Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing/Archive 2

message: *Whilst the article mentions many academic anthropologists, etc, there are no citations. 
*This stuff would appear to have contemporary relevance given to reference to contemporary cultural groups, it also deems to have been hidden away, a scan of the discussion shows it is controversial. 
*It would be helpful if people used ==Headings== to 1/ create a table of contents and 2/ help readers navigate the discussion. 
-- Paul foord 11:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done to help readers navigate the discussion.  But the talk page is still confusing since some editors didn’t sign. —Cesar Tort 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and controversial templates

message: I have made many copyedits and divided the article in sections.
Also I sourced it and therefore removed the tag. —Cesar Tort 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedits

message: I clicked onto this page from the article Infanticide and I find myself lost.
First, I thought the term "Early infanticidal childrearing" referred to early in infancy, not early in human history. Having read the talk page, I understand the reason for using the term, but "early" as a synonym for "historical, pre-historical, and contemporary-primitive" does not help with clarification. The best suggestions I can offer are "aboriginal", "ancient", and "archaic", although all of them are imperfect.
Second, the initial sentence, "Early infanticidal childrearing is a model developed by Lloyd deMause within the framework of psychohistory which purports that childrearing in the Paleolithic Era and in contemporary pre-literate hunter-gatherer tribes was or is infanticidal" does little to illuminate the topic. Perhaps it is because I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist by trade.
The third paragraph consists of one sentence which finally defines the 'model': "This model makes several claims: that childrearing in tribal societies included ritual sacrifice, high infanticide rates, incest, body mutilation, child rape and tortures." Disregarding the first listed item (despite terrors of Satanism, we generally do not see instances of babies ritually slaughtered in a religious context), the rest of the items occur in many societies, including modern, Western, industrialized ones. Is it that such activities were culturally acceptable (explicitly or tacitly)? If so, the article should state that clearly rather than assuming.
In the model, is there any discussion of how children were selected for infanticide? My feeling upon reading the article is that each child was killed or tortured in one way or another. I assume that that assumption is incorrect, and there was some sort of selection process that would vary from culture to culture. From the Infanticide article: "In the Solomon Islands, some people reportedly kill their first-born child as a matter of custom -- and then adopt a child from another island, a practice that suggests that the causes of infanticide are more complex." The comment lacks a citation, but it does point to a systematic infanticidal practice.Lizbetann 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. The article is confusing since it deals with a specific model within psychohistory. I will try to correct it. —Cesar Tort 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehension 

message: As a reader with no background in the subject, I found the introduction to be lacking v/v the MoS for introductions to subjects, and the rest of the article too technical and lacking in context. Anchoress 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked the introduction to hopefully make its context and meaning clearer.   Lumos3 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the re-worked intro is definitely more understandable, thanks. Anchoress 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Thanks! —Cesar Tort 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cesar Tort, I left the technical template up because the rest of the article is still too technical and lacking in context. The intro is definitely better, and I agree completely with Lumos3's removal of the tag commenting on the intro. I'm not going to replace the tag you removed (although I placed it), but I do think the article still needs work. Perhaps a more detailed overview in a section between the lede and the 'model' section? Or perhaps a better introductory paragraph to the 'model' section. I don't know because I know nothing of the topic outside what's in the article. ;-) Anchoress 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is an expansion of a section entitled  Psychogenic_mode from within the main article: Psychohistory
—Cesar Tort 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 'context' and 'technical' templates