Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 3 August 2008

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhyMenRule.jpg

Image:WhyMenRule.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 30 November 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)

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)

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)