Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Anthropology Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is a disgrace, particularly the front section (as of 2013/May/2). It's not written in the style I expect for an encyclopedic entry about a noted scientist. It reads more like a personal attack. Napolean Chagnon is a noted anthropologist best known for his field work among the Yanomamo, and his book "Ya̧nomamö: The Fierce People". But this information is not given in the front section. Instead, the second sentence reads "Patrick Tierney wrote a book Darkness in El Dorado, published in 2000 that accused Chagnon of exacerbating a measles epidemic among the Yanomamo people of the Amazon Basin...". You have to read 2/3 of the article to discover that this claim is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chagnon does not appear to spell his first name with an accent over the e. Nor is it spelled with an accent on the covers of his books. I suggest an article name change.--Birdmessenger 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, if no one cares, I'm changing the name.--Birdmessenger 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was removed since it lacked sources and clearly failed NPOV.

It's very important to say that "Darkness in El Dorado" not contains only allegations, but it proves that Chagnon really introduced "sarampo" (sarampion) among the Yanomamo in the 1960s. There are many allegations, in fact, in the several (and, often, incoherent) articles of Chagnon.

Gene Ward Smith 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This passage was removed by User:Urthogie with the edit summary "(they rescinded if you check the update)":

Although most of these groups ultimately rejected the worst allegations concerning the measles epidemic, the American Anthropological Association was critical of Chagnon's behavior in its task force report.

The Task Force did not rescind the report; the AAA membership did via referendum. The Task Force still made a number of criticisms of Chagnon in its report; however, a number of members felt that this investigation exceeded the authority of the AAA to investigate ethics complaints. Still, the task force was critical of Chagnon in its report. These findings were, however, rescinded by the AAA membership.

This new edit by User:Urthogie

Groups of historians, epidemiologists, anthropologists, and filmmakers who had direct knowledge of the events investigated Tierney's claims, and concluded that most serious ones were false, and the less serious ones were not proven.

is inaccurate. The AAA task force did not make such a finding with regard to some of the less serious charges.

An anthropologist and scholar, Robert Borofsky, wrote a book about the controversy for which he developed a website here with a great deal of background info. You can read about the AAA Task Force report here. They said things about Chagnon such as:

The conclusion of the Task Force is that it is likely that these representations have been damaging to the Yanomami, and that Chagnon has not adequately addressed his responsibility to try to undo this damage

While scholars have disagreed concerning the validity of many of these claims, they are in fundamental agreement about the impropriety of Chagnon's involvement in FUNDAFACI [a Venezuelan administration org]. In a field deeply divided by critics and supporters of Chagnon's work, this remarkable consensus suggests that this allegation may be well founded in this particular case.

There's more, but my point is, the task force was critical of Chagnon, so I'm changing this back. --Media anthro 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my talk summaries-- the report's criticism of Chagnon was rescinded--Urthogie 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. Whether or not it was rescinded, the authors of the report were still critical (as was much of the membership). The way you've rewritten this article, no one but Tierney has ever been critical of Chagnon. This isn't the case.

