Talk:Franz Boas/Archive 2

German American
He's a German American. That links to the German American article. That article has links to germany and america, in case anyone doesn't know about those two countries. But the specific link should be the more narrow one. --Work permit (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed German-American to German American. I think that's a more appropriate description, if we're going to mention it at all. My change got reverted because it was tangled up with another edit--Work permit (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we not distinguish between Americans whos ancestry is German, from Americans who were born in Germany? I don't mean to quibble. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The term does include immigrants to America. I don't know of a distinction, except to say one is an immigrant rather then, say, 1st or 2nd generation American. --Work permit (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

boas's understanding of culture
can anyone explain to me boas's understanding of culture please .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.154 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * everything that is learned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pupils
I know there already are a lot of names, but let me add some more: Co-Workers with Boas: Felix von Luschan (whom W. E. B. DuBois studied with in Germany) and esp. the incredible Berthold Laufer. Native American "informer" Ella Deloria, de:Julia Pawlowna Awerkijewa, a Russian student in anthropology, who went with Boas on his last expedition. Rhoda Metraux, whose grandfather from a wealthy Frankfurt family, who emigrated to NYC Boas knew. Helen Codere, who finished one of Boas manuscripts. There will be even more, I guess.--Radh (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think adding these are important, but for clarity's sake I think they should be in separate sections. Kroeber, Lowie, and Benedict all became coworkers, so if there is something special about his relationship (formal or informal) with von Luschan and Laufer, you should explain.  Likewise, it is important to provide context about his relationship with Deloria (and maybe Hunt too)?  These names represent different kinds of relationships with different degrees of significance and need to be contextualized properly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree.--Radh (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto students - I think most historians of anthropology give special place to Boas's students at Columbia because it was the first time Boas had an autonomous anhropology department. This does not mean we should not mention any PhD students he worked wth elsewhere.  I do not have the sources you seem to be working with so I have to rely on you, but I would ask that you add the names of these other students only when you can also say more about Boas's role (supervisor/chair of the person's committee?  Or just one of the person's teachers?) and when you can say what the person's PhD. was in - was in in anthropology, or a different discipline (which is what I would wonder for students at Clark or Harvard) and where the person went on to work (US government?  a museum? A university? Which department?).   Do you think we should create a separate section for these people, or create subsections for pupils at different stages of his career, or something else?  It seems like you have important data worth adding, we just want to make sure that is added in a ay that illuminats rather than obscures the complex history of Boas's institutional affiliations and associations, as well as his changing status - these little things are I think essential to understanding exactly how modern anthropology emerged in the US.  I hope all of this makes sense and sounds reasonable to you.  it sounds like you have very valuable information to add. I just think that such names should be added in a way that illustrates how different academic/institutional relations were in flux at the turn of the 20th century, and not just be a list of names.  I think you could then make a major improvement to the article! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't want to be rude to you, I see things not that different from you, I just do not have the resources and time right now, not to mention the usual chaos in my head, to do the work you point out and which I also think should be done. Here is the list of all people I found so far who were pupils of Boas at Columbia, one or two PhDs from Clark (1) and Harvard, also very few other scientists: de:User:Radh/Anthropologen, Boas Schüler und Mitarbeiter, I guess half of the sources used are on . Its a new list, I will try to improve it tonight. Some PhD dates differ from online source to online source.--Radh (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not being rude. There are two issues.  One requires no research, it just has to do with the way we organize the article.  I think it should be organized so that it is very clear to readers, whom did Boas train as an anthropologist; whom did Boas train, but not as an anthropologist; whom did Boas teach, but not in a major way, and so on.  The second is research and I don't expect you to have all of the information I asked for, what i ask for is an ideal.  But I think that good sources would provide a lot of the information I ask for.  If a source does not provide the information, I have to question its wuality as a source.  For example, if a book or article gave a list of Boas's "students' and it included Kroeber and Lowie but also Pawlowa and Metreaux, I would say this is a bad source, a sloppy source, because it is not giving us enough information to judge Boas's real relationship to these people.  What does it mean to say Boas and Laufer were co-workers?  Where? For how long?  Did they actually work together, or just have the same employer?  If you do not know, I would say, with respect, do not add it to the article.  The fault is not yours, the fault is your source's.  The fact that different sources give different PhD dates if further proof that these sources are unreliable (a reliable source would say "X finished her degree in year x, but did not graduate until year y" or something to explain why people use two dats).  A good (reliable) source would be clear about these things.  I am very proud of the Boas article at English Wikipedia - it is very detailed, it provides a lot of information and context.  I am sure it can be improved and it sounds like you have some material that really would improve it.  But you are right: a good article requires good research which requires time.  I am sorry you don't have more time to work on this article.  I looked at one of the pages you refer to and saw some google books but I did not see exact page numbers so I have no idea which books are sources for what material.  I do not understand German so I do not understand your argument with the person at the German Wikipedia.  I looked at the German Boas article and as I do not read German I cannot judge it, but it is much shorter than the English article and does not have as many references.  I am sorry, it is hard for me to tell what content is in the German article that is missing from the English article.  But I firmly believe that what we add to the English article has to come from reliable sources and reliable sources are clear about salient facts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if we start by putting in the names for which we have complete information, properly sourced, it might inspire other people do to more research. I put together the list of his Columbia PhDs before Wikipedia had a citation policy, so this section needs more citations.  But in most cases i could go by obituaries published by the American Anthropological Association.  For these people it is very clear: the students got PhDs in anthropology and went on to teach anthropology.  It is more complex when we talk about Clark, where Boas may not have had his own PhD students, or they may not have graduated in anthropology. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not half as critical of this Boas article as you think I am. Julia S. Falk says, there were 40 PhDs (20m, 20f) at Columbia from 1920 to '40, in anthropology. Source: Esther Schiff Goldfrank, Notes on an Undirected Life(1978), her autobiography. But perhaps this has to be taken not too seriously (not wortwörtlich). But in the end, it does not really matter, because the most important people certainly are known (even if without a WP entry). And User: Slrubenstein is certainly right not to want to muddle the waters in the Franz Boas article too much. But I find the impression of Columbia University anthropology, which a list of his serious students gives interesting. @PhDs: I think I have found reasonable safe information on all but one or two Boas pupils, mainly because their papers are safe at universities....For what it is worth: de:Benutzer: Radh/Anthropologen, Boas Schüler und Mitarbeiter.--Radh (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I never suggested you were being critical of the article. You are welcome to make any cimprovements that you can to it.  We just need to be clear.  For example, was Deloria an informant?  I think she was an author in her own right.  I know she had an interesting relationship with Boas and I do not think it fits into any current list in the current article ... this does not mean she shouldn't be mentioned, it just means that we should give some thought to how to mention her and where in the article.  Should the details about the relationship go in this article, or on an article just on her?  Obviously no article about anybody can discuss everyone that person knew.  We need to distinguish between diferent kinds of relationships and different degrees of closeness.  Such informtion has to come from reliable sources, and I suggest that one sign that a source is reliable is the detail of information and context that it provides.  These are my only points. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NY Times article in 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E0D9133BF93BA35753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

