Talk:Avunculate

Archives

merge with Avunculocal residence

(I titled this topic/section. The opening paragraph with the suggestion and the next paragraph with the question about why, originally unindented, are actually the same post by the same editor at the same time. The second paragraph was indented by another editor. I unindented it, but left subsequent indentations intact. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Avunculocal residence.

Why? Other Hand (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two phenomena are often closely associated. The two Wikipedia articles either need toj be merged, or need to be synchronized in order to clearly distinguish the two concepts. AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request made in November 2008, I've merged "avunculocal residence" into the current article (for its talk page, see Archive1). I'm open to alternative ideas and suggestions, though, since I'm not a 100 % that this living arrangement is always necessarily related to the avunculate. Cavila (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indigenous peoples

The following came mainly from a recent revision of the matriarchy article, but I don't feel qualified to edit this article based on this sourcing, so I'd rather offer it for anyone else to consider researching and editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa,<ref>Other than avunculocality: [http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/goettnerabendroth.html Goettner-Abendroth, Heide, trans. Jutta Ried & Karen P. Smith, Modern Matriarchal Studies. Definitions, Scope and Topicality (Societies of Peace, ca. or ante 2005)], as accessed October 27, 2013.</ref> such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers, and Tuareg, and, in Europe, e.g., traditionally among Sardinian people.<ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20544306 La Famiglia e La Donna in Sardegna Annotazioni di Studio, vol. 71, no. 3 (2005)], pp. 487–498 (article) (dissem.).</ref><ref>[http://www.contusu.it/personaggi-e-storia-mainmenu-31/229-sardegna-matriarcale.html Sardegna matriarcale] (in Italian).</ref>"

It might be asking for trouble to use Goettner-Abendroth as a reference on a straight-up anthropology article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That could be so (since her views regarding matriarchy are controversial but I don't know if that's the case on these narrower claims), but if it's a sourced view it can be balanced with other sourcing. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we would do best to leave Goettner-Abendroth completely out of this article. There are plenty of potential sources for lists of matrilineal and avunculocal societies, and if lists by reputable anthropologists were to conflict with Goettner-Abendroth's lists, then Goettner-Abendroth would not have any credibility among mainstream anthropologists... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies are reportable, including in this article. That would include a source disputing her view relevant to this article. On the other hand, her statement may be too vague for weight, because, as reported here, it puts large supergroups of people from three continents (not more specifically identified except as indigenous) into being avunculocal, matrilocal, and/or matrilineal, and two of those are not relevant to this article; someone would have to check the cited source for more specificity about avunculocality, if she provided it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goettner-Abendroth is fine as a reference on matriarchal and feminist theories, but unfortunately she's effectively a fringe source when it comes to ethnographic reportage. I wonder why you're insisting on sticking to a literalistic interpretation of Wikipedia policies on other article talk pages, but feel free to disregard them here? -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I offered the content for consideration by editors. I did not add it to the article. You wrote, "if lists by reputable anthropologists were to conflict with Goettner-Abendroth's lists, then Goettner-Abendroth would not have any credibility among mainstream anthropologists." I replied, "controversies are reportable, including in this article. That would include a source disputing her view relevant to this article." Nothing in this thread is advocacy by anyone for reporting a fringe view. Not always is a side in a controversy a fringe view. I don't know if Goettner-Abendroth's would be. You and other editors can evaluate whether her views are fringe and, if so, whether they are reportable anyway, since some fringe views are reportable. I did not violate a policy or a guideline by offering the content for editors' consideration without adding it to the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is basically about concrete ethnographic facts -- not about speculative matriarchal theories -- so Goettner-Abendroth is pretty much off the radar screen (as far as leigitimacy/reliability goes)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not exclude controversy. The type of article that does is one which is so long that it had to be split and the fissure chosen was between noncontroversy or limited controversy in one article and full controversy in another. Cf. marriage and criticism of marriage. This article is not a candidate for splitting and it should include controversy. Goettner-Abendroth's work may be too underspecific and/or not deserving of weight for this article, but reliability applies to the publisher/s of her work and her work being controversial on avunculism (if it is) is not a criterion for exclusion. If her work on avunculism was criticized, that criticism should be reported and sourced. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is controversy about concrete ethnographic facts among reliable sources concerning concrete ethnographic facts, that could certainly be included. However, the subject matter of this article is only somewhat tangentially related to matriarchal theorizing... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content under discussion at the start of this thread is not here for matriarchy, it is here for avunculocality. So whether it is tangential to matriarchy is irrelevant. It is mainly about three subjects in anthropology other than matriarchy. Insofar as it is about the theory and/or practice of avunculocality, that is within this article's scope. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

The first paragraph of "Definition" includes this fragment: "In societies where maternal filiation is strongly represented" What does it mean? Maternal filiation sounds like it means the fact of being a specific mother's child, but I can't figure out what "strongly represented" means or how it fits together. Sbwoodside (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up the article and added a bunch of citations. I removed this fragment because it was unsourced/uncited and I couldn't figure out what it means. It's a bit challenging to figure out exactly what the avunculate is, since there are varying formal and informal definitions, so I drew the fundamental definition from textbook. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Maternal filiation" was an early 20th century way of saying that (in some cultures) there tended to be a strong relationship between an individual and his mother's side of the family (whether or not there's a formally defied matrilineal descent group). AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]