![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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
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)
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)
←Looking this over, after trying to rein in the excesses in the section, I reached the conclusion that the section was given undue weight for her biography. There is an article on the book itself with a section on Freeman's critique, there is the Derek Freeman article itself which goes into it, and there is the article on Samoan culture - maybe other places as well. But this is a biography of an individual who did more than write this book (although it certainly was an important part of her career), and all of the critiquing and surrounding disagreements and controversy came long after her death so more appropriately should be mentioned here and discussed elsewhere in greater depth. The inclusion of this major section is giving this controversy far more weight than is appropriate. To put it another way - it appears that all that Freeman is known for is his work on Mead- she is known for a great deal more. His bio can be weighted toward this subject because it seems to be his life work; her work went beyond that. IN fact I'd like to see her bio expanded to include more about other facets of her career and life. Tvoz/ talk 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
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. 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.
Aedwardmoch ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of Birth, early family life and education claims that Margaret Mead was born into a Quaker family. However, can the dead link be trusted? Mead herself says that her grandmother was a Methodist, but her mother was a Unitarian before she "gave up on religion" all together. She only says that she had neighbors who were Quakers whom her father would make anti-Quaker jokes toward. Consider revising and make sure to put Blackberry Winter: My Earlier Years (1972) as a source:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) -
Ano-User (
talk)
10:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Go ahead and make the change! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've protected the page to avoid more editwarring and incite discussion. I think we need a nuanced covering of the Mead-Freeman controversy. It is not the case that Freeman is generally seen as having rebutted or invalidated Mead's conclusions, but it is also not the case that Mead's scholarly reputation was undamaged by the critique (although it seems Freeman damaged his own as much). We need plenty of reliable third party sources to describe the controversy and its legacy in anthropology and Samoan ethnography in a neutral way. I suggest you start presenting your sources here in a calm and collected manner. Remember that Mead and Freeman's own writings are primary sources in relation to the controversy - we should use secondary sources for summarising the debate and its outcome. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As we all know, Freeman spent far more time than Mead in Samoa, including living with a Samoan family for 3 years before his Cambridge doctorate, learning Samoan, being formally adopted into the Samoan social hierarchy, returning for many more years, working as a professor at the university of Samoa, and being granted access to the Samoan national archives to research precisely the question under discussion here.
Mead, on the other hand, lived in the US naval station for 8 months, didn't learn Samoan, and surveyed a group of perhaps 100 Samoans.
So can we correct this little deception? Supershorts ( talk) 10:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote in an edit summary "Freeman's expertise was on Borneo". My question to him is whether he is ignorant or whether he is deliberately trying to mislead our readers? Supershorts ( talk) 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am absolutely appalled at the biased pro-Mead writings on the Margaret Mead page. I mean, Mead's views were extensively debunked by Freeman et al, so that it's only extreme leftwing anthropologists who defend her views. There should at least be a fair appraisal of Freeman's views, not a hatchet-job.The irony is that Freeman did not have the courage to openly call Mead a fraud, and came up with a different "excuse" for her, so is hardly the most vehement anti-Mead critic out there, given that many others have used terms like "fraud" to describe her work". I will have to add a caution at the beginning of the article.
Loki0115 (
talk)
16:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not true. Fraud re Margaret Mead has been repeatedly mentioned. I will have to look at this article a bit more and add appropriate refs etc.
