Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I Changed the quote of Douglas for her rationale on changing her position. The earlier version made it sound far less academic than it actually was. My edit keeps the original idea intact, while still providing her explanation for why the animals were forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.230.20 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leach or Douglas[edit]

It seems that Edmund Leach's (1964). Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse, is similar (at least to the earlier theory that Douglas seems to be denying). I wonder which was first and the connection. Leach is really critical of Mary Douglas's later work. Timtak (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history[edit]

I moved prose about its publication history from the lead to a designated section, for two reasons:

1) It listed dates of editions and reprints without citations and included an ISBN template tag for one edition, and 2) The presence of this language in the lead suggests to me (to whom the author's work is admittedly unknown) that it is notable!

So I did my best to research editions that would complement the rest, in part by being of different formats and in part because a single paperback edition is available to borrow via the Open Library. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]