Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology

message: Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for input on Witchcraft talk page 

message: There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft: Requested move 

message: Hello,Please note that Man, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afro-textured hair#Requested move 16 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Afro-textured hair#Requested move 16 September 2023]] 

message: Hello,Please note that The arts, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: These two articles appear to be discussing the same topic, but input from editors with any level of expertise would be appreciated (because that is certainly not me). — HTGS (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-material culture]] and [[Symbolic culture]] 

message: I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Digital media use and mental health 

message: A peer review is being requested for this article after a substantial rewrite. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for [[Cultural diversity]] 

message: The page Origin of man redirects to Anthropogeny, whereas Origins of man redirects to Human evolution. I have no opinion which redirect target is the better one, but it appears to me that either the Origin page should be a disambiguation page to which the Origins page redirects, or both should redirect to the same target.  --Lambiam 11:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Set them both to target Human evolution and nominate (or PROD) Anthropogeny for deletion. That article is an absolute mess that appears, at best, to be attempting a WP:DICDEF. — HTGS (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthropogeny turned out to be the target of 23 redirect pages. I've made all, including Anthropogeny, redirect to Human evolution.  --Lambiam 12:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin(s) of man 

message: Hi all, I'm considering splitting History of tattooing into a separate article on indigenous and traditional tattooing practices. Given the size of the article, it doesn't feel very readable and I think having a separate page would allow people to expand on the contemporary practices of these traditions. I'm alerting some of the WikiProjects attached to the article; please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this idea :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional tattooing 

message: Hi, I am an inexperienced editor and have dabbled around in the talk pages of various articles rather than editing them directly for the past few years (without an account until now). 
I have a very unique question which I haven't received a good answer to until now. (I have actually asked a postgrad anthropologist, and while I didn't really get the answer I wanted from her I didn't get the sense that she was completely the wrong person to seek advice from either.)
I have thousands of pages of memos and emails, as well as leaflets, sermon audio, and "recruitment videos" from a "new religious movement" (article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Assemblies_International), and I think it would above all be in the public interest to bring these into the public domain. As a side-effect, I would hope that this might remove hurdles for respected specialists such as anthropologists  to have access to this information. Ideally, Wikipedia might be able to cite any resulting commentary, just as it has cited an important journalistic investigation on the group. 
So that is where anthropology enthusiasts of Wikipedia come in. What is the best way for me to archive this material such that it is brought into the public domain and searchable through google or academic databases? Is there any pathway for me to take the material to a reputable organisation which can verify its authenticity and remove barriers for specialists to access it? Is there any way for me to archive it in such a way that it will be possible to cite it or any resulting commentary on Wikipedia?
Also, am I think it is simply beyond me to judge the importance of the documents, whether I am overestimating myself etc, so it would be nice to get some feedback in this regard. Are my concerns legitimate and worthwhile, or am on a fool's errand, like Don Quixote charging at windmills. Therefore please see the following Google Drive link to get a feel for some of the more interesting documents etc.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1On5nu70ix6S0loLODmmQjusYsyESlP7x?usp=drive_link
NB, I am hoping to shorten this question and ask on WP:Teahouse as well in order to get different input from outwith Anthropology, since I think en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Assemblies_International is at least as much of interest to the public and whichever genres the Roys Report/Ministrywatch  come under as to Anthropology. OverthinkingNovice (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to warn you, I suppose that the way I frame the memos etc in the "Letters Memos Statements Communications" document might be overly emotional. I wrote it a few years ago but would probably write it different now, and it wouldn't be an issue for me to change the presentation to make it less emotional. OverthinkingNovice (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

text: You posted a very similar question in "How to archive and bring into the public domain materials which might be of public interest" within the "teahouse", and I responded to it there. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips on how to archive documents of interest to Anthropology (among other areas) 

message: Would like editors' thoughts on this claim:
* "Humans have lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states, realms, or empires."
:
Discussion here:
*Talk:Anarchism#Claim:_"Humans_have_lived_in_societies_without_formal_hierarchies_long_before_the_establishment_of_states,_realms,_or_empires."
--David Tornheim (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy 

message: I have started a discussion at  that might be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion concerns whether these two articles should be merged (although it is not—yet—a formal merger discussion as such), or if not, how to clean up the articles, which are problematic in a number of ways. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Linguistic anthropology]] vs [[Anthropological linguistics]]

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024]] 

message: Please see: Talk:Julian Jaynes#It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE.
Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related displines decreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago.  Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, the subject has been WP:CFORKed (arguably WP:POVFORKed) into  further articles (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and bicameral mentality). The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article (but with barely any hint of controversy or challenge, and strong suggestions of influence), while the book article is mostly just repetition of what is said at the hypothesis article (but without much of the critical material from the latter).
It is thus proposed to merge these into a single article on the hypothesis, the book it came from, and who wrote it, with all the critical material present, and expanded by more recent work on consciousness and cognitition. Even if they were not merged, they have to stop viewpoint-forking (and coatracking of the hypothesis across all three articles).
Anyway, please follow up at the Talk:Julian_Jaynes discussion thread, so this stays centralized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Jaynes and his "bicameral mind" hypothesis that consciousness arose only about 4,000 years ago – 3-way POVFORK 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Evolution is an inactive WikiProject within the broader scope of this one, are there any objections to me merging it here? – Joe (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge WikiProject Cultural Evolution here