I was wondering if the criticism of Boas in this article could be somehow useful in this page for Franz Boas.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.237.42 (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we've covered that here - the criticism has been refuted. dougweller (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you manage to read that "refutation"? I did - and it essentially says that Boas never actually meant to postulate primate of nurture over nature - it is by pure accident that all around misunderstood him in that way. So much for "refutation". But apparently it is "antisemitism" to criticize such a "great" Jewish ethnic activist, isn't it? Anon 27 April 2010.


 * A free it of advice: you may wish to learn about what you wish to talk about, becore writing anything here, it will keep you from looking so ignorant. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WightCrow's additions
add a lot to the article. I made some minor deletions - deleting for the most part material that was redundant. I also moved around some of the additions, to help maintain the flow of each section. For example WightCrow created an honors and achievements section, a very good idea I think. But if something is in that section, it should not be elsewhere - redundant. I think my edits honor the bulk of these new contributions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Father of Modern Anthropology
Modern Anthropology of course has many fathers - E.B.Tylor and Herodotus and Bernardino de Sahagun have all been called "father of modern anthropology." Apart from the Pinker book (Blank slate p 22) the following sources also refer to Boas as father of modern anthropology: Is that enough?·Maunus· ƛ · 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * María Eugenia Cotera. (2003) Native speakers: Ella Deloria, Zora Neale Hurston, Jovita González, and the poetics of culture, University of Texas Press, 2008 p4 & p59.
 * http://www.nndb.com/people/861/000097570/
 * Hoefel, Roseanne."Different by Degree": Ella Cara Deloria, Zora Neale Hurston, and Franz Boas Contend with Race and Ethnicity. The American Indian Quarterly, Volume 25, Number 2, Spring 2001, pp. 181-202
 * Brumble, David. Social Scientists and American Indian Autobiographers: Sun Chief and Gregorio's “Life Story”. Journal of American Studies (1986), 20: 273-289 Cambridge University Press
 * Gregory Allen Schrempp, William F. Hansen. Myth: a new symposium. Indiana University Press, 2002 p. 61

