Talk:Nacirema
| WikiProject Anthropology | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Rational Skepticism | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Release into the Public Domain
The original paper has apparently entered the public domain [1]. Wikisource could use a copy. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Done --Jcmaco | Talk 15:58, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see anything on the referenced page that indicates that it is PD. How was this conclusion arrived at? ;Bear 06:40, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
[edit] Spoiler Warning Needed
this page should have a spoiler warning... in the respect that a friend of mine did not finish reading the original piece but found out the meaning here. SiriusAlphaCMa 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, this definatly needs a spoiler warning. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Also, I've found that "Asu" (as in USA) is also excepted and used in the same way. Could we perhaps add something on that? -obstructio 1832 (CST) 10.27.06
I just added the Spoiler tags as requested. --208.127.64.127 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Satire of what/whom?
The text currently says the article is a satire on anthropology. I believe it is more of a satire on American culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] need for reversion
A recent update at 13:18, 10 March 2011 by IP 198.200.181.207 removed the satire claim, but also made the first sentence an incomplete sentence. This needs either revision or reversion. --Seltzerfish (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Hoaxes in science
Not sure this applies; the 1956 article was not really intended to fool anybody for long, and didn't fool anybody for long, except the extremely gullible who didn't think about what they were reading. Some of the subsequent publications do not seem to have even the very shallowly and superficially deceptive elements of the 1956 article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
