Talk:Cultural anthropology

message: leave the sociology section alone and don't remove the source. Sociology does have a major overlap into Cultural Anthropology and it should be included in this article. Please leave it up to the professionals to make the edits on how both of these fields have major overlaps together.
whoever removed this section probably has no such experience with Sociology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taishan88 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave the Sociology section alone

message: Is there anyone who has specialization in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology?
If there is, someone should create a new article on how similar sociology and cultural anthropology are. Sociology and Anthropology are so similar to each other especially with Cultural Anthropology.
I cannot believe that no one has created an article talking about their similarities and none of the Sociology and cultural Anthropology articles mention their very close relationship together.
If anyone has specialization in both fields or at least know them very well, please someone or people should create an article talking about how they are so similar to each other and how Cultural Anthropology is almost a duplicate study of Sociology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone should create a new article

message: Cultural Anthropology studies human beings and the development and dynamics of their cultures.  Sociology is a statistical study of human social issues (my layman's definition).  And Social Psychology studies individual human thought and behavior in social settings.  
:Welcome to compartmentalized academia.  --Invictus 
::Thanks!  But heck, I knew that much.  I wanted a longer, more in-depth answer!  I'll say so on the cultural anthropology page. --LMS
:::Ah, I wondered if that was your question, but since you had logged on anonymously (for that entry) and that didn't exactly seem like a question you'd ask, I just decided to write a rather brief description.  What the heck, I need to do some academic reading this weekend, I can try to put together a more descriptive article.  
::::
Nope nope and nope... No arguments about Social psychology but Cultural anthropology and sociology are not distinguished by statics/cynamics.  Traditional (and equally wrong) distinctions would have anthropology looking at whatever  non-western and sociology looking at (yup) Western (euroamerican etc.) societies.  
:::::bvcbxxbxcxbvcbxcbxxxc
OK, so what is the difference between cultural anthropology and sociology, or do you think there is no difference?  Do sociologists study non-Western societies?  If not, then one might call sociology a branch of cultural anthropology. --LMS
::::::The differences between cultural anthropology and sociology are many (it's like asking "what's the difference between psychology and psychiatry?  Or what's the difference in surgical and medical approaches to neurological illness?  They are many and rooted in many, many different aspects of these respect disciplines.  They have different histories.  They have different early influences and manuscripts.  They develop in different places.  There is dialogue between them (and among other disciplines) throughout their history.  Anthropology is more prone to certain methods and does more with prehistory and simple societies, but does not exclude urban life; sociology focuses on urban life but its methods are aptly applied to simple societies, hardly any sociologists do prehistory however.  It is not possible to put in one paragraph or one article the differences between them.  If you asked something much more concrete and simple, for example, like "what's the difference between Africa and Asia?" you'd have an easier time with the answer - but the answer would potentially be in volumes and volumes of words.Levalley (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural anthropology/cultural studies

message: Is there anyone who has specialization in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology?
If there is, someone should create a new article on how similar sociology and Cultural anthropology are. Sociology and Anthropology are so similar to each other especially with Cultural Anthropology.
I cannot believe that no one has created an article talking about their similarities and none of the Sociology and Cultural Anthropology articles mention their very close relationship together.
If anyone has specialization in both fields or at least know them very well, please someone or people should create an article talking about how they are so similar to each other and how Cultural Anthropology is almost a duplicate study of Sociology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone should create a new article

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. 
Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing new policy proposal 

