Talk:Cultural artifact
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Social artifact page were merged into Cultural artifact on 2014-03-10. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Merge with archeological artifact
editWhy merge it to the artifact:archaeology? If someone sugested it then would that someone tell why because I see no point. 203.59.239.102 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't suggest the merge, but I support it. It makes sense for a short article that is seperate to be joined with the main article. It most certainly is related. Yanksox 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
i think the current article may be incorrect. my understanding of the term "cultural artifact" is an idea, theory or part of history that is obsolete or outdated by current cultural standards -for example "since the widespread rejection of the notion "separate but equal" jim crow laws are an embarrassing cultural artifact for southern liberals."
another use of the term seems to indicate an idea or theory that is distorted or influenced by cultural norms or restrictions, often to the point of absurdity. an example might be "bra-burning" is a cultural artifact that exemplifies the dominant theories of the us feminist movement of the 1960's whereby women tried to achieve fairness through equality in literal terms; these theories were criticized by deconstructionist theorists who pointed out situations in which equal treatment was unfair to one or more groups (of women?)
in this respect, the term is so significantly different from artifact that merging the two pages would not be helpful. also, this term is not usually considered to be neutral. as noted, it often connotates absurdity or embarrassment about a cultural norm, movement or idea. stranger 20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
- merge the meaning here, cultural artifact in sociological terms suggested should be under artifact (sociology) the meaning here clearly relates to artifact as a object rather than a political act Boris 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with merger to archeological artifact. Those are physical objects, cultural artifacts don't have to be physical.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no indication in our article or sources cited so far that this is true. You may be thinking of mentifact. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Merge with social artifact
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Merge done. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It does appear that the terms cultural artifact and social artifact talk about the same concept. Any thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, why not. It might be added that in art history and other fields the term for the same thing is "object". And are there "non-cultural artefacts" or "non-social" ones? Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Would the Dead Sea Scrolls be a cultural artifact while an actively used Christan Bible be a social artifact? 76.173.195.106 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)