Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Modern "headhunters" in war

I was thinking of categorizing this article American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead in the Anthropology group, but then thought perhaps I should ask for some expert opinions first. It is quite fascinating how parts of a normal society indoctrinated with the right dose of racism and wartime propaganda, coupled with a strong hunting tradition, can revert to something resembling ancient headhunters, and then after the war society quickly revert back to "civilized" behavior again. Does it belong tagged in the anthropology category?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you've asked for an opinion, I wish, in response, to note four things, and so make four points-

1. the article referred to may sound 'exotic' (and therefore' anthropological), but it does not sound like something I would normally choose to work on, or read about - even when confronted by some of the more macabre colonial histories of Australia described by the otherwise 'civilised' English gentlefolk who participated!

2. within sociology and social psychology however, (as opposed to anthropology), there have been experiments and studies into the way individuals in groups behave, adopting situational 'scripts' and readily playing out imagined 'roles', carrying out extreme actions, and responsible for unexpected real life behaviour otherwise uncharacteristic of those individuals in other situations .. see especially Stanford prison experiment

3. such studies seeking to come to terms with some of the more extreme or bizarre United States group and other 'western' social behaviours are more usually the province of sociology and psychology, than they are of contemporary anthropology

4. any 'theory', or 'thesis' that people are somehow reverting back to some assumed, more 'primitive' state; and/or that 'headhunting' as a valued role or script that may be deeply embedded within the ethos of war/ being a soldier/warrior etc, still being played out within contemporary warfare ... may be a bit of a stretch to draw from the article reffered to, and would most definitely be coming close to speculation and original research rather than verifiable, encyclopaedic reporting within Wikipedia's standards ?! Bruceanthro (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On a similar topic, the most recent issue of Comparative Studies in Society and History has an article by Simon Harrison which discusses how Victorian British soldiers, motivated in part by Victorian ideas of scientific collection, collected the skulls of war enemies as trophies. He writes: "The collection of enemy skulls can evoke images of primitive ‘headhunting,’ a longstanding icon of savagery in the Western imagination.But I argue that the emergence of such practices among nineteenth-century British soldiers in Africa was connected with developments in Victorian science, in which the collection, measurement, and classification of skulls became central to scientific understandings of human difference". Interesting stuff, which I think, properly discussed, could be included in the article on headhunting. Robotforaday (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: New article on The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

I created this article and found sources for it that show that it's certainly an important subject for Japan and seemingly for Anthropology, but I haven't read the book, don't know much about the subject and I think the article is inadequate. (Nevertheless, I think it's an improvement on what we had before -- an unreferenced section in the article on the author, Ruth Benedict). Perhaps some people involved with this project would have an interest in it and in improving it. (I've left essentially the same note at WikiProject Japan.) Please, if you're interested, have at it. Noroton (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The state of Anthropology on Wikipedia

I've just been going through the articles in the main Anthropology category in order to tag them as part of this wikiproject. It was pretty sobering. There's a huge amount of work to be done to get even the most essential articles up to scratch - or, putting a positive spin on it, there are loads and loads of opportunities for anthropologists looking for things to do here! I started making a list to post here of articles which require serious work, but it effectively included all of the articles in the category except for a small handful. Nevertheless, if I was to pick a couple of things that really need to be sorted, the following will do for starters:

• Should there really be an article for kinship as well as an article for kinship and descent?
• Legal anthropology consists of nothing but a misleading definition.
• Why are Patriarchy and Patriarchy (anthropology) two seperate articles?
• Political anthropology has pretty much nothing in it.

Robotforaday (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm .. from your comments and links above, it truly does seem that anthropolog/ies are not comprehensively or systematically represented within Wikipedia. I also agree that it clearly falls within the objects and province of this project to see that anthropolog/ies are better represented!

Perhaps Robotforaday (talk), given the searches, tagging, and lists you've been preparing .. you might initiate a scheduled series of proposed 'core' anthropology project collaborations .. to start seeing anthropology more systematically, more comprehensively, and better represented within Wikipedia?

I would not be willing nor able to tackle the 'core' of anthroplog/ies myself .. but would be glad to participate and contribute where I can ... perhaps starting with the core article/subject 'kinship'?! (And talking to this last article/subject, I note that within anthropology - 'kinship' is a much, larger and broader subject/concept than the narrower concept of 'descent' (the latter having more strictly biological connotations) .. the two are different concepts and, being different concepts should NOT, in my opinion, be necessarily linked to each other (as in kinship and descent, but, rather, each have its own extended/extensive article??

