Talk:Anthropology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthropology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anthropology article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Primates Anthropology is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] History of Anthropology

Seems like most of this article is taken up by the history of the subject and by its regional practices. Couldn't something a lil' more general be better for the casual reader? -- some drunk dude.

I agreee with 'drunk dude'. This article needs to say something about anthropology after 1970. You'd think from this article that it's about something that no longer exists.--Girl2k (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Directly below the introduction we see a blurb on why Social and Cultural anthropology is different, is this necessary? At the least it seems out of place. This seems to have been corrected. Mccajor (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Fields Approach

The inclusion of the "Four Fields Approach" as an American aspect of anthropology is very America-centric. I think it should have its own section not linked to country.

  • Agreed. It was a problem when it was listed at the top of the article as though four-field anthropology was the international consensus, but it was probably too limiting to list it under the US-specific section, given that for a variety of reasons Boasian four-field anthropology has been internationally influential in the structuring of the discipline. Zenauberon 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The four-field approach has been scarcely influential in the rest of the world, and is regarded as typically US approach, not a general one. I think that in order to avoid a US bias we should keep it in the US section. Anyway anyplace is fine by me as long as at the beginning of the paragraph is clarified the origin and actual diffusion of the idea.--BMF81 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But I think it does that now, no? (If not, I'm certainly not opposed to more edits to make the origins and actual diffusion clearer. But I do think it drives home the point as written.) Zenauberon 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for comments

On race and intelligence, please [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

the anthropology page and the anthropology wiki banner have nice photos. However these photos, isolated as they are from any other visual context, are an exoticization of the "primitive". Imagine a photo of a stockbroker instead. Beyond that the idea that a single emblematic image can serve as a visual summary of "anthropology" is untenable. When there is a fully developed anthropology article there should be lots of images. But for now, lovely as it is, the Yao initiation photo needs to go. 121.128.102.250 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I modified the greek etymology in the brakets, which was Anthropo, with the correct Anthropos. Check it out as I guess I added the last 's' with a latin character instead of a greek one. Thanks.87.7.227.143 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)AdP

[edit] Madison Grant

Why is Madison Grant not included in the article about Anthropology in America?

Madison Grant is not a significant part of the tradition of modern sociocultural anthropology or of the modern study of human evolution. He would appropriately be mentioned in the article Scientific racism, or if appropriately contextualized, in the section on racial and eugenic theories in History of Anthropology. Mccajor (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic race

I would be grateful if contributors here could comment on the page Nordic race and associated Talk page. Paul B 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Link Scrubbing

While I happen to agree that the list of links had grown too long, the recent scrubbing of all links and replacement with the dmoz template is the most extreme measure suggested under WP:EL, and is supposed to be an intermediate step:

"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the 'External links' section with the linkfarm template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."

Any explicit attempt to reach consensus has never taken place, as far as I can see. I haven't reverted the edit - like I mentioned I largely agree with the deletions, and am not particularly a fan of linkspam myself. But I think some discussion is warranted. For my part, I would like to see links restored to a couple of the major international anthropological associations. Zenauberon 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree to restore them all. A discussion was needed before such removal.--SummerWithMorons 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology during World War II

This article has a sub-heading, Anthropology after World War II: Increasing dialogue in Anglophone anthropology, but nothing at all about the US Army's extensive use of anthropology during the war, first in the Pacific Theater, then, due to its successful application there, in Europe. This continued, at least throughout the Vietnam Era, with issue of Army pamphlets to newly arriving troops advising them of socially sensitive issues. While I have no sources at hand, I recall reading that post-war assessment by later generations of anthropologists held that their colleagues during the war had gotten their data all wrong; but still later assessments held that this did not matter: use of the anthropological data by occupying troops at least had the effect of causing the troops to behave towards local populations in a consistent manner, to which the locals could then adjust; and also demonstrated that the US cared.

The use of anthropology by US and British governments during the 20th century is controversial: at times it probably helped the war/colonial effort, at times it probably mitigated harm to the local populations or eased their interactions with the Western powers, often anthropologists' recommendations were ignored by the military/colonial officials. Some current anthropologists criticize the findings, but often the broad generalizations hold, though perhaps phrased in a language less nuanced than we would use today. A balanced article along the lines of "Anthropology in relation to Western military and colonial efforts", perhaps with a more felicitous title, would be a great addition to Wikipedia if someone wants to work on it. I am concerned that several of the anthropology articles appear to have been written by people whose knowledge of anthropology seems derived from a single course or book on something like critical theory or postcolonialism, rather than a broader understanding of the field and its social and historical context. As I've said elsewhere, some of the articles are the equivalent of an article on modern medicine that spent 90% of their content on leeches and pre-anesthetic amputations. Mccajor (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree but, alas, I haven't even had that one course. I can, however, contribute these links to those who want to follow up. Pawyilee (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Terrain Team (HTT)

