Talk:Napoleon Chagnon

front section

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)

spelling of name

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)

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

NPOV problem

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)

findings of AAA task force

This passage was removed by User:Urthogie with the edit summary "(they rescinded if you check the update)":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 These findings were, however, rescinded by the AAA membership.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)

You didn't read my talk summaries-- the report's criticism of Chagnon was rescinded--Urthogie 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

inaccuracies

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yanomamo Series.jpg

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)

Theoretical Orientation

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)

Academic career details?

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)

"Virtually every other scholar who has lived with the tribe differs with Chagnon."

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Open Letter Condemning Chavignon.

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)

Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami"

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)

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

Unless I am missing something, that article is simply a book review for "Darkness at El Dorado", a subject already covered in detail in its own section.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's okay -- it can be used at other points in the article as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No. it can't. This is only one author and the new insertion is making making the same point already covered at length in DAED's own section. Adding the same material again in the career section is clearly in violation of WP:BALASPS: "discussion of isolated criticisms about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. By adding exactky the same material from one book by one author to multiple section, this clearly violates WP:BALASPSMark Marathon (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course this isn't "exactky [sic] the same material"! I don't understand your resistance to my small well-documented edit. Are you Napoleon Chagnon Jr.? (Just kidding.)Jimjilin (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is exactly the same material. The only anthropologist doing any criticism is Tierney, and the only place he is doing any criticisng is in "DAED". Adding the material again in another section clearly violates WP:BALASPS. this is an isolated criticism by a single author. By displaying this in two separate sections, one already very large and juxtaposing it with the career section in addition to the controversy section, we clearly violate WP:BALASPS? Or do you believe that this single book of criticism is worthy of its own section and in other sections as well, without violating WP:BALASPS?

The issue is, IOW, that it is not "well-documented" (sic). The only documentation you have been able to find is Tierney's "DAED". That is the very antithesis of "well-documented". You've certainly tried hard to find references, to the extent of posting the same one from a blog post after it has already been discredited. The fact that you are unable to find a single reference aside from the one already given its own section should be telling you something.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Mark Marathon (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What?! The criticism comes from Marshall Sahlins (the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor of Anthropology emeritus at the University of Chicago) who mentions other anthropologists as well. For example Sahlins writes "But Chagnon's statistics were hardly out before Yanomami specialists dismembered them".Jimjilin (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right, that is a claim made in Tierney's "DAED", the book that Sahlins is reviewing. There is no reason to believe it is a claim made by Sahlin's himself. If you believe otherwise then please provide evidence to this effect. If it is your contention that the source is Sahlins himself then the review has become an opinion piece as per WP:NEWSORG. I'd accept this as a source that Sahlin's is critical, if we can demonstrate that he is not simply quoting from "DAED". As a contentious startement of fact that other anthropologists agree with him, I don't think it meets RS status for BLP but we can take it to WP:RSN for clarification. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years"… and please both of you learn to thread your comments properly so that others can read the section better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it contains at least some material that isn't taken from "DAED". But since that means the source is an analysis/opinion piece, it can't be used as a reference for a statement of fact of concerning third parties. So it still fails to meet RS for the claim that other anthropologists are critical.and FWIW my comments are threaded.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're incorrect -- it is not an opinion piece. You seem not to understand much about academic research. This source is an excellent one for supporting the text in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh. As a professional researcher with a PhD and numerous publications under my belt, I flatter myself that know something about academic research. But maybe you are right and the editors and reviewers of my publications have all been misled. It seems the only way we can settle this is to take it to WP:RSN.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Marshall Sahlins criticisms

I've moved this to the controversies section since it doesn't seem at all relevant to Chagnon's career. There's no suggestion that this criticism affected his career, for example. Criticism of methodology by other researchers is par for the course in any research field. It's not a career influencing event.

I would also like to see a quote of where Sahlins is critical of Chagnon in the reference cited. As per the discussion above, there is a statement from Sahlins that others were criticising Chagnon. And there are numerous critical statements quoted/paraphrased by Shalin but originating in "DAED". But I can't see any statement that unambiguously originated from Sahlins that is critical of Chagnon. I won't remove this section immediately because it seems clear to me from the tone of the piece that Sahlins is indeed critical. But for a BLP we need something much less ambiguous than "tone".Mark Marathon (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that both the other editors have made posts since the protection was imposed. Would either of you like to discuss this, or can I take it hat consensus has been reached and ask for the block to be lifted?Mark Marathon (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sahlins is one of the major figures in anthropology of the 20th century, criticism from him would be relevant for any anthropologists career. Sahlins critique of Chagnon is substantial, and has been sustained for the past 30 years. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for two weeks due to an edit war after studying the January 20 3RR report filed by User:Nomoskedasticity. Please use this time to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and try to get consensus. In my opinion you'll get the quickest answer at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but use any method that seems appropriate. Any admin can lift the protection if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edits for after disputes are resolved and protection lifted

The article should mention that Chagnon was elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012 Pengortm (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Lede, Researcher contamination subsection

"Allegations that he played a role in communal violence and introduced disease prompted his early retirement.[3]" I don't see where ref 3 says that he retired, for any reason. It would be clearer to say that, amid mutual recriminations, his permission to do fieldwork was effectively withdrawn in 1993 by local authorities after he came into conflict with the Catholic church missionaries. It would be better to quote Brazilian Anthropological Association saying Chagnon's conclusions were dubious and warning they could have 'terrible political consequences', that is is criticism by qualified people. The section "Researcher contamination in Yanomamö findings that says "Some[who?] have argued that the Yanomamö became violent after Chagnon arrived to conduct his research and offered machetes, axes, and shotguns" should point out the missionaries were accused by Chagnon of giving the Yanomamö shotguns according to an 2000 LA Times aticle. Overagainst (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Shut out of the jungle because he was so polarizing, he took early retirement from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1999. “The whole point of my existence as a human being and as an anthropologist was to do more and more research before this primitive world disappeared,” he told me bitterly." I think his book also says this.Pengortm (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede ending that has been reverted to "Allegations that he played a role in communal violence and introduced disease prompted his early retirement.[3]" is completely unacceptable. We can't say things like that without a explicit independent source. You have failed to provide one, and offer your interpretation on a couple of sources. Chagnon is a living person may I remind you. Neither in his interview or book has Chagnon or a reporter made statements that support the aforementioned ending of the lede. The source does not say what is claimed on any reasonable reading. Him choosing to take early retirement from a particular uni position, because he couldn't do the field work he wanted is what the source (Chagnon himself) is saying. But, the lede is quite clearly giving the impression that he was forced out because of the accusations that he had caused communal violence and disease outbreaks. In fact the allegation, which was specifically of having supplied weapons that were used for 'communal violence' was made by him about the missionaries, as well as by them about him. The allegations followed an incident when a bishop insisted that Chagnon had no authority and had to leave. Chagnon had to leave because he alienated the missionaries of the Salesian order who are quite influential in the country. If that controversy is mentioned 'mutual recriminations' would cover it for the lede. The disease allegation made in a book was well publicised, and so is the fact scientific authorities said the immunisations referred to could not have caused disease.Overagainst (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no need for that section in the lead unless better and more careful sourcing of this information is found by someone. Thanks. The issues of accusations and his retirement are addressed well in the rest of the article as I recall (not to say those sections aren't open to debate, discussions and improvements of course). Pengortm (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

For a scientist so controversial as Chagnon, the article skirts very lightly on the criticisms in a way that comes across as quite partial. The critiques leveled against Chagnon for the past 30 years are substantive, not merely theoretical or based in an irrational aversion to evolutionary theory, and the article needs to represent the scope and depth of the criticism. A better framing of this would show the way that he has become a focal point within the culture wars as they have played out in anthropology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This is a biography. It is an article about a person, not about their work. This needs to be treated in the same way that the articles on Charles Darwin or Margaret Mead for examples. The article should definitely contain an accurate summary of any criticism of their work, but that criticism should not be the major component of the article. And this article needs to be even more careful because it is a BLP. Once again, I stress that this is a biography, an article about a person. It is not a coat rack for controversies concerning their work. If we can find a RS that states this person has become a "focal point within the culture wars", that should definitely be included. What should not be included is a treatise on "the scope and depth of the criticism" of the person's work. That belongs in the article on the culture wars or the articles on the works themselves, not the article on the person.

I will also add that the fact that individual authors have been critical doesn't support any of those contentions. A majority of academic publishing in any field, but especially the social sciences, is devoted to critiques of other researchers. Nothing so far suggests that Sahlins is unique in that regard. Has it been established that he has been criticised? Undoubtedly, as have all other prominent anthropologists. Has anything suggested that he "has become a focal point within the culture wars"? Nope.Mark Marathon (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. A biography is about a person and what ever that person is notable for, when that something is for being a controversial anthropologist then anthropological controversies should play a major role in the article. The lead should summarize the article body which it currently does not. You clearly dont know much about this topic, neither Chagnon's work or the anthropological debates in which he has played a central role, yet seems strangely invested in it. Why dont you read some of the actual volumes of work that describe and analyze Chagnon and the controversies that have surrounded him and then come back to this? Untill the lead accurately and adequately summarizes the critiques of Chagnon then the article will be in need of a POV tag which I will provide shortly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the article currently lacks description of his actual work, which it should of course have because that is what he is notable for. The critiques by other scholars should be included in the description of his work, side by side, not segregated into a "miscellaneous criticism" section. I will be expanding the article over the next days and I hope you will take a more constructive attitude, than simply edit warring under the holy banner of "BLP".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that you need to read WP:BURDEN. The burden of proof is on you to establish the claims that you make. It is not enough to instruct other editors to "read some of the actual volumes". You need to present those volumes and, when requested, the actual sections that support your claims. Unless you can provide some reliable sources for your claims that "this researcher who is a pariah in his own discipline and has been more rotundly criticized by his colleagues than any other living anthropologist" then the POV tag will be shortly removed. I think that you need to familiarise yourself with WP:BLP, especially the admonishment that "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." At this point the controversy and criticism section of this article is larger than the entire remainder of the article. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. When 58% of the word count of a BLP is criticism, there is no possible way to characterise the presentation as broadly neutral. And that is as the article stands now. you want actually expand the amount of critical material, unambiguously turning this into an attack page that consists primarily of attacks against the subject.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for gratuitously citing policies at me. I am aware of WP:BURDEN and as opposed to you I actually know the literature and have no problem producing sources for my claims. I also know the NPOV policy quite well and it does not override WP:LEAD which clearly says that the lead must be a summary of the article. It is not possible to leave criticism out of the lead just because one feels it is to prevalent in the rest of the article. If 58& of the body of the article is citicism then 58% of the lead needs to be so too. If you feel that the criticism is making up too much of the article then the solution is to add more content that is not criticism. It is also false to think that if an article is more than half criticism then it cannot be neutral. Neutrality depends on the weight in the literature and if 100% of the literature is negative then a neutral article has 100% negative material. It is not the case that 100% of the literature about Chagnon is criticism, but 50% is not exaggerated. I will make sure to include the views of Chagnon himself as well as his defenders in Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And once again, when you can provide support for your claims that 58% of the literature relating to a man, who has recently been inducted into one of the most prestigious scientific organisations on the planet, is negative, then you can proceed accordingly. Until then... Mark Marathon (talk)

No, that is not how it works. It works like this: I will add sourced statements to the text. And unless you can find a better source that contradicts it, then you leave it in place. You see WP:BURDEN works both ways. You don't get a free pass to remove sourced material because you think it may not be representative. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this for a few years, and I am surprised to find an ongoing dispute here, but fwiiw I have to agree with Maunus that this is the page to discuss the "Chagnon controversy" in depth. The man is, by now, mostly notable for this controversy. Of course there is always the possibility to create a sub-article dedicated to this. But I am not quite sure how to parse Maunus' statement that "the article needs to represent the scope and depth of the criticism" next to "A better framing of this would show the way that he has become a focal point within the culture wars as they have played out in anthropology" -- yes, the depth of the criticism should be detailed, but then more than a passing mention should be given to Dreger, whose topic of research was in fact the controversy itself (i.e. she did "meta-anthropology"), i.e she is to be considered a secondary source of the topic "Chagnon controversy", while all the anthropologists are merely primary sources (involved parties). The upshot seems to be that Chagnon was framed, and that this was mostly a witch-hunt. At least that's my impression on skimming Dreger, I am sure you have more detailed knowledge of what exactly she found. --dab (𒁳) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreger's article is certainly important and should be included - but it is not an objective statement of facts, but very much an expression of her own subjective opinion on the matter, from her particular position within the science wars in anthropology. She is no more neutral than for example Borofsky's summary in the 2005 book - but she does do a good job at showing the facts of the Tierney case clearly, but we have to remember that the the controversy over Chagnon's research predates the Tierney debacle by decades. I am very open to making substantial use of Dreger and the data she has collected in the section on Tierney - but without making it seem as if she is somehow raised above the debate. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreger's piece appears quite well researched and objective to me and that she doesn't have any discernable bone in the fight (not an involved or indirectly involved party). If you are aware of evidence to the contrary I hope you can point us to this.--Pengortm (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreger is a long time advocate of biological and scientific approaches in the study of human behavior and a critic of "post-modernism", also in the piece she does not at all hide it when she expresses her personal opinion (which is not a bad thing) just try to read it and notice the times when she says "in my opinion" "in my view" etc. There are certainly objective facts in the piece that are the result of a thorough investigation, but the conclusions she draws from them are her own subjective views. I doubt many anthropologists would agree with her in her interpretation of the evidence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You have added Dregers claim about her own status as fact again. That is not possible. Her saying that she is an outsider does not make it so. Find a neutral thirdparty source (e.g. a non-polemical review of the controversy) calling her so if you wish to include it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sahlins quitting

It is of course absurd to try to use the loaded term "claim" to throw doubt on Sahlins' own public statements about why he quit the Academy. Sahlins is a reliable source for his own motivations. Not a single source in existence has suggested he might have had another underlying reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The source cited suggest Chagnon is a secondary reason for his quitting and NAS's involvement in military efforts/consulting as the primary one (From the source: "in responding to the call for research in military effectiveness of last October by saying, I’ve had enough, ‘please accept my resignation from the Academy’," "These research agendas, however, were not the only reason I resigned from the NAS. I also considered my membership an embarrassment when Napoleon Chagnon was elected to the Academy in May of 2012"). I also note that you seemed perfectly ok with using a loaded term to describe Dreger's public statements as an outsider despite no evidence buttressing this.--Pengortm (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not write that Dreger "claims" to be an outsider, I wrote that she considers herself to be one, which is arguably a more accurate representation of her actual statement in the article and which is exactly not a loaded term.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that the passage in question does not belong on Chagnon's career section since it is more about Sahlins and controversies/critiques of Chagnon's work. Yes, the general controversy is a part of Chagnon's career--and it is already mentioned there--but this part belongs below in the controversy section--Pengortm (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Napoleon Chagnon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100630221447/http://www.sundancechannel.com:80/sunfiltered/2010/01/secrets-of-the-tribe-world-documentary-competition/ to http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2010/01/secrets-of-the-tribe-world-documentary-competition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality?

This article is tagged with a "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag from Feb 2015. I am not seeing where this case is made on the talk page and am thinking this should be removed.-Pengortm (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I make the case a few sections above this one. Chagnon is primarily known for being controversial and for being a posterchild for the "science" and "evolution" approach to anthropology against the currently dominant "social critique" and "social construction" approach. His work has been the subject of substantial criticism from the anthropology establishment. The article doesnt cover the critiques against him in any detail, inspite of the fact that this is the substantial part of the literature about Chagnon. Hence the tag is warranted, untill the controversy for which he is known is better represented for the reader. The lead is an excellent example of the obvious avoidance of the controversy surrounding Chagnon - it states that he has been called the most controversial anthropologist, but makes no mention of anything that could explain why he would be controversial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. thanks for replying so fast. Unless I am missing something you have not provided reliable sources along with suggested verbiage to this effect? Your own personal knowledge is not sufficient for this. Apologies if I am forgetting or neglecting where this has previously been provided. -Pengortm (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Most of the critical sources are already included in the additional readings, and I have added a string of citations after the one critical statement in the controversy section. There are truckloads of critical sources, they have just not been used yet. Currently the lead is not an adequate summary of the article since it doesnt mention any of the critiques or controversies. That alone is reason enough for the POV tag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Pengortm, it is clear that you have not read the literature - including the several multiple authored books about the Yanomami controversy. As long as you are not familiar with the literature you cannot make the kinds of edits that you are doing, or accuse me of inserting my own opinions. The literature is there, if you want to accuse me of misrepresenting it you need to read it first and demonstrate how my summary is inadequate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work by appeals to authority. If you have reliable sources to share by all means please take advantage of your expertise and experience to help educate and improve the article. However, your words that this is an accurate summary of uncited literature is not sufficient.- Pengortm (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Napoleon Chagnon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704095927/http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/05ref_eldorado.htm to http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/05ref_eldorado.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015191614/http://www.dartreview.com/issues/10.30.00/chagnon.html to http://dartreview.com/issues/10.30.00/chagnon.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Napoleon Chagnon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502124345/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0204/story.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0204/story.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are all attributed facts here accurately reflecting source material?

This article is about a controversial figure, so I know that this question is probably going to step on somebody's tail, but I noticed a couple issues from reading this article. Such as reference to work by Patrick Tierney as verification of facts about his life; that particular source should not be considered reliable source (given that he had an active role in the controversy, and was found to have fabricated many of his own sources) and thus is an inappropriate citation as a verification of certain facts. The article also mentions that Chagnon was barred from Venezuela as a result of "the controversy"; this seems to be original research, as one cited source is unreliable, and other sources actually indicate that he was barred from the country directly because of his personal conflict with the Salesian priests; meaning that it was due to local politics and his well-known prickly personality rather than the merits of his academic work; but the phrasing here on wikipedia heavily implies that it was a direct result of public rejection his academic work which is not the case and not stated by the sources. Ironlion45 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)