Talk:Kenneth Good (anthropologist)

Accusation of pedophilia

Criticisms

Just started this page as I am watching a TV programme about Anthropologists studying the Yanomamö and this Kenneth Goodand his work is prominant and seems notable. I am surprised there is no page. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think notability is most clearly evident via the book (widely held in libraries in the US - WorldCat - should this go in the article - subject to reviews etc)? and by the fact that his work with the Yanomamö has been subject to some criticism... I have avoided any details of this due to BLP worries but the page I feel is still useful. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Child not woman

Re the revert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Good_(anthropologist)&diff=976230215&oldid=976227907

Self quote why I had changed to child when she was 9:

Child is a child, spade is a spade. Def: child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty....

WP:WEASEL in short.

I do not call him anything else.

Discuss why spade is not a spade. Or we can change the WP def of child.

And yes, I read the ref. report and know what cultural relativism is.

Zezen (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "In keeping with community wishes, he was betrothed to his future wife when she was about 9 years old. They began living near each other and consummated the marriage when she was about 14, as is typical in Yanomami culture.[3] However, the Yanomami people do not record individuals' ages beyond two years, making her exact age difficult to determine; Good himself later estimated these ages to be closer to 12-13 and 15-16, respectively."

So a form of engagement was at age 9 (or 12-13) and something akin to marriage and intercourse at 14 (or 15-16), so it doesn't sound that she was prepubescent. Also from the NPR source:

"Ken, what's the criticism that bothered you the most?

K. GOOD: That she was a little girl. That I had married a little girl, and it was an abuse. These people only live to be about 45 or so. A 15-year-old girl in their culture is not the same as a 15-year-old - a 15-year-old here is totally immature. She's a little kid still. She'd probably chewing gum at the mall, and in Yanomami culture, she's a woman. She's a full-fledged woman. She's doing all of women's chores, and she's probably pregnant or has a baby. Now, you say, well, that's them, you know? What do you know? They're Indians. Well, I'm sorry - this all occurred within the confines of their communal structure."

Furthermore, the article is clear on the ages. So I think it should stay as it is. MartinezMD (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you convinced me. Zezen (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article link

NOTE: Main article link ' is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:723F:BA73:E025:C06C:B390:646F (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't wrong. It's a redirect to this article since the son is notable only for his connection to the father. There is no separate article for him. MartinezMD (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]