Talk:West Virginia Prehistory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The limitation to "Antiquity West Virginia" creates an artificial subdivision that is unrelated to the subject, and undercuts any encyclopedic approach. Compare Glacial history of Minnesota. --Wetman (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the limitation of "artifical subdivision" to the term, "Prehistoric". Please explain your meaning and please provide suggestion. Is it the main article title that you mean or the first section? This seems to be an arbitrary comment, perhaps not. Your comment is not clear to me. Educators can not explain exactly what you mean to me. Show me what you mean.

antiquity \an-ti-kwe-te\ n, pl -ties 1 : ancient times 2 : great age 3 pl : relics of ancient times 4 pl : matters relating to ancient culture (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

1 people \pe-pel\ n, pl people [ME peple, fr. OF peuple, fr. L populus] 1 pl : human beings making up a group or linked by a common characteristic or interest 2 pl : human beings often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> 3 pl : the mass of persons in a community : populace; also : electorate <the ~'s choice> 4 pl peoples : a body of persons (as a tribe, nation, or race) united by a common culture, sense of kinship, or political organization (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

definition \de-fe-ni-shen\ n 1 : an act of determining or settling 2 : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group; also : the action or process of defining 3 : the action or the power of making definite and clear : clarity, distinctness (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

changed section title to the following per comment above:

Prehistoric \pre-his-tor-ik\ or prehistorical \-i-kel\ adj : of, relating to, or existing in the period before written history began (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

It is:

ambiguous \am-bi-gye-wes\ adj : capable of being understood in more than one way ambiguity \am-be-gyu-e-te\ n ambiguously adv (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Please, requesting help, not simply criticism. Constructive criticism and constructive suggestion to use in place of present titles are very much wanted. Perhaps the article simply needs removed entirely? And, as Copy Editor scolds not to put my decades of research in a free media, but publish it as a commercial book. Is this your meaning? I mean no offence! I need a little bit more than your opinion/comment. Conaughy (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you say if you were presented with an article Jurassic dinosaurs of New Jersey as an encyclopedia topic? Would that be a useful way to divide up the subject? Why not? How might Jurassic dinosaurs of New Jersey be similar to West Virginia Prehistory? In other words, how do the present political boundaries of West Virginia cut across the natural continuities inherent in studying the Prehistory of, say, Appalachia and create an artificial subdivision? In what book on the prehistory of North America would one find a chapter "West Virginia Prehistory"? Does this make sense? --Wetman (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I begin to see what you mean. Our school books used terms, ie. antiquity and prehistory as chapter titles in the indexes. A number of books in my library, albiet dated for some being example, is where my thoughts were in these titles. A more modern approach to this as you explain seems reasonable to me, coming to date in copy editing INDEX Chapter Titles in text books, academic books. I also think this may be a case of demi-culture prctices as I seen in the academic publishing and those "school books" from one country school system to another. I have been away from high school as we call it in West Virginia for nearly 5 decades. I have seen and studied from certain Eruope academic university text books and "Papers" by grad students who use another concept in chapter titles. So, it follows that what you say can, indeed, make sense in todays modern communications medium, eletronic biblio (WIKI'). To test this theory, might the " Archaeology and Anthropology Model of West Virginia", be an example of modern Chapter titling then?

Ofcoarse, my history and encyclopedic (ie Encyclopedia Britannica) does not use this "style" of chapter titles, but, consistancy within WIKIPEDIA is the way these things should be done. WIKI, I suppose is not a "school book" nor a state published magazine, neither. The short of it is, having began a habit of sourcing from WIKIPEDIA, academe equal to a one of our high schools students doing a term paper etc etc This matter does, as you say, need to be modern and WIKI quality-- WIKI standards.

Jurassic is to the study of GEOLOGY not the studies of CULTUR and CULTURE propagation. The subject books my library on the subject of anthropolgy with archeology. Geology only stratas for our region as far as human culture of antiquity is concern only goback towards the Lasr Ice AGE and does not go any further back than the Last WURMS period as far as geology goes. Bob and his state (governemtn required surveys) are beyond scope of the epochs. Our coal companies and other mineral industry hires other unversity grads for these extremely ancient geology. I did the article on West Virginia's Geolgy with the help of a retired Army Engineer (retired)Archeolgist's paper present presented at a multinational conference. This was a federal mandated paper. It had nothing to do with human cultures of antiquity, prehistoric.

