@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: René Girard is a noted author...and there is no reason his view of Frazer's work should not be represented. The material could perhaps be simplified or improved, but should not be removed outright.
It isn't actually "critical reception" of The Golden Bough though, is it? It is instead a micro-summary of a small part of Girard's grand mimetic theory, not well referenced (a single page of The Scapegoat), and potentially WP:OR. It was boldly added, its addition was reverted, and 19 minutes later it was added again without improvement. The material could perhaps be simplified or improved
If you are familiar with Girard's mimetic theory, you are welcome to add an improved and/or simplified version of Girard's critical response to Frazer's work, suitably referenced. As the existing paragraph has been rejected twice already by two separate editors, it is verging on lazy scholarship to just reinsert it again, unchanged, and expect others to make it coherent/relevant. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- The material reads, in part, "Frazer's categorization of scapegoat rituals from across the world is taken up as an important, but incomplete insight by the anthropologist and culture critic René Girard: "By interpreting the expression scapegoat in the ritual sense only and making a generalization of it, Frazer...conceals the most interesting meaning of the expression, which appeared at the beginning of the modern era and which never indicated any kind of rite or theme, or cultural motif, but rather identified the unconscious mechanism for the representation and acts of persecution, the scapegoat mechanism". That certainly seems to be critical reception of The Golden Bough. I do not know why you would suggest otherwise. I also have no idea why you think it might be original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Okay, so you're not familiar with The Scapegoat or Girard's mimetic theory. In that case, how about this proposed text?
- René Girard, a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science, "grudgingly" praised Frazer for recognising kingly sacrifice as "a key primitive ritual", but described his interpretation of the ritual as "a grave injustice to ethnology."[1][2] Girard's "grievances" against The Golden Bough were numerous, particularly concerning Frazer's assertion that Christianity was merely a perpetuation of primitive myth-ritualism and that the New Testament Gospels were "just further myths of the death and resurrection of the king who embodies the god of vegetation."[1] Girard himself considered the Gospels to be "revelatory texts" rather than myths or the remains of "ignorant superstition", and rejected Frazer's idea that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice, "whatever definition we may give for that sacrifice."[1][2][3]
- Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should refrain from pointlessly insulting other editors by making baseless presumptions about what they are or are not familiar with? I haven't read The Scapegoat, but I have read some of Girard's other works as well as works about him. There is no logical connection between what I am or am not familiar with and what text you should or should not be proposing for the article. I already noted that I have no objection in principle to having the text about Girard shortened or rewritten. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's pretty obvious that the text you edit warred to reinsert was less critical response and more a ham-fisted micro-summary of Girard's mimetic theory - which also wrongly implied that Girard was, generally if not entirely, supportive of Frazer's theories presented in TGB. The proposed text addresses these issues. Perhaps you should refrain from edit warring just to make a point. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- The text in question discusses Frazer. It is not surprising that Girard would discuss Frazer from the perspective of his own theory. I have no objection to your replacing it with your proposed text; I agree that it is an improvement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Segal, Robert A. (2011). "The Frazerian roots of contemporary theories of religion and violence". Religion. 37 (1): 4–25.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
