Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Missing topics

I have a short list of missing topics related to anthropology (and ethnic groups). I have tried to omit any topics that already have an equivalent Wikipedia article but I would appreciate is anyone of you could have a look at it - Skysmith 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HBE & DIT

Anyone care to rate these articles: human behavioral ecology and dual inheritance theory? EPM 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages for "races"

People in this project may be interested in a variety of the questions raised by White people, Black people and Brown people. Without pushing my own position here, numerous discussions on the social vs. genetic status of these categories, and the encyclopedic nature of certain issues is underway.--Carwil 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines is currently in WP:GAC, but we're thinking of withdrawing it from GAC and moving it directly into WP:FAC.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated! It has two peer review pages (use whichever one you prefer):

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on overlapping areas

It seems unlikely that the Linguistics WikiProject would fall under the auspices of Anthropology, since even linguistic anthropologists largely stick to sociolinguistics or discourse analysis; most anthropologists really aren't competent to generate or review articles on hard-core linguistics topics in syntax or semantics. (I say this as an anthropologist with several friends who are linguists.) I suggest deleting the asterisk after Linguistics. :-) Mccajor 06:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}  :-) -- Ling.Nut 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Done, unless someone objects. Mccajor 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have a professor who asserts emphatically that Linguistics is a subfield of Anthro. I always kinda cock an eyebrow at her... but hey, she has some fairly notable/respectable publications, and I have diddly-squat. Moreover, the school she graduated from is much more upper-crust that the school where she teaches/I study... :-) --Ling.Nut 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, wasn't paying attention at the right time. Parentage is possibly a bit extreme, but there are hugh areas of overlap that would require a lot of coordination over time. Having a quick look at the Linguistics Wikipedia project page, my department (Anthropology) is deeply involved in over half the topics covered. Although in the dark ages of 25 years ago, I trained in both anthropology and lingusitics, and while there is a clear division of emphasis between the two disciplines, some anthropologists contribute to all areas of linugistics from phonetics to philosophy of language and pretty much everything in between. The major difference I remember between the two departments at Texas was an emphasis in Linguistics to technical aspects of syntax (as was the fashion at that time) and formal semantics, whereas anthropologists tened towards research on language families through phonological reconstruction, learning to read Mayan Hierglyphs, child language acquistion. My work was acceptable to both departments, and this blend continues to shape my work today. Mdfischer 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• There are certainly substantial areas of interface and anthropologists, especially linguistic anthropologists or those with dual training, have contibuted much to linguistics. (It also seems significant to me that a couple commentators on this trained in both anthro and linguistics or came out of joint departments.) My point was that historically, linguistics is not simply a subfield of anthropology (it has roots in Classics, study of modern languages, and philosophy, among others), and that there are many technical areas in linguistics that most sociocultural anthropologists, archaeologists, and biological anthropologists are not competent to oversee, unless they have additional background in linguistics. These include formal semantics, syntax, and morphology. I think that few anthropologists are up on current issues in phonology (optimality theory, anyone, or autosegmental phonology?), though many anthropologists have a good working knowledge of phonetics, and we often do more work in sociolinguistics than most linguists do. Obviously there may be people on here who want to join both WikiProjects. Mccajor 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Linguistics is both a "subfield" of anthropology and an independent field in its own right. At smaller schools (like the one I teach at), it's unlikely you'll find a separate department of linguistics; the linguists are all in the anthropology department. If you're not fond of the "four subfields" rubric, none of this applies - and no one need be persuaded to use that schema, it's convenience, is all. All good anthropologists know a little about each subfield, and some topics of study require you know all of them well; however most anthropological work is done within a narrower scope. Anthropological linguistics (including the work of people like Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir is a kind of subfield of its own, as opposed to formal linguistics, which has many, many subfields that most anthropologists don't know squat about. Historical linguistics, for example, overlaps substantially with cultural anthropology as it is usually conceived. Mostly, I think everyone (linguists and anthropologists) know that there's overlap, often attend each other's meetings, and reference each other all the time in various works - although a cultural anthropologist is more likely to reference a technical aspect of linguistics when working, say, on a regional culture (Pomo, for example) than the other way around (people who are interested in, for example, transitivity in Pomo are not going to be reading/citing the anthropology of California Indians in general so much). Virtually no people I know teaching anthropology, per se, know anything about phonology, much less something like autosegmental phonology. Myself, I know more about philosophy of language than linguistics.--Levalley (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Taiwanese Issues

Hey all,

We're having some issues with making acceptable ledes for:

Culture of Taiwan

Taiwanese People

If anyone is in for a good challenge of contemporary theory, please have a look.

Also,

Taiwanese Aborigines is looking for some FAC reviewers and any additional help.

I thought this would be a good community to ask, for a neutral viewpoint, rooted in good social theory and not politics.Maowang 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

help on anarchy

Every single editor except for me on anarchy is an anarchist. They are adding original research to the article and there's no way stop them because they all agree with each other from an anarchist POV. Please help me on this page by bringing in a third opinion, anyone!?--Urthogie 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for anthropologists

Is there an infobox for anthropologists? I'm working on Niara Sudarkasa and can't find anything. Any assistance is appreciated. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of project articles?

Is there a full list of articles which have been tagged with the template? I'm trying to go around tagging Talk pages, partly in hope that they're being picked up and put on some central page. --Smilo Don 01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the appropriateness of an image in the Culture section of the WP:FA India

It would be very helpful if members of this project could weigh in on a dispute about the appropriateness of an image in the Culture section of a country page. The RfC is posted here. The image is about the Toda people much studied by anthropologists. 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fosterage

The article on fosterage needs serious attention, but could be a useful article, covering the different cultures that have used fosterage of children to establish political relationships between families (as distinct from modern foster care). The original editor seems to have copied and pasted a passage about fosterage in the Hebrides, as if it's specific to there. I'm aware that fosterage was extensively practiced in early Ireland, and dimly aware that there was (is?) an Islamic version called "milk kinship", and I've no doubt there are versions of the practice all over the world. I've added an introduction and a globalise tag, and will see what I can add on Irish fosterage from my sources, but I thought perhaps any anthropologists with an interest in this area might like to contribute their knowledge. --Nicknack009 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Boskop Man

I've come across the article Boskops, which is apparently a Palaeolithic man, while patrolling new articles for COI (it has been created by a SPA with the name of Boskop). I know nothing at all about this topic and so cannot judge the credibility of the article. Would you guys look it over please? Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Malcolmxl5! If there ever was a "Boskops" man, it is no longer called that. Might be a hoax (is the name of a German punk band) or might be finds which are now called something else. If is the latter, then it would be good to salvage the piece and note what became of "Boskop" finds. Smilo Don 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. I tried another search and DID find Boskop man. Very old articles, so must have been rejected or renamed.

• Recent discoveries bearing on human history in southern Africa Dart, Raymond
• The Boskop skull Pycraft, WP NATURE,vol.117,pp.196-197,1926
• The Boskop skull Broom, R NATURE,vol.117,pp.589-589,1926
• The Boskop skull. Broom, R NATURE,vol.116,pp.897-897,1925
• Boskop remains from the South-east African coast.
• Dart, RA NATURE,vol.112,pp.623-625,1923
• Research Work [Fossil human skull from Boskop, Transvaal] Fitzsimons, F. W. Port Elizabeth Museum Director's Report 1914 1915: (3-5).

CONCLUSION----let's keep this article but find out what happened. Anyone know what became of BOSKOPS????? Smilo Don 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Smilo Don unfortunately deleted my comment, which I'm given to understand is not only bad form, but both reasons given for deletion were incorrect. The comment did not 'ignore' the previous comments, but augmented them with additional information plus a JSTOR reference. Secondly, JSTOR is not a 'search engine', but an academic archive.

"Boskop was a legitimate anthropological 'find' with an unusual cranium/visage ratio, first discovered in 1913. See JSTOR 232."

Please be considerate enough to not delete the comments and contributions of others. Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narova

Is there such a people? Thanks--victor falk 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of Ancient Egyptians

There is currently some controversy regarding the scope and title of the above article, and, potentially, other articles which may be related to the same subject. Editors interested in this project may be interested in that article as well. John Carter 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent single origin hypothesis

There is a dispute regarding the origins of human behavior on this article. I would welcome any comments.Muntuwandi 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please come and have a look at this dispute. The dispute is over a claim by the above editor that all cultural universals developed in Africa prior to the dispersal of homo sapiens. Other voices are needed here. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles Instancing Known Cultural Landscapes: North Queensland, Australia

I note that a rewriting of current Wikipedia article on 'cultural landscapes' as been suggested .. and it is currently my intention to have a crack at this .. probably starting with the understanding of cultural landscapes that has emerged at the international level around the World Heritage Convention ..

That exercise aside, however, to date I've started working through geological and biological features within the landscapes of north-east Queensland, see for instance Ngarrabullgan and Ngimun .. alerting searchers/article readers to the indigenous names of these places plus some of their cultural landscape values. It is my hope and my intention to flag each of these artciles as falling within the scope of the WikiAnthropology project, and, as such, place the projects template within each of their talk pages: I hope this might be considered proper and appropritate? Bruceanthro 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and the origin of religion

We have an ongoing dispute about a number of theories proposed by evolutionary scientists regarding human evolution and the origins of religious behavior. The article,Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion is very much in its infancy and has attracted considerable controversy. I would welcome any expert input on this controversial subject. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I most defintely do NOT have any expertise in this subject (other than as part of my general physical anthropology/ archaeology subjects).

What I DO note is Muntuwandi (talk) believes religion and/or religious beliefs first appear in this world, somewhere in Africa at a time prior to our ancestral hominids first dispersing outwards from that continent to populate the rest of the world.

Muntuwandi (talk has sought to report what he believes to be true and verifiable in articles such as 'Origins of Religion', applying Wikipedia verfication principles. Having had past efforts to report this belief questioned, challenged, and/or deleted, it would seem he would like independent, reliable confirmation that there is indeed some consensus within anthropology for the belief/assertion 'religion' finds its earliest orgins in Africa.

Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world.

Perhaps:

i. rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!)

Or, in the alternative,

ii. it be suggested to Muntuwandi (talk that a different article be initiated entitled 'earliest evidence of religion' .. whithin which fair, balanced, impartial reporting will self-reveal where the earliest evidence and/or the most of the world's earliest evidence actually occurs .. it may just turn out to be Africa, conclusions from which can be self-drawn by readers.

Just some thoughts Bruceanthro (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have no expertise in this area, why in the world are you making assumtions on the user's intent? If you don't have the answers why prejudice anyone that may have some "expertise" in this area? I'll share my thoughts; I think you should delete what you wrote if you do not have the answers or any expertise in this area. Let someone else comment, without your "thoughts" on the user rather than the question. Thanks. Do the right thing. - Jeeny ^(talk) 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, comment on the edits, not the editor. Thats Civility 101. Jeffpw (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony here being that both of you, as I am doing now, have only commented on the behavior of another editor and not contributed at all to the substantive debate. Please lets here some thoughts on this subject.PelleSmith (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)