message: To a European eye there is a bit too much US focus in this article, including the absence of Montesquieu, Condorcet and Rousseau and of the foundation of the Societe Ethnologique de Paris in 1839 or the Ethnological Society of London in 1843; I may try and sharpen it up in this respect.  Most of all, the title of the article seems a problem (as some of the drafters of text seems to have noticed: socio-cultural anthropology would in fact be a better compromise between the British term and the US one).  Mark O'Sullivan 09:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason "Cultural Anthropology" is US-centric is because "Cultural Anthropology" began as a US movement and is still largely identified with the United States.  The British favor "Social Anthropology."  I think the French favor "Ethnology."  I have no objection to having other articles linked to Anthropology.  But "Cultural Anthropology," for most anthropologists, means something pretty specific. Another approach would be to divide this article into different sections.  "Sociocultural anthropology" is a portmanteau useful, maybe, for a stub -- but doesn't correspond to anything meaningful and a good article will explain the differences between social and cultural anthropology.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the article should be called "social and cultural anthropology", then?  Mark O'Sullivan 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a tough call.  There could be one article called "Social and Cultural Anthropology" that goes into great detail about the history, different national traditions, etc.  Or there could be several different articles.  Solely on practical grounds, I think it is easier to just keep this article with the name it has, and add the stuff you and others think is missing, all the while trying to be clear about time period and different national traditions, I mean using separate subheadings and such, and then at some point we can discuss more effective ways to organize the article, or divide it into several ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US POV 

message: Anyone who has this page on their watchlist, can you go to Virago?  A who is putting forward notions of racial and identifying them with a notion of gender-difference, and I are in a conflict.  Fundamentally, I believe he is a racist' his claims about race contradict everything I have read by physical and cultural anthropologists and as far as I can tell, his claims about gender at best seriously distort the literature.
You can see the difference here 
On the talk page, start here , and then just read the whole debate.
Comments from others needed.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: I think the community template ought to be removed.  Anthropologists, at least, typically use culture to refer to something radically different from community. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that many anthropologists are interested in community.  Some would even say cultural anthropologists have lost interest in "culture" as an unit of analysis altogether.  But whatever the final decision is, someone should probably fix the misspelling of "anthropology" in that template.--Birdmessenger 15:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never suggested that anthropologists are uninterested in community, only that culture is very different from community.  There is a long history of "community studies" but this is only one genre among many others in anthropology.  It would be wrong, for example, to define "ethnography" (the premier genre of cultural anthropological writing) as a study of a community.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I suppose I didn't exactly understand what the community template is supposed to do here.  As I think more about it, it seems as if the template indicates that the cultural anthropology article is equivalent to an anthropological view on community.  If that's the case, then I agree that it should be removed.--Birdmessenger 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me a bit more time. You'll see I hope. CQ 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the template I just placed at the top of the page and the new categories below. I'm attempting to create some contextual linkage through a series of articles and sections to show how the different disciplines are intrinsically relevant in the Context of community. I would also like to pull this article into the sociology camp, as I have with community psychology, if that's OK. What we want to do is link to this article in a section "Community" from Community. I'm trying to make it easier for readers to get all the different perspectives on community and I was told that you have to start with Anthropology. This article seemed the most appropriate. Can we work together? • CQ 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Slrubenstein, the template doesn't belong here.  I've also removed the  navigation box from the article. That is totally out of place, IMO.  Community is important, but it isn't everything. Sunray 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CQ seems to want to use the template like either a (1) regular link or (2) a wikiproject.  Either may be appropriate here but not the template.  I am deleting it and making sure there is a link for "see also" which will suffice for now.  If CQ wants to start a wikiproject on community studies feel free to do so, but that project cannot use this article as a place to advertise with a banner that is overwhelming, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Template removed. Sunray 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community template 

message: On race and intelligence, please  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: There is a great deal of US POV in this article. The European traditions within Social Anthropology ought to be distinct, as per my edit of the lead sentence on March 2, 2007. Subsuming one under the other or calling them Social and Cultural as if they are one heading is not useful. These are very different approaches.
:Please sign your posts.  Cultural anthropology is largely identified with the US, so it makes sense that it relies more on US anthropologists.  As Mike Fischer has pointed out above, there ought to be separate articles on cultural and social anthropology; presumably the article on social anthropology will rely more on British sources than this on. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed them...looks like there isn't much of an inclination to merge. Also, there hasn't been any opposition to this suggestion for the last three days. But of course, feel free to reinstate if necessary. --HappyCamper 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinctive approaches not to be subsumed under Cultural Anthropology

message: 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 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article of concern 

