Talk:Margaret Mead
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. 
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Columbia University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. 
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of open tasks.
Contents
[edit] Credible Source
I don't think a Slate op-ed is a suitable source for the definitive statements made at the end of the article about "Jewish mothers." Does anyone have a better source? - user:98.209.48.115 04:31, 17 June 2008
[edit] Deletion
It looks like someone simply deleted the entire section on this. This was immediately followed by another act of vandalism which was reverted, but the samoan deletion seems to have survived for about a month. I'm going to re-add it, but thought I'd leave a note here in case it was decided that the section shouldn't remain in the article. --Starwed 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Linkage to References Needed
As stated in other places on this talk page, the article is apparently well-researched but the supposed factual information is unreferenced save for a list at the end. So I added the unreferenced tag. I think it should be kept there for a while. --Merryjman
[edit] Coming of Age in Samoa: summary style
I would suggest that most of the text from the Coming of Age in Samoa section should be moved to the article for the book itself, with just a summary of the book and its controversies in the Margaret Mead article. This seems to be the convention for other author pages, where the book has its own page. (See for example Judith Rich Harris and The Nurture Assumption. Fionah 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that this article has any text from Coming of Age in Samoa unless you mean the short quote by Boas. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality dispute, revisited
In general I found this to be an informative and very well written article but I question its neutrality mainly due to one phrase. I believe that the phrase that violates neutrality is, "...most published accounts of the debate have asserted that Freeman's critique is highly questionable.[16]". I do not believe that the sources cited can substantiate this assertion. I believe that this is a dismissive opinion in the guise of a factual statement. Claiming neutrality for this opinion based on the American Anthropological Association's assertion that Freeman's work is "poorly-written, unscientific, irresponsible, and misleading" is a circular argument, as the AAA is hardly a neutral party in this debate. This a bit akin to referencing the Pope to substantiate the factuality of the virgin birth. I agree that a link here to a more detailed account of Freeman's views in an article on him or on Samoa is necessary. Replacing this statement with such a link would be more appropriate to a neutral stance on the Meade/Freeman debate.--Johosophene (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I go as far as you do, but I could go along with some revised language. Can you suggest some specific language? (PS - I moved your cmt here, and then archived most of the old stuff, because I had a hell of a hard time finding it in the old 2006 stuff. The prior discussions are all still available in the archives for reference.) --Lquilter (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I do not buy Johosophene's comment. The AAA is the largest body of anthropologists in the world and therefore the best authority on what anthropologists think. I see no reason t assume any bias in Mead's favor: Freeman was an anthropologist too, and probably was a member of the AAA. Even if he was not, there is no reason to think most members of the AAA are in any sense "meadists," in fact, if you look through American Anthropologist. you will see that the bulk of articles published diverge very much from Mead's approach. The analogy to the poe is misleading - this is a debate between two anthropologists, not between an anthropologist and a non-anthropologist. In what way is the claim "published accounts of the debate have asserted that Freeman's critique is highly questionable" unsubstantiated? The article provides an extensive list of articles publsihed. It is a simple fact: most published articles support Mead or question Freeman. Sorry if you do not like it. We can include minority POVs but let's be accurate as to what is the manority POV and the minority POV. All that we need here is a link to the Freeman article, and a good Freeman article that fully accounts for his work. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Freeman's critique is given a few sentences. Criticism of Freeman's critique is three long paragraphs. That is definitely not neutrality. -Sensemaker
- This is Mead's biography - it is appropriate to focus on her point of view. And SLRubenstein is completely correct about the AAA. Tvoz/talk 08:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your general thesis. The article on a certain person should not necessarily focus on his or her perspective and should definitely try to be neutral. The article on Gengis Khan is not mostly written from Gengis Khan's perspective. Even if I did agree with your thesis, you would still be wrong since criticism of Freeman's critique does not constitute Mead's point of view. She was dead by the time. Criticism of Freeman's critique can at most be considered the perspective of her followers. It is violates neutrality to blatantly overrepresent her followers perspective. -Sensemaker.
