Jump to content

Talk:Biological anthropology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 7: Line 7:
{{WikiProject Primates|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Primates|class=start|importance=low}}
}}
}}

== Biological Anthropology ==

I believe that this page should be moved to the title "Biological Anthropology" due to the greater use of the term in the field. The use of "biological" is a more accurate discripter, a it is the study of human biology using an evolutionary framework, with an emphasis on the interaction between biology and culture. I would like to know if anyone is against this. [[User:Digsdirt|Digsdirt]] 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:No objection. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 08:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


== Title capitalization ==
== Title capitalization ==

Revision as of 22:09, 12 October 2021

Template:Vital article

Title capitalization

The "a" in "anthropology" in the title shouldn't be capitalized. Can someone move the article to "Biological anthropology"? Thanks. 24.11.177.133 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for comments

Would people who regularly watch this page please consider commenting here [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's me. I am of several minds about this article. First, it may remain stub-like because bio-anthropology is such a large field. However, like the main article on anthropology, it seems it deserve some fleshing-out, to wit, it should give an account of the major branches of biological anthropology commonly seen in any introductory textbook book (history of the field, taxonomic work, molecular genetics, population genetics, primatology, paleontological methods, the difference between paleontology and archaeology, tool traditions, early hominids, importance of bipedality, increase in brain size, early members of the genus Homo, controversies, Out of Africa vs. Mosaic hypothesis, major accomplishments in the field. The list of important bio-anthropologists is a start, but should be worked on. The subspecialties of each should be mentioned. Probably should put in alphabetical order. Anyway, lots of work needed there - I can think of about ten or twelve people just off the top of my head that aren't there, don't know if they have Wiki articles or not.Levalley (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for comments

On race and intelligence, please [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of stub sections

Merging various orphaned and unreferenced stubs into this article is undertaken for the purpose of completeness and easy review. The material often mentions outdated theories and it is not intended to assert that these are valid - if necessary a "history" article can be split off. It is true that (above) the article "should give an account of the major branches of biological anthropology commonly seen in any introductory textbook book (history of the field, taxonomic work, molecular genetics, population genetics, primatology, paleontolog(y)...)". As a beginning historical material can be assembled and brief notes added. Redheylin (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs attention from knowledgeable editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Geography

Why has an entire section on Racial cartography (by human geographers) been added to an article on biological anthropology? Should this not be deleted?Schrauwers (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, "racial cartography" is not a subfield of biological anthro, and the section in my opinion misleads people into thinking that the biological anthropology is a pseudoscience closely related to phrenology.76.87.113.203 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Ian[reply]

Why is Josef Mengele on here

? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs attention

This whole article is relatively misleading and poorly written. For example, in the introduction, the article claims that biological anthropology plays a role in paleoanthropology; while later on paleoanthropology is claimed to be a subdivision of biological anthropology. What is with that? And no where in this article is the full scope or underlying theme of the field addressed. Biological anthropology is a subfield of anthropology that studies the human organism in the context of its environment; as a product of the same evolutionary processess that are responsible for all life on earth, and is a comparative science when dealing with what is unique about humans and what we have in common with non-human primates and other animals. Biological anthropologists study contemporary human genetics and variation, the hominid fossil record, extinct and extant non-human primates, and cultural ecology. I think an expert in the field should re-write the entire introduction to give the non-expert reader a good idea about what biological anthropology really is. - Ian 76.87.113.203 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you should edit the article. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenology

I can't help feeling that Phrenology should probably be listed here - regardless of what it actually is as a discipline. Measuring the skull and expecting to find accompanying intellectual or cultural traits seems pretty linked to Physical Anthropology to me... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biological 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belief in a European origin of humans is "scientific racism"?

I'm pretty sure that's a big NPOV. Otherwise we should call the "out of Africa" theory scientific racism as well. Hamstergamer (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Forensic anthropology

Does anyone object to adding Forensic anthropology under branches or does anyone propose a better alternative for placement?

Anthropology has it listed under 'Key topics by field: archaeological and biological' so I feel like it should also be mentioned here.Kuiet (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]