Talk:Why Men Rule

Criticism of Goldberg

The diligent researcher should also look for criticism of Goldberg's second edition; such criticism would help to produce a balanced account. 204.52.215.107 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This book is a revised edition of The Inevitability of Patriarchy. It includes responses to criticism of that book, which you will find duly noted in the appropriate section. Published criticisms of the first book are not only found in Why Men Rule itself, but I have also listed those I've been able to find at the Steven Goldberg biography page. They will also be duplicated at The Inevitability of Patriarchy when I get around to it. Though anyone can do this of course, and add any more they find themselves.

There is not a lot of recent criticism of Goldberg, because science now knows considerably more than it did when he first wrote. Goldberg speculated there would be biological antecedents for male dominance behaviour. Since many have now been identified, and more are being published all the time, the issue has moved well beyond Goldberg. He is of interest because he was contemporary with the early second wave feminist movement, and his criticism of some of their theories has ultimately proved to be sound.

Feminism itself has moved on too. Were gender differences completely lacking in biological components, it would make a lot of issues nice and simple. The fact that gender differences are real and include biological factors doesn't change the fact that there are real issues of justice associated with them, it's just that those issues require a more considered treatment.

Anyway, I totally agree, diligent research looks for criticism. Wiki needs all the researchers we can get. Feel free to help out. Alastair Haines 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Mead?

The reviews section has a quote about the book, purportedly by Margaret Mead. Margaret Mead died in 1978, and the article claims that this book was first published in 1993. Could somebody please clarify this? 99.231.168.66 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Men Rule (1991) is essentially the second (expanded and updated) edition of The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1973). Mead wrote the review about Inevitability, but the publisher saw fit to reproduce her quote on the back cover of my copy of Men. I own both books.

So, whether we approve or not, it is a verifiable matter that Mead's quote has been applied in print to Men. If you try Amazon.com, you may even be able to verify this for yourself if they allow a "Look inside this book".

Great eye for detail you have. :D Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple issues

It provides a stronger argument than his first book

According to who?

The second section considers both the most substantial objections that could be raised against this theory

So his opponents agree that he has responded to all reasonable objections?

This section is extensive and very thorough.

According to who?

the fact that men dominate socially

That should read his belief that men dominate socially.

So, if research uncovers more of these differences, and demonstrates the influence of biological factors more convincingly, these could well provide additional evidence for or against the biological foundation of male dominance.

Conversely, if research finds fewer differences, this would provide additional evidence against his theory. However, the article is pure POV, so it doesn't mention that possibility.

Finally, the Reviews section is unbalanced as it only includes positive reviews. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments, now I can see where you're coming from.

They are all good points for discussion of improvements to the article.

Let's go through them one by one.

• It provides a stronger argument than his first book.

How about we change this to.

• It provides additional references and a lengthy section in response to crticisms of the first book.

Alastair Haines (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Until the multiple issues are resolved, the tags should not be removed. If you feel that these types of comments don't actually violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, feel free to invite a third opinion. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor cannot unilaterally decide there are multiple issues. Additionally, there are about 1000 hits a month on this page, and no-one has tagged it in ages. Silence is presumed to imply consent. Finally, tagging is a last resort, when there is no-one around to discuss or address issues.

I have entered discussion and made a proposal above. Are you willing to discuss, or are you attempting to make tags stick by edit-warring? I'll presume good faith and the first option, remove the tags and look forward to your reply to my suggestion above. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor can one editor unilaterally decide that there are no issues. Please cite the policy that claims that tagging is a last resort. Are you willing to discuss leaving the tags on until all issues are fixed? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have edited your old comment, I will reply to your edit. So because a page has not previously been tagged, that means it's perfect? JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not! This article stinks. In my opinion it's far short of covering the argument of the book and needs considerable expansion. I'm thrilled people are here at the page, the more the merrier. And we can start expanding the article. Would you like to volunteer to contribute text covering any particular chapter? You can have first pick if you like. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: Tags aren't a death knell for a page. They may be unsightly, but they are also a call for other editors to help on the project. Here is how I recommend you approach the disagreements:

1. Any editor who has an issue with an assertion should include the appropriate inline, sectional, or article issue tag to the main article, and immediately follow it up with a detailed explanation of the issue on the Talk page. In other words, do not tag and run.
2. Any editor (likely another one, because if the first editor felt s/he had time and expertise to fix the issue, s/he should have fixed it directly) who wants to remove a tag should first look at the talk page to see what the issue is. If the second editor disagrees with the tagging, s/he should reply on the talk page, making a rational argument why the tag is inappropriate. Otherwise, the second editor should make a good faith effort to modify the article to resolve the issue. After making the good faith edit to the article (changing or adding content), THEN that editor should make a subsequent edit to remove the tag from the page, and explain on the talk page (and edit summary, too, if you think of it) why s/he believes the recent edit remedied the issue that the first editor highlighted.
3. If the first editor believes the issue has not been remedied, s/he may then revert the tag removal on the article page, and then explain in the talk page why the issue has not been resolved to his or her satisfaction.

Thus, every tag addition or removal comes with an immediate explanation of the rationale, and tags stay until the conensus is they're no longer appropriate. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JClemens. Tags are great, I use them all the time, especially on articles I'm writing myself. But no, your process above doesn't help, because it's contrary to the rationale of policy, as well as its letter. Tags are a last resort when discussion isn't happening, or when its stalled. By the time it's stalled, enough should have been said that it should be clear to third parties if one group or individual is not engaging with content. As it turns out, it is already clear in this discussion that I've made a proposal for change that hasn't been interacted with. That's OK, 'cause we've only just begun. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It provides a stronger argument than his first book. This is OR and POV.

The second section considers both the most substantial objections that could be raised against this theory Do his opponents agree that he has addressed all of their substantial objections?

there is a clear correlation between hormones and social behaviour. There is not. For example, some research shows that increased testosterone levels increase aggressiveness. Other research shows that increased aggressiveness increases testosterone levels.

observed male dominance Observed is POV language. He argues the POV that males are dominant.

This section is extensive and very thorough. This is OR and POV.

the fact that men dominate socially Again, this is the author's POV, not fact.

So, if research uncovers more of these differences, and demonstrates the influence of biological factors more convincingly, these could well provide additional evidence for or against the biological foundation of male dominance. This is unbalanced. If research uncovers more similarities, this could provide evidence against his theory.

Finally, every review is positive. Either the book received only positive reviews (from reliable sources), in which case this shocking fact should be mentioned, or the book also received negative reviews, in which case a proportional number of them should be included. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Above, you do not interact with the first proposal I offered, merely repeat your first list.

Please interact with the discussion instead of using edits.

I'm waiting for your reply. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You only offered a proposal for one issue out of many. Until all of the issues have been dealt with, or consensus (meaning more than just you and I) exists that there are no issues, the tags should not be removed. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a source for that elbamiem that the argument the stronger argument on the second book than it had done for the first. Smith Jones (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue remains...Whether the article should be tagged or not. Isn't that what the edit-war was about? It seemed that Alastair had a desire to handle your issues one at a time rather than a potentially confusing conglomeration. Untagging and discussing seems like the road to take. Assume Good Faith.--Buster7 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As per the advice of User:Jclemens, I used inline tags. They should not be removed until they are each addressed or there is consensus on the talk page that there are no issues. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the main point. First objection. JCDenton objects:

• It provides a stronger argument than his first book. This is OR and POV.

I made a proposal for an alternative phrasing above, but when I checked the text of the article, I noticed the existing text makes it plain exactly who thinks the book contains a stronger argument than the first. In fact, two reliable sources other than Golderg are explicitly named in the existing text.

It's probably worth mentioning that no-one can ever say "that is original research".

To say so is nearly always original research itself!

As for being POV, I think that's unlikely also, since what can be measured objectively is hardly ever POV.

If Goldberg presented merely one additional piece of evidence, without excluding any already offered, his argument would be stronger. How much stronger would be a matter of opinion, and depend on the nature of the extra evidence. That would be an interesting thing to collect PsOV about.

But anyway, I don't like the text myself, but obviously for reasons different to JCDenton.

I am curious though, what other POVs JCD is aware of, that he wants to include. No one is stopping him, I for one want to encourage him. Who says the two editions are identical, who says the second is weaker? Sounds strange to me, I'd suspect original research, but almost everything is published somewhere. Where are the reliable sources of alternative views of the relative strengths of the two editions JCD? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are sources in the text that claim that the book makes a stronger argument, then they need to be cited near that statement. The sentence also needs to be re-written to clarify who is claiming that the argument is stronger. The strength of an argument cannot be measured objectively. I agree that the argument in the second book is probably stronger (given that it is newer and has more research), but for me to simply claim so would be original research and a non-neutral point of view.

I found a pretty good osurce ofr that claim and I inserted it into the article. That should resolve the curent content disputation. Smith Jones (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Smith Jones. JCDenton raised other issues as well. I'll move on to his point two when I come back from work.

Actually, the sentences immediately following the statement, do indeed make verifiable statements that explain why the book's argument is stronger. I'd presume that's why the comment has never been flagged before—doesn't normally trigger any reader surprise. However, if even one reader overlooks the connection, there's possible room for clarification. Also, additional sources are always welcome and any on topic sources are nearly always an asset to an article. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning to JCD's point 2.

Article says:

• "The second section considers both the most substantial objections that could be raised against this theory."

JCD asks:

• So his opponents agree that he has responded to all reasonable objections?

Alastair responds:

I haven't been fair to Goldberg here. I will change this to "claims to address all objections that had been raised against the theory".

I deliberately weasled things because I had a suspicion that some readers may have a bias against Goldberg and his views.

So I limited the claim to "substantial objections".

That was wrong of me, I can source his claim to address everything that was published. Given that that task would have been considerably easier to research than the extensive section on cultural anthropological sources, I don't think there'd be any reason to doubt him. Certainly it would be original research to express such a doubt in the text (or to provide the opinion I'm expressing here, of course).

But a final point. If anyone can find an opponent who has claimed he didn't respond to various specific objections, we can assert this opinion, but if we can't, we can't imply that he failed to do so. That would be original research.

"Biological research has, in fact, been providing more and more evidence of differences in brain and behaviour between men and women..."

If this is paragraph is describing the argument Goldberg makes in his book then it should be attributed to him. It's hard to tell if that's what it is or if it's just some wikipedia editor's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.236.201 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not Goldberg's argument, it is a verifiable statement. It should be sourced, there are plenty of sources available, and no substantial scientific contrary view afaik. The journal Genes, Brains and Behaviour (and many others) are the primary sources, many secondary sources are also available. A popular book covering some of the material is Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag removal

I've belatedly removed tags that offered invalid criticisms of the text of the article. The text is woefully incomplete. Additional material would be much appreciated. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews on the book jacket

are unacceptable content., unless they are excerpted from published reviews in 3rd party reliable sources. this is so well established, that I have removed the section. if anyone has references to the actual publication of the reviews, please add them back with proper references. DGG (talk)

That's a sound objection and reasonable action, I concur. I'll deal with reviews when I finally have time to make this article a priority again. Of course, anyone else can demonstrate interest in the article by sourcing several of the quotes. Mead's is from a Redbook review, surprise, surprise. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I note DGG has an exceptionally clear and relevant guide to his own editing at Wiki at his user page. There are, imo, some outstandingly clearly expressed principles, illustrated by equally clear examples. Nice to know someone like you has found a page like this. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Overly long synopsis and excessive citation of the book itself

The vast majority of this article is simply a wikt:synopsis of the book that is this article's topic. The vast majority of references are to the book itself ({{primarysources}}). Both issues are problematical. There is no 'synopsis' tag, so I used the {{Article issues}} 'plot' tag, which is its nearest equivalent, instead (if somebody can suggest a more appropriate tag, I will replace it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments above are addressed at Talk:The Inevitability of Patriarchy.

It appears the intent is simply to tag rather than to improve the article.

Tags removed pending development of consensus on talk page.

As an aside, the current article needs considerable expansion.

But that will be obvious to anyone with sufficient familiarity with the subject to actually provide what is needed.

I'd tag the article with the tag above myself, only I don't think it will actually make any difference.

(It didn't last time I did it.)

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

1. {{expand}}="Overly long synopsis" -- who'd have thought?
2. Your reply there has also been rebutted there -- both by myself and by GRuban
3. What is "obvious" is that the length of synopsis would be far in excess of that which a far larger article could accommodate, and that a far larger or far more important book would merit.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is not that this article is too short. The problem is that the article is sourced almost entirely to the book itself. Almost all of the current article should be deleted and replaced with information from secondary sources. Once that is done, I expect the article will actually be significantly shorter, not longer. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is, it appears, merely the "revised edition" of The Inevitability of Patriarchy, would it be appropriate to simply redirect it to that article, until such time as significant third party coverage can be accrued (possibly into a section in that article)? I've seen this done elsewhere, in similar circumstances. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see substantial merit in that proposal Hrafn.

I'd support it, only this article has an edit history of detailed editorial objections to particular parts of Goldberg's argument, and to the way documenting it is phrased. Although I think those objections are nearly all mistaken, they are very important in considering how work at Inevitability progresses, and indeed, how work at this article will progress in future.

I'd dearly like to support your excellent common sense in this case, but it just seems to be an unfortunate accident that your wisdom on this has come too late to avoid some heated exchanges at draft revisions of this page.

More positively, we could say that it's actually been helpful that, shockingly sketchy as the current article is, it has actually generated informative interaction. That feels like one of the healthy parts of Wiki process.

So, with some regret, I recommend keep as article on the grounds of the value of the edit history, not of the current revision of the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alastair: (i) your argument is entirely spurious (the existence of edit histories is no impediment to merger, and will in fact not be lost in one) & (ii) you have been topic-banned, so your opinion no longer matters in any case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)