Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology/Archive 5

Any coordination going on?

Hi. I'm interested in helping out on this project - is there someplace you all hang out to talk about coordinating efforts or...?

Let me know. Rex (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request of consistency in denoting past time period

For an novice like me looking for information, the time notation in different articles (in anthropology related articles) AND within an article is confusing to say the least. Past date is sometimes referred to as years ago, BC, BCE, BP, Mya (millions of years ago). I believe if someone can come in and do a consistency check and rectify the differences the understandability of the otherwise very good source of information would greatly be improved.

Ditto for the articles in archaeology aip (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Agricultural Complex

Without much knowledge and with some Google Scholar poking I have the impression this article needs an update (how this hypothesis is seen by contemporary research) and expansion (history of the hypothesis, archeological evidence, etc). See alse my question and answers at the Reference Desk.[1]

--Pjacobi (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perception

Dear all,

I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.

I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), anthropology, sociology, philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.

I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netnography still needs work

As mentioned in Archive 4, the page Netnography is in desperate need of expert attention. Any help you can offer in terms of re-writing, sourcing, etc. would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migrationism

Please take a look at my comments (and chime in if you will) there where I note that we have Trans-cultural diffusion, Demic diffusion, Invasion theory andAcculturation [2] (at least), all related aspects of archaeological theory although they don't all link to each other (eg Trans-cultural diffusion despite having an external link to an article with the title "Diffusionism and Acculturation" doesn't have a link to Acculturation and vice versa). I also think that all these articles should have both the Wikiproject Archaeology and the Wikiproject Anthropology templates on their talk pages, does anyone disagree? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC) C)[reply]

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books


Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Anthropology articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denisova hominin

There's a content dispute at Denisova hominin. It has been reported that the issue of whether the subject might be a hybrid or not will resolved by nuclear DNA testing, but reporting this in the article has become an issue. Your opinions would be helpful. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgable editors needed

Here - the article on "Ssexual Orientation" needs work - couple of editors have recently pointed this out, but the discussion really needs fresh views. Currently the article is strongly biased toards psychology (and debates between psychologists and a fringe group promoted by Christians that claims that homosexuality is a psychological disorder). I have nothing against psychology, but it is only one approach ... the whole idea that sexual orientation may be socially constructed, or take fundamentally different forms in different cultures is missing (because claims that it is not innate and fixed are interpreted as promoting the views of that fringe group that says homosexuality can be remedied). And debates outside of academe are not covered, either. And the article is organized in such a way that it is hard to know even how these other views might be incorporated. In short, it needs attention. I am not looking for one hero to do a complete overhaul of the article; I am hoping that many different editors can work together, each making small changes, that will eventually turn this into something that reflects the full range of major approaches and views and explains differences and debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topics

I've updated my list of missing topics related to ethnic andother groups - Skysmith (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australopithecus sediba

There's a big problem at Australopithecus sediba. It claims to be either an ancestor of H. habilis, or just H. erectus. This claim makes it appear that the genus Homo is a composite grouping with multiple lineages and no root species... how is that even a single genus?

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I have proposed merging Ashkenazi intelligence to Ashkenazi Jews. Weigh in at, Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence. Also in particular, weigh in on one user's points, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ashkenazi_intelligence#More_sociology.2C_less_biology.21 I thought his line of questioning needed more discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment at Talk:Judaism regarding the term "religion"

Please see the following request for comment. Talk:Judaism#Should_the_term_.22religion.22_appear_descriptively_in_the_first_sentence.3F. Input would be much appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

This article is rated of high importance to this wikiproject, but I think it is abysmal by anthropological standards. Apparently there was some edit warring over the lead, as there is a notice to discuss all proposed changes on the talk page. I left a suggestion here but this really need the input of anthropologists. I hope many of you will look at my post, make alternative suggestions or improve upon it, but help me insist that the article not start with a blatantly Eurocentric bias. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

I see that several articles that mention IQ testing more or less prominently are within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some expertise for a Peer review

As part of Wikipedia:Peer review/Barefoot/archive1, while considering the scope of Barefoot and Footwear, I found that there was evidence from 500,000 years ago. This appears to be when Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis diverged from a common ancestor. So I concluded that I'm out of my depth and the review needs some expertise. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted

I just started the article List of countries by first human settlement. I think it could be a really useful and fun page, but it will be a lot of work; the most challenging part is finding reliable sources. Any help would be much appreciated. Lampman (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on the reliability of Fox News.

There is a ongoing debate on whether the Fox News channel can be used as a prima facie reliable source on Wikipedia. Please participate in it here at This RfC. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to look at Lewontin's Fallacy, which I have just tagged for POV.

I see the article Lewontin's Fallacy seems to give huge emphasis to one little cited paper disagreeing with Lewontin, which, unless I am completely mistaken, is undue weight on a minority position in the relevant disciplines. Please check the article and see how well source and how neutral it is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic anthropology

Last month, I converted the references on Linguistic anthropology from parentheticals to footnotes, to make the page consistent with Biological anthropology, Cultural anthropology, and Social anthropology. At that time, I also suggested that the 'Further reading' section should be reduced from 34 items to no more than 10. In the month since, I have heard no objections, but also few suggestions for which items should be retained. One editors suggested "books that are intended for people new to the field," but no one else commented.

Yesterday I placed the long list in a comment, making it invisible to readers. I copied seven introductory texts outside the comment so they are visible.

Comments on whether to reduce the list, and if so what items the short list should contain, are welcome at Talk:Linguistic anthropology/Archive 1#Notes, References, Further reading. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ArbCom decision on Race and intelligence and related articles

The Arbitration Commmittee case on race and intelligence has just been decided. Thus articles that are either in the Race and intelligence controversy category or mentioned in the findings of the 2010 Arbitration Committee case on Race and intelligence or closely related to those are subject to active arbitration remedies that you may wish to review. The case decision seems to have resulted in an immediate improvement in the editing environment of several articles that previously were very contentious. Peaceful, collaborative editing that turns to sources and upholds Wikipedia policy is enjoyable editing. I thought I should let participants on this WikiProject know that this improved atmosphere now exists, because some of the articles related to that case have long been marked as part of this project. Your participation in editing those articles is welcomed and encouraged. You can look up sources to help improve articles in the source lists I have been compiling to share with all Wikipedians. And because the source lists span several different topics, and those topics fit quite a few articles in this WikiProject in whole or in part, suggesting new sources would be a very kind thing to do. The atmosphere has improved a lot, so the articles can improve a lot. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be kind, if you so please, to suggest sources about anthropology for expanding a newly begun source list on anthropology and related topics, which may be of help in bringing several articles in this project up to date. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD

I just nominated an Anthropology article for deletion. If I am wrong please say so. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africoid peoples Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anthropology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy

I found it odd that Talk:Polygamy does not mention the article being part of the this wikiproject, as I would expect this to be the primary wikiproject concerned with the entry. Can someone have a look into this? More eyes from people here would be welcome there as well. The entry appears to be very US centric, and appears to attract most of its attention from people interested in the practices of Mormon fundamentalists. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template (does its position matter?). Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. The entry needs serious work.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean anthropologist Wladimir Cárcamo Soto - can you help?

The article on Chilean anthropologist, Wladimir Cárcamo Soto has been tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person since November 2008, which is the current focus month for the BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to find reliable third party references to support the text in the article, so am posting here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the field might like to take an interest and provide at least one source.--Plad2 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments welcome on source list.

I've just recently expanded a source list on anthropology, which I post in user space for ease of citing sources in articles, and I'd love to hear your suggestions on how to improve it. The source list has a specific suggestions subpage which thus far has not been used by anyone. Anthropology is not my main area of research (that would be pedagogy of mathematics with a big dollop of psychology of human intelligence these days), but it is an important subject. So anything you can suggest about good sources on anthropology would help me and help other editors edit articles better here on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National costume vs folk costume

Please see my question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Ecology

Hello! We would like to invite you to join our proposed wikiproject: Historical Ecology. We would also like to have this project listed under related projects on the anthropology project page if there are enough interested editors. Annadestinmccown (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since the article is of interest to this project. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second look

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... . Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Diaspora

Additional input is needed over at Talk:Diaspora on what is devolving into a very unproductive conversation about the lead. Basically, due to two related AfDs there has been spill over to this entry with the basic definition of the concept now being contested.Griswaldo (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ochre

There is dispute on the talk page about the use of images of Himba women using ochre body decoration. Input would be helpful. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychology

This page is now under protection, and there is an RfC leading here. Given that evolutionary psychology makes claims that overlap with both biological and cultural anthropology, members of this project should be able to make constructive comments. It is worth looking over a few of the threads on the talk page to get a real sense of the problems people have contended with. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology RFC

