Talk:Anthropology

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Cultural insensitivity is deadly. So where are the anthropologists?
• A True Culture War, By Op-Ed Contributor RICHARD A. SHWEDER, October 27, 2007
• Anthropologists in ideal position to convey the Ottoman Empire's secrets to the US

Human Terrain Team (HHT)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)