Soo .. perhaps a series of 'core' anthropology project collaborations to start working on ?? To see the discipline/s (anthropology) better represented???! Bruceanthro (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. In line with your suggestion, here is a list of what I would consider 'core' articles in need of work, although this just reflects my own opinions, feel free to add to it or whatever. (I have deliberately excluded articles about specific anthropologists for now, because I haven't looked through or tagged articles in the "anthropologist" categories yet.)

Fields of anthropology:

• Cultural anthropology Needs expansion and references.
• Social anthropology Needs expansion and references.
• Biological anthropology Currently little more than a stub.

(Comparatively, Archaeology is not in a bad state, and those interested (in conjunction with wikiproject archaeology) could probably work on it to get to GA or FA standard. Linguistic anthropology is of a decent length, although some parts are not too clear.)

Subdisciplines:

• Political anthropology Currently a stub.
• Anthropology of art Currently a stub.
• Legal anthropology Currently a misleading stub.
• Anthropology of religion Needs organising and expanding, as important perspectives are not yet covered.
• Economic anthropology is of a good length, but needs to be turned into a proper overview of the topic rather than just an account of the different schools of thought.

Key concepts:

• Ancestor could do with some anthropological perspective
• Consumption; it is unclear where an anthropological perspective on consumption would even go on wikipedia; the closest relevant article is Consumption (economics)
• Divination is in need of expansion and ethnographic insight.
• Emic and etic is now a start, I think - I expanded it April, 2009.
• Ethnic group is a decent start, and somebody with expertise in that area could make something good of it. Could certainly do with a section placing the concept of ethnicity in historical perspective.
• Ethnography says very little about what it actually is - seems to primarily define ethnography as a genre rather than a method, when in fact it is both.
• Exchange takes you to a disambiguation page, which is fair enough - but exchange is a key concept in anthropology, and I think we need an article providing some kind of overview of exchange relationships among humans.
• Fieldwork is currently a stub, obviously a full article would need to take account of the perspectives of all the sciences who carry out fieldwork, however, it is a particularly important topic for anthropology.
• Gift economy is too much of a selection of examples and doesn't really make it clear why gifts are significant.
• Human migration is a disordered collection of information and bulletpoints which requires some serious work.
• Hunter-gatherer is another decent start, although it would benefit from someone with expertise in the area taking a look, and it certainly include more about relevant archaeological scholarship (perhaps something to flag up at that wikiproject).
• Incest is little more than a miscellany of legal and religious views, and aside from an unreferenced section on endogamy and exogamy, has very little from an anthropological perspective.
• Kinship and Kinship and descent; could be two articles, one for kinship and one for descent, but the current set up needs to be resolved. Expansion needed anyway. More ethnographic examples and some kinship diagrams would be useful.
• Oral tradition needs an anthropological perspective.
• Magic; the most relevant article is probably Magic (paranormal), which is another miscellany and does nothing to help anybody to understand the role of magic in human society. The article title isn't that hot either.
• Market is in desperate need of an anthropological perspective.
• Marriage is very ethnocentric in its current state; however, it is good in parts, and could be worked on to reach GA or FA standards with effort.
• Production has no overview from an anthropological point of view, as far as I can see.
• Property needs an anthropological perspective.
• Race (classification of human beings) is a former featured article which is currently far too long and strikes me as a bit disorganised.
• Ritual only draws on anthropology in the most cursory fashion.
• Religion needs broadening in its perspective.
• Rite of passage consists mainly of a bulletpointed list of 'rites' (some of which do not seem to merit the label).
• Sacrifice needs a broader cross-cultural approach.
• Social inequality is really just a couple of quotations.
• Society is in need of an anthropological perspective and more references.
• Taboo is too much of a miscellany of examples.
• War has a section discussing "anthropology theories", but this section could be much better.
• Witchcraft is very vague in its discussion of non-European witchcraft and could include more on anthropological theories about witchcraft accusations.

(In addition to these key concepts in need of work, it's also worth mentioning that Culture has good article status already, and Mythology is not in a bad state and perhaps, with some attention from someone in this wikiproject, could be fleshed out for GA or FA status.)

