Talk:Anthropologist

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atjaffery. Peer reviewers: Jackson Francis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 4 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maryliz19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaiyce, Wiki12346, Albertkx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Earlier criticisms

I find it difficult to see that, as you say, the "the profession of anthropology is an enclyclopedic topic". I can't imagine anything else than a list of anthropologists here, there rest should be contained in the anthropology article. Can you clarify? jheijmans 20:10, 18 July 2002 (UTC)

What is there to clarify? An article on the profession itself would be interesting -- that would be where one would discuss the people behind the science who helped shape it into what it is. This leaves the main article free to discuss the science itslef. I'm not a big fan of the profession articles, but others are and I respect that (although I do often break off lists into "List of X" when those lists get too long). There are already a couple dozen (at least) of these articles and there is no reason to start removing them as separate articles. --maveric149 — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 18 July 2002 (UTC)

Well, I imagined this article to become a useless stub, though you have some point that it COULD be an article at some point. However, then weightlifter, atheist and Utahn could be articles as well, which I would not really support. But I'll leave it in the hope somebody will make a great article out of it. jheijmans — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 18 July 2002 (UTC)

I just redirected this article to anthropology (instead of list of anthropologists). People who follow a link to "anthropologist" are much more likely to want to know what anthropology is than to be interested in wading through a list of names. GrahamN 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

very confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.254.26 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Current look

It has been over 5 years since the last look. I confirm that the situation still seems to me to be as originally depicted. Nothing has been done here despite the years-old call for a rewrite.

I'm not sure there should be a distinct article on this topic. The article spends a lot of its space defining anthropology, not anthropologist. I would say with the original critic it still is not encyclopedic. However I do see that some information about the profession of anthropologist is possible. I think I may throw my hat in the ring briefly. If I can't do anything then I will just abandon it like everyone else. Botteville (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this comment> i think the article should also be using reliable sources which appear to be far and few between also im wondering if there should be some sources for the educational component? Happydaise (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-ed assignment

This article has been assigned to me as part of a Wiki-ed project.

I would like to include a little more about the history of the profession. I know there is an extensive history of anthropology page, but this would strictly be the profession. I would also like to include information about how technology has impacted and changed the profession as well as what the future holds in relation for technology.

Here are some sources:

Axel, Brian Keith. "Anthropology and the New Technologies of Communication — Cultural Anthropology." Cultural Anthropology. American Anthropological Association, 10 Dec. 2012. Web. Libin, A., and E. Libin. "Cyber-anthropology: A New Study on Human and Technological Co-evolution." Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. Pfaffenberger, Bryan. "Social Anthropology of Technology." Social Anthropology of Technology | Annual Review of Anthropology. N.p., Oct. 1992. Web. University of Toronto. :: Intro to Anthro ::. N.p., n.d. Web. Weise, Elizabeth. Anthropologists Adapt Technology to World's Cultures. N.p., 26 May 1999. Web.

Wiki Assignment

For an assignment I need to add information to this article. I was thinking of adding some information on cultural anthropology, and what a cultural anthropologist does. I think this will add to defining more of anthropologist, rather than just anthropology. Here are a few sources I would use:

Maryliz19 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssagarcia.422 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Andrewanthony15, Adiel03614.

— Assignment last updated by Brenalexis11 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Anthropology Peer Review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? In this article, there is a brief description of anthropologists, but doesn't dive deeper into each branch of anthropology. I see a section for cultural, but not biological, linguistics, archaeology, medical, and applied.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article seems to remain in a neutral position. The article describes the career path of anthropologists. I see an anthropologist as someone who studies all things to do with humanity .

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The underrepresented would be the description of career paths for anthropologists and the specific fields. The links do work and go to the correct page.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations do work and go to the correct pages.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? There are many sources ranging from books, scholarly articles, statistics, etc.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? I think this is a great start and I would add more descriptions about the field of anthropology. Andrewanthony15 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

A random image of someone not doing anthropology, who happens to be an anthropologist.

Currently this image is the lead image of this article. In my opinion, this image is useless. This is just a random person that happens to be an anthropologist. Sure, it illustrates that person well. But it's pointless to put it on an article about the occupation. This implies there is a specific way anthropologists look, which isn't the case. Anyone can be an anthropologist. It would be better to have an image of them currently doing whatever anthropologists do. Alternatively, you could have an image of a work made by an anthropologist documenting anthropology, like a book. I don't like putting an image just of someone's face on occupation articles, who just happens to have that occupation. It's fine if they're currently in the process of doing whatever people with that occupation does when the image was taken. However, that's not the case with this image. For this reason, I have removed the image from the article. - Sebbog13 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call him a "random person", but it is true that it adds nothing to the article. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just rambling. I am irritated at articles about occupations including photographs of people that have that occupation, but aren't currently in the process of doing whatever people with that occupation does. - Sebbog13 (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Conversely, I argue Levi-Strauss is in fact "doing anthropology" in this image, as it comes from his engagement in a professional capacity with UNESCO, as an anthropologist. I will be reinstating it, as its longstanding use in the article demonstrates its WP:CONSENSUS (see especially WP:EDITCON). If others think it should be removed, it would be great to see a discussion of its removal here. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion following a reversion because I feel similarly to the original poster, Sebbog13. I believe the image should be representative, like other occupational and scientific lead images, of field work or other serious study. While I might agree broadly with Pinchme123 that Levi-Strauss is "doing anthropology" in some sense, that "doing" is not clear to an uninitiated reader. The stated guidance on this is that the goal of a lead image is to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Does your average reader understand who Lévi-Strauss is? If not, is the image what we should want? For all his hard work, Lévi-Strauss is no Tom Brady or Lionel Messi. It is true that not all anthropological fields can be represented in the lead, but I recommend File:Alex-Maten-Gaua-2003.jpg showing a researcher engaged in linguistic anthropology since it a.) clearly shows an anthropologist working in one of the major subfields and b.) allows the reader (who in all likelihood vaguely knows what anthropology is) to see what the study's fieldwork looks like. Of course, I am open to other images and other viewpoints. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to discuss. I want to ask though, how does this proposed image visualize anthropology any more than the current one? I see two people sitting next to each other, apparently engaged in conversation, but nothing in the image conveys "anthropologist" to me, including which of the two is the anthropologist. And this is something inherent to the field of anthropology, that pictures of people engaging in it are doing visually-plain things like presenting at UNESCO or talking to each other.

Regarding the current image, while non-anthropologists very likely do not recognize Levi-Strauss, the image does have a caption that identifies him and his profession, and he is a particularly important individual in the field so his appearance here, where he indeed is 'doing anthropology', makes some bit of sense.

My point being, I have a hard time seeing this proposed image as being better than the current one.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, for one, I think it embodies the anthropological spirit. Going to rural or difficult-to-reach localities, listening to and observing the local people, and applying that information to the larger study of human life and organization is principle to the field. The image shows Alexandre François with the last-known speaker of Olrat on a tiny island in Vanuatu. Yes, it is just one aspect of anthropology, but even if we agree to make a collage, we won't capture all of the field.

I have two problems with the current image from the outset. One – admittedly, perhaps a small detail – in the preview window, is that it basically reads as a non-sequitur; he could be a politician, agronomist, or astronomer for all I know, and each would justify in some way the flags behind him. The second is that he is not emblematic of the field in any meaningful way in this image. I know Lévi-Strauss was groundbreaking stuff, but in this image he's just a dude in a suit unless you're familiar with him. Compare, for example, chemistry which had the lead image of beakers (from the sidebar) followed by the first body image of a chemistry laboratory, then the matching chemist page, which has a medical chemist (presumably what we call in the U.S. a pharmacist) in the lead with the second body image (sidebar notwithstanding) being a noteworthy chemist. This all to say, I don't object to the inclusion of the Lévi-Strauss image, but it has to be provided to the base user (who mostly does not read past the lead, if Wikipedia's data is to be believed) in an appropriate context. If you get to the lead of this page with my recommended image, you can tell immediately that the field a.) is social, b.) has a fieldwork component, and c.) is (perhaps hopefully) about peoples rather than people in the sense that it shows clearly different people interacting. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

First, to be clear, we do agree on something very important: there's no requirement for the lead image to show the whole field. What I disagree with is the notion that the image you've presented is somehow a better depiction of anthropology than the one currently used, especially to someone with no knowledge of the field. What is it about your image that denotes a "fieldwork component", which is distinct from, and better than, Levi-Strauss at one of his jobsites? Second, anthropology is often social in the way you're talking about (being done between two or more people), but plenty of it isn't, particularly in biological anthropology (where sometimes the only human is the anthropologist, who is trying to observe their specimens at a distance, or analyze their biological material). And plenty of anthropologists would also say that representation of the field to politicians and major agencies is pretty important as well. And finally, I will WP:AGF and refrain from specific discussion your characterization of the photo you're suggesting as showing clearly different people interacting (emphasis added), and simply point out that anthropology has exactly zero to do with "different people interacting," unless your intention is merely to reiterate your first point (the social aspect), in which case I refer you back to my statement about how plenty of anthropology isn't social. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and agree I could have framed some of my own better, so thanks for the AGF. I suppose what I'm saying about the fieldwork element is that it shows an anthropologist in action rather than a decontextualized headshot, even if that action can be explained away somehow; Chomsky giving a speech is broadly "doing linguistics" but may not be the best image to use. Put another way, for astronomer, would a headshot of Thomas Bopp at a conference (but the conference is unexplained/blurred out/etc.) or a group of lab coat–clad people with one looking through a telescope? When I go to add images to leads specifically, I try to think of the average person and whittle it down to either something they may have seen on a TV documentary or discussed/experienced in a first-year college course for non-majors. And I feel strongly that someone who's only heard about anthropologists from TV or an intro college course will know they've arrived at the right page with the image I've suggested, but I don't think the same is true for the current one.

Having a linguistics degree, I only took courses linked to linguistic anthropology, but the topic of those were largely about – and I remember the most about – the fieldwork component and how it fits into modern scholarship (interaction between language and society, language and ethnicity, contact linguistics, etc.). In my case, anthropology was about learning about other peoples, their languages, their customs, and so on; I think that the image captures that as well as it can for being a photo of one instance of anthropological fieldwork. Plenty of anthropology isn't social, you're right, but that's what this page is partially here to address (i.e., what are anthropologists and what do they do); I think (perhaps wrongly!) that most people think of anthropology as a social kind of fieldwork in some sense and the lead is to let the person interested know they're in the right place.

I'll reiterate here that I'm not dead set on the image I've chosen above, I just think it's better than the current one. Not necessarily married to a fieldwork image entirely either; lab work or museum work could both work depending on the image. I'm also not opposed to creating a collage if you feel that is a better way of expressing the breadth of the field. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You're definitely correct that, for those anthropologists who do fieldwork, the vast majority are doing something social (including even archaeologists, who in the US are trained as anthropological archaeologists). The issue I have with this though is that there are a good chunk of anthropologists who do not do fieldwork in the classical sense. I mentioned above bio anthropologists, but also digital anthropologists come to mind. And then there are those whose fieldwork looks nothing like the historical stereotype.

Maybe I'm alone in my objection and others here will chime in. But if not, I think perhaps this is better solved by a collage, though I think any collage should leave out non-anthropologists (study participants, interlocutors, lecture/speech attendees, etc.).

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)