I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.si - 2000+ free text articles

Culture.si This is a portal by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia with over 2000 articles about Slovene culture. The text is under the same license as Wikipedia; you have to atrivute the source. Just wanted to let you know about this. --U5K0 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice

Nomination of Race and intelligence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Race and intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. +Race and IQ Tetron76 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed on theoretical debate

(Reposted from WikiProject Archaeology). The talk page of the article on the three-age system has degenerated into a theoretical dispute. One editor is arguing that the three age system (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age) is the mainstream cross-cultural model in archaeology, while I'm arguing that it isn't. The resolution of this debate will affect the tone of the article, so we really need some outside mediation. Preferably, we need somebody with experience in archaeology that has access to good quality sources on current theories and paradigms. Snickeringshadow (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-Maurusian

Mechtoid (talk · contribs) has written a new page Iberomaurusian and redirected Ibero-Maurisian to the new page. The prior version of Ibero-Maurisian had very different content. I'm guessing we need to WP:history merge the two pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are death myths organized? One of you guys study this or have a textbook?

I need someone who knows something about anthropology to answer a question about categorization. The father of anthropology Sir James George Frazer divided death myths into four general classifications. Do you still use those classifications, or have they changed things? Origin of death stories mentions what he did, and shows examples of it. Its being discussed at AFD now. [3] Dream Focus 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on article naming conventions for peoples, ethnicities and tribes

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes) on how ethnicity articles should be named. Specifically, whether the article on the Foo people should be at "Foo", or at "Foo people" with "Foo" as a disambiguation page distinguishing the Foo people and the Foo language (and any other uses). The current convention is to disambiguate, but this is based largely on discussions at WP:NCLANG and I have suggested that a wider consensus including people interested in ethnicity and indigenous peoples as well as languages would be desirable. joe•roe^t•c 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Imperialism

I'm currently working on a contribution to the "theory and debate" section of Cultural imperialism. In doing so, I plan to separate the section into two, one being titled "Theoretical Foundations" and the other being "Contemporary ideas and debate." In the section entitled "Theoretical Foundations" I hope to give a little more background on Foucault, Derrida, and Said. And in the section entitled "Contemporary ideas and debate" I plan on talking about how the term is used in a variety of contexts such as Postcolonial critiques of development studies and of neoliberalism, representations of non-western peoples, and in sociological theories of labor. Currently, the page is under the umbrella of WikiProject Sociology, of start class and high importance. I was wondering if you thought it would be valuable to claim it under the umbrella in WikiProject Anthropology? Let me know what you think

Also, any other comments, suggestions, or advice would be greatly appreciated! Jkcory (Jkcory) 10:28 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Constructed languages nominated for deletion

Portal:Constructed languages has been nominated for deletion, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Constructed languages. — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Anthropology will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in anthropology. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Indigenous people

I have started an RfC at talk:Indigenous people regarding the definition and scope of the article because some editors are using the page to include all ethnic groups who claim to descend from the first known inhabitants of a place - such as Germans, Finns, Russians, Georgians etc. This definition would exclude several indigenous groups that have migrational histories from the scope and conflict with the established political definitions of the term. Please weigh in on which definition to use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W.E.B. Du Bois now a featured article

…which is wonderful. However, "anthropology" does not appear on his page. See what you can contribute without undermining the article's awesomeness.--Carwil (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad

I notice Nomad and List of nomadic people are not in your list. Nomad in particular could do with significant cleanup and sourcing if you are interested. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paleogenetics article in need of attention

Hi all,

I came across the article Paleogenetics and found it in pretty sorry shape—short, substandard writing quality, lack of strong and up-to-date sources. I've made some preliminary minor copyedits and removed some particularly bad bits, but the article is still rather shoddy. I have some knowledge of the anthropological aspect of it and would be happy to help out with that bit, but I am busy with other things at the moment and cannot guarantee much in-depth support for the next month or so. I was hoping that I'd find some editors around here who would be able to help improve this neglected article, which deals with a field that is quickly growing in prominence, especially with recent work on the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes by Svante Pääbo and others. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested articles?

Does this project maintain a list of requested articles? Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RA.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. There is not a list of Requested Anthropology articles at WP:RA.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What is the general standpoint on the use of the "-oid" terms in articles describing modern peoples? I am currently engaged in a dispute with a Slovene IP at Tatars, who would like to include information regarding the "North" and "South Caucasoid" (1 result for each N S on JSTOR), "Mongoloid", and "Lapponoid" (13 results) faces of the group. It is my understanding that most experts outside of forensic anthropology have discarded such terminology; as such, it should not be used in articles. I removed the information as being grossly outdated and borderline racist, but the IP has been persistent in re-adding it, with the near-meaningless statement of "re-adding anthropology facts" being the only reasoning given. I will admit up-front that I have been curt and caustic in my minimal dealings with this user; I personally regard such terms as discredited trash and have low tolerance for their serious use. A third-party opinion from someone here would be appreciated. (I have posted this to all Wikiprojects listed at Talk:Race (classification of humans) to generate more discussion) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms are not in use in mainstream anthropology anymore, they went out with the 1950s. Some of them (just Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid) are sometimes used by Forensic scientists - but they are a dwindling minority, and the detailed classifications of the 1930s racial science craze such as "Alpinid", "Lapponoid" are copletely passe, and a good sign of possible racialist pov pushing, or extreme outdated references. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use terminology that reflects the current norms in academic literature. If you are in dispute with someone over what constitutes such, you need to cite a source on the matter. However, your case also sounds-sounded-like possible vandalism. Please consult WP:VAN.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trefael Stone

Could somebody create an article for the Trefael Stone? It seems relevant enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18172598 Best regards. 85.50.248.101 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human evolution

This article is in need of attention from knowledgeable editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox artifact

Template:Infobox artifact has been nominated for deletion as being redundant with Template:Infobox artwork, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 9 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phallic architecture

I'd appreciate some input at the newly-created phallic architecture article. Sadly, the article's creator/'owner' seems to think the subject is a joke. In my humble opinion, it deserves better, and anthropology has a great deal to say on the subject - the more input we can get from people who think there is more to it than "buildings which look like a penis" [4] the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content isn't bad considering it's start-class. However, the article has a few obvious falsehoods and much of the article reads like a series of paraphrases and quotes from a single person's library.
—Sowlos (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that any anthropologists have ever taken an interest in that subject. Seems more of a Freudian psychoanalysis kind of idea.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I just added a Freud quote. Yes, rather a lot of quotes, but a lot of them can quite easily be converted to prose in due course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Society at peer review

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic Homo sapiens

As noted on the talk page, the title of Archaic Homo sapiens makes no sense and does not fit the topic. Homo sapiens idaltu may be called such, but not H. neanderthalensis, H. heidelbergensis, or H. antecessor, because they simply are not sapiens. If it covers human species outside of H. sapiens, it should be called Archaic Homo or Archaic human, as in Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens. It may be noted that this more general title would, conveniently, not contradict the (minority) view which considers Neanderthals a subspecies of H. sapiens. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems to use Dawkins' Archaic homo sapiens as a justification for its catch all usage of the term.
—Sowlos (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the term is seriously misleading, confusing and worst of all, non-neutral, as it implicitly assumes the POV that H. neanderthalensis etc. are subspecies of H. sapiens – which is not the majority view anyway. Note in the passage apparently referred to Dawkins explicitly acknowledges that both views exist without committing to either, additional reason to use a neutral title such as Archaic Homo or Archaic human, consistent with the majority view of H. neanderthalensis etc. as separate species, with the Wikipedia articles Homo heidelbergensis etc. and with article titles such as Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human race(s)

Human race is a redirect to Human, Human races a redirect to Race (human classification). I don't say that's wrong, but it's confusing at least. What's the shortest way to express "assumed race in a racial classification for humans" (say Mongoloid) which might not be mistaken for mankind as a whole? How could you improve this redirect situation? --KnightMove (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human race is simply an ambiguous term, unlike the plural human races: It can stand for mankind as a whole, but also for a particular (phenotypical) subgroup. The technically correct way to deal with this ambiguity is a disambiguation page, explaining that human race can refer to either "the human species'" or to "Race (human classification)". This might seem a bit overkill, but why not? It's the job of encyclopædias to sometimes explain trivial seeming things, and not all readers, especially those who are not native speakers of English, can be expected to be aware of this use; some may find it helpful to learn that the term human race that they encountered in a text means something different from what they first assumed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florian, can you please identify some published English source that uses "human race" to mean a subgroup rather than the human species? To me, as a native English speaker, this just doesn't sound right. It is rather like suggesting that "hot dog" is ambiguous because someone might use it to refer to a canine suffering from a fever. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In case we accept that human race is only used for mankind as a whole in English, do you think there is a way to improve the existing recirects? Maybe a disambiguation page that explicitly states that human race is used for mankind and human races for racial concepts? That would not be too odd. As a precedent, de:Menschenhai explains that Menschenhai ("man shark") is used in German for the Great white shark in the singular and for the Requiem sharks in the plural. --KnightMove (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about just putting a standard hatnote at the top of Human: '"Human race" redirects here. For the division of humans into races, see Race (human classification)"? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think even better would be: "Human race redirects here. For human races, see Race (human classification)." This would signify the difference singular/plural and combine the advantages. Ok? --KnightMove (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so now. --KnightMove (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the hatnote and created a disambiguation page again. It is disturbing to the reader to have two wade through three different hatnotes before coming to the article she wants to read. Broad level articles like "human" could have dozens of hatnotes if that is the approach taken everytime a mild issue of potential confusion arises. use disambiguation pages to avoid hatnote clutter.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the incoming links, I am happy to let gnomes and bots fix those eventually. Not a big problem in my opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored a trimmed version of the hatnotes (as well as restored the redirect in place of the artificial and unnecessary disambiguation page). There is no actual ambiguity for the singular and there is no good reason to make it more difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. older ≠ wiser 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Race (capital R) is a disambiguation page. It should be linked from a hatnote on Human, as long as "human race" redirects there. The disambiguation page might or might not be moved to Human Race (disambiguation), if Human should be the primary topic of "Human Race" as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Society for featured portal consideration

Portal:Society

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles need attention

Gathering hypothesis is a new article, and Hunting hypothesis has had major changes. Both are pretty pov at the moment and not well written, but I don't have time right now. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College and university dating

College and university dating, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

I came across this in the Fischer–Saller scale stub. I've added a good link, but what should I do with the old one and "dead link" notice? Watchwolf49z (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in anthropology

Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Talk:List of important publications in anthropology concerning the list's inclusion criteria and whether to rename the page. Cnilep (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Comments from WikiProject Anthropology participants on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speech

Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could use some improvements. I've been working on formatting and standardization, but additional research from experts would be appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RM of Maker subculture to Maker culture

FYI

– Pointer of an in-scope discussion elsewhere.

Participants in this project may be interested a requested move of Maker subculture to Maker culture, at Talk:Maker subculture#Requested move. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liujiang man

Liujiang man has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an article, not a redirect. I've started a stub.--Ninthabout (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Early anthropocene" proposed for article deletion

FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Early_anthropocene comments welcome NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAA 2013 Roundtable/Workshop on Writing Women Anthropologists into Wikipedia

I've been in touch with the Association for Feminist Anthropologists about collaborating on a workshop/roundtable at the 2013 AAA conference to increase women anthropologists' presence as wikipedia articles and editors (Entitled "Writing Women Anthropologists into Wikipedia"). Is there anyone here going to the meetings that would like to collaborate on this project? We'll be doing a demo on how to edit (MoS, account creation, etc.) and then possibly a hands on workshop as people create and edit articles. Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:LuziaWoman.jpg

File:LuziaWoman.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpiritCaveMan.jpg

File:SpiritCaveMan.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clans are formed to uphold livelighood and Security. I edited in :

Large families or clans wandering in the lush woodlands have continued to be the most common form of life through human history. Axes to fell trees and sickles for harvesting of the grain were the only tools people might bring with them. All other devices were made from materials they found at the site, such as fire stakes of birch, long rods (vanko), and harrows made of spruce tops. The extended family conquered the lush virgin forest, burned and cultivated their carefully selected swidden plots, powered one or a few crops, and then proceeded on to forests they had registered before. In the temperate zone the forest regenerated in the course of a lifetime. So swidden was repeated several times in the same area over the years. But in the tropics the forest floor gradually depleted. It was not only to the moors, as in Northern Europe, but also in the steppe, savannah, prairie, pampas and barren desert in tropical areas where shifting cultivation is the oldest (Clark 1952 91-107).[29]--Svedjebruk (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House society