Jewish Ancestry
Boas was of Jewish ancestry, regardless of his religious beliefs. This is a fact, and a notable one. Please explain why it should be censored. Oo Yun (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? He identified as German, not Jewish. We've discussed this before. . Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All humkan beings are of African ancestrs. We do not add that.  The issue here is WP:NOR.  Which historian or biographer who is a specialist on Boas or anthropology has argued that his Jewish ancestry is relevant, and why is it relevant?  I know of no credible or significant study, and those are the views we are required to put in ... not some editor's opinion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also already mentioned in the early life section so it is not as if it is being left out - its just a question of how much weight it should be given. Standard practice is to only mention jewish heritage in the lead if the subject selfidentifies as jewish. There is no particular jewish interests or themes that recur in Boas' work or life so I'd argue that there is no reason to deviate from standrd practice here. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: All humkan beings are of African ancestrs. We do not add that.
 * Yeah, cos it's not notable. What a stupid thing to say. Check the links, they all discuss Boas' Jewishness, it's not disputed. Just cos he 'kept it quiet' is of no bearing. It's a fact, and an interesting one. I'm sure you know the conspiracy theories: "Jews want to pretend we're all equal to trash their rivals while they remain pure", I don't know about that, but we present the facts, and Boas' Jewish German American ancestry is spot on accurate. Sorry if you're uncomfortable with that fact, but it's a fact and needs to be reported. Oo Yun (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said it is reported, the section on early life mentions his family's Jewishness. That is about as important that fact is. No need to put it in the lead.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a coincidence that Oo Yun's first edit was a criticism of Boas, I'm sure. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm seeing the same people in the history of this page arguing that this fact is "unimportant". Ironically, the fact that Franz Boas' ancestry is discussed more than the ancestry of almost any other scientist, including here, demonstrate the transparent falsity of your opinion. Oo Yun (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you hang out where Boas' ancestry is a hot topic - I've been reading about Boas for years now and it's never come up once.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that rather hard to believe. Anyway, like I said, the fact that it is regularly discussed here is good enough reason to include it. Why do you have a problem with that? Oo Yun (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It IS included. I has not been censored. Did you even read the article? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean changing "German American", which could be misleading, to "Jewish German American", which is absolutely precise. Why do you have a problem with this? Oo Yun (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer the question. You wrote that his Jewish ancestry should be included in the article. I said that it is included in the article. Have you read the article? You say the links all discuss his Jewishness. Have you read all the links? All the works cited? I have. The ones that discuss his "Jewishness" support that he did not identify himself as Jewish. He identified himself as German and then American. Even his opponents in the US identified him as German. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I'm unhappy about 'kept it quiet'. Oo Yun, why are you so keen about this? Why not go off an edit some other articles? Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. Why is presenting a notable fact a problem here? Boas was of Jewish ancestry. Right now it says German, which could be misleading. Jewish German is accurate. Why do you have a problem with presenting a fact? Who cares if Boas said he was a flamingo. 86.177.2.57 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand: It is presented. And please also understand that mentioning it in the lead is not standard practice, just like we don't identify Bill Cosby as an "African-American comedian". We define people by natioanality and only by ethnicity in so far as it is deemed relevant only if the subject itself found it important.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obvious that Bill Cosby has African ancestry. I doubt your claim that the "subject itself" must find it important, and ask you to reference the policy. If it is discussed in reliable secondary sources it's enough reason to mention it. The sources referenced in "Boas, anthropology, and Jewish identity" contain discussion of the fact and it's alleged importance. Since this is an encyclopedia which presents the facts, in this case the ethnicity is an important issue, and should be mentioned for clarity, so that people who go to the page specifically for confirmation of this fact will be able to find the correct information, rather than something which is potentially misleading. I find it strange that you have a problem with mentioning Boas' Jewish ancestry, isn't it something to be proud of? Oo Yun (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? And why should it matter here? Our purpose is to inform and to describe, not to classify according to somewhat subjective constructs sometimes inspired - as you explicitly avow - by ethnic pride. (There is one subjectivity that does matter here, namely, Boas's, not mine or yours.) Feketekave (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I'll say it again: I want to change "German American" to "Jewish German American". Read that. Read it again. Got it? I also explained why it's important in this case. Oo Yun (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article mentions his Jewish ancestry, Oo Yun is suggesting, falsely, that it doesn't. It couldn't be clearer about his ancestry as it says his parents were Jewish. So that can't be an issue and to try to suggest that the article doesn't mention this is what is misleading. The idea that a Jewish/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever ancestry (what's the difference?) is something to be proud of is irrelevant and not for us to decide in any case. The fact that this is an encyclopedia does not make ethnicity an important issue. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been following this exchange for some time now. But now it's gotten to the point of 'ridiculous' already. Mind you: not "German Jewish American," but on-your-face "Jewish German American." No less! Almost funny, if not really ridiculous. Let me cast a vote here, before this keeps going to far: "German American" on the lead, with the early life fact that he came from Jewish ancestry is more than enough for Wikipedia standards. And for the 'truth' also, for that matter. I think Boas must be turning in his grave, really... By the way, the same "Jewish nationalistic" (probably also "zionistic") discussion crops up every once in a while on the page of the greatest of Boaz's disciples (Claude Lévi-Strauss), and also there Wikipedia Admins should not relent to this quite aggressive Jewish nationalistic onslaught. warshytalk 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking again at the Lévi-Strauss's article, the section on his early life, and it really needs some beefing up on his Jewish ancestry and origins. Unlike here, where the fact is well established and discussed, even in some interesting cultural/historical detail such as the reference to Enlightenment values and 19th century Jewish assimilation in Germany, there there is only one quite casual, passing reference to his maternal grandfather being the rabbi of the Synagogue of Versailles during World War I... warshytalk 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure from which side is being pushed here - but pushing is going on that is for sure.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Warshy has it a little backwards. Boas wanted to be seen as non-Jewish, but in fact, he was of Jewish ancestry. It is a little strange the denial of ancestry which is aggressively pushed by Jews, simultaeneous with the "Zionist" Jew/nonJew obsession. But we report the facts, and Boas' Jewish ancestry is beyond question. Oo Yun (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there we go - "aggressively pushed by Jews." I thought we'd get here sometime. I really do suggest you go find articles to edit which have nothing to do with Jews or Jewishness. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop talking to me. Oo Yun (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And who is denying and/or obscuring in any way or manner, pray tell, his undeniable Jewish ancestry? It is plain and clear for anyone that bothers to read the article. I, from here on, will just vote to block you out of editing this page... warshytalk 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, like anyone gives a shit. Oo Yun (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Boas on Jewishness
Boas did not identify as Jewish because he believed the concept of a Jewish "race" to be false and the concept of a Jewish culture different from the German one to be equally false. He argued that by assimilating genetically and culturally to other groups the concept of a separate Jewishness had become meaningless. He argued in favour of assimilation of minorities to majority groups - both through genetic miscegenation and cultural assimilation. (it is paradoxical that he sees racism as a problem caused by the existence of races instead of being created by culturally defined attitudes to races). This shows rather well that defining him as Jewish would be reifying a category that he himself was working to invalidate. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Negro problem will not disappear in America untill the negreo blood has been so diluted that it will not be recognized, just as Anti-Semitism will not disappear untill the last vestige of the Jew as Jew has dissappeared" (Franz Boas 1921, "the problem of the American Negro" Yale Review
 * (Here it is clear that He considers himself to be fully assimilated to German culture and that he sees those Jews who continues cultural practices associated with Jewishness are causing Anti-Semitism - its weird, I know)


 * "the present policies of the German government are based on the assumption that an 'Aryan' has certan biologically determined qualities that are entirely foreign to every Non-Aryan ... these beliefs are based on a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a race and on the way in which we arrive at the concept of a racial type. ... Just as Germanized Slavs and French have become German in their culture, as the Frenchified Germans have become French ...so have the German Jews become German" (Franz Boas 1934, "Aryans and Non-Aryans")
 * (Here it becomes further clear that he doesn't believe that Jews are a race in a biological sense and that as soon as they cease with jewish cultural practices (as his family had done) they are no longer Jewish in any meaningful sense.)·Maunus· ƛ · 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But by the same logic we cannot refer to him as German either. Oo Yun (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is false. He does no where argue that German isn't a valid category ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You're confusing Boas' opinion with mainstream opinion, which is that German and Jewish are both ancestral categories. Oo Yun (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * German is a nationality not an ancestral category. You are confusing your own opinion with mainstream opinion.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's both. This is simple, and it's the same point you are skirting and failing to address. If we can refer to someone as "German American" we can also refer to them as "Jewish German American". You have presented nothing to contradict this. Boas' statement above is regarding culture while we are discussing ancestry. If you are claiming that "Jewish ancestry" is an invalid category I can proveide many sources to the contrary. Is that the case? Oo Yun (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I think you may be confusing Boas' somewhat extremist and vague opinion with the normal concept of ancestry, which is what we use to write wikipedia articles, even the Boas one. Oo Yun (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know of no such normal concept of ancestry. And Boas opinion is neither extremist or weak - it has been the foundation for the views of race and ethnicity in social science for the past 70 years. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that Oo Yun is just a garden-variety troll and can safely be ignored now. This page is to discuss improvements to the article, not for soap-boxing by POV-pushers. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just hypocrisy. How dare you insult me in this manner. Also I think you have a conflict of interest on this issue. Oo Yun (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Manus' argument re: Boas own thoughts about Jewishness has power, but Wikipedia-policy may still differ from Boas' opinions on the matter. And I find Slrubenstein's dressing down of Oo Yun not helpful. (There are already enough people on wikipedia who think they own the place).--Radh (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I quote: "Wow, like anyone gives a shit. Oo Yun (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)" - and this is not a sign of being a troll? Plus the fact that he has not contributed to any other articles? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (reply to Oo Yon) Let me see. I'll bet you think someone who has a Jewish name automatically has a conflict of interest in editing anything Jewish. Luckily that's not the way Wikipedia treats this situation. We don't even say anti-Semites can't edit Jewish articles. What's hypocritical is someone who writes in an edit summary "Nah, you're liars. Better to die than contribute to short term gangsterism." getting upset about being insulted. Dougweller (talk)
 * No. But when someone who has a Jewish name argues vehemently to supress factual and notable information which could reflect badly on Jews, and descends to egregious personal attacks, my "conflict of interest" bell starts ringing. Oo Yun (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Suppression' is a loaded word which isn't appropriate. 'Notable' is something that hasn't been shown which is part of the problem, what makes his religion or whatever notable? The most egregious personal attacks have been yours, and I'm happy to argue vehemently against you also. Do I have a conflict of interest? What does 'reflect badly on Jews' mean? Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Boas had close connection to New York Jewish-German society (Warburgs) etc., many of his closest students came from Jewish families. He was a fighter against antisemitism and racism. But why this should reflect badly on him obviously is another question.--Radh (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Boas had close connections to New York Gentile society, employed by the American Museum of Natural History (supported by some of New York's wealthiest Gentiles) and Columbia University (run by Gentiles). Some of his closest, and certainly his most famous, students - Alfred Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, and Margaret Mead - were Gentiles.  His students included Gentile African-Americans and a Native American (so, do we now identify him as a black Indian?).  He was a fighter against all forms of racism, this would naturally include anti-Semitism.  The fact remains that he was not Jewish. His approach to anthropology comes almost entirely from two German Gentiles anthropologists, Alexander von Humboldt and Adolf Bastien (Boas also quoted Goethe, another Gentile German, as an inspiration).  But the really salient fact, as far as the lead of the article goes, is that during his lifetime he was a citizen of two states: Germany and the United States.  He was educated entirely in Germany, and spent almost his entire professional life in the United States.  These are compelling reasons for identifying him in the lead as German and American.  This page is to discuss improvements to the article and that requires people to have done research and not to be pushing their own POV.  POV pushers who endlessley repeat that we must include in the article information that ... that ... that ... well, that is already in the article have no place here.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put the troll issue aside. And also Mr. David Duke's opinions on this (www). But: Franz Uri Boas certainly was Jewish - the question remains, if it should be stated in the first sentence of the article.
 * I think it is remarkable that Durkheim, Mauss, Sapir, Levi-Strauss were Jews. Sapir and his pupil Mandelbaum seem to have debated a specific "Hang" of Jews for anthropology (blog myjewishlearning.com)
 * In an open letter 1933 he stated: "Ich bin jüdischer Abstammung, aber im Fühlen und Denken bin ich Deutscher''. And he closes: "...wenn Unfläterei (verbal injuries), Gemeinheit (meanness), Unduldsamkeit (intolerance), Ungerechtigkeit (unjustice), Lüge (the lie) heutzutage als deutsch angesehen werden, wer mag dann noch ein Deutscher sein" [if verbal injuries, the lie, today are seen as "German", who still wants to be a German.] (german WP article Boas).
 * Friends and graduate students of Boas include Berthold Laufer, Leo J. Frachtenberg, Alexander Goldenweiser, Irving Goldman, Melville Jean Herskovits, Melville Jacobs, Otto Klineberg, Alexander Lesser, Robert Lowie, Ashley Montagu, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, Ruth Bunzel, Esther Schiff Goldfrank, Ruth Schlossberg Landes, Rhoda Metraux, Gene Weltfish. He had three or four Native American students and also three or four Afro-American students (obviously not his fault that it were so few). I have never said or implied that he had no Gentile teachers, friends, connections or pupils: Kroeber, Mead...around 2/3 of his phD-students were Gentiles).
 * See also: Leonard B. Glick: Types Distinct from Our Own: Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimilation (pdf): --Radh (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone can't read that, the crucial bit is "I'm Jewish, but in feeling and thinking I am a German.". And the article lead reads: "Franz Boas (* July 9 1858 in Minden, † December 21 1942 in New York) was a German-born American geographer, anthropologist and ethnologist.", with the next section starting "Franz Boas was born into a Jewish-German family, ". Which is fine, and similar to our article so far as this discussion goes. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a quite accurate translation Doug - he says "I am of Jewish descent, but I am German in thought and feeling"·Maunus· ƛ · 20:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, how did I leave out 'Abstammung'? Absolutely. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare the case of Aby Warburg: He was the first of the family (as far as I know) to marry outside the faith, his parents, like Boas grandparents, were still very observant Jews. He was from his youth anti-Orthodox and did not observe the Jewish food tabus etc. (if he could get away with it). He converted to Roman Catholicism late in life. But he is nowhere talked of as a famous Catholic art historian.--Radh (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Radh, how are you calculating 2/3 gentiles? Also I think this is a clear demonstration of the high representation of Jews in Boas' clique. A little strange for someone who considers themself German. Also we have it from his own pen that he is of Jewish descent. I think that counts as notability and verifiability. Oo Yun (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC) — Oo Yun (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * edit-conflict: don't want to write down the names again, but among his close students were        about 20 Jews and about 46 Gentiles (including 4 Native Americans). For my list of Boas pupils see: de:Benutzer:Radh/Anthropologen, Boas Schüler und Mitarbeiter.--Radh (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning that he is of Jewish descent and the article makes that crystal clear. You still haven't explained what makes this notable. And why the loaded words such as 'clique'? Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)This discussion needs to stop. If he had taught only Rabbi's or Klansmen that would have made him neither a Rabbi or a Klansman. "American" is not an ethnically defined identity - neither is "German" -you can be fully German or American no matter where in the world your parent were born and no matter what religion they practiced. Jewish is either an ethnic or a religious identity. It is neither wikipedia's or current German or American practice to define Jewishness by the amount of "Jewish blood" one has - that practice went out of fashion around 1945. Current practice for defining someone as being Jewish requires them to identify as being part of a Jewish ethnic or religious group. Boas didn't. We don't categorize people into ethnic groups where they don't feel they belong. Period. Anything beyond this is simply feeding the troll. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am all for a stop to this debate. But: your ideas about being German regardless of German parents etc. simply did not apply in Boas' time, not until recently in fact.--Radh (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oo Yun turns out to be just a sock puppet
See Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev - I was pretty convinced this was the case but didn't know who it could be. His first edit showed that he wasn't new. And his bigotry made me wonder if he was actually a blocked or banned user. Mikemikev will almost certainly be back. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He also posted here in early August as Finkelkraut, trying to raise the same issue. I've deleted the section, banned means banned. I'll leave the above as so many others have participated, but if it comes up again I'll probably not AGF (WP:AGF doesn't require us to be stupid or naive). Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Madison Grant
User:WeijiBaikeBianji added a further reading section with a single book: "Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant" by J.P. Spiro. I removed this because the book is only tangentially related to Boas Biography and treats another topic and I think that a further reading section should focus on books that treat it directly or it will quickly grow unwieldy - a lot has been written about Boas. However I think that it would be useful to integrate the book into the article by writing a section about the Grant - Boas rivalry and Boas' fight against eugenics. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

recent revert
Two editors recently made five edits to the article. I reverted some, and kept others. Maunus asks why. Fair enough. First, I think the adding the phrase "but somewhat simplistic" is editorializing - that it is simplistic is an opinion; since the user did not provide a source or attribution I can only infer that it is that uers's opinion. We should try not to add our opinions to the article. Second, I do not agree that changing "spy" to "intelligence gathering" is an improvement. The word "spy" has a commonly understood meaning; "intelligence" is a euphamism and jargon and might not be clear to people who are not familiar with its use as a euphamism by the US government. Moreover, the sources use the word "spy." It is what Boas accused them of doing, why not just say so? Finally, I do not agree with deleting the fact that Boas published a book on the Eskimo of Baffin Island. It is informative, and relevant given that it illustrates his shifting interests from learning about they physical environment to learning about the peoples inhabiting that environment. Thse are my reasons for reverting these edits. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a "group" is both more neutral and factual than describing Morley's associates as "confederates". You reverted many more edits than just those two you mention here - many of which were improvements of language.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also reverted the change of "(which included not only Boasian Anthropology but Freudian psychoanalysis and Einsteinian physics)" to "which included Einsteinian physics, Freudian psychoanalysis and Boasian Anthropology" because the article is about Boas, Boasian anthropology is the most salient, and I think it should be mentioned first. If you really think this edit is an improvement, please explain it to me. Also, I reverted "in which he proclaimed" back to "declaring." I think fewer words is better, and honestly, I see not real superiority of "declare" over "proclaim."

I also restored this "(a charge that was especially insulting, given that his concerns about this very issue were what had prompted Boas to write his letter in the first place)" - I do not think I added it to the article, but I assume that whoever did had good reason to. However, if you really think it should be deleted I won't object. I will also change confederate to group.

I really think I have now covered all the stuff I reverted. If I have forgotten something do let me know because I really have tried to cover everything I was conscious of. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Big text

Boas’ Character as a Jew is Essential to Understanding Him
Look, the guy was a German Jew, as am I. His downplaying of his religious background does not change reality. (Indeed, had he remained in Germany, his denial of his status as a Jew would not have impressed the Nazis.) Saying that he was “German-American” is misleading, as it suggests that he was a gentile. Saying that he was “of Jewish ancestry” is equally misleading, since it suggests that he was a gentile who had patrilineal Jewish forbears. The claim that “Boas did not identify as Jewish because he believed the concept of a Jewish ‘race’ to be false” is a red herring. [The pseudo-scientific notion that the Jews are a “race” got its greatest push from genocidal European anti-Semites in the late 19th and early 20th century, and of course from the Nazis, circa 1920-1945. Today it is vigorously promoted by pseudo-scholar Kevin MacDonald and his followers.] Judaism is a religion, not a race, and an ethnicity, perhaps to the degree that one was born of a Jewish mother, but does not identify as a Jew. However the notion of Judaism as an ethnicity is deeply problematic, as it contradicts the standard definition of ethnicity as derived from the nation of one’s forbears. Thus, it as if one’s forbears came from a land called “Judea.” Thus, Boas’ ethnicity was German. (Actually, after World War II, secular American Jewish sociologists promoted the misleading notion that Judaism was merely an “ethnicity.”)

If you’re going to push the fact that he was a Jew down to later in the article, then you have to do the same with “German-American,” because his Jewishness was as significant or moreso than his Germanness.

Whether he refused to identify as a Jew does not change reality. I am a German-American Jew, and many of my patrilineal forebears were Jewish anti-Semites who did not identify as Jews, and who married gentiles at the earliest opportunity, but no honest biographer of them would diminish the significance of their having been Jews. And this is not unique to my family. The brand of anti-Semitism unique to German Jews and their descendants in America is an integral part of their story. One aspect of this anti-Semitism was a hatred of the Jewish religion; another was a hatred of less wealthy Eastern European Jews, whom the German Jews considered unclean and ignorant; a possible third aspect may have been German Jews’ desire to completely assimilate to upper-crust American society. (German Jews’ desire to completely assimilate to gentile society, both in Germany and America, proved disastrous during the Holocaust. Jews waited too long to flee Germany, and American Jewish leaders, most notoriously Rabbi Stephen Wise, and the owners of the New York Times, refrained from publicly pressuring President Franklin Delano Roosevelt from intervening to save European Jews, out of a misplaced desire not to appear selfish.)

