Talk:Ik people

message: I notice a typing error in the last sentence of the section entitled "The Mountain People." It reads: "They would desert children at an early age and one story Trumbull tells is how after abandoning a baby to be eaten by wild animals the animals were hunted an[d] eaten." 114.74.131.216 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In this sentence it is unclear whether the book was derogatory towards the Ik people, or the treatment of them: Colin Turnbull wrote an extremely disparaging anthropology book about them called The Mountain People. ----
Both, possibly, but mainly towards the Ik people, I would say, whom Turnbull personally loathed and regarded as pretty much the worst of all possible societies. - Mustafaa 21:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section on The Mountain People strikes me as violating NPOV. I have not read the book, and I am neither condoning nor condemning Turnbull's allegations. However, the current text is strongly biased against Turnbull, and clearly attempts to discredit his research. Any scholarly criticisms of Turnbull's methodology and/or conclusions should be cited and discussed, but it is not up to editors of Wikipedia to pass judgement. I propose adding a neutrality tag to the section until it can be cleaned up. --N-k (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality 

message: The tag's been up for a while, so I went ahead and compared what it looked like then (here), to what it is now, and while the prose is generally similar, people have done a great job adding subheadings and referencing the criticism of Turnbull's book. It actually seems pretty fair and balanced to me. It was an extremely controversial book, and so naturally some of the reaction by other scholars in the field was quite critical, which is reflected (and properly sourced) in the sections. Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Thoughts? Sloggerbum (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: This article presenting a general overview of the Ik is mainly based of of Colin Turnbull's account of them, which has been heavily criticised and discredited within the field of anthropology (see for instance Barth, F. 1974 "On Responsibility and Humanity: Calling a Colleague to Account", in Current Anthropology Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 1974), pp. 99-103). The scope of the sources used in this wiki article is not broad enough; more sources should be represented to give a balanced and fair view of this people. A quick look at the citations show that sources are also outdated, and newer research should be represented.
(Sorry for any mistakes in citing etc, I am new to editing on Wikipedia)
Helene.Dorup (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: If I could understand the point of the bullet pointed section in which it appears, which I can't, I would reword this egregious sentence Defying all odds based in reality, the Ik reported, during the two years Turnbull stayed in Pirre, only one instance of non-monogamous sexual activity Jim Bowery (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defying all odds based in reality 

message: Someone with an odd (anti-Ik? pro-Turnbull? anti-Heine?) agenda has really done a number on the "Criticism" section. "Experts conclude any African methods of record-keeping tend toward stylized fictions rather than any resemblance to Western methods of factual accounting" (unsourced)???? What is that based on?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.18.146 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: African methods of record keeping