Not to be rude, but you might want to consider reading some of those links above before making further edits about the controversy. --Media anthro 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but make sure to make clear that every report on the subject has denied tierney's most serious claims, and the one that criticzed chagnon was rescinded.--Urthogie 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, agreed.--Media anthro 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chagnon is now retired. I edited the profile to reflect this. Tierney's accusations of misrepresentation and of failing to obtain informed consent of both the government and of the groups being studied (on at least 3 occasions) have both been verified. Avery82 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yanomamo Series.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no mention of his Theoretical Orientation, only his legacy. Chagnon studied under Leslie White, who was a Materialist (McGee & Warms, "Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 2008", pg. 247, footnote 37). Certainly this is of significance when understanding Chagnon's approach in the field, especially in his earlier works. 144.167.31.63 (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding at which universities he has worked when would be welcome. Specifically, on the site of the U of Missouri's Department of Anthropology I could not find any confirmation that he is employed there. Wimvdam (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity added the statement, "Virtually every other scholar who has lived with the tribe differs with Chagnon." with the refence to http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16880-the-case-of-the-brutal-savage-poirot-or-clouseau-or-why-steven-pinker-like-jared-diamond-is-wrong The article on truthout certainly does make this statement and references two specific pages in Chagnon's book backing it up. I checked in google books preview of these two pages and did not find any support for the truth-out statement. I deleted the section and then had it reverted by Nomoskedasticity. I hope this explains the reason for my revision, and I am going to undo Nomoskedasticity's reversion and then stop to avoid an edit war. However, I think especially given that this is a living person, that such a bold statement should require a more sound citation. I hope this way of dealing with this issue fits with wikipedia community standards.Pengortm (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people Pengortm (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a look at WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy about heavy cricicism in a BLP starting with "Some have argued", "some have critized". In a BLP criticim should be more specific. I looked for a source for "sensationalist and colonialist", but the source was a site with many links and those I checked didn't actually say "sensationalist" nor "colonialist". More specific attribution and source would be welcome. Iselilja (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was doing original research by checking the citations in the reference provided. Perhaps I am mistaken or have missed that part of the wiki definition of original research? Happy to be educated about the norms here. Pengortm (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing your own research in order to determine whether a source is or is not correct. The source given verifies the claim, and your own view that the source is wrong is not relevant. What you seem to have missed is that the footnote number in question (#13) appears twice in that article. Quite possibly, the first instance is an error and doesn't belong there; perhaps the source given in footnote 13 relates to the sentence in the subsequent paragraph which is also footnoted to #13. After all, we might not expect Chagnon himself to say that all other scholars disagree with him. Anyway it doesn't matter: as a wikipedia editor it's not up to you to decide that a source meeting WP:RS is wrong -- making that determination falls squarely within WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is inappropriate to include unverifiable information--especially for a living person. As well, I worry that your edits are not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm not going to touch what you have changed back here to avoid an edit war, but do hope other editors can weigh in and set one of us straight. If nobody else weighs in I think the next step is probably to request a third opinion WP:3 Pengortm (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the constructive approach to discussion here. But I continue to hold that the information is verified by the source given. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The statement that "Virtually every other scholar who has lived with the tribe differs with Chagnon" does not have a reliable source and should be removed. There are two issues with the source. First, and most important, the article is clearly an opinion/editorial piece rather than a news item or journal article. WP:RS states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." IOW, this would be a perfectly acceptable source for the Steven Corry article if we wanted his opinion of Chagnon. But it is not reliable for the statement of fact that Chagnon is viewed as wrong by all other anthropologists. We need a non-opinion source for that statement of fact. Secondly, Truthout is a biased source. Its own Homepage states that its mission is to "spark action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas." So this is clearly not in any sense a news service of fact-reporting journal. It is a periodical designed to effect a specific kind of change by drawing attention to a specific kind of idea. That is the very definition of a biased source. While that bias by itself doesn't make it non-reliable, WP:RS requires that, when dealing with biased sources, we "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." So, can anyone provide some information about the editorial control and fact checking undertaken by Truthout? If, as it appears, this is just a webpage where anyone with sufficient credentials can publish opinion pieces, then it fails to meet the requirements for a RS, at least in this subject. Since editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons and remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately, this material should be removed until we can find an unbiased, non-opinion reference to support the claim. Regarding "sensationalist" and "colonialist" claims. I haven't read the references myself, but this should be easy enough to resolve. Whoever added ro restored the material simply has toy quote where the sources use those words. If that can;t be done, then the material, of course, gets removed as unreferenced. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this latest addition because Survival International fails to meet RS guidelines. It is an "organization that champions tribal peoples around the world. We help them defend their lives, protect their lands and determine their own futures." It also states that the organisation's "loyalty is always primarily towards tribal peoples; we pass on any helpful information we have, and only accept information on that basis." That's about as biased as a source gets: intended to promote specific action, only disseminating information that promotes that cause. No evidence that this organisation/website has any sort of fact checking process. The webpage in question is also clearly an opinion piece, and thus not sufficient for a BLP.

Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that for contentious statements in BLPs the standard for RS is stricter than for other articles. Essentially we need non-opinion sources published by mainstream journals or publishing houses. Anything published by an organisation with an agenda is unlikely to pass muster unless we can show that it has reasonable levels of editorial control and fact checking. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this section because a reference check failed. The quoted pages can be found at Google books(http://books.google.com./books?id=E54ExS7d350C&pg=PA7&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=%22later%20he%20approaches%22&f=false). I can find no mention of Chagnon on the pages referenced. Upon searching the whole book, I can find only 3 references to Chagnon. Two of those are in the foreword, not written by Lizot and not obviously critical of Chagnon. The other is in the bibliography.

While I am still assuming Good Faith, an explanation of this persistent insertion of contentious material in a BLP without adequate referencing would go a long way to maintaining that view. It appears to be approaching WP:BALASPS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS level. It might be worth your while to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, in summary, if you want to spread the word about the flaws in Chagnons research, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals first.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A piece by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post ought to do the trick. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]