There is also a uniquely German-Jewish arrogance and sense of aristocratic entitlement, which often is veiled by “noblesse oblige” towards gentiles (particularly blacks) of less means and influence. In Boas’ case, he expressed “noblesse oblige” toward blacks by working with the NAACP, and consciously foisting pseudo-science that denied racial differences on the world. The assertion that “it is paradoxical that he sees racism as a problem caused by the existence of races instead of being created by culturally defined attitudes to races” is no paradox at all. Boas acknowledged both that races exist, and (acknowledged early on) that they are unequal. His pseudo-science and agitation for “miscegenation” were parts of his strategy to change the facts on the ground, and thereby turn his pseudo-science into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As Eastern European Jews became more financially successful, German Jews’ hatred of them died out, and was replaced with a generalized hatred towards lower-middle-class, working-class, and poor Jews that the German Jews now shared with well-to-do Jews of Eastern European descent.74.72.23.106 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you presented any reputable source in support of your view it would be easier to take it seriously. If Judaism is a religion and Boas was not religious then how was he a Jew exactly? I agree that his relation to Judaism is relevant and interesting, but not for the reasons you do. I don't believe that you can demonstrate that Boas had any hatred of any ethnic or religious group whatsoever - particularly not for the Jews. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jews have debated the question, "If Judaism is a religion and [anyone born of a Jewish mother] was not religious then how was he a Jew exactly?" for generations.


 * The following editorial from the ‘Jewish Daily Forward’ discusses but one aspect of this long-running debate: In Israel, powerful Orthodox Jews deny that Reform and Conservative Jews are Jews. So, for the Israeli Orthodox establishment, even if you say you’re a Jew, you’re not a Jew, unless you’re one of them. Conversely, other influential (presumably non-Orthodox) Israeli Jews say that all of the aforementioned groups’ members are Jews of equal standing.


 * There’s an old Jewish saying, “Two Jews, three opinions!”


 * http://www.forward.com/articles/139000/
 * “‘Who Is a Jew?’ Again?!”
 * Published June 22, 2011, issue of July 01, 2011.


 * As for whether Boas shared the anti-Semitism of so many of the well-to-do German Jews in America of his day I do not know, and did not claim to know. However, he certainly followed their strategy of noblesse oblige towards blacks. Conversely, I am not aware of his having shown any noblesse oblige towards impoverished Jews, of whom there were millions in America's cities, from the 1880s until his death in 1942.74.72.23.106 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Insight into the IP editor's thoughts on this matter can probably be found here: "Wikipedia Scientific Hoax Alert: In Article on the U.S. Census, the Encyclopedia That Any Leftwing Fraud Can Edit Promotes “Race Does Not Exist” Myth"   Will Beback    talk    07:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

JSPES
JSPES is not a reliable source on Boas it is published by Neo-Nazi Roger Pearson and specialices in far right opinion pieces just like Mankind Quarterly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article clearly shows that these absurdities are part of the anti-semite/racialist environments attempts to discredit mainstream anthropology. The sdame nonsense has been paraded by Madison Grant, Roger Pearson, and J . P. Rushton. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Boas was in fact not a member of any political group, but he was a humanist and an anti-nationalist. He also argued in favor of US neutrality in WW2. Liss, J. E. (1998), Diasporic Identities: The Science and Politics of Race in the Work of Franz Boas and W. E. B. Du Bois, 1894–1919. Cultural Anthropology, 13: 127–166. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One more article showing that this is simply white supremacist propaganda.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Although not a Marxist himself, during this period he devoted much of his time and energy to political causes associated with the far left (Goldfrank 1978:123 ff.; Stern 1959:239-241)."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what he wrote to Earl Browder imprisoned leader of the US Communist party: "However much I may disagree with the methods of your party and the demand for obedience of party members, I recognize that the final ideal of your party agrees with this lofty ideal" ... ""they envisage a group consciousness that must embrace humankind as a whole and forbid group conflict".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Boas, a far left communist
He was a staunch communist until his death (he sent a letter each year to Stalin on his birthday) Baos is a political figure before being a scientist and he never hesitated to falsify its results for its egalitarian or antiracism ideology, he considers himself as "Lyssenkoïst" in his correspondence with the Soviet Union. "Franz Boas as Citizen-Scientist: Gramscian-Marxist Influence on American Anthropology", Gary Bullert, The journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 2009. A leftist delete by ideological vendalism, these informations about Boas. Could we eject him from wikipedia or block ?

Jean hansen (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this is all incorrect as I noted above. And the source is not reliable. Boas was not a member of any political party and he was an advocate for US neutrality in WW2. Hardly a Stalinist. You are just repeating anti-semitic and racist canards by Roger Pearson and his cohort. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are a leftist like him. The mankind quarterly or the JPSES are peer-reviewed academic journal and it is not to you to decide what is valid or not. Boas was of course a communist who sent each year a letter to stalin for his birthday, continually denied inheritance and has maintained a long correspondence with the Soviet Union, the united States had attached to him a C for communist. All records are available, please immediately stop your political despotism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean hansen (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and President Obama is a Muslim and Mahatma Gandhi was a Jew.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Degler
Degler is not an impartial or significant summariser of Boas' career. This review for example makes it clear that his presentation of the Boasian paradigm is skewed by his enthusiasm for socio-biology. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also this review. is quite critical of his representation of Boas.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And this·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

fraudulent practices
It is sometimes alleged that Boas engaged in fraudulent practices when conducting his research. Has someone more information on this? Where is the criticism section anyway? --41.151.86.43 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These "allegations" - mostly by the contemporary far right - are covered in the article, as is their debunking by scientists. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"He did not identify himself as a Jew"?
Why is the article asserting that "…he did not identify himself as a Jew"? Shouldn't that require a source? I removed it, and it was restored. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly it is because the article cites a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy—what source supports the assertion that Boas "did not identify himself as a Jew"? Can you please bring that source to this Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can perfectly well see for yourself, it is cited to "Glick, L. B. (1982), Types Distinct from Our Own: Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimiliation. American Anthropologist, 84: 545–565". The article itself can be downloaded here: AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I have seen this article. I have read it thoroughly. It says nothing of the sort in it. Nowhere in that particular source is there the remotest suggestion that Boas "...did not identify himself as a Jew". If you feel otherwise, please specifically quote wording from that source. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact it says quite explicitly that he denied the very possibility of a Jewish identity. You are clearly being disruptive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, so you'd seen the source cited: so what the fuck were you doing asking for a reference to it for then? I've got better things to do than to respond to facile trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump and Maunus—where in that source is there language supportive of the conclusion that Boas did not consider himself Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Throughout the entire article. What do you think it is about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess in your thorough reading you missed this: "It seems  probable  that  Boas  never  identified  himself  in  his  public  writings  as  Jewish,  but  he had  much  to  say on the  subject  of his own  identity  and  on the situation  of  Jews  as a  social  category.  Several  items  in his  bibliography  are  especially  instructive,  and  I want  to  examine  them  in  some  detail.  By  way  of  introduction  it  may  be  said  that,  in  common  with  many  other  Jews,  particularly  German  Jews  and  others  of  a  strongly  assimilationist  bent,  he did  not  acknowledge  the  existence  of a  specifically  Jewish  cultural  or ethnic  identity.  That  east  European  Jewish  (or  "Hebrew")  immigrants  were  a definable  population  he  obviously  recognized,  but  it is  important  to  realize that  the  definition  was  exclusively  in  terms  of  physical,  never  cultural,  anthropology.  To  the  extent  that Jews,  in  his frame  of  reference,  were  possessed  of  a  culture,  it was  strictly  a matter  of  religious  adherence:  Jews  practiced  Judaism,  an  ancient  religion  which  was  essentially  incompatible  with  humanism  and  individual  freedom  as  he  understood  those  terms."
 * Let me summarize that statement to make sure you understand it: For Boas Being Jewish was strictly a religious category. He was not religious. He explicitly denied the possibility of Jews having a shared cultural or ethnic identity. Culturally he considered himself German. Now I don't doubt for a second that you will do your best to twist this into saying something that suits you better - but it should be obvious to everyone that there is a substantial body of scholarship on Boas and his relationship to Judaism and that it is consistent in describing him as distancing himself from the idea of a jewish identity. He would of course have been classified as a Jew under the Nuremberg laws - but they don't apply to wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Negro problem will not disappear in America untill the negro blood has been so diluted that it will not be recognized, just as Anti-Semitism will not disappear untill the last vestige of the Jew as Jew has dissappeared" (Franz Boas 1921, "the problem of the American Negro" Yale Review
 * (Here it is clear that He considers himself to be fully assimilated to German culture and that he sees those Jews who continues cultural practices associated with Jewishness are causing Anti-Semitism - its weird, I know)


 * "the present policies of the German government are based on the assumption that an 'Aryan' has certan biologically determined qualities that are entirely foreign to every Non-Aryan ... these beliefs are based on a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a race and on the way in which we arrive at the concept of a racial type. ... Just as Germanized Slavs and French have become German in their culture, as the Frenchified Germans have become French ...so have the German Jews become German" (Franz Boas 1934, "Aryans and Non-Aryans")
 * (Here it becomes further clear that he doesn't believe that Jews are a race in a biological sense and that as soon as they cease with jewish cultural practices (as his family had done) they are no longer Jewish in any meaningful sense.)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maunus—nothing in the above is even tenuously supportive of the statement that you are trying to put in the article. You are inserting original research. Please note the following: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article…" You cannot add unsupported assertions. Nothing in the above says that "…he did not identify himself as a Jew". You need a source directly supportive of such a statement. It is a stark statement at odds with countless other reliable sources which assert without any expressed reservations that Franz Boas was Jewish. Such a statement as you are attempting to insert into the article needs to be verifiable. Wikipedia does not need to be breaking new ground with the presentation of hitherto unknown assertions regarding historical individuals. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * facepalm*. Honestly....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I didn't insert it - Slrubenstein (himself an anthropologist with a PhD from Boas' institution, and with Jewish roots) did, in response to antisemite editors attempts to label him as a Jewish communist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop being so bloody ridiculous Bus Stop. Of course the article supports what is written. If you really think it doesn't, take it to WP:RS/N (with a neutrally-worded question, please). I see no point in wasting further time arguing with your endless facile Jew-tagging antics here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump and Maunus—in nothing said by or about Boas in the above source do we find support for the language "did not identify himself as a Jew". Please look carefully at what is said: "It seems probable that Boas never identified himself in his public writings as Jewish…". We are in fact not concerned with whether Boas ever "identified himself in his public writings as Jewish". You are trying to insert into the article that he "did not identify himself as a Jew". That he may not have ever "identified himself in his public writings as Jewish" does not translate into that he "did not identify himself as a Jew". How would you derive that? The language that you are attempting to insert into the article is not remotely sourced. He would have to say that he did not identify as a Jew, especially as a multitude of reliable sources unreservedly state that Boas was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HE DENIED THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF A JEWISH IDENTITY! Now stop trolling here and go away to tag someone else.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please stop. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Race (human classification)
An unqualified claim that Boas's work was claimed to be fraudulent has been added twice to this article. I've taken the issue to WP:NPOV but the rest of the recent edits need review. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Jantz
Richard Jantz is extremely pov in its statements about Jantz's work and Boas. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The study linked in the Richard Jantz entry has been cited 121 times according to JSTOR. The statement "Dr. Jantz found only insignificant differences between European and American born children. He also found that exposure to the environment in America did not affect the children's crania. Dr. Richard Jantz’s work discredited Boas' work amongst many scientists, although not all agree with these findings." is wholy factual especially given the high amount of citations the article received. Additionally Dougweller asserts POV without qualifying how the text is POV, unless he thinks that mentioning that sometimes research can be shown as incorrect is POV. Clarification would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.196 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the perspective of Boas' biography and overall significance Jantz failed attempt at besmirching him is mostly insignificant and hardly deserves mention. Much less in the highly biased formulation of the anonymous IP editor. As Dougweller correcly points out Jantz' study has not generally been favorably received among physical anthropologists who do no consider it to have "proven Boas' research to be incorrect". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 121 citations? How many were critical of him? How can the number of citations be used as evidence he's correct? You used a paper by Jantz to claim he discredited his work - isn't it obvious you shouldn't do that? Maybe if everyone agreed Boas is discredited, but clearly they don't. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Jantz and Kevin Mac Donald's book
The Jantz paper clearly distinguishes European and American born children. The polemic response claims they used length of time in USA. I don't think it's OR to point out the discrepancy. Also, MacDonald's book has been reviewed enough to be considered notable. Bacterioid (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the definition of OR. Whatever Kevin B MacDonald has to say about Boas is not notable, but clearly and utterly fringe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Results point to very small and insignificant differences between European- and American-born offspring, and no effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. These results contradict Boas' original findings and demonstrate that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology."
 * Calling stuff you don't like "fringe" is not reasonable. Bacterioid (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is OR to state your personal views on whether published critiques are valid. MacDonald is not fringe because I don't like him but because he has not been considered a serious academic the past 20 years. Not even by his own department.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Bacterioid (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you publish your rebuttal of Gravlee, Russel and Leonard's rebuttal of Sparks and Jantz in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can include it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Any source claiming Jantz said something else is not reliable. This is elementary. Bacterioid (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are also misrepresenting Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard's argument - their rebuttal of Jantz and Sparks does not hinge on the whether they distinguish between American and European born children. Boas distinguished between the length of the stay of thre PARENTS in the US and that is what G, B and L state makes Jantz and Sparks paper basically answer a different question than the one Boas investigated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Gravlee and co. claim Jantz contrasted based on length of time children were US resident, not controlling for pre-natal environment. This is false. Bacterioid (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MacDonald has been cited a number of times in peer reviewed sources and his thesis has been discussed (sometimes favorably) by other scholars. According to WP:FRINGE that's grounds for inclusion. Bacterioid (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