Loki0115 (
talk)
08:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a rather excessively pro-mead acount of the debate. Although I think everyone seems to be getting a bit carried away on both sides. Mead's issues arise in the conclusions she made from the data. Much of what she said about american life was biased towards views of american life that she liked and largely unsupported by the data from Somoa. Freemans accounts arrived sometime later, at which time I am sure Somoan life and culture had evolved and comparability is suspect on that account regardless of the other issues involved in the debate. The article is overall too pro-Mead and repetatively damning to Freeman which is just unnecessary. What might be more interesting is something about how the debate caused anthropology to re-assess itself and its methods in the face of such critism against its subjectivity and openness to interpretation from pre-existing researcher prejudices. That is what Freeman highlights in his critisms although it seems to have been lost in the personal slagging match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.241.133 ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
this reads like a hagiography. Mead had plenty of political opponents, academic opponents and so forth. There are plenty of people who deem her legacy to be one of unmitigated disaster, corruption of morals, academic falsehood etc. I wonder why is that not reflected here :) 76.24.104.52 ( talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree. Isnt she even known as a straight out liar in academic circles? Nothing in this article reflects any criticism. - MB
No in academic circles she is considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. Of course ask creationists and they will tell you that Darwin's legacy is one of unmitigated disaster, corruption of morals, academic falsehood etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It depends of course what academic circles we are talking about. Boasians worship her almost like a God. Unfortunately this article is a bit one-sided. My understanding has always been that Mead and her "research work" is pretty much a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.59.235 ( talk) 18:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she's part of the Columbia university Boas anti white civilization fraud cult, just like this sleazebag turd slrubenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.162.109 ( talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate place for a discussion about the value of Mead and Boas to scholarship - they are well-established and well-accepted, and unless you have some constructive, properly sourced suggestions to make about improving this article, and can do it in a civil manner, take your spewing to the blogs and away from here. Tvoz/ talk 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you start by telling us which is the irst sentence in th articl that does not conform to one of our three core content policies NPOV, V or NOR? Or, which paragraph does not conform to one of these policies? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Vague? The article cites a large number of articles on the Mead-Freeman controversy. Not vague at all. Numerous and precise citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I added NPOV tag to Coming of Age in Samoa section (although the whole article could probably use it). I'm not personally familiar with much of Mead's or her detractors work, but I do recognize weasel wording and overt bias when I read it. philip72 | Talk 15:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion for expansion: The article doesn't yet mention her role in cybernetics, which is usually considered to be significant. Among other things, she was one of the core participants in the Macy conferences, and an early commentator on reflexive (or second-order) cybernetics. -- Delirium ( talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Robert Redfield had always been critical of Mead on the basis that she had never been fully fluent in the Samoan language. However, in reviewing her Monograph "Social Organization of Manu'a" he found that she had corrected some of the earlier questionable assertions in Coming of Age. This and other arguments can be found in the book The Trashing of Margaret Mead by Paul Shankman. Euonyman ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
[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)
Sadly, Margaret Mead's interest in good parenting seems to have been almost entirely academic. Her daughter Catherine Bateson has written of her severe loneliness as a child, because her mother often left her with indifferent caregivers. Younggoldchip ( talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Catherine states in an interview that she is extreamly greatful to the way her mother raised her because it helped to shape her into the person she is today. She only ever has positive things to say about her mother's parenting skills. Also, M.Mead made home videos documenting every early develepmental stage of her daughter as she grew up. She was, in my opinion a great mother and very nurturing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
205.155.141.9 (
talk)
20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Unsigned, it's obvious that numerous videos taken by the parent to "document every early developmental stage" are not the same as a warm, personally involved, caring relationship with the actual child. Any scientist can take videos. And inspite of your own (again, unsigned) opinion about Margaret Mead as "a great mother," the facts were clearly set out in Catherine's autobiography: she was often farmed out to her mother's friends, often felt isolated and afraid. Later contacts with her father were frightening, as his mental deterioration progressed. Catherine has taken the high road in her memoir, when possible, but she has also been honest. A picture emerges of a child who was emotionally neglected by a parent who was obsessed, above all, with her career. And those are the facts. Younggoldchip ( talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to second the user who pointed out that Margaret Mead's parenting skills are not relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomvulaWakaBani ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe Mead's parenting skills are relevant because they contribute to a fuller understanding of a complex woman. Also, she frequently discussed and wrote about parenting in societies which she studied. Younggoldchip ( talk) 17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing here considering the importance of her work in WWII Britain.
In particular it would be nice to see a reference to the booklet: "The American troops and the British community" by Margaret Mead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could Category:LGBT Christians be replaced with Category:LGBT Anglicans? Thanks, 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
In his new book "The Trashing of Margaret Mead -- How Derek Freeman Fooled us all on an Alleged Hoax" Paul Shankman says there was not enough evidence to conclude Mead had been mislead, and it appears this has been questioned for a few years now. Maybe this should be mentioned in the Coming of Age in Samoa section, if Derek Freeman's allegations are. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-16#feature -- This is an excerpt from the book 87.121.162.27 ( talk) 08:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the girls in Samoa were just telling her a bunch of stories which she reported without any verification and based her academic career on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.0.164.57 ( talk) 05:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This section appears to omit the following publication...Social Organization of Manua (1930). Mead, Margaret. Social Organization of Manua (1930) Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. No ISBN, but online version (OCLC)604495315. [1] and there is a copy on my bookshelf -- Freckster ( talk) 00:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Social Oganization of Manua ISBN 9780910240086 [2] -- Freckster ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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
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)
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)
←Looking this over, after trying to rein in the excesses in the section, I reached the conclusion that the section was given undue weight for her biography. There is an article on the book itself with a section on Freeman's critique, there is the Derek Freeman article itself which goes into it, and there is the article on Samoan culture - maybe other places as well. But this is a biography of an individual who did more than write this book (although it certainly was an important part of her career), and all of the critiquing and surrounding disagreements and controversy came long after her death so more appropriately should be mentioned here and discussed elsewhere in greater depth. The inclusion of this major section is giving this controversy far more weight than is appropriate. To put it another way - it appears that all that Freeman is known for is his work on Mead- she is known for a great deal more. His bio can be weighted toward this subject because it seems to be his life work; her work went beyond that. IN fact I'd like to see her bio expanded to include more about other facets of her career and life. Tvoz/ talk 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
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. 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.
