Talk:Taboo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticizing Israel

Why would that be taboo for the United States? I know it would be concidered anti-Semetic but still it's totally ridiclous.

Ridiculous like many taboos, but still true. Talking about Israel in a negative light is a touchy subject and considered a taboo by many.

I think it is far too general to say this is taboo throughout the US. Maybe in certain social groups this is true. ike9898 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Try to find one figure in the Mainstream Media of the US (talk radio, TV news channels, etc.) who criticizes Israel. You won't find it.

It's more having to do with post-holocaust shame (the Jews, like blacks and gays are victims of humanity's worst crimes), political correct diversity training, and religious tolerance of a strong seated belief of a "Jewish state". It may be Muslims in the U.S. and Europe, the far left (Communists and the USSR), third world activism against colonial rule (they say Israel is doing the same over an Arab people) and Christians in support of Israel is part of the "judgment day/last days/apocalypse" prementition in the bible. The "taboo" of protesting against Israel is weaker now in Europe, since socialists and pacifists since the 1960's seem more protected than holocaust deniers; and the bigger taboo of warfare in Europe, wants to politely remind Israel not to go overboard with fighting terrorism and to respect the wishes of Palestinians to have their own side of the Holy Land. Compared to Europe, Canada and Australia, the U.S. are more likely to practice the rule of taboo than ever before. Because of our conservative right-liberal left ideologies, our minds seem geared to think sex, death, money, certain words, diversity and anything political or religious, esp. in public, is not free speech and forbidden thoughts. What happened to the 1960's, 70's & 80's during times of taboos vanish or become minor violations? Free expression of how we feel of the world should not disappear out of morbid fear, offensiveness, profanity, and disrespect of any authority. The American image is a joke to the liberal societies of the West, even the communists and Muslim world are in awe of our bipolar hypocrisy on what we can say or protest is not P-C or not 'Christian' or not 'patriotic'. We don't live in a golden age America and my friends it's a new age when the "people of the taboo" live in elective darkness. + 207.200.116.9 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Taboo artists

Taboo artists - I wondered why Robert Mapplethorpe isn't on here. I see some arguments both ways, but if it's just an oversight then I might suggest someone add it, who knows what they're doing. It says on the Robert Mapplethorpe site that he's frank and erotic, so maybe that covers it. He deals in some areas that are sometimes taboo but that doesn't make him a taboo artist.

You can find expressions of taboo subjects on popular movies, television, music and cartoons all over the place. South Park is a big example of satire, comedy and humor that breaks every taboo known to man. I remember the 1990's animated show Beavis and Butthead exhibited criminal acts (arson and explosions), drug abuse (inhalants), partial nudity, sexual innuendos, sexism or misogyny ("chicks" and "thingies") and references to satanism in rock music videos. And the 1970's adult animated movie Fritz the Cat has pornographic scenes, illicit drug use, four-letter words, and ethnic/racial stereotypes (one of Fritz's past lifes was a Jewish psychiatrist working for Nazi leaders) as Fritz hangs out in "New Africa" or "Nueva Puerto Rico" that is New York and New Jersey. These are generally held as taboo to most media producers, some of them have codes of conduct and decency rules on what they decide to have on their programming, unless they cater solely to adults or "mature audiences". --Mike D 26 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can demonstrate primetime shows have taboo subjects written in episodes. House MD features drug addicts, mentally ill persons and sexual fetishists. Even animated adult shows Family Guy and Drawn Together are heavily focused on taboos sold as 'high class humor' for cheap laughs. None of the taboo topics are allowed on TV 10 or 20 yrs. ago. TV ratings allowed the shows to exhibit things and parents are warned not to let children watch them. 207.200.116.9 23:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Taboo and art

I've removed this section because no sources were provided for the original research and unsourced claims. If you're going to make such lists in the future, make sure you have the appropriate sources to back them up. Sofeil 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

James Frazer

I've removed this section because no sources were provided for the original research and unsourced claims. If you think you can find sources for some of the statements here, please include them in the article. Taxico 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

I noticed that there was a long, discursive and irrelevant quotation on this page by someone called Fady Bahig, who is an unknown self-published novelist. Bahig's work has also been seen cropping up on the God and gender page. These quotes are not relevant and I suspect they come under Wikipedia's ban on advertising. I've deleted the section on this page, but please keep an eye in case it returns. -- TinaSparkle 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean Wikipedia of these quotes today, for the second time already. The issue needs constant attention as the quotes are reinserted. Bad way to promote a self-published novel. Hele 7 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The sections regarding the origin of taboo should be cleaned up to provide a more balanced view. This article clearly favors Freud, who is himself a taboo among certain circles. If there are other opinions on the origin of this phenomenon, they should be given an equal amount of attention (rather than a pair of unsupported sentences immediately contradicted by a well developed description of Freud's opinion).