I also did WIKI article Fauna of West Virginia by request, a geology discipline--animal life, current. Again, the West Virginai Department of Resources biologist helped source it and checked it. These articles are being monitored by the museum I am associated with and scholars of the state. Some have scornned me in not publishing these papers of histories of West Virginia over four decades. So, I am sort of caught between scholastic standards and what you otherwise WIKI presents. You are a WIKI editor, there, may I request you name these titles and subtitles (chapters) as you see fit. I only know the method we were mandated in system and concept when I was in the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command over 3 decades ago. This was based on standard text book copy edit and formal indexing to include university standads of subeject matter. Kindly, I ask you to name these as you see fit, this old fellow is wittless in this case. Again, thankkyou for you consideration and help...

I am thanking you with respect, Conaughy (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Late me be clear, the Valleys and Trails in the Kanawhan (upper Ohio Valley) Potomac and Monongahela tributary systems sees no state border if one is to present a paper of any value on the subject of our CULTURE PROPAGATION. West Virginia prehistoric cultures is a case of peoples influx to this "state" of whom did not recoginize modern political borders. They were concerned with natural logistics limitations of the Valleys and Ridge lines that extend beyond modern designs on a paper called a politcal border map. A topographic map with no "state boerder" helps show these paths and trails of the influx travels in trade from one region to another, having nothing to do with modern man's concept of surveyed borders. Antiquity people were generally regional, true, but known cross a river to another nearby "Old Field" which today is very likely to be a modern state's border line. The scholastics science studies (citations used) take these into consideration. All the classic scientist show this in their papers and public publications in detail beyond a simple article as to why the second thought that has finally occurred to me of another of your possible meanings, having reread your reply several times to better understand you. If this is what you mean, then, what I have to offer WIKI is not WIKI good enough. Therefore, it would follow that these articles and contributions should be considered to be deleated by the WIKI officails as not complying with the policies in quality of standard authorship, political border restraint. You may delete anything that I have contributed as it will not offend me in any way. WIKI has it's procedures and standards that should be honoured. (Sorry, sometimes I use English spellings.) Respecting you in time to understand and perhaps learn from you, as I try to comprehend exactly what you mean. I wish you the best and again thankyou as you chose to do as you may. Conaughy (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I merely made an observation. I don't think I can help further. --Wetman (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The prehistoric archaeology of West Virginia

States have state archaeologists and archaeological societies that work within the state boundaries, so perhaps one could have an article with a title something like the one of this section. But phrases such as "West Virginia Archaic Traditions" make me feel very uneasy.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Change it to suit you. Don't just opininate, edit it. I am asking you to help to better this. Or, lets just remove anything I have contributed, altogether like I did last year. I should have not have consented in helping other WIKI editors. I don't appreciate somebody who talks and does not put some work in editing in an effort to better the WIKI articles. Opinion, everybody has one, an old veteran can tell you exactly what that is-- but that term may not be appropriate for the grand children to read. If you are willing to take time to write an opinion, I ask you to better spend that time in helping standardize the titles. I dont' know what you want in this respect. Change it, it will not bother me-- make it WIKI correct.

I don't know the words you want for the title. And, I truly thankyou for the help, please. re-title it. Thanks Conaughy (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Special thanks to Colibri37 in editing to better the article. It's appreciated Conaughy (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In the first sentence you have "few of demi-cultural exceptions" -- I'm afraid I don't know what them means (it's probably 'demi-cultural' that's confusing me). --Doug Weller (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I should mention that the neighboring states have commercial archeologists who contract and subcontract with new plant and business complexes concerning our law's mandating the surveys. West Virginia's universties partner with the surronding states and some of the larger out of state museum scholars in the field. The multi-state region is getting "smarter" in the business of these diaplines provinding jobs for these young graduates in this region not confined to the "Old Days" concept of a local society only. They are partnering. Ohio and Kentucky has two excelent companies who specialize in assisting the local societies and the the state archiology requirements. That's for our multi-state region progressing forward. Conaughy (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Their appears to be a sub-mound culture in the Northern Pnahandle with as a distinct phase. They recently, last couple decades, found an archaic culture in the same region. The proto-historic Calicuas tribe is questioned if the became extinct because to very early period maps contradict this. There are a few other examples of this, too.

Please rephrase that makes better the meaning or delete the sentence. Either way you should decide will only better that paragraph. And, I thankyou for the assist Conaughy (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"demi" is a term that was once used locally "sub", sub-culture. I think either Prof Dragoo or maybe Snow, I don't remember started that phrase. The term is not well phrase is not often used these days and might well need replaced or deleted. That's what our local COPY Editor's do, making these decision about the text to be published. They are akin to a censor for TV broadcasting, but, more to literature and news papers etc etc. Please do with this as you see fit for I am not a Copy Editor. I did research in the Army etc etc. I'm not able to do much any more... Conaughy (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It so easy to slap a tag on something. It takes no education for that. Harvard degree or not... Conaughy (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)