Now, US Army's strategy in Afghanistan: better anthropology reports that anthropology is once again being used in warfare as "Counterinsurgency efforts focus on better grasping and meeting local needs" in Afghanistan, under the rubric of Human Terrain Team (HHT). See also Anthropologists at war. Editors seriously interested in this article need to seriously address this issue. Pawyilee 04:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a subsection of "The politics of Anthropology" titled "Anthropology during wartime" to cover both the history and use of the discipline in conflict (colonial, WWII, Vietnam, current...)? James Haughton 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"The politics of Anthropology" calls to my mind conflicts between anthropologists, NOT the use of anthropology to advance political objectives in wartime or peace. I'd suggest "'Practical' Uses of Anthropology", but would not object to changing my 'Practical' to your 'Political', especially if it gets written! What I've read of the WW-II use of anthropology was that it helped make peace possible between former combatants, and greatly aided non-combatants, as well. Peace-time use of anthropology can take on many dimensions. Analyzing garbage in a local dump using methods developed for kitchens middens can be used to tailor planning for land use in that community, and also tailor advertising campaigns to sell it commercial products or politicians. Anthropology can be used to make a community and its infrastructure safer and more livable, or more amenable to control, but I live in a remote area with erratic Internet access, can't find sources to support this on the 'net, and most are on library shelves an the other side of the world from me, anyhow. Pawyilee 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Somebody added "politics of Anthropology", and I added my bit abut HTTs under "However". I also added to Operation_Enduring_Freedom#Criticism: For one U.S. Army response, see The Human Terrain System: A CORDS for the 21st Century. Pawyilee (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This looks good. I removed the link to the blog though--in the edit summary I wrote "per WP:EL" (policy on external links) when I meant WP:SPS (policy on verifiability and self published sources. In either case, Wikipedia discourages the use of blogs as sources except in limited situations. The rest of the addition looks good though. -Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed Anthropologists at War was a blog; nor did I know about SPS. In line with previous discussion, I tucked my edit into Politics of anthropology despite my own preference for Practical Uses of Anthropology. That yearns for an article in its own write, to cover all practical uses, not just in warfare; but is beyond my capabilities to start it. Meanwhile. I'm dissatisfied with the way reference to HTTs is tucked away where it can be easily overlooked. John Paul Vann and Civil_Affairs#Vietnam, cry for development into "Anthropology during wartime". See also Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development; Support--CORDS Pawyilee (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also see links above section heading, just added to discussion of Anthropology during World War II. Pawyilee (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ota Benga

Some of you may be interested in taking a look at Ota Benga, an anthropology related article to which an editor has been adding and re-adding anti-evolution links as references, Answers in Genesis among them. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major discussions about anthropology

This section seems to be redundant with other material and relies heavily on a single book about urban ethnography for statements about anthropology and ethnocentrism/orientalism in general. It might be better deleted entirely or else incorporated into Controversies in Anthropology above. Any thoughts? Mccajor (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article of concern

would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Anthropology

I have significantly expanded Template:Anthropology in hopes of adding it to anthropology pages and using it to direct users to anthro-related articles (see sociology, psychology and journalism for other examples of this template use). Comments and improvements would be appreciated. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology as the "study of man"

Could some editors comment on this bit in the intro:

The term was first used in print in 1593 to refer to a branch of history which studies the arts, kinship, and practices of man.

I changed man to humankind. Anon (who has been vandalizing other articles all day) changed it back to man. A third editor placed "man" in quotation marks. My position is that there is little reason to use gender specific language that has fallen out of favor in anthropology at all unless we are directly quoting something (as is the case with Tylor later in the article). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the claim made in the sentence above appears to violate the policy on primary sources. A second issue is that I have been unable to verify either through Google or JSTOR that the essay cited* has anything to do at all with anthropology. So I'm inclined to delete this sentence altogether. Comments? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
*Harvey, Richard (1593) "An astrological discourse upon the conjunction of Saturne and Jupiter 1583 Philadelphus, or a defence of Brutes and the Brutans history 1593 Plaine Percevall the peace-maker of England 1590 (1860)

I think the use of Man could be appropriate precisely because of its datedness, but the sentence in question seems doubtable, so why not remove it entirely, as you suggest? I back that. --Girl2k (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool--I'll nuke it then. If this passage is important to anyone, they should try to find a secondary source that confirms the "first use" claim. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MacDonald and criticism of Boasian anthropology