Aedwardmoch ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of Birth, early family life and education claims that Margaret Mead was born into a Quaker family. However, can the dead link be trusted? Mead herself says that her grandmother was a Methodist, but her mother was a Unitarian before she "gave up on religion" all together. She only says that she had neighbors who were Quakers whom her father would make anti-Quaker jokes toward. Consider revising and make sure to put Blackberry Winter: My Earlier Years (1972) as a source:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) -
Ano-User (
talk)
10:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Go ahead and make the change! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've protected the page to avoid more editwarring and incite discussion. I think we need a nuanced covering of the Mead-Freeman controversy. It is not the case that Freeman is generally seen as having rebutted or invalidated Mead's conclusions, but it is also not the case that Mead's scholarly reputation was undamaged by the critique (although it seems Freeman damaged his own as much). We need plenty of reliable third party sources to describe the controversy and its legacy in anthropology and Samoan ethnography in a neutral way. I suggest you start presenting your sources here in a calm and collected manner. Remember that Mead and Freeman's own writings are primary sources in relation to the controversy - we should use secondary sources for summarising the debate and its outcome. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As we all know, Freeman spent far more time than Mead in Samoa, including living with a Samoan family for 3 years before his Cambridge doctorate, learning Samoan, being formally adopted into the Samoan social hierarchy, returning for many more years, working as a professor at the university of Samoa, and being granted access to the Samoan national archives to research precisely the question under discussion here.
Mead, on the other hand, lived in the US naval station for 8 months, didn't learn Samoan, and surveyed a group of perhaps 100 Samoans.
So can we correct this little deception? Supershorts ( talk) 10:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote in an edit summary "Freeman's expertise was on Borneo". My question to him is whether he is ignorant or whether he is deliberately trying to mislead our readers? Supershorts ( talk) 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am absolutely appalled at the biased pro-Mead writings on the Margaret Mead page. I mean, Mead's views were extensively debunked by Freeman et al, so that it's only extreme leftwing anthropologists who defend her views. There should at least be a fair appraisal of Freeman's views, not a hatchet-job.The irony is that Freeman did not have the courage to openly call Mead a fraud, and came up with a different "excuse" for her, so is hardly the most vehement anti-Mead critic out there, given that many others have used terms like "fraud" to describe her work". I will have to add a caution at the beginning of the article.
Loki0115 (
talk)
16:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not true. Fraud re Margaret Mead has been repeatedly mentioned. I will have to look at this article a bit more and add appropriate refs etc.
Loki0115 (
talk)
08:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a rather excessively pro-mead acount of the debate. Although I think everyone seems to be getting a bit carried away on both sides. Mead's issues arise in the conclusions she made from the data. Much of what she said about american life was biased towards views of american life that she liked and largely unsupported by the data from Somoa. Freemans accounts arrived sometime later, at which time I am sure Somoan life and culture had evolved and comparability is suspect on that account regardless of the other issues involved in the debate. The article is overall too pro-Mead and repetatively damning to Freeman which is just unnecessary. What might be more interesting is something about how the debate caused anthropology to re-assess itself and its methods in the face of such critism against its subjectivity and openness to interpretation from pre-existing researcher prejudices. That is what Freeman highlights in his critisms although it seems to have been lost in the personal slagging match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.241.133 ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
this reads like a hagiography. Mead had plenty of political opponents, academic opponents and so forth. There are plenty of people who deem her legacy to be one of unmitigated disaster, corruption of morals, academic falsehood etc. I wonder why is that not reflected here :) 76.24.104.52 ( talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree. Isnt she even known as a straight out liar in academic circles? Nothing in this article reflects any criticism. - MB
No in academic circles she is considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. Of course ask creationists and they will tell you that Darwin's legacy is one of unmitigated disaster, corruption of morals, academic falsehood etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It depends of course what academic circles we are talking about. Boasians worship her almost like a God. Unfortunately this article is a bit one-sided. My understanding has always been that Mead and her "research work" is pretty much a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.59.235 ( talk) 18:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she's part of the Columbia university Boas anti white civilization fraud cult, just like this sleazebag turd slrubenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.162.109 ( talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate place for a discussion about the value of Mead and Boas to scholarship - they are well-established and well-accepted, and unless you have some constructive, properly sourced suggestions to make about improving this article, and can do it in a civil manner, take your spewing to the blogs and away from here. Tvoz/ talk 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you start by telling us which is the irst sentence in th articl that does not conform to one of our three core content policies NPOV, V or NOR? Or, which paragraph does not conform to one of these policies? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Vague? The article cites a large number of articles on the Mead-Freeman controversy. Not vague at all. Numerous and precise citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I added NPOV tag to Coming of Age in Samoa section (although the whole article could probably use it). I'm not personally familiar with much of Mead's or her detractors work, but I do recognize weasel wording and overt bias when I read it. philip72 | Talk 15:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion for expansion: The article doesn't yet mention her role in cybernetics, which is usually considered to be significant. Among other things, she was one of the core participants in the Macy conferences, and an early commentator on reflexive (or second-order) cybernetics. -- Delirium ( talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Robert Redfield had always been critical of Mead on the basis that she had never been fully fluent in the Samoan language. However, in reviewing her Monograph "Social Organization of Manu'a" he found that she had corrected some of the earlier questionable assertions in Coming of Age. This and other arguments can be found in the book The Trashing of Margaret Mead by Paul Shankman. Euonyman ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
[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)
Sadly, Margaret Mead's interest in good parenting seems to have been almost entirely academic. Her daughter Catherine Bateson has written of her severe loneliness as a child, because her mother often left her with indifferent caregivers. Younggoldchip ( talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Catherine states in an interview that she is extreamly greatful to the way her mother raised her because it helped to shape her into the person she is today. She only ever has positive things to say about her mother's parenting skills. Also, M.Mead made home videos documenting every early develepmental stage of her daughter as she grew up. She was, in my opinion a great mother and very nurturing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
205.155.141.9 (
talk)
20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Unsigned, it's obvious that numerous videos taken by the parent to "document every early developmental stage" are not the same as a warm, personally involved, caring relationship with the actual child. Any scientist can take videos. And inspite of your own (again, unsigned) opinion about Margaret Mead as "a great mother," the facts were clearly set out in Catherine's autobiography: she was often farmed out to her mother's friends, often felt isolated and afraid. Later contacts with her father were frightening, as his mental deterioration progressed. Catherine has taken the high road in her memoir, when possible, but she has also been honest. A picture emerges of a child who was emotionally neglected by a parent who was obsessed, above all, with her career. And those are the facts. Younggoldchip ( talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to second the user who pointed out that Margaret Mead's parenting skills are not relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomvulaWakaBani ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe Mead's parenting skills are relevant because they contribute to a fuller understanding of a complex woman. Also, she frequently discussed and wrote about parenting in societies which she studied. Younggoldchip ( talk) 17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing here considering the importance of her work in WWII Britain.
In particular it would be nice to see a reference to the booklet: "The American troops and the British community" by Margaret Mead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could Category:LGBT Christians be replaced with Category:LGBT Anglicans? Thanks, 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
In his new book "The Trashing of Margaret Mead -- How Derek Freeman Fooled us all on an Alleged Hoax" Paul Shankman says there was not enough evidence to conclude Mead had been mislead, and it appears this has been questioned for a few years now. Maybe this should be mentioned in the Coming of Age in Samoa section, if Derek Freeman's allegations are. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-16#feature -- This is an excerpt from the book 87.121.162.27 ( talk) 08:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the girls in Samoa were just telling her a bunch of stories which she reported without any verification and based her academic career on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.0.164.57 ( talk) 05:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Mead. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This section appears to omit the following publication...Social Organization of Manua (1930). Mead, Margaret. Social Organization of Manua (1930) Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. No ISBN, but online version (OCLC)604495315. [1] and there is a copy on my bookshelf -- Freckster ( talk) 00:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Social Oganization of Manua ISBN 9780910240086 [2] -- Freckster ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)