Talk:Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Criticism

There is a great review, including criticisms, in The Guardian, unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write it up here.50.0.136.66 (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Added in a key passage from it.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most overrated books of our time. Numerous errors, omissions and misunderstood developments make it an annoying buy. Examples: on p.279 he attributes ignoramus to the Romans. This was a Socratic thought. Petrarca, who initiated the Rinascimento (commonly called the Renaissance) is not even mentioned. Francis Bacon´s Novum Organon is completely misunderstood. Ontologix (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Harari objective modern science began around 1500 AD [sic!]. Has Mr Harari never heard of ancient scientists like Pythagoras, an eminent mathematician that calculated logarithmically our modern musical scale around 550 BC? Or Eratosthenes who calculated with his primitive available practical means the circumference of the earth and erred by only 5 per cent around 200 BC, yes BC. (Columbus, much later, erred by 30 per cent.) If that is not objective science, Or remember Eratosthenes' astronomical calculations. I don't know what Mr Harari means by science. Epicure, around 300 BC theoretically combined human imagination and systematical observation of nature. Is Harari's degree from McDonalds University? This book is pop history, not even popular history, reminds me of Dan Brown. Ontologix (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages to express your opinions about the subject matter; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and the purpose of this talk page is to improve the article, nothing else. -- Jibal (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the article by John Sexton, a graduate student, a realiable source WP:RELIABLE? --Postconfused (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead summary of reviews

I removed the previous content from the lead summarizing the reviews ("The reception of the book has been mixed. Whereas the general public's reaction to the book has been positive, scholars with relevant subject matter expertise have been very critical of the book.") and replaced it with a more neutral sentence ("The book was a best-seller but received a mixed reception by those in science-related fields."). I don't think either of these is needed or really that appropriate for the lead, but the previous characterization was not supported by the reception section. That section talks about the sales and and has The Guardian call it a "publishing phenomenon" and a "brainy book", but that's basically it for "general public's reaction". For "relevant subject matter expertise", I'm not sure how that was being defined, but there is currently:

• Royal Society of Biologists
• Anthropologist
• Science journalist
• Evolutionary anthropologist
• Philosopher
• Graduate student

Out of those, the Royal Society of Biologists and the evolutionary anthropologist are positive, and the other four (including by the undefined "graduate student" are negative. That does not support the "very critical" statement. My version could probably be reworded too, but I think it would be better if we had reliable sources discussing its overall reception and showing that it is noteworthy enough to include in the lead rather than just miscellaneous reviews that we have to use WP:SYNTH to determine how to pull them together to create a lead summary. Also pinging Doug Weller. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I note that the selection criteria for the short list of the Royal Society of Biologists is not at all clear. I just spent some time trying to figure out the process and have not been able to find any details. It might represent a relevant scholarly opinion, but might be more a popular opinion driven selection process. The scholarly reception section shows a clear pattern of strong criticism. Even the evolutionary anthropologist review is somewhat mixed. I am going to revert this back to the summary which I believe is long-standing and a more accurate summary of the article. -Pengortm (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A clear pattern of strong criticism? Even though one source "might represent a relevant scholarly opinion" and another is "somewhat mixed"? Also, one of the supposedly "strong criticism" says "Much of Sapiens is extremely interesting, and it is often well expressed", and another says "stimulating but often unsourced assertions". If you think the unsourced summary is more accurate, would you mind finding some sources that support that? Particularly the phrases "scholars with relevant subject matter expertise" and "very critical of the book"? Strong criticism needs to actually be supported and not based on WP:SYNTH or else an article is better left leaving it to readers to go through the reception section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to do the work I'd like to do, but I've tagged the article. The lead clearly does not comply with our guideline at WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, is there a particular section of WP:LEAD that would provide more context for your comment? I was not aware that articles on published works that do not include a lead summary of reception/reviews are considered clearly not in compliance with the guidelines. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: did you read WP:LEAD? Of course it doesn't say that specifically. It does say "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think the lead does this. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thank you for the explanation. I guess I didn't see the sourcing in the reception as sufficient enough to mandate inclusion in the lead yet, but regardless I do agree with the tag you placed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding here--been busy. Re-reading the scholarly reception, I still think these represent almost all quite negative reviews. Yes, they also say some positive things, but these are mostly about saying it was fun or well-written (e.g. "stimulating" "interesting")--but on the actual scholarly content which is the important thing here for scholars to evaluate, these reviews are resoundingly negative. The lead needs to summarize this and I will be re-inserting this. I will note that the scholarly critiques that are negative are of the scholarly content--although I think even this is somewhat extraneous and awkward.- Pengortm (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Would not be in favour of providing balance for balance sake. Please go ahead Pengortm. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The header seems designed to a dishonest view of the book. Popular opinion has been positive, critical opinion has been mixed, and criticism has been received from the left and the right, whereas the header seems to imply that criticism has only come from the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll return it to the less slanted header it had before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that your changes in this vein have been reverted by multiple editors across multiple pages, leading to you being blocked for edit warring, you know full well there are going to be objections. Since this section has not had any other activity since June, this comment is almost hidden. Start a new section at the bottom of the page explaining your rationale for these changes. Use reliable sources to support these changes and gain consensus. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The last review noted under "Scholarly reception" ("Countercurrents" website) is of a very low quality and reeks of self-promotion, I would argue to remove it. --2A02:120B:C3CF:4A10:78DE:2BEB:BECF:68EF (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation / localisation