I've created the article House society as a stub and added it to this wikiproject. You are more than welcome to take a look and expand it if you want. I will start working more on it later unless you beat me to it!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have time but if you are interested in Lévi-Strauss, Patrick Willicken's (sp?) "The Poet in the Laboratory" is an good source for his work, although mostly for the earlier period. I see no one has cited it yet on the L-S page. Rex (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MED#Ataque de nervios

Hello - Just a heads-up about this talk thread regarding some culture-bound syndromes.
86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Proposal

I just wanted to alert you that there is a WikiProject proposal about something related to you project. Here is the link. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Humanity buff bills 7701 21:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civilisation

The above article seems to be a bit of an orphan as far as WP projects are concerned, and it shows in the quality of it. Should it not be part of this project's oversight? Currently only Sociology is watching.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case for a proper article on socializing (as in to socialize with others)

Hello all,

might I bother you to have a look at this overlapping subject at Project Psychology and maybe state your opinion on it?

So far, there exists only a redirect to "Socialization" under the lemma, which is covering many aspects of socialization except socializing and going a different route. This may be a strong case for an article on Socializing in its own right.

TIA, --217.81.163.66 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (long-term ethical IP by choice)[reply]

AfC submission

Please have a look at this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Mexico

A user is inserting halfchewed genetics into the article and needs someone to talk a look.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Ethnic Groups - Skysmith (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gagnepain Jean

Resolved

Hello anthropologists! The above article has been waiting in the Afc for more than two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation

I'm in the process of trying to improve this article with a view to getting it to at least GA, and perhaps eventually FA. It's the kind of article where lots of people have an opinion, and things that may appear POV are in fact well-sourced and standard ways of approaching the issue. It would therefore benefit a lot from specialist input. I'm posting this here on the off-chance that someone with relevant expertise, particularly anyone with expertise in medical anthropology, might be willing to take a look, either as an editor or with advice on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once took a course on this, although I am not an expert by far. I looked it over briefly and it seems some of the main anthropological approaches are missing, that attempt to understand the "why" of genital cutting, why women keep perpetuating the practice, instead of simply seeing the women as victims and the custom as a barbarian ritual. There is a short section on the cultural views in the "support from women" section, but it could definitely be exanded. Janice Boddy's work is mentioned but not really cited, her second book "civilizing women" would be a good source for this in Sudan and also has a lot of historical information about early colonial opposition to the practice. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maunus, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this seems at least to me to be primarily a cultural topic, with some religious overtones, I think maybe looking at the article on the topic in the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, published in I think 2005 or 2006, and maybe any recent reference works relating specifically to the topics of "women in society" or cultural anthropology or similar topics might work. I also believe, honestly, that there is probably sufficient material for at least two articles on this topic, one on the more or less cultural-medical practice of clitoridectomy, and probably another on the recent cultural movement in opposition to the practice. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at that. And yes, it would benefit from quite a few daughter articles. I'm constantly fighting the urge to add detail that's interesting, but not central, because it's the kind of article that could quite easily end up being enormous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, although I regret saying this, this topic, as it does seem to cross several cultural-religious boundaries, and to probably have significantly different cultural and religious motivations in some of the traditional cultures in which it is practiced, I tend to think, unfortunately, that this probably should be a hugely long article. Some of the articles in some religious reference books I've seen, because I have been recently concentrating in that area, are well over 40 pages long, and in some cases, I think they wind up being over 100 pages long in Word. These cross-cultural topics probably get less attention than they reasonably should around here, so if you get the time and energy to work on developing some of the subtopics, and you think I might be able to help in maybe finding sourcing, let me know. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to try to get the basics in place first; as Maunus said, there's not enough about the motivations of the women. But one thing that would be fiddly work, but helpful, is to develop Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country so that it could be properly summarized in the parent article. It was split off because it was basically just a list. It's also somewhat wrong-headed, because whether and how it takes place depends on the ethnic group, and the prevalence can vary enormously within one country from between 1 and 90 percent, depending on the group. So a list of exactly which groups practise it and for what stated reasons, and what type of FGM it is, would be a very useful addition to scholarship. But it would be a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source list helpful for this project

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 Para in History_of_anthropology#United_States are Uncited Copies