Would seem like a good, substantial addition to the article. He devotes one long chapter to the criticism in his book (The Culture of Critique). If not under Boasian anthropology, then under a new section called "criticism of boasian anthropology" or "criticism of cultural anthropology" or "criticism of modern anthropology" or some such. It's going to be one or the other. Which one? Zeekropun (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus on this talk page (or in its archives) that MacDonald's criticism is not notable enough to warrant a section or a paragraph. I'm unclear as to what authority or knowledge of anthropology that MacDonald can claim. As far as I can tell, he's a racist with an advanced degree in field that is unrelated. I've no particular problem with criticism of "Boasian anthropology" or aspects of it--many have been made by anthropologists within the field. A section devoted to fringe theories about "The Jews" and their nefarious plots to undermine US interests would violate WP:UNDUE and has no place in this article. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're being either deceptive or ignorant. There's no "consensus", longstanding or otherwise, on this talkpage about Kevin MacDonald. There's only this:
"Anon keeps inserting a short mention of this criticism of Jewry (or whatever) into a section on the politics of anthropology, where it sticks out, probably because it's entirely irrelevant to that section, which deals with discussions that have occurred within the discipline. I'm going to remove that passage every time I see it (without violating 3rr) until anon presents a better explanation of why it should be in the article in that form."
Your character assassination of MacDonald is irrelevant here. And you don't own this place. If there is no rational opposition to the addition which you deleted, I will undelete it. If I wanted to learn about modern anthropology, I sure would be interested in knowing about MacDonald's critique of it. Maybe you wouldn't, maybe you're biased that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeekropun (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a great deal more conversation about MacDonald there than you have cited. And if I wanted to learn more than I already know about modern anthropology, I would read anthropological scholars. You're absolutely right, however, that I do not own this article, and I hope some other editors will weigh in here. My position is that a section on MacDonald has little to do with anthropology and does not belong in an article on anthropology. Inserting such a section on criticism of cultural anthro would violate WP:UNDUE. Absent other input, I'm going to consider the earlier consensus not to include that info as valid. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, here is the relevant part of WP's policy on undue weight:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
If ever a set of ides fit this description, it would be MacDonald's. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Newsroom hierarchies --Girl2k (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Inclusion of criticism by MacDonald would certainly be giving undue weight. Whats next? We start putting in criticisms from psychohistory ? I think not.--Woland (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "There is a great deal more conversation about MacDonald there than you have cited." What I cited was all there was on this specific talk page. If you think there is more, go and have a look, and cite it. Devoting a short paragraph to MacDonald's criticism isn't putting "undue weight" on it, considering there is a prior assertion under the section the MacDonald was deleted from which asserts that Boasian anthropology was politically active. It was politically active all right. If you keep insisting on the "undue weight" excuse, I think I'm going to have to create a whole criticism section with all sorts of other critics to carry some of the weight, so it won't soon be undue, since it won't soon be weight at all but like a small foot note, yet still there. I'm not claiming it deserves as much attention (although some might say it deserves more), hence only the small paragraph, for now. You're just suppressors of information with your scared rhetoric. You want me to summon twenty editors to support me? A hundred? I can do that if that's what you want. Is it?Zeekropun (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't think MacDonald qualifies as an anthropologist, you might want to examine what sort of Ph. D.s and professorships anthropologists usually have or have had. Here is MacDonald's quite impressive curriculum vitae: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/VITA2005.pdf Zeekropun (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh,dude, please try to remain civil and assume good faith. People will be more likely to listen to you and accept your ideas instead of just thinking that you're a troll.--Woland (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Anthropologists (usually) have advanced training and degrees in anthropology. My understanding is that MacDonald doesn't. That's all I meant.
There is a policy that you might want to read regarding the "summoning" of editors to defend one's preferred point of view in a talk page discussion. Stating you intend to canvass in this manner is highly inappropriate and will not result in any changes to this page that you want. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearification & Reclassification Needed

This wikipedia article is a mess. It needs some major clean up and re classification.

It should be noted there there are Different types of anthropology.

Cultural anthropology should not be confused Physical anthropology. They are in different worlds. One study human cultures while the other study human remains.

Maybe the article needs to be broken up into two totally seperate wikipedia articles?

--Bill

June 11, 2008

Hey Bill, This article is kind of about Anthropology as an umbrella discipline and if you'll notice it does get into the different types of anthropology under the Four Fields Approach section. This should maybe be written into the intro section or maybe towards the beginning? --Woland (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)