Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

Latest comment: 3 days ago by Doug Weller in topic Pseudoarchaeology
MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase

Saltovo-Mayaki

edit

u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltovo-Mayaki

A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]

The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.

Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.

Katherine Routledge in the french version

edit

Hello !

This year, i did a massive work to expand the article of Katherine Routledge, leading to a better version of the actual understanding about her work. But, i did it in french, in the french version. The biography of Katherine reveal a societal Matilda effect about her work and her impact on the easter island archaeology.

I kindly suggest you to expand the english version with it :) Nanoyo88 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nanoyo88: Wow, fantastic job there, it's certainly a huge improvement over what we have now on enwiki. I imagine it would take quite some time to translate and it's beyond my very poor French abilities to do so, but I've added {{expand French}} to the article and cross-posted this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green. Hopefully that will tempt someone. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks ! I often expand article with the english version, then doing more research to expand it again. I did it for many subjects about africa. Not much about archaeology, but there's plenty of works to do there too. Nanoyo88 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024

edit
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Human history and Wikipedia history writing has major problems

edit

I believe that human history has become a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history. The article itself (at least the recorded history part) is mostly just a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion by individual editors. The view of professional historians is being toned down, ignored or selectively presented to fit individual opinions. Several users also appear to be engaging in some sort of campaign against the validity of the entire sub-discipline of world history. The impression I'm getting is of openly disparaging and hostile view of academic historians to an extent that in other fields of research would be considered fringe. Peter Isotalo 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please name these users or withdraw this claim. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I thought it was only an issue of specific individuals, I would have named them. The problem is systemic at human history since it seems it's become the standard approach to the article by pretty much everyone involved.
If you disagree, feel free to point it out at talk:human history. Peter Isotalo 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From your posts to User:Joe Roe you seem to consider him one of them. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
"If I thought it was only an issue of specific individuals, I would have named them."
This is not an appropriate discussion for this forum, Doug. Consider removing your replies and responding elsewhere. Peter Isotalo 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You need to be specific on what you see as problems. And do not be dismissive of Doug's comments, he is one of our most experienced editors. Unless you can point to specific examples of what you see as problem editing, your criticism will not result in any action. Donald Albury 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
An alternative would be for you to make or propose edits that you think will improve an article. See the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can be bold and make changes to an article that conform with our policies and guidelines, although other editors might disagree with those changes and revert them. For major changes, I would recommend starting discussions on the article's talk page to see if you can gain consensus for such changes. The best way to help mold Wikipedia is to bring strong reliable sources and cogent arguments in support of changes you want to make, and to convince other editors of the value of those changes. Donald Albury 17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was assuming this would be seen as a call to action over at talk:human history. Why are you replying to this here? Peter Isotalo 18:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Peter Isotalo You weren’t specific. Again I don’t even know which discussion there you are referring to. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then I'm sorry for being vauge about that. I thought it would be obvious to anyone reading the text it was a call to action to check out talk:human history. That's what I always do when someone refers to issues with an article on a WikiProject page. Peter Isotalo 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update on the women in archaeology task force

edit

Hello everybody. Remember WP:ARCHAEO's women in archaeology task force, created in 2016? To my shame I've not been very good at keeping the project pages updated or highlighting progress, but nevertheless slow and steady progress has been made! Over the last eight years, task force participants have:

This means that we are very close to completing two major milestones:

  1. 76.4% of the red links on the WikiProject Women in Red Archaeology Redlist have been turned blue – only 25 remain
  2. 86.1% of articles in the project's scope have been raised above stub class – only 157 remain