Okay I'm going to add a {{Stub-sect}} tag. There are obviously other people who have expressed theories regarding the origins of taboo (Frazer and Wundt, for example). Freud himself heavily uses these theories and builds on them. I have no opposition to adding these to the section, but I'm not going to do it myself. For one thing I don't have access to them. I'm also not as interested in these theories (because some of them are somewhat outdated and a little superficial). But you're more than welcome to improve the section. --Sofeil 08:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

Here are sources the anon could had used for his deleted paragraph. from Tolerance.org is an article that well described taboo subjects on social group differences in western societies (i.e. Europe and North America). The web link provided by Tolerance.org a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center explores the toughness of subjects on prejudice and discrimination, both treated as taboo by many people. A fine example of societal taboos in the western world, concerning the instruction of certain controversial, but important subjects in public schools (discrimination, racism, ethnicity, anti-Semitism, religion, immigration, class, disability, gender, sexism, and homosexuality), treated as taboos by many westerners out of either shame or fear of facing these issues63.3.14.1 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tolerance.org- December 2006 Controversial subjects in the classroom

These paragraphs make many strong statements that I doubt can be properly backed by reputable sources:

In the late 20th century, some cultural trends pinpoint to new taboos about race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation is not proper subject matter, and includes some political controversial issues in the Western world, despite they are least likely to impose regulations on freedom of expression and social reformation whenever necessary. Taboos have been implanted to deal with issues of inequality and prejudice remains alive in open democratic countries devoted to stop or prevent prejudice and discrimination by corrective measures in individuals and society in general, but developed new rules and social mores on a "taboo" problem.

In Europe, in the deep-rooted tradition of tolerance of its various minority groups, there's a reluctance to express or explore issues on radical Islam inside their immigrant communities, religious conflict (i.e. Northern Ireland and Bosnia), and holocaust denial, which is a crime in many European countries. In North America, racial segregation, affirmative action and multiculturalism isn't easily talked about in order not to violate sacrosanct ideals of equality and cultural freedom (the "free to be me" mentality). Europeans bulk in the American etiquette on not discussing sex (America was founded by puritan Christian settlers) and religion (the US' tradition of religious freedom). But, Americans are in awe of "hate laws" in Europe forbid public expression of negative racial or religious comments, and government criticism was more taboo in Europe (or banned in countries under Communism) before the cold war ended.

Part of the blame for the "new taboos" on diversity is from younger generations are taught to greatly respect people of color and cultural differences, from an older generation have expressed their shame and guilt on past atrocities against minorities (i.e. European Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Roma (Gypsies), women (sexism), homosexuals, Latinos in the US, Japanese Americans whose families were in internment, and North Africans residing in France) must not only be corrected, but to educate others on the impact of prejudice in society is too hard (or became "taboo") to admit they really happened. The explosive racial slur nigger and in sexual orientation, faggot are examples of prohibitions of "hate speech" is a taboo of our times.

Therefore, unless some supporting sources are added, I plan to remove these sections.

--Johnkarp 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, I came here to make the same point. Since it's been nearly two weeks since you first proposed it, I made the cut for you. 68.49.243.231 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone's bot prevented my change. Damned bots. Ok, I know leave this up to someone who knows more about wikipedia to make that particular change and fight it out with the bots. 68.49.243.231 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've added the {{unreferenced}} tag to warn users. I say let it stay for about a week. Then we can probably remove/replace it. Sofeil 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

why we have taboos (in U.S./western society)

Here are reasons I find obvious and can be stated in the taboo article.

1. Superstitions (the fear of the unknown or abnormal in mystical terms). 2. Religious/ moral values (ours are based on Judeo-Christian tradition). 3. Modern Hygeine (behaviors considered dirty"or based on the germ theory). 4. Etiquette (manners, codes, ethics, actions, beliefs and folkways). 5. Political correctness (how not to offend any social minority group). and 6. Authority (political laws, the workplace, military code, etc.)

Of course, there are universal taboos observed by virtually every society, country and culture: Insect, patricide, cannibalism, sacreligious or profane language, sexual obscenity, bodily excretions or functions, wanton violence, suicide, torture, criticism of an authority figure (even where's it's legal), and family traditions (disrespect of parents or elders, deference of children or teens, esp. where's the adult age is 18 or 21).

Improper discussion/subject matter: sexual intercourse, war (esp. nuclear), hate/prejudice on others, drug use (illegal or not), religious expression in certain situations, foul language, vulgar or "declasse" euphemisms in high society, political controversy in most places, violations of dress codes, irregular observance in rituals or practices, gender roles (although this is less common in the west, but males complain that females are unrestricted), and scenes of death, surgeries or diseases (includes birthing images to many people). Taboos are vigourously enforced by the FCC or self-regulation of entertainment industry, especially the material may air before 10PM.

Adults may or may not observe taboos in a major scene, because it's gross or disturbing or graphic to view/speak/hear of ... usually in American society, children or minors should not be near or hear certain words/topics that their parents or families disapprove of...esp. if they are conservative religious or moralist/puritanical that it "threatens children's spiritual innocence", even though young children may not understand or relate to what they were exposed to.

I'm amazed older children get a thrill or kick out of sexual acts or using the bathroom, mutter coarse language with humorous jest, criticism of their religion or others' religious views (esp. devil worship as teen rebellion) or violent scenes in movies/television...while it's their parents or elders plus teachers or clergy seems sensitive and afraid of the children's psyche or moral character is distorted by the media.

And finally in a democratic society where people can easily discuss, agree or disagree, and protest policy in government ... many issues are more likely are taboo, in order to side with conservative or liberal political agendas, or threatens big business in any way, plus are highly divisive: abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, affirmative action, terrorism, racial tension, the value of life (euthanasia) and the status quo, to some people is taboo as a sign of disobedience and disrespect, when in fact it's really not. --Mike D 26 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This page needs some heavy proofreading. One example: "Europeans bulk in Americans...." I believe the phrase the author was looking for was "Europeans balk at...". Article marked for cleanup.

Thank you for cleaning things up and article reorganization. The anon may misspoke or that English is a second language. I've usually made minor errors and mistakes when I type in other languages like French and Spanish. There's always a need to proofread, double-check and re-edit an entry at least once. Of course, every society and culture imposed taboos on things and subjects they may value deeply or had a terrible experience with, think of Freudian psychology and social anthropology, on what became taboo for the tribe in study. 63.3.14.1 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

The sentence in the introduction doesn't make sense: "It is generally supposed that taboo is older than gods and dates back to a period before any kind of religion existed." Gods are usually considered to be eternal. The sentence needs to be reworded. Does it mean before a "belief" in gods?--Jagz 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

examples section

The examples section seems pretty much a mess to me. Especially the second paragraph, which doesn't seem to make much sense. I'd suggest deleting the second paragraph, and breaking the first paragraph into example groups by taboo type. --24.170.135.104 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Levi-Strauss

Shouldn't someone include something on Claude Levi-Strauss who while being noted more for his novel approach to Anthropology (so-called Structuralism) also contributed much to the understanding of taboo in The Raw and The Cooked and other texts? My knowledge of his contribution is pretty elementary but if someone out there has more authoritative knowledge on Levi-Strauss I encourage you to add to this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.220.183.26 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Taboo and art

The Taboo and art section either needs a big rewrite or it should be deleted. If it stays, it needs to cite sources and indicate what taboo topic(s) the subjects have dealt with. -Joltman 12:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right to remove it. It was just a huge list with no encyclopedic content. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Taboo in literature

Harry potter hardly qualifies as literature . i suggest either the section to renamed more suitably or the reference be removed or put in a new section.. also the number of references in this section seems insufficient.There is also the fact that it reveals a part of the plot without a spoiler warning .. Manquer 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Taboo in gender

