Talk:The Sexual Brain

Advertisement / ownership

This article reads like a publicity piece for the book. I recently added an {{advert}} tag to the article but the article's primary contributor, FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) quickly reverted my edit. Given this level of WP:OWNERSHIP, I'm not going to edit here further as I don't seek conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the article does not read "like a publicity piece for the book". What utter nonsense. The lead of the article clearly acknowledges criticism of and negative reactions to the book. Didn't you bother to read the part of the lead that states, "However, some reviewers pointed out factual errors, and noted that LeVay failed to prove that homosexuality has a biological basis." Does that actually sound like a publicity piece for the book? I removed your template because the template made no sense. Any particular reason you can't admit that you're just wrong, Toddst1, or respond on the talk page, as you are meant to do when there is a dispute? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The article goes on and on about the reception of the book, almost all of it positive. With all that in there propping up the book, it seems promotional. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason an article about a book should not discuss the reception of that book. What do you expect me to do: apologize for adding relevant content to an article? The reason that the content in the reception section is mainly positive is simply that reviewers of The Sexual Brain happened to give it mainly positive reviews. If you imagine that I am somehow suppressing negative or critical views of the book, you are quite mistaken. I would certainly have added more of them had I found more. Essentially, you are accusing me of engaging in biased editing to promote The Sexual Brain. That is an insult that I don't take lightly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to the lead

This edit by Toddst1 is destructive, pointless, and lowers the quality of the article. I have every intention of reverting it. The edit in question removed mention of the fact that, "The book was praised as a well-written work on science. However, some reviewers pointed out factual errors, and noted that LeVay failed to prove that homosexuality has a biological basis". That was all clearly relevant information that belongs in a summary. No one has any business removing it. WP:LEAD requires that the lead of an article summarize its main points: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." That obviously includes the reception of the book and things that reviewers say about it. WP:LEAD explicitly states, "All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies". The suggestion that the lead of an article about a book should not mention its reception ("I don't think reception belongs in the lede"), is stupid, ridiculous, and has no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I say that as someone who has written three good articles, so I do think my opinion counts for something. I note Toddst1 failed to suggest an actual reason for removing mention of the book's reception. I agree that the majority of an article should not be about its reception, but that is a different issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the commentary to the lede as I believe it *does* summarize the reception. However the reception section appears to be ridiculously long. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why, then, do you consider the reception section "ridiculously long"? Precisely how long should it be, in your opinion, and what basis does that opinion have in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? If your view isn't based on relevant policies and guidelines, why would I take it seriously? I recognize that you, and other editors, have a right to disagree with details of how the reception section is written. That disagreement is fine, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise. If anyone wants to make sensible suggestions on how to improve the section, I welcome those suggestions. Just announcing that it is too long, and giving no reason as to why, is not helpful at all, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)