Talk:Ancient Society

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Use of italics is annoying. Foreign terms may be italicized in other articles, and particularly technical terms are sometimes italicized too when first mentioned and thereafter nonitalicized, but the overuse here is disconcerting. Dunno how to make this comment be like yall’s dropdown format.

OR - Original research

Because editors have made their own selections and comments about the meaning of Morgan's important work, this article is a collection of OR. It needs sources from reliable, third-party published works, preferably academic ones, ABOUT Morgan's work, according to WIKI policies.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello Parkwells. I see you discovered us here. I did significant work on it some time ago but then I got off onto other things and never got back to it. Subsequently others showed an interest, but not a serious interest. So, it remained in an unfinished state. Actually this is a target of mine, mainly for its influence on the work on the better known archaeologists. But, I felt the other Morgan article should be in shape before I got back to this. I haven't changed that plan, but, there is no telling exactly when I can get back to this. This is an early editing effort on my part. It isn't up to my later standards. I see you have got a start on critiquing it. Fine. I do have one comment on your comment above. We have to distinguish between interpretation, your "meaning of Morgan's important work" and summary. While you are right about the interpretation, the summary is not in that category. We can do summary; we do it all the time. A WP article IS a summary of the main points of the topic. You do not need a third party to tell you what Morgan said under a certain topic. For example, if Morgan talks extensively about progress, I do not need a third party to tell us Morgan talks extensively about progress. If that is the view you are taking we shall not agree. If we were to follow that view, we could never say that Morgan said anything, only that someone else said he said anything. WP would be only hearsay. But, I will not know the exact implementation of those words until this is under my magnifying glass. Right now I have NO idea what the subsequent editors have said nor am I ready to take a look. One thing I do not want to happen is for me to get distracted from my line of thought and get lost in a morass of argument and other articles. So, be patient. There is lot's of other editing to do around here, or maybe you want to work on the format and content of THIS article in addition to criticism. Then I can criticize you when I do.Dave (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OPED

Some editors have added comments in their footnotes, which are unsourced and OPED opinions, per WIKI policy. These have been deleted.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]