These are some of the largest taboo's out there, however there is little specification in certain articles about the subject in question about the taboo, however minor or major it is. Example in being, taboo against men shaving thier legs, its normally associated with female, and women can't run outdoors without a shirt on, also normally associated with male; like it or not, many find it taboo. There are more, but this is by far the largest area of 'taboo'. -- Chase-san 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I've removed the Harry Potter reference again. Taboo is evidently a unique concept in that series of novels. It should be covered in an appropriate article, unless the concept as used in Harry Potter achieves general use. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative citation style

I've been wanting to try out an alternative citation style, and this article seemed ideal for a trial. Perhaps pushing the limits of WP:BB a bit, I've done it unilaterally. If a quick consensus emarges against it, revert it.

In the process of making the changes from one citation style to another, I noticed a few apparent preexisting problems.

• The citation of [Freud (1990, 372)] is apparently wrong, and should probably be either [Freud (1950, 372)] or [Frazer (1990, 372)} (which one?)
• The citation of [Wundt (1906, 49)] is an orphan. Wilhelm Wundt is mentioned, but the work to which the citation refers is not listed in the References section.
• The citation of [Frazer (1922, 5)] (currently note number 14) is an orphan. I'm not sure whether it was meant to be [Frazer (1911, 5)] or whether, alternatively, there is a 1922 work by Frazer which should be listed in the References section but which is currently not listed there.
• The citation of Westermarck (1906–8, 2, 534f.) is an orphan. Edward Westermarck is mentioned, but the work to which the citation refers is not listed in the References section.

I've not read any of the referenced material — please correct any errors I may have introduced. -- Boracay Bill 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Start this article from scratch please

this is the worst article i've read in Wikipedia. Is it because it's so hard to talk about taboos ? the current article enumerates a few very exotic kinds of 'taboos' and relates in no way to the numerous taboos in our current developed societies. There would be a huge lot of things to say, but... nothing. what a waste ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisscott (talk • contribs) 22:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that the article is not comprehensive; however, we have experienced editors here who can channel the existing material into appropriate subarticles. Getting someone on the job is more important than this kind of criticism. Would you like to learn how to do it? If so, please visit Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Thank you. 82.71.48.158 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just read about half of it, and it is extremely sloppily written, e.g. "may not touch their own head and body" - with what? their hands? their feet? their ears? a barge pole? Another example: "very trees soon die" - by what mechanism? because the widows beat them too hard? because the peg is made from some kind of heavy metal that kills the tree? Nothing in physics, chemistry or biology would predict a tree dying when touched by a mourning person as opposed to anyone else, and I'm not aware of any empirical evidence under controlled conditions for such a phenomenon. And what's with the closing quotes? Where are the opening quotes? Is that whole section lifted verbatim from the book(s)? 82.71.48.158 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused by a lot of the particulars myself. And given that I want to eventually craft my own cultures for novels and such, I want to know more specific, concrete details about the realities of the "game" here; I don't want to see just a general overview that leaves the reader wondering what the truth of the matter really is. Kilyle (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feces

Why is there nothing on human defecation and feces in the taboo article?? --Topk (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Justified Taboos

I was looking through the "death taboos" section and noticed that they're tied down to superstition and made to seem unreasonable. This may be the case with fearing the spirit of the dead or the shadow of the recently widowed, but really, having a corpse-touching taboo is not only reasonable but a matter of public health. Although what I might call "the modern civilized world" does understand the concept of germs and the passing of diseases, and is capable of not only reducing the chance of contamination but dealing with contamination once it happens, this is not the case with many places in the world even today, and certainly was not the case some generations back and throughout history.

Just as... okay, a quick search doesn't reveal the name, and I'm too lazy to look him up. But before the guy who brought germs to the attention of scientists became famous, there was this other guy who first proposed the idea that doctors were killing their pregnant patients by dealing with corpses and transferring germs from the corpses to the women when they helped deliver the babies. It was a long time before this idea became accepted by the general scientific community. Prior to this, people had no idea that germs existed, and c'mon, you can't see the durn things, what harm could they do? So the spread of diseases was likely greater in areas that did not have a corpse taboo.

There's actually a book that details how corpse taboos, and several other taboos, were instrumental in keeping the Jews healthier than most of their neighbors. I haven't read it yet, but I've read about it more than once, and I believe it's called None of These Diseases. Turns out certain taboos can save your life. Anyway, what I would like to see as an improvement to this page is a note as to which taboos may have some sense to them (not touching a corpse, or being unclean if you've touched one; not eating certain foods such as pork), instead of having them lumped in with paragraphs that try to explain away the lot as "superstitious nonsense." I hope my argument makes sense; it's hard to think when I'm fighting off germs myself. Kilyle (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we cannot completely remove ourselves from our cultural world, we are unable to know what tabook is "valid" and which is not. Any devil's advocate can point out ways that "invalidate" taboos. For example: proper washing after coming in contact with the dead; veterinary screening for pork; using proper contraceptives during incest to prevent unwanted genetically damaged offspring and so on. Age of consent is another touchy subject for taboos. In many cultures, sexual activity is allowed from the start of puberty, but in the West, 18 is the norm. Still, adolescents form a special sub-group where they are permitted to engage in sexual activities with other adolescents but not with younger or older people, and even this is taboo. --88.165.109.248 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Although these theories are not any more harmful as unproven scientific theories, people who believe in, or merely discuss them in a formal manner, are depicted as fanatical, ridiculous, and/or paranoid. This should be listed as a taboo, since it is not based on rationality and encourages criminals of certain crimes by giving invulnerability to punishment.173.183.69.134 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one opposes before Nov. 20 I'll be adding it... 173.183.69.134 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. (User 66.183.58.62 is user 173.183.69.134 on a different computer)66.183.58.62 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

anarchism

anarchism a taboo? not here (brazil). source or delete --187.40.253.78 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Science?

Can "fabricating or modifying data, drawing premature conclusions from the same" really be considered "taboo" for scientists? It sounds more like part of a general job description. Many might argue that someone who does these things cannot be called a scientist, as a scientist is one who avoids such behaviors.

I can sort of see why it's included in the list, but at the same time, couldn't one just as easily say that it's taboo for doctors to intentionally maim or kill their patients, or that it's taboo for air traffic controllers to cause mid-air collisions for fun?

Also, I added a note about incest/cannibalism to the table, mentioned Freud mostly talked about those two in T&T 64.4.109.139 6 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Um...well when I originally added this, it only said 'fabricating data'. I felt that it was taboo in the sense that if it is discovered, the perpetrator is shamed and ostracized from the scientific community. I can see your argument that if this is taboo, then may other professions can be said to have their own taboos. I'm really not sure....but I think that when a behavior is considered deeply wrong by a group, it comes close to the definition of a taboo. ike9898 02:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific theories that inflame some people and create controversy like evolution (creationism vs. origin of humanity), global warming (ecological disaster) and cloning/stem cell research, are increasingly taboo to many political and social circles. Whether they scare people or create bickering arguments to split the establishment, science is a very open-minded field in terms of testing theories and prove they are real or not. In the middle ages, the Roman Catholic church imposed rules to forbid scientific research if they interfere with religious doctrine, such as Galileo, Copernicus and da Vinci might broke taboos of their day. To examine a mystery or controversy in the eyes of intellectual skepticism and academic study, scientists can clear a dispute by actual evidence without further question and some studies may not have a clear answer will remain open to further analysis ... before it gets taboo or unless the heads of science, religon and authority said so. --Mike D 26 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Care must be taken that the sacred nature of the original Polynesian origin of tabu | tapu not be lost. It does NOT mean merely impolite, nor "just not done." While humorists and hyperbolists may use it that way, that's just that. The best definitions list three requirements: dangerous religious or superstitious supernatural forces, affecting or of the whole society/culture, and that a "breach or defiance will be followed by some kind of trouble to the offender, such as lack of success in hunting or fishing, sickness, miscarriage, or death" ((Taboo, Britannica). "There is broad agreement that the taboos current in any society tend to relate to objects and actions that are significant for the social order and that, as such, taboos belong to the general system of social control" (Taboo, Britannica]).

Not until this foundational core is properly defined should we hint at more "artistic" usage, (if ever,) lest the term become another mere synonym for; "bad," or "frowned upon," etc, —to which the adjective is better suited than the noun and verb. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taboo ...how various near-synonyms compare to taboo. For example: "Prohibit" is a formal or legal word, that implies official edict. Also notice the specified usage variations from Collins World English Dictionary also at that URL. Macmillan Dictionary says the noun is applied to the "very offensive or shocking," but the verb to the merely "offensive or shocking." Also notice def2: "2. humorous: not accepted as correct."

Finally, of all the many human professions, ironically, "science" has been singled out in the lead as an example of using taboo. Coincidence? There is often a natural tendency of some religious-based people to also see the truth-seeking of Science as another religion or superstition proclaiming Truth or some-such. And while this is fun catchy rhetoric in the evolution-creation "debate," it just ain't so. This is no place to make points in that, nor in the related ever-more-popular anti-science flavored games such as global warming denial or infinite-Earth based economics and so forth.
--68.127.87.199 (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I made some of the changes in the lead as suggested above, including the removal of "science.". I also changed the "About box" which wanted to utterly separate modern "taboo" article from the Polynesian tapu article. That idea is utterly unsupported by any definition of taboo that I could find. I see that as an improper definition of taboo. As noted above and in my changes, the high level of power in the word and concept is derived from its original supernatural Polynesian meaning, thus I put it first. Also, perhaps now the "needs reference" box can be deleted.(?)
--68.127.87.199 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Workplace incivility

Taboos, esp. on sexuality, obscene-profane-vulgar language and group libel topics (like to talk about race, politics, religion, gender aand sexual orientation) are highly adhered at the workplace, being both a business and professional setting, and on private property where not every law regarding the First Amendment on freedom of speech is observed. Most likely, the employee caught or reportedly in a violation of workplace conduct will lose their job or face disciplinary action of a various level. Also they are liabilities and many cases, civil rights violations depending on federal or the state level (the US Civil Rights Acts and California Professional Code), but the majority of violations are taken care of within the confines of corporate businesses, unless authorities discovered discrimination and inciteful acts of hatred in the public arena, esp. in a workplace environment, occurred to be taken seriously by legal authorities and civil attorneys. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You do understand there is a difference between taboo and fear of civil/criminal liability, don't you? — LlywelynII 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rampant Misinformation

The examples section lists the following incorrectly:

Sex outside of marriage

Adultery

Interreligious marriage

Miscegenation

Homosexuality

Burping

Flatulence

Defecation

Urination

Masturbation

Nosepicking

Spitting

Pornography

Nudity

Alcoholism

Obscenity

Vulgarity

None of these things are taboo in any cultures that I'm aware of. Good examples of taboos are child rape, murder, infanticide, cannibalism, etc. Burping, nudity, obscenity, etc. are violating folkways or mores at best. These examples are misleading and understating the meaning of "taboo".

Also, why not mention the differences between folkways, mores, and taboos in the article? Berserk798 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought separating the "good" ones from the "bad" ones was a good idea too, but it seems extremely difficult to draw a line through all of them. Maybe if your willing to spend your time splitting them and adding the necessary taboos, this could be done. 66.183.58.62 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is suffering from a major misunderstanding of the subject matter, but I myself am not particularly interested in waging an edit war with whichever sociology major created this. I will say, though, that such sexual issues as pornography, homosexuality, miscegenation are fine examples of taboo. — LlywelynII 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nudity in the US?

... restrictions on state of genitalia (circumcision or sex reassignment, exposure of body parts, pornography and nudity esp. in the US) ...

Why is nudity tabooed (?) in the US any more than it is in the rest of the world? I've never been to the US, so I'm most likely wrong, but having seen Video Hits (an Australian music video show) I had the impression that the inverse was true, if anything. Do the words 'esp. in the US' refer to the entire 'restrictions on state of genitalia' section, and if that is the case should this be moved out of the bracket or something for clarity? 124.182.83.118 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. — LlywelynII 12:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

article in bad shape.

The vast majority of this article is completely unreferenced. Please provide references or remove the material. There are a couple references in etymology, but the meat of the article is (somewhat poorly) written without any supporting citations.Jbower47 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. You can say it is poorly written: it is. How can the rankings be this high, though? Was there a better version that got removed? — LlywelynII 12:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, there. I've done what I can with it. — LlywelynII 16:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fijian

In the Fijian language (Bauan Dialect) the word "Tabu" (Tamboo) loosely translated means "Forbidden" in the strongest sense of the word, its origin is always been within the Fijian Language, maybe someone can incorporate this into the article. Vinaka MB (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this word is originated from tamil word "தப்பு"(thappu), which literally means wrong. Some Tamils were brought to fiji few decades back as labourers by british. Due to their presence, this word may have accumulated to fijian and to english also. Can anyone disprove my fact by showing that this word was in fijian before the arrivals of tamils(before 18th century). I kindly request you to reply to this. -தமிழ்க்குரிசில் 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talk • contribs)

Vandalism. Can't be edited.

After Etymology and before Examples there is a phrase in Danish or Norwegian that doesn't belong. I can't see it in edit mode, though.

"Asbjørn og WIlliam er seje." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.39.187 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Someone removed it. 46.59.39.187 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No section title

I made a few preliminary changes. The claim that taboos can be uese to reconstruct history is pretty contentions; most people reject it today. The article needs to qualify the claim. Also, a law against smoking or drinking is not a taboo. It is a law. Law and taboo are not the same -- there are different ways to distinguish them. One difference is that laws are written down by some ruling authority. Another is that taboos express some spiritual/emotional belief or experience. There are taboos in American (and no doubt European and other) societies, but laws and statutes passed by legislatures are not them. Slrubenstein

 I want to add here that in Egypt, the reason the Pharaoh could marry within his family (in fact was required to) is that they were assumed to be reincarnations of the Gods--two Gods who were not related.  So just like every other society, the taboo wasn't about sexual biology, but about sex with whoever is constructed as "family".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.29.3 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 

All taboos are written into Law in modern societies. And what's the difference between taboos and Natural law? --Ann O'nyme 20:08, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is it true that the taboo against incest is not universal? How about cannibalism? Not sure where to look this up... --GG

For the first it is true, Roman Egypt and among Pre-levitical Hebrews are two commonly cited examples where the taboo hasn't applied.

The taboo against cannibalism is very definitely not universal-hell there was this problem in New Guinea-the natives were getting this deadly disease from eating the brains of their dead, and the government couldn't get them to stop. I think the taboo against murder has existed to some degree in all societies, though.

---

Are dietary restrictions and offensive language really taboo? Didn't taboo only rever to behavior? --Ann O'nyme 07:00, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes if your religious and cultural upbringing declares it a taboo. Kosher, Halal, vegetarianism and forbidden foods are examples. In some aboriginal tribes of the Philippines, outsiders came in contact with tribal customs and one of them that's taboo for westerners is the consumption of monkeys and dogs, which the tribes raised them for food and strongly felt that's edible. In India, most Hindus don't eat beef to observe dietary restrictions and consider cows as sacred animals. Jainists avoid eating animal meat/flesh as a sign of respect for all life and some Buddhist sects (monks) don't eat meat as they adhere to dogma and abhor violence in its' preparation. Seventh-day Adventists abstain from meat, alcohol, tobacco and other foods deemed unhealthy or lack nutritional value. Mormons usually don't drink alcohol too, but avoid caffeine in tea, coffee or sodas, but can drink decaffeinated versions. And Jehovah's Witnesses share the same taboos on drugs along with opposition to blood tranfusions as unclean or "God" can naturally heal them, similarly with Christian Scientists don't accept modern medicinal therapies. Some people hold deep-seated beliefs in what they can take or consume in their bodies, either for health and religious reasons to consider they must avoid taboo foods, drugs or/and stimulants. --Mike D 26 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Re the last two comments: Use of language and eating are behaviors, in my book. I pretty sure that cannibalism is not taboo in all societies; a recent and well documented example is certain tribes of New Guinea. I'm not sure if they still practice cannibalism, but they certainly did in the early part of the 20th century. - ike9898.

1) cannibalism in New Guinea: AFAIK, they give up few decade ago and don't get Kuru anymore.

2) "behavior" Well... It wasn't the right word, but I still don't have a better one right now...