message: I am not sold on the dissertation abstract as a reference for the contention that: "Also growing more popular are ethnographies of professional communities, such as laboratory researchers, Wall Street investors, law firms, or IT computer employees". I don't dispute the assertion, just the reference.
Any other opinions on this?? --Digitalmischief (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: After all uncited material was deleted - leaving only a stub - I did a major overhaul of Incest taboo.  Hoping that it rises to our standards for good anthropology related articles, would people who watch this page mind looking it over, making any obvious improvements or commenting on the talk page?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a request for people who watch this page 

message: Could please any expert have a look at this discussion? --193.170.52.132 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Austrians]] 

message: Wow - it's just so thin and short.  It seems to be about 1/4 the length of a typical biography on a person that is of average notability (like Dawkins).  Is it really that hard to describe this type of anthropology (regional differences notwithstanding)?  One way to approach it might be to focus on several different famous anthropologists (not just a handful) the way most encyclopedias or textbooks do.  The first sentence should be a statement of what anthropology is, and then simply state that "cultural" anthropology is the part that tries to deal with the non-genetic aspects of human nature and life.  The coevolution of genes and culture is in the domain of both biological and cultural anthropology, obviously and should be so stated in both articles.  Geertz brought about the phenomenological "revolution" of the 70's (if one has to pick one influence), and while anthropology is hardly an expanding field, we still exist as professionals and have evolved new subfields and methods all the while.  There should be links to all the famous names - and there should be lots of them.  Marvin Harris's book would be a good first compendium and keep writers busy here for while.  I've been watching wikipedia (as an anthropologist) for a good many years - and on this page, as on many, there are these substantial (but often irresolvable) arguments in 2005-2006, a waning of contributions thereafter (no wonder), and now - nothing.  Wikipedia may not disappear soon - but it appears to be moribund.  Culture as a topic that transcends anthropology, of course, and Wikipedia is weak in many, many areas relating to culture - much better on technology, science, pop music (that's culture of course, but easier to list bands and give bios than to describe or discuss many other aspects of culture).
I will take a look at the incest taboo page and any other pages people think should be linked to this anthropology page.  There needs to be a WikiProject on Culture (which would include both anthropology and the newer field of cultural studies).  
This article would be very much improved by mentioning that understanding culture (one's own or another's) seems to be a primal human interest; it is born of curiousity and in the early 20th century became both a profession and a separate academic discipline with "departments."  The first were in Britain, not America and no, "cultural anthropology" is not primarily an American thing.  Using the term may be "American," (we call lorries "trucks" here - but they are substantially the same item), but the process is very much the same.  What I do, what most anthropologists do, is not all that different from what Radcliffe-Brown and E.E. Evans-Pritchard did.  Malinowski was liminal, though employed in Britain, the fact that he wasn't British often became relevant in his personal and academic life - so anthropology has been "cross-cultural" from the early days of its professionalization.
Imagine if we had an article on baseball, in which we mainly argued whether it was cricket or not - and whether all games involving balls and sticks should be mentioned, and further, whether all games involving either sticks or balls should be mentioned, but never, ever consulted either baseball players or anyone with a rulebook...that would be one odd article, wouldn't it?  Be easier to start with a commonly accepted view of the "beginnings of baseball" and move on, leaving all the rest to other pages and footnotes.Levalley (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article is woefully short.  The main thing I disagree on is cultural versus social anthropology.  I think they are very different, and part of this has to do with the institutional contexts in which anthropology developed in the US (as part of the natural sciences) and UK (as part of the social sciences).  Social anthropologists did come to use a concept of culture, but one that was much more narrow than that used by cultural anthropologists.  The concept of "culture" in Del Hymes' magnificent edited volume, Reinventing Anthropology, is not the same concept of culture geing used by the so-called structural functionalists.  What is false with your analogy is that no one in the UK calls cricket baseball.  But our article on football does or should have a disambiguation link for US football, and I wish the article on cricket had a disambiguation link for Trobriand cricket which perhaps you know, is played white differently than the way the game is played in Port Moresby or wherever. But the problem is more complicated because Trobriand cricket in part developed out of the other cricket.  I do not think we need to spend pages arguing over anything, but I do think that it is just honest to say that 20th century anthropology had different 19th century roots, and developed differently in different countries, and while anthropologists all over the world read one another's books to some degree (I have asked UK anthropologists: they tell me they read Geertz and Schneder and Wagner, which is unsurprising, but there is a great deal of US anthropology they never read e.g. Wolf, Diamond, Abu-Lughod, Ferguson) differences remain.  When Malinowski proposed that his department be called "social" anthropology he explained that he wanted to distinguish himself from the "cultural anthropologist" and UCL because his focus of research was sociological, not cultural.  Radcliffe-Brown brought in a strong emphasis on social structure, but it seems to me that the british early on were explicitly distinguishing themselves from cultural anthropologists, which is why the couple of British anthropologists who have contributed to Wikipedia insisted on social anthropology and cultural anthropology having distinct articles.  It is not that one is a truck and the other a lorrie. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on this article 

