Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology/Archive 4

Culture of the Tlingit
Please see Talk:Anthropology which I began under the misapprenehsion this WikiProject did not exist; just didn't search for it properly. This article and others need attention and it would seem to fall in your bailiwick, as others in teh same general region....Now that I know your project exists there's a variety of Pacific Northwest indigenous articles I'll be placing it on.Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

List of years in anthropology??
I found this while looking for your project via the wikiseach window at left. Does it have a reason to exist? i've never seen anything like it....Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality of article within project is challenged
Culture has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --AlotToLearn (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hybrid-origin" needs eyes
There's an IMHO pretty strange article at Hybrid-origin on Stan Gooch's theory of human origins, as put forward in Guardians of the Ancient Wisdom. Could Project members please take a look at this? (This article is also | referenced in other anthropological articles.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis
nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography/history proposition
The article on Franz Boas ends with a list of his most notable students, who went on to play a key role in developing academic anthropology in the US, here (this list was compiled by reference to Marvin Harris's Rise of Anthropological Theory and a couple of biographies of Boas). Several of the names are in red. Since some notable sources say these people were important anthropologists in their day, I think they deserve article providing their biography, bibliography of their works, and something about the nature of their contribution to anthropology. Indeed, biography can be a useful way of exploring history, so writing these articles can help fill in blanks in the history of American anthropology. I am afraid that I do not have time but maybe others can chip in and do some research on these names. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Input
I just created a post on the medical project page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. I would like to request editors with a background in anthropology to come to this page and give their input. I'm concerned about what I see as a medicalization of many general-interest pages on wikipedia. I would like to include other non-medical perspectives in these topics, and get a debate going about general policy of how to handle situations like this. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated article
Botocudo still closely resembles the Britannica 1911 on which it is based. Consequently it only gives 19th century literatur and the style of presentation and concept of anthropology is somewhat outdated, to say the least.

Any idea how to proceed? --Pjacobi (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pjacobi - I also note the article does not currently contain in-line citations and/or come up to the Wikipedia ideal/stanard. Perhaps you/someone might simply work through the article rewriting in accordance with any more contemporary articles .. so updating the whole.


 * A quick search with Google Scholar on the article's name, for instance, brings editor/s up to 2002 with this article here, which might be a useful starting point? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not to edit myself in this article on which I stumbled by co-incidence (in fact years ago I've found a similar one, can't remember the lemma), I'm a big fan of the concept that also in Wikipedia you best write about the areas you know something about.
 * You've found a very interesting source from the historical perspective, it would still need a contemporary anthropologic source for a re-write (and I'm under the impression that there must be some recent population-genetic studies on the subject).
 * But regarding the general approach to such incidents, I'd still suggest that writing from scratch is better than starting with the existing article and try to find sources and rewrite sentence by sentence.
 * On the other hand, the 1911 article and also the other old sources would be an interesting starting point for writing about the reception by Europeans (do I make sense here, I'm quite sure how to say in English what I have in mind). But this would be borderline original research if no secondary sources can be found alreade addressing this topic.
 * --Pjacobi (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnographies of Online Cultures and Communities
Online ethnography and virtual ethnography were recently redirected to Ethnographies of Online Cultures and Communities. This article title has a variety of WP:TITLE issues as well as some potential WP:COI issues with the user making a significant number of edits to the page also (possibly) being an academic who has done a substantial amount of research in the domain. Can some editors make some recommendations on how to improve the article and develop consensus on what the appropriate title should be? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At a glance followed by a quick search, it would seem to me better to have the article named either Online ethnography or Virtual ethnography. The current title is too unweildy.--Woland (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for John A. Collier Jr. Article
John Collier (anthropologist). Is it a start? I think the article is medium priority. I'm trying to get collaboration from anyone here - and from colleagues. It's not an orphan - it's linked to two pages and will be linked to more (ethnography for example, also New Mexico and Alaska Natives). Thanks for any input. Levalley (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Section Cultural Anthropology is still very much in need of work
It needs to be linked to other pages with anthropological topics. It needs work, in general. Most of all, I think we need to add pages on anthropologists whose work illustrates the concepts.

Also, there are vast areas that are not mentioned (popular culture, political anthropology remains very weak) and so on and so forth. Regional approaches, so central in modern anthropology (both British and American) are nearly missing. Somewhere, I saw someone start a stub on it, but the title was different than what I expected and not linked back to the cultural anthropology page. In other words, lots of tracking down orphaned anthropology articles - and also adding the anthropology project tag WPAnthro to relevant articles. I am too green to know whether that accomplishes any useful purpose (notifying us of what articles are under the umbrella).

If anyone can answer those kinds of questions, please try my talk page.--Levalley (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * The talkpage banner is tracked by a bot, and the results are placed here: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anthropology articles by quality. I've now added the compact assessment table at the project page: WikiProject Anthropology. (The assessment table format will be improved sometime soon (for proper cross-referencing/intersection of categories). They've been working on it for months). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline, Portal, and topic template
Hi. I'd like to help you develop 3 of the main indices for this topic. Here are some notes on what needs to be created/improved, and suggestions for items elsewhere to copy ideas/structure from: I'll make a few style changes to the sidebar template now, and add it to the top-level article -- Then you should trim/edit its contents as appropriate, and then propagate it to all the pages which are listed within it.
 * Template:Anthropology (sidebar template. Copy aspects of Template:Sociology and Template:Psychology sidebar)
 * Portal:Anthropology (copy aspects of Portal:Psychology (a featured portal) and Portal:Sociology)
 * Outline of anthropology (Copy aspects of Outline of sociology and Outline of geography)

Let me know what else I can help with. (here, I'll watchlist :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Wow!  Could you take a look at the article Anthropology.  One of its main problems could be solved with an Infobox that could be edited to list main subfields of Anthropology, and Famous Anthropologists, as well as Related Fields (like cultural and ethnic studies).  But what you propose is such an improvement - we'll look like a real Portal!Levalley (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I already have added Template:Anthropology to the main article. (Someone else had created it years ago, but it just wasn't being used anywhere prominent when I found it. So I restyled it slightly, but didn't change any of the links).


 * You suggested adding an image to it, such as File:Aztec mask 050910 170205.jpg but I'm not sure that is a good fit. Might File:PPlaqueB.png or File:VenusWillendorf.jpg work better? An image might not be needed though; many sidebar navboxes do not have any.


 * I'd recommend you focus on improving 1 of those 3 I noted above (probably the template first), and then I/you/we can work on propagating the lists to the other 2, and expanding them completely. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Either of those two images would be fine. My thinking is that since anthropology (especially archaeology) is such a visual field, it would be great to have an image.  I'll work at editing those links after I've had time to think about it more and look around at articles that may be missing.  It looks pretty good as is.Levalley (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline
I've added some material to Outline of anthropology and moved it into mainspace. Please remove or fix or add any information as required (I'm just an interested layman). It should contain key concepts only, in reference card/cheatsheet list format. A vocabulary primer, if you will.

See a fully-developed topic, such as geography, to get an idea of how they should look: Outline of geography. Ask if you have any questions.

Note: The sidebar navbox Anthropology is an even more concise list, that we will add to all the articles it links to. Please remove or fix or add any information as required, to there too. Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help out by giving opinions on the "Anthropology" article
It's my view that it really isn't even a B class article. It's a very hard article to write, since it deals with anthropology as a whole. Right now, it deals more with anthropologists than with anthropology (please go read it and weigh in on that question on the discussion page). Compare it to pages on physics or philosophy. Shouldn't the article cover some of the basics of anthropology and its findings, such as:

Cross-cultural methods The Human Diaspora (movement out of Africa) Human universals (in all four subfields) Ethnology and ethnography as central components and tools of all subfields The Human Genome project

I believe the article should provide room for non-professional (out of academia) anthropologists, such as Richard Leakey (who is mentioned prominently, as he should be, on the Biological anthropology subpage - but he was not, for most of his career, a trained anthropologist, others who were not trained in anthropology but made contributions include: George and Louise Spindler, Thor Heyerdahl, etc.  They aren't even controversial contributors, at this point - although some of what they may have written was controversial, certainly they inspired work to be done.

Naturally, treatment of these would have to be brief, and would lead to relevant subpages (all of which need work).

The article peters out at the end with some criticisms of anthropology (military involvement), which are just and should be included. I think the article should wind up with two kinds of lists: more subfields and more anthropologists (whose pages need to be crated in some cases).

My thinking is that if a person comes to a page on anthropology, they might be seeking information on anything from Founder Effect to Infanticide to Syntax, and somehow, the article has to work to get them where they want to go. Anthropology is itself encyclopedic, is the problem.

When you finish reading and leaving comments, please weigh in here (or on the talk page on the article) as to how you think it should be rated. I think it's a "C" right now, not a "B," as it focuses too heavily on particular anthropologists organized by nation (and leaves out many nations, something an anthropologist would prefer not to do in such a summary).

Much is made of the alleged "four subfield" debate (which I believe is a minor discussion in anthropology). Obviously, there's tension between holism and classification at all levels of anthropology, one could many examples, but the four subfield approach (loosely followed) is a mere convenience, not a place to get all theoretical in such an article.

Thanks for any input - I am trying to edit the article, my edits are at this point reverted, as you'll see. There's no point in trying to argue for reinserting them until more people from this project have weighed in, in my view.Levalley (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT
Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans
Help is needed on improving Multiregional origin of modern humans so that it is expanded, based on reliable sources and is written neutrally. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinnacle Point Man
This edit led me to some confusion at Pinnacle Point Man. There doesn't seem to be a basis for the current title of this article, as no actual human remains were found, but I'm not sure what title the article should be moved to, and I'm not sure how much of that IP's edit to revert (Presumably the first sentence, but how much more?). Someone with relevant knowledge please take over :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of anthropology?
Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ghost Dance
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ghost Dance/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I've proposed merging patriarchy (anthropology) with patriarchy. If you have any interest in the topic, please feel free to weigh in. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive
I've archived everything up to 2009, except for the 1 "roundup" thread which looked useful. Feel free to unarchive any threads that still needed attention. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention needed at Netnography
The page Netnography defines its subject as, "the branch of Ethnography that analyses the free behaviour of individuals on the internet." It's contents primarily treat marketing and brand research. I am therefore addressing this call for expert attention to both WikiProject Anthropology and WikiProject Business. If it is more appropriate to some sub-group (such as ethnographic methods or market research), please help me attract attention from the appropriate group.

The page needs considerable attention, both in terms of general clean-up and for the correction/addition of specific information on the practice. Your help is most appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis
There has been regular traffic at the AAH page and the opinions of editors familiar with mainstream paleoanthropology would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada
Would someone with some knowledge of archaeology mind to take a look at the article Aboriginal peoples in Canada? It has just about all the points cleared up on its Good Article review, just needs to be shortened a bit, and the prehistoric sections relating to archeaological finds relating to anthropology are the longest in the article. Thank you very much.
 * I will try to do so in the next 24 hours. My first impression on reading the section is much of it may be redundant with Models of migration to the New World and could likely be merged there --Whoosit (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at it and done some copy editing on the initial sections, up to Old Crow Flats. A close reading reveals a lot of repetition and redundancy.  Large parts of the section need to be cut or merged.  Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to do this confidently. A real archaeologist will have to have a look at it... --Whoosit (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD - Child marriage
There is an AfD related to the subject area of this wikiproject - Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence of disease among specific ethnic groups
Please see Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Newman Luke (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion is worth a look for those with an interest in anthropological approaches to disease. It seems to center on whether the subject in question is one best treated vertically, in its own article, or horizontally across many articles. --Whoosit (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism
See Articles for deletion/Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism
 * Discussion seems to concentrate on whether the anthropological terms baal-marriage and polygyny are so insulting that the article could only ever be a content fork. Newman Luke (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New category Category: Human trophy collecting
I'm trying out a new category, tentatively entitled Category: Human trophy collecting. The intent was to group together all the cultural manifestations of collecting human remains. Not to include insanity, medical/educational motives, etc. So to group together both negative (war trophies, etc.) and positive (relics, mementos) manifestations. The current title is a bit more negative, not sure whether to retitle, or group the more positive manifestations separately. So, category in progress. Would appreciate any help refining the name, populating, forming the key article Human trophy collecting, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)