This has me thinking that with a concerted effort we stand a very good chance of clearing the remaining red links and stub articles by the end of the year. If anybody is interested in helping out? Pinging task force participants: @Ninafundisha, MauraWen, Zakhx150, SusunW, PatHadley, Richard Nevell, Lajmmoore, Mehmuffin, Archeofemme, Matildas2021, Ozrock21, Schmindia, Eritha, Clmorgan, and Ittybittykittycommittee: – Joe (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is so awesome, thanks for pulling this together @Joe Roe: - I added 10 more biographies I've started so we're at 174 now (I totally forgot about adding them here, my bad). If others thought it useful, I could propose to the wider group of Women in Red that we do archaeology as a theme later in the year? Or we might want to plug away ourselves? I am happy either way! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a great idea. We did it 2016 and it worked well, and I'd say enough time as passed that we might be able to get on the rotation again! – Joe (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's good to see the progress, and helpful reminder as I've just spotted that I haven't contributed to this area since the start of last year! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, nice reminder for a push. Calling dibs on Betty Baume Clark unless anyone wants to tell me they've drafted it? Zakhx150 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Crack on @Zakhx150 - I dropped a note about editing with Women in Red's wider community here Lajmmoore (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did the thing, huzzah: Betty Baume Clark. Will try for another.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to confirm that Women in Red has supporting this effort on their October event listing Lajmmoore (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prehistoric Armenia - lead could back an editor's claim that Göbekli Tepe is Armenian

edit

Having encountered an editor who thinks that Göbekli Tepe is an example of Armenian architecture, I found this. The lead states that

"Prehistoric Armenia refers to the history of the region that would eventually be known as Armenia, covering the period of the earliest known human presence in the Armenian Highlands from the Lower Paleolithic more than 1 million years ago until the Iron Age and the emergence of Urartu in the 9th century BC, the end of which in the 6th century BC marks the beginning of Ancient Armenia."

Taken literally that does suggest that Göbekli Tepe is Armenian, which is silly. Another issue is he idea hat there were humans a million years ago. We developed not more than 300,000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This may be a problem: "On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara"

edit

See [1] Also [On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara]. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit puzzled by that disclaimer from the PLOS ONE editorial board. In the "interests of transparency" they've published a paper they still have questions about. Donald Albury 14:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Donald Albury Good catch, missed that. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
And I don't see it (the disclaimer), now. Donald Albury 15:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hyperbole, typos ("wholistic"?) and a lot of basic civil engineering boo-boos infest this so-called "paper". It reads like a History Channel script. I could shoot a thousand holes in their dam theory alone. Never mind that there is no distribution system for the supposed water treatment system, nor any reason to have a settling pond to float big rocks with "pure" water instead of dirty, and you can ignore the fact that their timescales and labor estimates do not agree with any other source. One known fact I recall from my limited knowledge of Egyptology. In this section of the river at this time period, this bank was "taboo" for the type of habitation such a facility would benefit. 98.97.57.29 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help for GA Review: Machu Picchu

edit

Hello! I’ve nominated the Machu Picchu article for Good Article status, and it’s currently awaiting a review. I would greatly appreciate feedback and support from the community to help improve the article and move it towards Featured Article status. Thank you! --JustEMV (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Open CCI investigation

edit

Hi folks, in July a contributor copyright investigation was opened; the articles effected largely related to archaeological sites in Israel. The list of 99 potentially effected articles can be found at the investigation page: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20240707.

User:GreenLipstickLesbian has done some excellent work dealing with what looks to be about half the list. I am gradually working through. Part of the challenge is that some of the sources are in Hebrew rather than English; Google Translate is hit and miss with Hebrew to English but shows that some content has been lifted directly from the sources or some minor changes made.

If anyone has the inclination your help would be very much appreciated, but at the very least I wanted the WikiProject to know that there is some copyright clean-up going on in our area of work. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Submerged bridge constructed at least 5600 years ago indicates early human arrival in Mallorca, Spain

edit

See [2]/ Doug Weller talk 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy

edit

Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Archaeology at Women in Red

edit

hello all, just a note to build on the above discussion for Wikiproject Archaeology's Women's Taskforce, is that supporting the initiative in on the event list for next month at Women in Red. Hopefully we can support this project to de-stub and create some new article to reach your goals, and you are of course extremely welcome to join us! Lajmmoore (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

La Otra Banda – 4,000-year-old site in Peru

edit

Announcing new article La Otra Banda, about a 4,000-y.o. temple discovered in northwestern Peru. Your contributions to this article would be welcome, as would in-links from other, related articles. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pseudoarchaeology

edit

Any comments on the removal of alternative names here? [3] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply