Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Mikhail Konstantinovich Kudryavtsev
Hello! We have an article on Mikhail Konstantinovich Kudryavtsev, and it is within the scope of this Wikiproject (ethnography and ethnology are branches of anthropology, and we do not have separate Wikiprojects for the sub–disciplines). Kindly assess the article on the project's quality and importance scale. Suggestions for improvements would be highly appreciated )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge discussion
This merge discussion may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Violence article
Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#Defining violence in the lead sentence. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It's now an RfC: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Description regarding differences in skin among individuals
Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Page rename discussion at Karen of the Andamans
It would be helpful if someone from this project could join the discussion at Talk:Karen_of_the_Andamans#Requested_move_26_October_2020--DreamLinker (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts requested at Talk:Aparna_Rao#Quick_review
Could we have some subject matter experts weigh in at Talk:Aparna_Rao#Quick_review? That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Advice Needed on proposed Cultural Universals to Cross-cultural Studies merge
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject SociologyDHHornfeldt (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I need some help on this Talk:Cross-cultural studies proposed merger. My first cited addition to Wikipedia was on the Cultural universal page and was reverted. In response, I have been trying figure out how to improve the page and when researching the topic I thought Cross-cultural studies might be the best fit, and might get new opinions. So I proposed this merger. At this point it seems that both Cross-cultural studies and Cultural universals are orphaned pages and haven't garnered any collaborative interest. There is also suspect behavior like a deletion on the Human Universals page marked Afd which have shaken my assumption of good faith.
I am new and genuinely trying to learn and improve my editing and Wikipedia. So I thought I'd ask for advice on how to handle this here as a next step before I walk away from the whole thing. Which is about where I'm at. DHHornfeldt (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DHHornfeldt: I'm having trouble understanding what kind of advice you're looking for? Our basic model for collaboration on Wikipedia is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. After an initial hiccough with the edit war on cultural universals, that's what happening now. You can't expect everyone to agree with you – otherwise we wouldn't need the third and most important step "Discuss". You opened the merge discussion with an admission that you "personally know very little about this subject", so might I gently suggest that that is why other editors are not reacting positively to your proposals, rather than them not acting in good faith? – Joe (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: I was looking for collaboration on a stubby, low importance, multiple issues article and my "most important step Discuss" was an insistent "squirrels don't have culture" from the one person on the page. I was pretty suspect rewriting the page would be met with the same caliber discussion, and why would I want to go through that effort for a page that barely meets GNG? I thought I'd try (humbly) to get some anthropologists or cultural studies professors interested so I could be confident that my work was going to be at least peer re-viewed if not accepted. I respected the other editor involved until he/she/they made a thinly veiled squirrel culture comment and violated policy. I don't need anyone to agree with me, but I'm surprised and frustrated by the apathy and lack of input by anyone; that wikiprojects and inter-page notices did nothing. So I was asking if I should bother caring or just leave the mess that is Cultural universals to the trolls, but I've got my answer. If Wikipedia requires someone honestly trying to work this hard to fix this crappy of a page then I'm not going to stick around. DHHornfeldt (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Activity Check
What's the activity status of WP:ANTHRO these days? See WP:INACTIVEWP for more. DHHornfeldt (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more."
Taking a quick look at it, I think it's pretty clear this isn't the case. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Input request
Opinions, whatever they are, are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and hot springs.4meter4 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Cueva de las Manos input
Hi! I've made significant contributions to Cueva de las Manos and wanted some community help/feedback, especially from the archeology/anthropology wikiprojects. My goal is to eventually get the article to GA class. Please be sure to stop by, leave feedback, and edit the article! Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Article title input requested
An editor has requested for Early European modern humans to be moved to Upper Palaeolithic Europe. Since you had some involvement with Early European modern humans, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Note that the page was already moved, however the discussion has been reopened as the result of a move review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
How big is this project?
Hello, I see many flaws about this project when I search information over biological or contemporary stuff, it's like there's never a view over non western cultures weather they're extant or not. I came to wikipedia this time to inestigate about public sex on different cultures and times and all I found is that "they are many distinct views about public sex in many different cultures and times" which cultures, views and times? who knows. And that is just and example of what you may be already conscious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.26.49.229 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Dragon Man (archaic human) potential for second move discussion
Hello! The recent discussion on whether Dragon Man (archaic human) should be moved to its scientific name Homo longi, rather than staying under the informal nickname 'Dragon Man' was deemed to have reached no consensus, which I found unsatisfactory given that no consensus has the same effect as just keeping the article where it is. I'm interested in re-opening the move discussion, though trying to keep it more focused on actual article title policy rather than arguments based in taxonomy, which hold scientific weight but are not codified in Wikipedia policy.
Though the previous discussion was closed a very short time ago, I believe keeping the article under an informal nickname and waiting for several months (or years) to discuss the matter again is damaging. I also believe it is relevant to discuss the matter again but staying focused on article title policy, which was overshadowed by taxonomical principles in the previous discussion. I've brought this up here here, so I'm testing the waters to see if there might be interest for a second discussion (whether you agree it should be moved or kept). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Needs checking, esp. dates. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States
A redirect proposal that may interest members of this project is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. ––FormalDude 
talk 11:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples
Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.
List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.
There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.
Elizabeth Weiss
I recently created a draft for anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss. There is currently controversy regarding her views about the return of Native American remains and the way her own institution treated her. I would appreciate some help from this project as it is a sensitive topic. This article about the situation was published in Inside Higher Ed a few days ago:[1] Thriley (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- From my perspective, Dr. Weiss might meet WP's general notability guidelines or guidelines for biographies, but only via the controversy surrounding her WP:FRINGE position regarding the treatment of human remains and that the ensuing fallout of that position has received attention. In my estimation she doesn't qualify as a notable academic. Are we sure her notability isn't merely flash-in-the-pan, because then she would seem to fail notability, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and WP:ONEEVENT)? I don't think her fringe position qualifies as notable either, because outside of niche sources, like academic anthropological news or coverage in academically-tied outlets like Inside Higher Ed in connection to her controversy, the position she espouses regarding NAGPRA and the treatment of human remains isn't discussed. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- She easily meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I am apparently a bit dense. Accepting the premise that she is a "creative professional" rather than an academic, of the four criteria for WP:AUTHOR:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- which do you think she easily qualifies under?
- --Pinchme123 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- From what I have seen, professors who have published several books pass notability. Weiss has published more than a few. I imagine there are journal reviews out there for all or most of them. I haven’t done a deep dive in looking for sources as I don’t feel much enthused about her. Thriley (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I am apparently a bit dense. Accepting the premise that she is a "creative professional" rather than an academic, of the four criteria for WP:AUTHOR:
- She easily meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Behavioral modernity is currently tagged for "fringe theories"
Behavioral modernity is currently tagged for "fringe theories".
IMHO that's not appropriate, and the tag should be removed.
Alternatively, the problem should be resolved and the tag removed.
- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:4BD:BCD6:9F24:E558 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
AfD: Animals in LGBT culture
---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Hunky culture#Requested move 19 November 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hunky culture#Requested move 19 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
I Welcome Your Eyes And Your Input On New Article - Welfare Colonialism
Hi - I just completed a very brief article on Welfare Colonialism. I welcome any and all input on how best to further develop it. Please take a look. Warm regards. Iguana0000 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Assistance required to end deadlock in merger proposal discussion
I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.
However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.
Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.
The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock, with three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it. In this difficult situation, I have been advised to bring this issue to the various WikiProjects which are relevant to Scythians as a way to possibly resolve the deadlock, and all good faith assistance to reach a consensus would be much welcome. Antiquistik (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Assistance requested for Semi-Protected Edit request on Ötzi
A unregistered user is arguing that the information about Ötzi's axe being cold-forged is out-of-date. It is unclear to me whether the source they cite is sufficient to support the conclusion that Ötzi's axe was definitively not cold-forged. Hoping someone with expertise in the area can review and update the article as necessary. See Talk:Ötzi#Was the axe cold forged?. Will crosspost on Wikiproject Archaeology GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Request for input on Witchcraft talk page
Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Witchcraft: Requested move
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Assistance requested at Male expendability
Several of us have been cleaning up male expendability/expendable male hypothesis/relative expendability argument. The thing narrowly escaped deletion a few months ago, but several of us have been tracking down good sources and removing synthesis. I realize someone with access to anthropology textbooks could be a great asset. Right now, the sources I've seen don't even clearly establish if male expendability applies only to humans or also to nonhuman animals.
This is an especially delicate subject because although male expendability was first described by anthropoligsts (and women anthropologists to boot) in the 1970s, men's rights advocates have adopted the concept to explain their views of society, so we have to treat it with even more care than usual. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Update: The contributors to this article are reaching an impasse. Our core question seems to be "Does 'male expendability' cover any way in which a society treats its men and boys as expendable/disposable or is it specifically about treating them as disposable because they are less necessary for population replacement?"
- I've been going through the sources one by one, often with weeks-long waits at the library for paper copies of books, and what I seem to find is that the anthropology sources say "societies may treat men as expendable because they're less necessary for population replacement"—to my surprise—the manosphere sources attached to the article do not mention population replacement or use the specific term "male expendability."
- My degree is in biological sciences. It would be good if someone with a stronger background in anthropology could come in and say "Yes, 'male expendability' is this specific thing, at least to anthropologists" or "No it isn't," so we can move forward on firmer ground. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Requested move at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Afro-textured hair#Requested move 16 September 2023
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afro-textured hair#Requested move 16 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |