This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
The article seems to give a misleading impression of Bachofen's ideas. While it's true that he praised the "Demetrian age," he also held the "Mother Right" to be bloody, vengeful, and superstitious, with patriarchy being the superior stage of human civilization. Evola was certainly not an opponent of Bachofen, he praised him and used Bachofen's terminology for the formulation of his "spiritual races." his main disagreement came from Bachofen's evolutionary view of history, which is overshadowed by the praise he heaped on him.
The recent edit seven days ago is extremely biased and opinionated, even going as poor in taste as needlessly bashing the daylight out of Engels. If there is good reason to include critique, it should have explanations and sources, NOT like what that edit consists of. It should be discussed by people more knowledgeable on this topic than I, but it absolutely should never be as it was: completely unacceptable for Wikipedia's standards and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.27.121 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]