|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stan Gooch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
No this article is good just needs a bit more info but I guess there's been to much fussin' and fighting over content for that. Still, let the man who knows the man do it cos he does it well and the truth be heard Stillmans39 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suspect this page was inserted to support fringe arguments relating to race. Shabby with GPOV (Gushing point of view). I am ignorant of this indivdual, but a quick search reveals controversial reseacher. Not a ref for former featured article Race. Fred 14:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi There was no intention of supporting arguments relating to race when this biography was inserted, only one of informing, which is the aim of Wikipedia. Mr. Gooch is a rather controversial researcher yes, but i do not feel that this means he shouldn't be allowed an opinion, after all both Giordano Bruno and Charles Darwin (amongst many others) were rather controversial researchers (and to some extent Darwin is still controversial depending on where you reside geographically). i did not want to go into too much detail about Mr. Gooch as it is a rather large body of work that he hypothesis's, perhaps too large to summarise on a Wiki page, which is probably why some people may refer to him as controversial and his work as fringe arguments relating to race.
if you have any suggestions as to how this can be brought up to speed without using GPOV's, and, with the normal procedure for referencing i would be happy to alter it, i must admit i have not added much to Wikipedia so i may appear rather novice to most standards, i can only apologise.
DanDNA 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
would someone mind giving this a quick look over and let me know if this is the sort of thing expected of a biography, as this is my first contribution. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDNA (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to wonder if this author did do research on race whether or not it would be included as a reference to his biography since it seems any mention of race is likely too controversial to publish. I could understand why certain people would want his presence on wikipedia completely removed but I don't expect wikipedia to start getting into page burning aka (book burning) just because someone is unpopular. That is not what I thought wikipedia was designed for. (Lykurgan (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
I never thought I'd find a clear, informative article on this knotty subject, but you folks pulled it off! Congratulations! I've been waiting for this since 1976, when I first read Total Man, and wondered what sort of mind/person had produced it. It's also amazing to discover that its unfortunate title (Total Woman, a bestselling how-to for sexy housewives, came out at about the same time) was suggested by another of my favorite authors. Thanks!Chelydra (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the above when the article was a lot longer and more informative than it is now. Gooch's problem, it seems to me, is that his ideas refuse to fit into neat familiar boxes; the catch-all for such thinkers is "Crackpot", with occasional attempts to put him into subcategories such as "Crackpot Racist" or "Crackpot New Age." And yet the mostly-deleted longer article mentioned Gooch's close association with the highly-respected Edward Luttwak, among others. It's worth noting that Luttwak, too, is a wide-ranging generalist whose work crosses a lot of boundaries. But because Luttwak deals with "hard" topics like military strategy and global capitalism, no one challenges his credentials or his relevance. Gooch deals with human evolution and psychology, both of which are respectable as separate categories, but suggesting that they overlap is a no-no. It's self-evident that they DO overlap — even the most doctrinaire members of the "environmental influences" camp would acknowledge that heredity plays SOME role in how our minds work (and the fact that we do have minds in the first place). Gooch is almost unique in that he explores this overlap without a racist agenda and without reaching racist conclusions (other than speculations on why racism itself seems to be particularly endemic among the "Nordic" peoples). Chelydra (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with the old article was that it was not based on reliable sources. Your interpretations of how Gooch is perceived are interesting, but they don't help us write an encyclopedia article on him. We need reliable newspapers, magazines and books that discuss his life and works to build up the article. Fences&Windows 02:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Stan_Gooch.jpg may be deletedEdit
I have tagged File:Stan_Gooch.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hybrid origins theoryEdit
Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/250.full
And this is a draft sequence of the neanderthal genome (with strong evidence of admixture with modern humans approx. 40k years ago): https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full