From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated Stub-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Earlier criticisms[edit]

I find it difficult to see that, as you say, the "the profession of anthropology is an enclyclopedic topic". I can't imagine anything else than a list of anthropologists here, there rest should be contained in the anthropology article. Can you clarify? jheijmans, Thursday, July 18, 2002

What is there to clarify? An article on the profession itself would be interesting -- that would be where one would discuss the people behind the science who helped shape it into what it is. This leaves the main article free to discuss the science itslef. I'm not a big fan of the profession articles, but others are and I respect that (although I do often break off lists into "List of X" when those lists get too long). There are already a couple dozen (at least) of these articles and there is no reason to start removing them as separate articles. --maveric149

Well, I imagined this article to become a useless stub, though you have some point that it COULD be an article at some point. However, then weightlifter, atheist and Utahn could be articles as well, which I would not really support. But I'll leave it in the hope somebody will make a great article out of it. jheijmans

I just redirected this article to anthropology (instead of list of anthropologists). People who follow a link to "anthropologist" are much more likely to want to know what anthropology is than to be interested in wading through a list of names. GrahamN 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

very confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Current look[edit]

It has been over 5 years since the last look. I confirm that the situation still seems to me to be as originally depicted. Nothing has been done here despite the years-old call for a rewrite.

I'm not sure there should be a distinct article on this topic. The article spends a lot of its space defining anthropology, not anthropologist. I would say with the original critic it still is not encyclopedic. However I do see that some information about the profession of anthropologist is possible. I think I may throw my hat in the ring briefly. If I can't do anything then I will just abandon it like everyone else.Botteville (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)