Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthropology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Anthropology page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| WikiProject Anthropology | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG)
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
Dragon Man (archaic human) potential for second move discussion[edit]
Hello! The recent discussion on whether Dragon Man (archaic human) should be moved to its scientific name Homo longi, rather than staying under the informal nickname 'Dragon Man' was deemed to have reached no consensus, which I found unsatisfactory given that no consensus has the same effect as just keeping the article where it is. I'm interested in re-opening the move discussion, though trying to keep it more focused on actual article title policy rather than arguments based in taxonomy, which hold scientific weight but are not codified in Wikipedia policy.
Though the previous discussion was closed a very short time ago, I believe keeping the article under an informal nickname and waiting for several months (or years) to discuss the matter again is damaging. I also believe it is relevant to discuss the matter again but staying focused on article title policy, which was overshadowed by taxonomical principles in the previous discussion. I've brought this up here here, so I'm testing the waters to see if there might be interest for a second discussion (whether you agree it should be moved or kept). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Speech sounds[edit]
The following is based on Internet data and my own pronunciation exercises
ORIGIN OF SPEECH SOUNDS..
An accent arises when a foreign language is spoken with the sounds of the first language.
At some point on the path from monkey to human, the addition of a new gene made it possible to create an activation surface on the pharyngeal wall that is suitable for making voiced sounds. Every sound has its own place there, together they form the pronunciation nest of a certain language. It was now possible to bring an idea into the sound combination that the entire herd of people understood in the same way. The voiceless consonants clarified the words and made it possible to increase their number.
Genetics should look for a sound gene rather than a language gene to determine the approximate time to the onset of human speech.
When monkeys get a suitable surface on the pharyngeal wall to form voiced sounds they begin to speak to an extent commensurate with their mental abilities.
Leonhard Klaar
Australopithecine[edit]
Needs checking, esp. dates. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States[edit]
A redirect proposal that may interest members of this project is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. ––FormalDude 
talk 11:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples[edit]
Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.
List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.
There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.
Elizabeth Weiss[edit]
I recently created a draft for anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss. There is currently controversy regarding her views about the return of Native American remains and the way her own institution treated her. I would appreciate some help from this project as it is a sensitive topic. This article about the situation was published in Inside Higher Ed a few days ago:[1] Thriley (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- From my perspective, Dr. Weiss might meet WP's general notability guidelines or guidelines for biographies, but only via the controversy surrounding her WP:FRINGE position regarding the treatment of human remains and that the ensuing fallout of that position has received attention. In my estimation she doesn't qualify as a notable academic. Are we sure her notability isn't merely flash-in-the-pan, because then she would seem to fail notability, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and WP:ONEEVENT)? I don't think her fringe position qualifies as notable either, because outside of niche sources, like academic anthropological news or coverage in academically-tied outlets like Inside Higher Ed in connection to her controversy, the position she espouses regarding NAGPRA and the treatment of human remains isn't discussed. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- She easily meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I am apparently a bit dense. Accepting the premise that she is a "creative professional" rather than an academic, of the four criteria for WP:AUTHOR:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- which do you think she easily qualifies under?
- --Pinchme123 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- From what I have seen, professors who have published several books pass notability. Weiss has published more than a few. I imagine there are journal reviews out there for all or most of them. I haven’t done a deep dive in looking for sources as I don’t feel much enthused about her. Thriley (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I am apparently a bit dense. Accepting the premise that she is a "creative professional" rather than an academic, of the four criteria for WP:AUTHOR:
- She easily meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Behavioral modernity is currently tagged for "fringe theories"[edit]
Behavioral modernity is currently tagged for "fringe theories".
IMHO that's not appropriate, and the tag should be removed.
Alternatively, the problem should be resolved and the tag removed.
- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:4BD:BCD6:9F24:E558 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
AfD: Animals in LGBT culture[edit]
---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article[edit]
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN[edit]
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)