message: I'm putting together a little timeline so I don't get confused.  Boas comes first in terms of making fieldwork proposals and actually carrying them out, although Tylor had traveled and made informal investigations that were very useful in his work.  I won't be able to mention every one, but I'll choose important early fieldworkers.Levalley (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technicaly I think Cushing comes first and what about Mooney? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of ethnography and fieldwork 

message: While I understand the recent edit from "three" to "four or five" subfields, I suggest we either leave out the number of subfields (what other science decides to put an actual number on its subfields?  Anthropology contains no particular number of subfields - I don't know any professional anthropologists (and I know many) who would try and count them.  So, I suggest the article say "Cultural anthropology is a main subfield" or something like that.Levalley (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always heard cultural anthropology described as a field of anthropology, not as a subfield.  My understanding is that "the principal fields of anthropology are physical anthropology, anthropological linguistics, archeology, and cultural anthropology, although applied anthropology is also an important field" in the general anthropology article ... here I would say it is fine to say "cultural anthropology has traditionally been considered a major (or even central?) field of anthropology>" When it comes to subfields - human osteology, forensic anthropology, population genetics, historical lingustics, sociolinguistics, medical anthropology, urban anthropology and so on I agree 100% that it is pointless or counterproductive to try to provide a precise number. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd.  Does that make anthropology a superfield then?  It's either a field with subfields, or a superfield with fields.  I've never heard it called a superfield.  And I have about 20 basic textbooks published within the last year all of whom use the same rubric in their introductory chapter, most of them go on to mention that there are arguably more than four subfields and that this is an undergraduate simplification (just like other aspects of textbooks).  You can put it however you like, the AAA doesn't have four subdivisions, it has many more and has had many more for more than 50 years.  So, ultimately we agree - it's a simplication.  But the word "subfield" is frequently used - in introductory articles, such as this one.Levalley (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What can I say?  I always heard anthropology refered to as a "discipline" and was told that some universities only teach cultural anthropology and others teach a "four field approach" meaning cultural, archeology, physical, linguistics.  I also heard that some intro courses are intro to cultural anthropology and other intro courses were "four field" meaning the four I mentioned. That is what I heard. I certainly agree that somewhere the Anthropology article should do justice to the various units of the AAA as manifestations of the kinds of research anthropologists do and the interestes they have. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of subfields in anthropology 

message: because it belongs here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed linguistic material 

message: I removed this section because it was poorly written, unsourced, and does not belong in this article.  To the anonymous user who put it in: please go to WP:Five Pillars and learn more about how to edit an article.  I thinkl you want to make a positive contribution but you are not doing so effectively.  Read the policies and guidelines linked to the Five Pillars, and you will learn how to contribute effecively. Good luck, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  features of language 