- This is Mead's biography - it is appropriate to focus on her point of view. And SLRubenstein is completely correct about the AAA. Tvoz/talk 08:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Freeman's critique is given a few sentences. Criticism of Freeman's critique is three long paragraphs. That is definitely not neutrality. -Sensemaker
- Sensemaker, I must not have explained myself well. The issue here is undue weight. Mead conducted research. MANY anthropologists have written about her research. Freeman was one person, and his views are expressed here. But there are a dozen or more anthropologists who have reanalyzed Mead's work. You think that because they disagree with Freeman, they are therefore "for" Mead. If we lived in a Manichan universe, perhaps this would be true. But when it comes to anthropology, there are seldom "two views" (for and against), there are usually many many views. People who disagree with freeman are not "taking Mead's side" (well, some do, but most do not) - they are presenting their own analysis. Thee is smething wrong with this article, but it is not about giving inadequate weight to Freeman. Given that his arguments are generally dismissed by his peers, his views are given the weight they deserve. But this article cites many other articles published in peer-reviewed journals about Mead and her research that present other analyses, and the analysis and arguments and views of the authors of those articles are NOT explained in any detail. That is the problem. i do not have the ime myself right now but i wish someone interested in Mead or anthropology would start reading those articles and providing NPOV accounts of their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- "You think that because they disagree with Freeman, they are therefore "for" Mead. If we lived in a Manichan universe, perhaps this would be true. But when it comes to anthropology, there are seldom "two views" (for and against), there are usually many many views. People who disagree with freeman are not "taking Mead's side" (well, some do, but most do not) - they are presenting their own analysis. " That's a straw man, Rubenstein and an ad hominem (accusing my of black-and-white thinking). I definitely would not mind that other anthropologists view would be included, but in that case they should not just be presented as criticism of Freeman (and giving the impression that they support Mead) but as independent research. You could aslo ask yourself if this is controversy is not given undue weight given that the article is supposed to be about Mead. Perhaps it would be enough to just state that Freeman seriously questioned her research claiming that she had completely misunderstood Samoan culture, but that Freeman in his turn has also been seriosly questioned. He that wants to know more can look up the article on Samoan culture. -Sensemaker.
- I am not sure I agree with you - but I do think this is a constructive suggestion. Can we see what others think? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- "You think that because they disagree with Freeman, they are therefore "for" Mead. If we lived in a Manichan universe, perhaps this would be true. But when it comes to anthropology, there are seldom "two views" (for and against), there are usually many many views. People who disagree with freeman are not "taking Mead's side" (well, some do, but most do not) - they are presenting their own analysis. " That's a straw man, Rubenstein and an ad hominem (accusing my of black-and-white thinking). I definitely would not mind that other anthropologists view would be included, but in that case they should not just be presented as criticism of Freeman (and giving the impression that they support Mead) but as independent research. You could aslo ask yourself if this is controversy is not given undue weight given that the article is supposed to be about Mead. Perhaps it would be enough to just state that Freeman seriously questioned her research claiming that she had completely misunderstood Samoan culture, but that Freeman in his turn has also been seriosly questioned. He that wants to know more can look up the article on Samoan culture. -Sensemaker.
-
[edit] was the first person to have a spock baby
she had a daughter that was token care of by benjimann spock she was told that she could not have children but after many time she had catherine mead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.154.109 (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any source verifying this? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[out] Yes, this is more or less correct: she was not his first baby, but it was early in his career, before he wrote his book. I added this to article with appropriate citation. Tvoz |talk 09:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Margaret Mead And Remote Viewing
Of the many interests Margret Mead had, one of these interests was in Parapsychology and psychical research. In 1957, she co-founded an organization named The Parapsychological Association or "PA". It was created to give a better recognition of parapsychology professionals into the scientific community.
Her influence helped merge the acceptance of parapsychologist as fellow scientists. The direct or in-direct role in the study of what would be called "Remote Viewing" would give creadence in this field during "The Stargate Projects". Playing a role in the development of present day remote viewing was, Pioneer Remote Viewer, A. Edward Moch.
Rufus Osgood Mason. His re-recognition would bring his writings on what would be termed as OOBE or "Early Remote Viewing", would be definately topical to the present day issues of remote viewing. It would be recently revealed that Margaret Mead was a distant cousin to Dr. Mason, but also to Moch as well.Fifty years after her co-founding of the "PA", it would re-recognize a number of "Forgotten Pioneers in Parapsychology". One of these forgotton pioneers during the late 1800's was Dr.
Aedwardmoch (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
