Talk:Band society

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Proposed Merge with Hunter-Gatherer

DISAGREE. I strongly disagree with this proposed merge, on the grounds that 1. Not all hunter-gatherers operate as bands (see Northwest Coast of the United States), and 2. "Band" is a category proposed in mid-20th century anthropological theory, which has a series of characteristics, only ONE of which is hunting/gathering/foraging/collecting. For these reasons the entries should remain separate. TriNotch 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE. I also disagree with the proposed merger, however, there should be some clear connection between this page and the hunter-gatherer page. The concepts "hunter-gatherer society" and "band society" are not perfectly interchangeable, but there is significant overlap, both theoretically and historically.

DISAGREE. Band is synomymous with tribe here in Canada; the merger would be racist.--John Bessa (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split and disambiguate?

I believe this page concerns two very different topics which are only related by virtue of omonimy. Shouldn't it be "splitted" into two separate pages, with the addition of a disambiguation page? Rafu 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 24.11.177.133 09:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely.

Band relevance today

The page should provide working knowlege that can be directly applied to the types of decisions that are being made wrt bands, which exist in places other than subjective conclusions in the ivory tower. There may be historical basis for band phenomena in present day bands, so this can make up the basis for the first few lines in the article.--John Bessa (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]