Robotforaday (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that review and list!! I've nominated Ethnography AND Kinship and Kinship and descent to be first of a possible series of monthly collaborations to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia .. and, to that end, have posted invite seeking WikiProject Anthropology members' participation in the necessary effort to upgrade core anthropology articles etc Bruceanthro (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think kinship and ethnography are good topics to start on, and I have added my support in particular for the kinship collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology/Collaboration of the month and I hope other people will follow suit with their own ideas. This list is really just a set of my own impressions, so people should feel free to disagree, etc., but I do think the identification and improvement of core topics should be a massive priority for this group. Robotforaday (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who else out there is 'watching' the WikiProject's talk page .. but from recent survey of project members, it seems there are at least three others who've expressed interest in upgrading core anthropology articles/seeing anthropology better represented on Wikipedia!! Seems sufficient potential assistance to get started on that kinship article .. though may need to wait for further comment/ confirmation of support to actually tag as monthly collaboration?! See you on the kinship artcile/talk page!! Bruceanthro (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am a social anthropologist, and so this list may not do justice to the biological anthropology side of things; I would encourage someone with more of a specialism in that direction to take a look and to see what other core articles there may be in need of improvement. Robotforaday (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I don't see why we shouldn't kickstart things by putting the collaboration of the month template on kinship - the only problem would be which article to put it on, kinship or kinship and descent (given that the probable outcome will be two articles, kinship and descent... Robotforaday (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes please put the collaboration of the month template on kinship (and announce on the project page .. It would seem time sufficient has passed for this to occurr!!

I suggest putting it on the kinship article, as this will give WikiProject Anthropology contributors a relatively free run to build up a relatively comprehensive article on this subject .. upon the near completion of which we should be in a better position to show what a free standing "kinship" article will look like, what such an article will (and will not) cover .. possibly launching a proposal to edit, move, rename and transform the current kinship and descent article into a freestanding article on descent?! What do other's reckon?!

Finally, for those who have expressed interest in assisting with the above .. I have started having a go, as best as I know how, compiling on Talk:Kinship citations and info/annotations upon which I think/hope a desired, more complete, more comprehensive core concept article on "kinship" might be built?! It is interesting to note, to date, that many/most of the earliest anthropologists who did most to develop, promote and apply the concept .. each have Wikipedia articles/links!! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've stuck the COTM tag on Kinship, for what it's worth. Robotforaday (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To whoever did this comprehensive list: THANK YOU.--Levalley (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Biocultural Evolution

There is a page for Biocultural anthropology but none for Biocultural Evolution. I'm wondering if one should be created or if the Biocultural anthropology article should be broadened to include things like a discussion of theory and whatnot. Especially the whatnot. Personally I think that it could use its own page but the Biocultural anthropology page needs some work as well.--Woland37 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Biocultural evolution should have its own article. Robotforaday (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I started a very very basic article and added it to new project articles. Woland37 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am not a physical nor biological anthropologist, I do have a recent, particular interest in matter's 'biocultural' - more particularly biocultural diversity and biocultural landscapes ... so, to this end, I've taken the time and opportunity to start expanding the newly created Biocultural evolution article, by first identifying references upon which I may wish to rely. I note, at some point, it may be useful to disambiguate 'biocultural' in the sense of human evolution, and 'biocultural' in the sence of the interrelationship/ and/or coincidence (?) of biological and cultural diversity?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 16:06, 28 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 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting

Hello. I have proposed renaming Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting as Category:Societies that have practiced headhunting, on the grounds that "tribe" has specific connotations and a particular meaning within anthropology, and Not all of the societies included in this category can or should be described as "tribal". Anybody who wishes to take part in the discussion about the move can do so here. Thanks. Robotforaday (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's unaware, the cfd discussion has now taken an interesting turn with a couple of users calling to delete the category outright. Don't know what other people here think about that, so I just thought I'd flag it for your attention. Robotforaday (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted here - now four people calling for outright deletion of the category. Robotforaday (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And was deleted. Robotforaday (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Anthropology

There was an existing Template:Anthropology, which I have expanded so that we can add it to anthro articles. Please improve the template or comment on possible issues. Two potential issues that I see despite authoring the changes: 1) It's somewhat a US-centric document with the four-field material and 2) the inclusion of "subfields" might become unwieldy if every single area of interest were to be listed. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem right now is that pretty much every article linked to from that template is in a woeful state (see above). I really think we have to spend the time working to get the articles up to scratch before we even think of sticking navigation templates on things. Robotforaday (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a point I considered. On the other hand, it's possible that the linkage of all these key articles under one umbrella may encourage editors to take that step of improvement. The editing and improvement of anthro articles on Wikipedia appears to happen very slowly and only sporadically, when otherwise busy people get a sudden urge to improve an article (I say this with more than three years of watching anthropology articles here). Adding an easily accessible list of anthro articles might help to encourage anthropologically-minded visitors to various pages to do some of this cleanup as they encounter articles in terrible shape. (I also noticed that the issue of overall article quality hasn't seemed to stop the journalism people from linking up their articles--not that that's necessarily a good argument for us doing it.)

It may be that it's common practice to wait until articles are at an acceptable level of quality before adding a nav template--I have no idea as I hardly ever participate in the backstage processes of Wikipedia. But given the looseness of collaboration that has been the norm in anthro editing in the past, adding it now may be a good option here.

Either way though, you're right of course, that the biggest priority is improving those articles.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance, yet, to properly look at the template (hope to do so later tonight) .. but also wish to bring attention to the recent creation of Portal:Anthropology .. which it might be useful to look at together with Template:Anthropology??

Otherwise .. having been one of those few most recently involved (along with RobotforaDay) in most recent "sporatic"(?) effort to see core anthropological articles upgraded (see above discussion, plus re-invigorated monthly collaboration?) .. I'm very glad of ANY interest and ANY approach which will see some of the key/core anthropoloigcal findings/insights/concepts better represented on Wikipedia! Bruceanthro (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope my earlier post didn't sound disparaging of your efforts in that regard because I think this collaboration is great and hugely necessary. (I also confess to being one of those busy people who has only substantially edited anthro articles in rare moments.)

As for portals, these are supposed to be something like the public face of the WikiProject and "should promote content and encourage contribution." They can be used to highlight good anthro articles and promote to do lists and other cleanup tasks, which I think could be productive. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I didn't think you were being disparaging at all, or anything like that, and I hope in turn you didn't think I was shooting down your development of the template, which I think is a sound idea in essence. It's just that I personally fear that pointing people to articles in their current state could be frustrating - but this is an issue to be revisited soon (I hope) when a handful of these core articles have been developed. Robotforaday (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Humanevolution-erectus-sapiens-cro.JPG I dont know how to put this image in the article, thanks 201.35.226.38 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Archaeoastronomy

The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now at NOR/N

The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Funerary art

This badly needs more anthropological content. Help, or just suggestions for links to articles with useful material, would be very welcome, ideally at the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...

vandalism? --79.10.48.70 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Culture and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arpad Vass

A new biography has been started for Arpad Vass and nominated for did you know. If there is more information about him or Forensic entomological decomposition please be bold and expand it. There are more anthropolgist articles which have been requested for more than one year (since c2006) Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forensic entomological decomposition

There has been a class project which has developed the article Forensic entomological decomposition SriMesh | talk 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pratkanis

The article about social psychology professor Anthony Pratkanis has been started, please be bold and add more information to it, or categories. It was started as a request more than one year old c2006) listed on requested anthpology biographies. Please advise if this psychology professor should be within WP anthropology as suggested on the requests page. SriMesh | talk 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dual inheritance theory

Would anyone in the Anthropology WikiProject be interested in rating the dual inheritance theory article on the importance scale and re-rating it on the quality scale? EPM (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparative mythology needs quality rating

I recently made large-scale changes to Comparative mythology. I'd say the content is more than 50% different from what it was beforehand. The article has been tagged as part of Wikiproject Anthropology, but it doesn't yet have a quality rating from Wikiproject Anthropology. This would be an ideal time for it to receive one. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannibalism

This article must be just about the worst on WP. Unstructured, incoherent, unsourced history next to undemarcated mythology and rumour, political and psychological interpretations jumbled together. An abosulte disgrace - but how does one begin to unpick it? --Smerus (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice copied from Talk:Cultural anthropology

The articles Cultural anthropology, Ethnology and Social anthropology are wildly, almost unbelievably, redundant. I propose that they be merged and redirected to one (more fully sourced, articulate and complete) article, with short sections explaining the doctrinal, pedagogical and methodological differences between (American-led) cultural and (British-led) social anthropology, and how they relate to the overall view of ethnology from its origins to today, and integrating all the material. I don't care what article the final result lives at. The present state of the articles is very confusing to the reader, and gives the impression that all three of these are separate fields, when they absolutely are not, they are simply three different lenses from which to view precisely the same endeavo[u]r. I'm labeling this merge proposal "tentative" because I have not slapped up any merge tags; I think some discussion is in order as to what the merge target should be. Keeping these articles separate (other than as short articles limited to discussion of how the particular branch/variant differs from others, the way the Philology article relates to the Linguistics article) is silly and unhelpful to the reader. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not reply here, but centralize the discussion, at Talk:Cultural anthropology#Tentative merge proposal.

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 442 articles are assigned to this project, of which 188, or 42.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Anthropology

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

proposed merger of Lycanthrope and werewolf

Crossing genres a bit but posting this here anyway,

I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in the discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A Separate Reality and other Carlos Castaneda works

I'm working through all these articles for wikiproject alternative medicine, and just wondered if you wanted to keep the wikiproject anthropology banner on them, because as far as I know his works may have a spiritual reality to believers, but they're not anthropology, they're works of imagination or spirituality. Sticky Parkin 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comments and votes

Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-exclusive ethnic group Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Community archaeology

This page is in serious need of attention. I've gutted much of it (though not enough). It looks like it was originally part of a badly written proposal for a project that was simply copy/pasted there. I'll try to put some more work in later but finals are approaching.--Woland (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)