Talk:Totem and Taboo

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Anthropology Low‑importance

	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 discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

First essay[edit]

"From this, Freud concludes that the taboos are not set up for a totally 'practical nature' and thus must have some psychoanalytical justification."^{[citation needed]}

I'm removing this as I do not see Freud making this conclusion. If you think it's true please provide citation. Sofeil 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word[edit]

What is this word 'cree'? [last line, third essay: '..practices of animistic system are cree behind which lies instinctual...' Do you mean the geological term 'scree'? I see the usage had been copied unquestioned all over the internet, but the word does not appear to exist in any intelligible sense for this context. Imago blue 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imago blue (talk • contribs)

Article not very adequate in explaining scientific context and reception[edit]

The book was written in a tradition of nineteenth-century style "just-so story" fanciful theorizing (e.g. J. J. Bachofen etc.) which some leading anthropologists were already starting to discourage when the book was being written. No doubt the book contains some striking metaphors which some people have found intriguing, but as a factual account of human origins aspiring to scientific accuracy, it was already a little out of date when first published, and has only become more so with the passing decades, until it seems rather ludicrous or laughable now... AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos's personal opinion is of universal value.96.235.173.81 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Jabez Pharzalot[reply]

Citations[edit]

G de gonjasufi, the material that you added here is not cited properly. It is not clear which book "(1949), Needham, Rodney, ed" refers to. Could you please fix this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in his book The Elementary Structures of Kinship"--G de gonjasufi (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No source for statement book is discredited[edit]

The lead says "the work is now almost universally regarded as discredited by anthropologists" but there is no source for the statement. I think the statement should be removed until a source is found. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong to remove that material, which I have restored. Your edits lowered the quality of the article by removing important information, and your comments indicate a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's standards. The statement that Totem and Taboo is now almost universally regarded as discredited by anthropologists is both perfectly true and properly cited. The citations are there in the "Reception" section, and do not need to be repeated in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." There is no need in this case for additional citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]