in the humanities; in the natural sciences. Or we can divide it into two sections: culture used by academics, culture as used popularly. I am sure you can come up with other proposals. But do you see what I mean? I have suggest three possibilities and in each one, the parts reflect the same logic. I just do not see any logic at all in what you propose. User:Slrubenstein 20:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Culture as cultivation is one of the most frequently ways that people use the word culture today. It is this usage of culture (more or less) that was previously in the first paragraph of the entry: "Many... us[e] the word ''culture'' to refer only to elite goods and activities such as ''haute cuisine'', high fashion or ''haute couture'', museum-caliber art and classical music". At one point in your comments you say that it "isn't really popular today" and then later on you say it is a "popular usage". So I'm confused why you think it's not a proper topic. Culture in the plural is a concept that predates the anthropological concept of culture, as the current entry point out. It also currently circulates outside anthropology as well. Thus it is both 'deeper' and 'wider' than how anthropologists use the term and so should not be subsumed within it. 'Cultural difference', 'multiculturalism', 'cultural rights' and other ideas of there being plural, distinct 'cultures' which give one a 'cultural identity' is one of the most commonly used ways we have to discuss differences between groups (it is also commonly at variance with how anthropologists use the term). So I think this is appropriate to discuss all these meanings as well. :The anthropological concept of culture, at least what I had in mind, is of a very particular sort: it refers to the structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional intersubjective understanding which is underdetermined by perception. It seems appropriate to have a section on this technical usage. 'Culture change' -- which actually means something like social change -- is broad subject and I thought others expressed interest in having a separate section on it. It could be moved into the 'anthropological' section of the article. I also think it is useful to have a brief discussion of the concept's history and background to explain its origin. Not sure why that seems unreasonable. :"History", "anthropology", and "culture as cultivation" are categorically different. That is why I suggested putting them in different categories. The logic behind arranging them this way is that these are the topics readers would benefit from the most, imho. The concept itself is not tidy, unfortunately. But for this very reason I think it makes more sense to be responsive to how the concept is structured rather than impose an elegant logical structure on the entry which may not actually provide people with the clearest presentation of the concept. Thanks for your feedback. User:Alex Golub 21:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Well, this is more intelligible; thanks for taking the time to explain. I happen not to agree with your claim that culture as cultivation is still among the most frequently used ways of talking about culture, but it isn't worth arguing over. I would suggest picking one principle as an overall frame work, and then incorporating the different themes you see accordingly. In other words, either arrange the whole thing historically, making "culture as cultivation," "culture as constellation," and so on sub-topics, as they arise -- or, dividing the article into distinct subthemes, and writing each section historically -- but not having any one "historical" section. User:Slrubenstein 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Classical Music== From the article: ''For example, cultivated afficianados of classical music, would argue that music by working-class people such as punk rock is vulgar, and lacks the sophistication and virtuosity of opera. Similarly, they would argue that the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia was also simplistic and barbaric.'' Err, aside from the gramatical error, are you sure we should be saying this? You're just appealing to (and reinforcing) an outdated stereotype that people who like classical music are snobs. Certainly not all classical music "afficianoados" think punk rock is vulgar or that aboriginal music is barbaric. Infact, I'd guess classical music fans would be less likely to make these sorts judgements than the general population. --19:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) :The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use "culture" this way. That is the crucial point. User:Slrubenstein 19:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture "this way" (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job. (Keep in mind "high culture" is a very different term and concept than "culture." If you want to bitch about the elitism of high culture--which it probably deserves--do it there not here.) -- 00:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Sl is talking about the term "culture", and how people use the ''term'', not actual culture. User:Hyacinth 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::: Yeah, but the above quote addresses neither culture nor the term "culture." :Well, I didn't write it myself -- I'll take your use of "your" generically. But then it includes you too -- it includes all editors. If you can see a way to make it clearer, go ahead and edit it! User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 17:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I cannot quickly find a source which openly states that classical music is superior, but I would say its more accurate to say that many, Julian Johnson (''Who Needs Classical Music?: Cultural Choice and Musical Value'', 2002) for example, argue that classical music serves different functions, making classical and other musics incomparable. Perhaps one of you would like to add this information? User:Hyacinth 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Well, as far as the stereotypes go, I'm perfectly content with the current version: ''For example, someone who used 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might argue that classical music is more refined than music by working-class people such as punk rock or the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia.'' However, I still don't see the point of this statement, since aruging "that classical music is more refined than [other] music" has nothing to do with how people use "culture." We might as well be saying, "somone who uses 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might like the taste of wine." :::"The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use 'culture' this way. That is the crucial point." :::See Wikipedia:No original research. :::Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. User:Hyacinth 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::I read that statement the first time around. Did you read my response? -- "Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture 'this way' (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job." (as far as signing my posts, I'm not a registered user, so I doubt it'd do much good) If you actually go to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, you will read that "It is proper Wikipedia:Wikiquette to sign your posts on Wikipedia:Talk pages. ''This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog''." And more pertinent to you: "If you chose to contribute to Wikipedia without Wikipedia:How to log in, the tildes will be converted to your IP address to be displayed as your signature. (An Wikipedia:Why create an account? actually provides you with ''more'' anonymity, if you are concerned about IP privacy issues.) You can also consider manually signing your posts with a pseudonym or tag such as ''--anon'' (although your IP address will still be stored in the page history if you edit without logging in)." Thanks. User:Hyacinth 04:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Culture

[[Image:Ac.pantheon1.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The Pantheon of Rome]] Culture is creative human activity, including art, entertainment, society, and religion. Different definitions of ''culture'' reflect different theories for understanding, or criteria for valuing, human activity. The word comes from the Latin root ''colere,'' (to inhabit, to cultivate, or honor). Main subcategories: :Category:Art, :Category:Arts, :Category:Entertainment, :Category:Religion, :Category:Philosophy Anthropology Human societies Fundamental Culture on: wiktionary:Culture | wikibooks:Category:Culture | wikiquote:Culture | wikisource:Category:Culture | wikinews:Culture and entertainment | :commons:Category:Culture ang:Category:Sidaþing hi:Category:संस्कृती vi:Category:Văn h�a

Culture

These category pages have popped everywhere but I cannot see where we can discuss if they are a good idea. Is there a talk category somewhere? --User:BozMouser talk:BozMo 13:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) :You can start at Wikipedia:Category. User:Ancheta Wis 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ++Yo mama

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

C