• "offensive language": As fuck is still an English word, it mean it has been in constant use for centuries. Unwritten but always there, used by everybody, not really taboo.
• "dietary restrictions": Exemple of Islam, that has quite strict ones: There is a "good faith" approach of dietary restrictions: If you actually belive that it's Halal and eat/drink it, that's OK. Not big deal. (It happen to a friend of mine that drink 'alcohol-free beer' and then realised there were 1.5%...) On the opposite, "good faith" approach don't apply to Oedipus.
• After the crash in the Andes, it took years before the survivors explained how they made it... In Leningrad, the cannibalism cases were classified "state secret"... Documents were declassified few years after the fall of the Soviet Union. (See cannibalism for stories)

You see what I mean? --Ann O'nyme 23:48, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can the mountaineer example (stepping on climbing ropes) really be considered "taboo"? In my experience, there is a specific and well-known reason for not stepping on climbing ropes: so that they don't wear out as quickly. Does it really carry the social stigma of the other examples? That's like saying that holding a DVD by the data surface is taboo in the techie community. — BryanD 17:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Supernatural?

In the first paragraph, where taboo is being defined, it states this

    A taboo is a vehement prohibition of an action based on the belief that such behavior is either too sacred or too accursed for ordinary individuals to undertake, under threat of supernatural punishment.

Why must it be under the threat of supernatural punishment? I think a good example of this being false would be the taboo that is the n-word. That is not a taboo because people are afraid of some higher power punishing them for saying it, but rather it is a taboo because of restrictions imposed by society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.229.183 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taboo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usccb.org/comm/kit6.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Failed verification

The first paragraph of the example section says that "However, although cannibalism, in-group murder, and incest are taboo in the majority of societies, modern research has found exceptions for each and no taboo is known to be universal", but the whole string of sources mentions only incest in Roman Egypt, so I added a "failed verification" marker. Also, isn't that entire string of references all referring to one and the same, quite specialist topic a bit superfluous?

Update: I changed the text altogether, so that only brother-sister marriages in Roman Egypt are mentioned now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.75.143 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Update (2): Apparently my edit has been reverted three days after I made it, even though the long string of references still only refers to incest in Roman Egypt, not at all justifying the very strong statement that "no taboo is known to be universal". Can someone explain to me what's going on here? I think the text as it stands now is very irresponsible from an encyclopedic point of view, as such a strong statement will likely be remembered by readers, who will expound is as truth to their friends, even though it is entirely unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taboo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202053600/http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137476159.0009 to http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137476159.0009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Taboos in American society

Even with the freedom of speech and expression, there are conversation subjects to avoid at work, in public and polite company, in addition around young children (teens are expected not to rebel against their parents as well).

10 terrible topical taboos: Politics, religion, money, criminality and violence (including war), personal things or choices (i.e. divorce, abortion, single parenting, and smoking or alcohol use), negative things (natural disasters), social group differences (race, culture, ethnicity or nationality, and biological sex, gender identity, roles or expression), appearance (age, color, height and weight), medical issues (disease, addiction and disability), and bodily functions or fluids. 2 very taboos: Sexuality (including sexual orientation, behaviors and fetishism), and death. The 13th one would be controversy (like legality, morality, ethics, the paranormal, science and history).

The first two can be discussed in certain places in a civil manner, but they are divisive when one's view can offend minority beliefs, opinions, ideologies and sects.

Other distressing topics not to talk about are (examples) Depression, discrimination, domestic violence, mental illness, race relations, stereotypes and suicide.

And finally, people are told to avoid gossip or talking about others, because this is considered bad manners or etiquette. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Two points:

• Do you have a source for all these taboos?
• Are Americans supposed to remain silent at all times? I don't think there remains any discussion topic which falls out of the areas you defined. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't completely true for 2017 America...you're describing what social etiquette on verbal topics and conduct was like in the 1950s, 1920s and 1890s. Societal norms started to change 50 years ago to become more liberalized by 25 years ago. Yes, there's a time and place to express yourself and your opinions, but they aren't strictly taboo, more like impolite when you're in the outside world. Adinneli (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, freedom of speech in America (or alike) is simply a modern expression that, speaking practically, refers to the universal rule, adopted and applied by all ruling systems in the world, that says: (no offence intended) "Let the dogs bark, as long they cannot bite" ;) Since I used being an independent ordinary person (I am 69), I had always the right to express/present my knowledge, based on my personal observations and analyses, anytime anywhere I liked doing it. After all, it would be a great shame for any powerful ruling system to be seriously scared by just one unarmed peaceful person... though it happened once, just once, in human history. KerimF (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)