I noticed three paragraphs starting with "Late eighteenth century ethnology..." through "by our slavery propagating statesmen." (p. 287)." are taken verbatim (even the "p. 287" cross reference) from pp 94 & 95 of the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism as seen in this extract. I went to add a citation, but many of the web or book citation fields are not immediately available from my reference extract. A brief attempt to find the whole text led to a 3 volume set that may not be the correct encylopedia. Also I don't know Wikipedia policies on copyright and plagiarism, e.g. is just adding a citation sufficient? (Nor am I willing to put in the study of policies and citation procedures and uncovering the right metadata for the right source at this time). SB Hobo (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change picture on template

{{portal|Anthropology}} Hello,

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the project template. I hope I'm not alone in saying that the main left-most picture is neither "pretty", nor instructive about what Anthropology is about. In fact, it looks downright odd. I suggest that the Easter Island head, currently on the portal (right), would be a good substitute unless anyone else can make a suggestion of a better one? Brigade Piron (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Communication as unique

Dear anthropologists: The above old AfC submission was rightly declined as essay-like, but there seems to be some interesting information and sources. Is this topic covered under another title, or can this one be distilled down to just the facts? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic anthropology

Shouldn't this stub be called "Anthropological Genetics" which seems to be the most common name (although both are used) and considerably expanded? Cross-posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the other project talk page, there are a lot of POV-pushing content forks among the anthropology articles at present. The term "physical anthropology" seems to be being supplanted by the term "biological anthropology" in the current professional terminology,Biological Anthropology section of American Anthropological Association and yet here on Wikipedia there are several articles that all stake claims to being the general article on biological anthropology, with competing points of view because of poor sourcing to push ideologies. The article you mention should probably turn into a redirect to the best existing article, and eventually some of the articles will have to be deprecated (as POV forks) and merged into one main article with neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doobie wraps?

Hi, sorry if this is not the right location for the following request.

As a European, I never heard about Doobie wraps before. Reading the salon.com article The politics of Rihanna’s hair: Her AMA do was a powerful form of resistance (source), I became convinced that this could be an inportant aspect of everday Afro-American life and searched Wikipedia for further information. Sadly I couldn't find even a short article about it. Could anybody please write a stub on this or forward the request to the relating project? Kind regards from the German-Austrian border. A Bavarian Wikipidian. 84.152.46.240 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human body

Hi, there has been significant restructuring of the human body, human physiology and human anatomy articles over at WP:Anatomy, making the Human body article the main, offering opportunities for future expansion once significant information is available.

The Human body article current has a underdeveloped Society and culture section Human body#Society and culture, that would do very well with some help from this Wikiproject. Is there interest from here in expanding this section? If so please help out, and engage in the talk page of the article! CFCF (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human height

Hi there. Just seeking input at Talk:Human_height#Why_is_height_being_expressed_in_metres.3F. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Human_height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cro-Magnon

Origin of the Basques also needs attention. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin peoples article deletion

Article Latin peoples has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss. Diego (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 17/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Langgai Tinggang. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD discussion for societies and cultures

There is a discussion going on right now at WP:Categories for discussion that involves changing the category names for all cultures, from, for example, "Afghan society" to "Society of Afghanistan". I can see that next will be changing "German culture" to "Culture of Germany" and the like. This would be for all ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.
If you would like to weigh in, the conversation is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Society by country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid

I'll be surprised and pleased if anyone has any knowledge about this subject. I've run into an editor adding material from someone who thinks Mongoloids had the decimal system 50,000 years ago (he didn't add that, but he used the author to say that there were Mongoloids up to 70,000 KYA. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some biological anthropology textbooks at hand. The view you mention is certainly not a mainstream view (and not supported by archeology, for sure). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoanthropology and Michael Cremo

An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#''Controversy'' section Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchy

This month and last month the lead was tag bombed. I've removed most but my removals are being disputed - anyone with time is invited to see comment at the discussion at Talk:Matriarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kinship Terms: the Numerical Variations

Dear anthropology experts: This old draft was never submitted at AfC to be added to the encyclopedia, and now it's stale and about to be deleted. I seem to remember from my undergraduate days that "kinship" is an aspect of anthropology, so I thought that I would check here to see if anyone thinks its a notable topic and should be kept and improved instead. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Cro-Magnon

See Talk:Cro-Magnon#RFC: Should this article suggest an identity between Cro-Magnon and EEMH or say that CM is a subset of EEMH? - anyone interested in the subject of Cro-Magnon or early modern humans please at least take a look at the page. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 26/05

Draft:SK 847. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 27/05

Draft:Scladina. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]