However, it is not force of numbers that makes something correct, but validity of argument. Please explain why you think your numerically superior group gets to override the policy referenced above. Bacterioid (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that's a guideline and you are edit warring in violation of WP:3RR00 - I've reported you. See also [[WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bacterioid (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You claimed at 3RRN that you were seeking consensus, but your next edit was to reinstate MacDonald's book against consensus. This is edit warring, even if your removal of old text wasn't considered a revert (something about which I am not convinced). Searches such as yours are useless - we should really take into account a post at the anti-semitic Vanguard News Network site? Or a pdf on "The Jesus Gene"? Google scholar often throws up some very non-scholarly sources, and citation searches are even more useless. You also need to read WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you removed these other reliable sources from the K-Mac article. I'm really not sure what to make of this feigned ignorance. Bacterioid (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC) That's a misrepresentation of my edit, which removed what I see as a meaningless citation section, unless it was meant to say "look at these people who cited him, he must be good". I've never seen a citation section before and if I did,I'd remove it no matter who the author was. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That citation section was ridiculous and I am glad it is gone. What MacDonald says about anyone is really not that important, MacDonald is almost the definition of a fringe 'theorist'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bacterioid (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the policy very well. Anyway, there is no need to discuss this any further, consensus seems pretty clear.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bacterioid (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand the policy which does not say that all theories that have been cited by anyone in a positive light are not fringe. MacDonald clearly falls under "generally considered pseudoscience", furthermore his claims about Boas are not notable in regards to Boas, though they may be in regards to himself and his work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bacterioid, you have been here for 3 days, whereas a series of much more experienced editors have told you the same thing. We are not 'voting to ignore' anything.  We understand the policy, you do not.  We should move on now.  You should re read the fringe policy, as well, you might want to look at WP:IDHT.   Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors here are merely asserting the opposite conclusion devoid of any apparent reasoning. I suspect this may be a clique of pro-Boas editors who wish to marginalize any critical views. Perhaps a neutral third party can assess the situation. I will request input at a noticeboard. Bacterioid (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The alternative explanation, and the simpler one is that there is no cabal, but that your interpretation of policy is simply incorrect. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, please let editors here know about it if and when you do.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing problems
It seems this article was largely written by one individual, SLRubenstein, in 2005. It's largely unclear what sources it is based on. I hope it is not a personal essay. Some drastic pruning may be in order. Bacterioid (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He was (he's dead) one of our best editors. Tagging material and then deleting it and untagged (and I don't think controversial and I know sourceable) in less than 24 hours might be viewed by some as tendentious (and why pick on those sentences?). Don't just fact tag, look for sources. You are clearly here as a single purpose editor and need to tread lightly. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact I would say the claim that 19C German scientists thought cultural variation was entirely due to some combination of the environment and ease of cultural exchange is false. But you must know that unsourced claims get removed rather than set as homework for anyone that questions them. Could I add unsourced claims then ask you to look them up? Bacterioid (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a source now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources? Not a problem. They even come in colors...

 Moreover, the history of German anthropology also affords us a unique perspective on the history of Germany itself. That the over whelming majority of German ethnologists and anthropologists were liberal champions of cultural pluralism during the imperial period (1871 —1918) separates them from their counterparts in the rest of liberal Europe. That the majority were not racist, but strongly opposed to biologically based theories of human difference, however, goes to the heart of German historiography. Given the turn toward race science in the early twentieth century and the complicity of many German anthropologists in Nazi race crimes, the liberalism of nineteenth-century anthropology seems counterintuitive. —
 * Past editors appear to have supplied the appropriate sources so any material challenged or likely to be challenged would be verifiable. Inline citations should not be difficult to generate. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cohesiveness
First, I will apologize for knowing very little about editing in HTML.

Second, I have read a lot (not all) of the back-and-forth here and certainly do not want to make waves. I don't know much about Boas or his work (which is why I was reading the article). However, I do believe a good overall pass at editing for readability would be a good thing. There is a lot of jumping around in chronology. He "worked at the Royal Ethnological Museum in Berlin..." is followed by "He returned to Berlin to complete his studies." Then, in 1886 he defended his thesis, "Baffin Land". The next sentence refers to his work on Baffin Island and the book published in 1888. The very next sentence says "In 1885, Boas went to work ... at the Royal Ethnological Museum in Berlin."

Third, the article cites Ruth Benedict's speech in which she cited A. C. Bradley: "We watch 'what is'...". Bradley was quoting Shakespeare, according to Benedict's book, An Anthropologist at Work (on GoogleBooks). Apart from citing a cite of a cite, I don't see this quotation as being helpful for the layperson who wants to understand Boas's work. In fact, I thought it must be a mis-quote, which is why I looked it up!

At that point, I gave up. Lisapaloma (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the article needs a rewrite to achieve a cohesive narrative of Boas' life and work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)