I read it in Spanish (translated by Joandomènec Ros from English) and found odd that some examples are from Spanish culture. For example, chapter 19 compares a Spanish single mother earning 12,000 euros and an executive earning 250,000 euros and drinking Vega Sicilia Único instead of Rioja (wine). I suppose that these examples were localised by the translator. Can you confirm? --Error (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a Q&A site. Please only use this page for improving the article. -- Jibal (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Vintage Edition does include translators

It is not true that the London Vintage reprint does not include information on the two assistants responsible for the English translation. I own this edition, and their names are printed on the copyright page. Since the clause adds nothing to the article otherwise, I’m deleting rather than correcting it. --Junggai (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Update Book Image

I am curious if anyone will object to updating the image of the book found at the top of the page, the current image is for the Hebrew first edition. The cover art for the English edition already exists on Wikimedia Commons but it is not the artwork from the official English first edition from Harper Collins. The artwork from Harper Collins is the image most readers of this page will likely be familiar with and be able to read. I am new to editing so this will be a good first challenge. LightBulb22 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@LightBulb22: Welcome! I'm not sure which image is most appropriate for articles about books. Wikipedia's documentation is distributed rather than localized, and this is one of the times I just could not find an answer. In such situations, you can go to Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Village pump to get some friendly advice. P.S. It's great that you start out by considering whether other editors would object to your changes if you're not sure of a proposed change, but as you gain more experience you'll get the idea when it's OK to be more WP:BOLD. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09 thank you for the kind words! I will try posting this question there and see what replies come back. I asked here first mainly because I looked for an answer and could not find anything definitive either. I also asked this on the talk page first because in looking over the edit history for this article, there appears to be a large number of edits being reverted within just a few hours of being made with little conversation in the talk page. Perhaps that's part of a larger conversation for another section on the talk page. LightBulb22 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I posted this question on Wikipedia:Teahouse and the responses I received also said that no guideline exists for this specific situation, so if the image is more appropriate for this article to go for it. The previous image on this article was for the Hebrew first edition, and while this was the first language published, the first English edition from Random House was published on April 30, 2015. Upon further review, the Random House publishing is the first English edition, the Harper Collins edition mentioned above is actually a later edition from 2018 so the Random House image is preferred. LightBulb22 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism in in Current Affairs (magazine)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/07/the-dangerous-populist-science-of-yuval-noah-harari/ Prizecolorolex (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly, I've added this article as a source. It also linked to this New Yorker article which could be used for further expansion. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Lengthy purple quote box

Afterword:
The Animal that Became a God

     We have mastered our surroundings, increased food production, built cities, established empires and created far-flung trade networks. But did we decrease the amount of suffering in the world? Time and again, massive increases in human power did not necessarily improve the well-being of individual Sapiens, and usually caused immense misery to other animals.
      In the last few decades we have at least made some real progress as far as the human condition is concerned, with the reduction of famine, plague and war. Yet the situation of other animals is deteriorating more rapidly than ever before, and the improvement in the lot of humanity is too recent and fragile to be certain of.

Sapiens Afterword at p. 415

I don't see any indication that this large purple quote box is an important summary of the book, but it does appear to promote the book by highlighting an editor-selected sample. It really shouldn't be up to us to chose which quotes are pithy and which are not, and I don't think this is saying anything especially novel or profound, so it's not self-evident that this should be included strictly on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The "indication that it is an important summary", is its placement in the book. Having read the book, I can attest, using the editorial judgement we all make every day, it is in fact an important summary. Probably, each and every quotebox on Wikipedia highlights "an editor-selected sample", so that does not make them "promotional", especially when (as I stated in edit comment) the quote's content is not about how good the book itself is. Your personal opinion that it is not "especially novel or profound" cannot possibly be the inclusion criterion for quotes or anything else; general inclusion criteria relate to what describes the subject and not whether it meets an editor's personal perception of or requirement for novelty or profundity. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added strikeout to shorten the quote. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The book is not an independent source for itself, and while I don't doubt your attestation is made in good faith, it's still original research. I am not accusing you of adding it to promote the book, but it is promotional anyway, since it is large, formatted in a distracting way that draws attention to the author's own words without providing any specific reason, and is lacking context or informational value. You're right that my personal opinion is not the inclusion criteria, which is why I am asking for a reliable WP:IS for this quote. Our goal is to summarize in our own words. We use quotes with restraint and when necessary. I do not accept that this quote is necessary.

I notice from the article's history that I'm not the first person to remove this quote. Please do not restore it again without consensus. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)