message: If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: I have removed this from the article so we can work on it and then put it back in:
:Evolutionary and empirical considerations
:Evolutionary anthropologist Robin Dunbar has argued that social anthropology should adapt recent evolutionary insights and more empirical hypothesis testing. Social anthropology, as well as social sciences more generally, at the time of Franz Boas and Émile Durkheim rightly abandoned the then current evolutionary theories. However, anthropology would gain much by incorporating recent great advances within biology and evolutionary theory and also a greater emphasis on empirical testing of hypotheses."Evolution in anthropology: a comment on Nettle’s ‘Beyond nature versus culture’", Robin Dunbar, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 15, 244-246, 2009
This paragraph is misleading, since Boas was not criticizing Darwinian evolution which is the source of new theories (and Durkheim was not anthropologist.
More importantly, it is misleading to the reader and undue weight to have a section just on one person's reply to an article.  What we need to do is put this in its context.  I suggest that the contributor first provide a paragraph or two account of Nettle's article.  Also, there are other anthropologists involved in this debate like Bloch and Viveiros de Castro.  Let's provide a clear account of this debate.
Otherwise this viollates both wp:WEIGHT and WP:POINT. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nettle's view is not different from Dunbar's. Feel free to add views if there are any missing.Miradre (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Tarde? Never mentioned him. So no need to explain him. Nettle certainly argues that there is some conflict with some current views in social anthropology such as those that reject all innate tendencies.Miradre (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: If you want to add that material, fine. Please do do. However, more important is the argument that anthropology should incorporate more of modern, current evolutionary theories as well as the empirical methods used within evolutionary biology.Miradre (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Durkheim and Boas are only mentioned in couple of paragraphs in 17 pages long paper by Nettle. They are only mentioned in a single sentence by Dunbar. They are not an important focus of either paper.Miradre (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Since we have an identical discussion on the Social Anthropology talk page, please refer to that for my reply.Miradre (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  section moved for improvement 

message: How about we use the fact that we have multiple people studying textbooks in cultural anthropology to improve the article. Its not thyat good - the history section is more like an oversized iverview section - its not even chronological. We could build the article structure on the outline of the textbooks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement?

message: Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article  Poles in mythology.
Rgds
Mahitgar (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles in mythology 

message: The first sentence mentions, but does not define nor link to, “the anthropological constant”. This might cause a typical non-expert, such as me, not to understand the distinction being made. JDAWiseman (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the anthropological constant” 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cultural anthropology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613222929/http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm to http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/theory/cultural_relativism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to work on the methods section of the Cultural Anthropology page. I plan to contribute more depth about methods used and how they are critiqued. I also plan to talk about how these methods transfer into writing about the subjects of an anthropological study. I would note which methods are most popular, and which are most controversial. I am also open to other ideas and would love some criticism from my peers. 
Some sources I have found so far are:
Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology by HR Bernard, CC Gravlee
Assessing Cultural Anthropology by R Borofsky
Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology by A Bernard, J Spencer
individual.utoronto.ca/boyd/anthro4.htm - Research Methods of Cultural Anthropology 
etc...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewootten5280 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods Section 

message: I would also like to work on revising and adding to the methods section, specifically focusing on the subsection about participant observation. I'd like to add more clear and specific descriptions of what each of the listed methods involves, possibly by using examples, and expand a bit on what is meant by self-analysis, and how it might affect the other methods. Would it be possible to add citations for some of the information that is already there? It might also be beneficial to remove the part of the opening sentence of the section which names other disciplines, since the focus of the article is cultural anthropology. Emmacampbell98 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods Section - Participant Observation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural anthropology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202134534/http://movinganthropology.org/ to http://www.movinganthropology.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Using "a subset of the anthropological constant" is meaningless gibberish to most readers.  We need to be linking to something(s) here, but I'm not sure we have an article that addresses this idea. Anthropological constant is definitely a redlink. I'm skeptical that this wording should be retained at all, and suspect it would be better to replace it with something in plainer English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead cleanup 

message: This article needs to cover the distinction of cultural anthropology from ethnology; the latter article makes this distinction (and from social anthropology). That third article distinguishes from cultural anthropology but not really from ethnology. Only the ethnology article is clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinstinction from ethnology 

message: — Assignment last updated by Alyssagarcia.422 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture