Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing

message: For excerpts of the archived flaming discussion of 2002 that give the picture of this hotly controversial topic  see this selection.
This talk page is only for discussions to improve the article. If anybody wants to discuss issues unrelated to the improvement of the article, please do it in the above-linked forum. —Cesar Tort 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of archived 2002 discussions 

message: I have replaced the section under the heading of Criticism because I believe it is impossible to properly to source it:
Anthropologists generally argue that everywhere parents must negotiate between nurturing and loving their children on the one hand, and disciplining and socializing them on the other.{Who|date=November 2007} They further argue that what constitutes "love", "sex", appropriate sexual behavior, and appropriate behavior in general is culture-bound; and that much of what counts as average or even ideal childrearing practices in industrialized societies would be inappropriate in non-industrialized societies, and might be considered abusive by people of other cultures.{Fact|date=November 2007} They suggest that documented increases in infant mortality, mental illness, and suicide are more likely consequences of stresses brought on by Western conquest or colonization.{Fact|date=November 2007} Finally, most anthropologists do not consider non-industrial societies to necessarily be more primitive than industrial ones and find the assertion of the model that all societies of the same technological level have the same childrearing practices to be suspect and unsupported by fact. They argue that most models of cultural evolution (including many devised by anthropologists) are not so much scientific theories as myths of colonialism used to justify the denial of human rights to non-Western peoples.{Fact|date=November 2007}
Instead, I have used the Encyclopædia Britannica as a RS to write a completely new section.
—Cesar Tort 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten section 

message: This article seems to push a fringe POV, in effect promoting one person's view of things.  If this concept is used by historians, does this article provide an acurate NPOV account of it?!!20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: The concept is used by only a few sociologists or anthropologists and psychologists. If you read anthropology for a time, it is inevitable to stumble with the concepts presented in this article. AFAIK the article seems to be well sourced and has a valid "Criticism" section, so I see no problem (an apologetic "sales pitch" article WOULD be a problem). IMO tiny minority views also deserve a place here as long as the article is well sourced and written respecting the NPOV. For instance: Please take a look at Old Catholic Church.Randroide (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a notable psychological, sociological, historical, or anthropological concept? 

message: The context for a paragraph in the critical section is this:
I wonder if some balancing context ought to be included in the criticism section? —Cesar Tort 09:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Psychohistory is usually reserved for a particular school of thought mostly formulated by Eric Erickson, but also with an entire school of disciplines (Coles and Coles, others).  If this article is on infanticide, as a practice, it needs a different title.  If it is ONLY on the psychohistory of infanticide - then psychologists and psychohistorians should be the sources (Mead is anthropologist).  I believe it is an anthropological topic, and that there's a large literature on the topic in anthropology.  There's a mythology of infanticide, the contemporary study of it, documentary film about it, etc.  I have therefore placed the anthro tag on this page and will watch it.  I'm pondering the title and hope there's more dialogue on this.Levalley (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the talk pages it seems that an anthropologist suggested the present title. The former title ("Early infanticidal childrearing") was too technical for an encyclopedic entry. Most of Google hits are Asimov's and deMause's distinct psychohistories, not Eric Erickson's.  Thantalteresco (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to address this since the title change first occurred. The problem is that it doesn't represent an anthropological view at all. It represents a specific model by Lloyd deMause who has his own particular take on psychohistory. I made a suggestion for a title (as an example, and not a very good one) and the creator used it. I'm still not sure how to fix it. --Woland (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not object to move it again to its original title, but it sounds rather odd for a wiki. Let's see what other editors think about it. Thantalteresco (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original title might work now. Many of the original problems have been fixed to some extent (e.g. making sure that readers know that it is a model created by deMause). I'll go through the archives again to refresh my memory.--Woland (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's move it back to its original title. Do you know how? Thantalteresco (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Woland (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Article is still a concern