Talk:The Inevitability of Patriarchy

Some more specification and a more neutral tone is needed

The tone of this article is not neutral, and there are some vague assertions that need contextualizing. For example:

1) "Biological research has, in fact, since provided more and more evidence of differences in brain and behaviour between men and women (see main entry Biology of gender). The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough."

This is disputable - however, this is not the page to detail those disputes. The point is that it's imprecise and unhelpful. I'd suggest removing "The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough". Either that, or at least specify differences and which effects are relevant to the book. Otherwise it comes across as unsupported "obvious-ism".

2) The tone reflects uncritical endorsement - for example, "Why Men Rule (1993) provides a stronger argument" and "Why Men Rule presents exactly the same theory, but with more evidence". As already noted, the exact nature of "differences in brain (sic) and behaviour" is debatable in and of itself; beyond that, extrapolating from that to account for social structures is problematic. Again, that's a larger beyond the scope of this page. But the point is this: The wiki entry does not provide any detail on Goldberg's reasoning - hence, there's no basis by which a reader can evaluate whether Goldberg's book did in fact make a "stronger argument". The way it's written, it cannot be taken as anything more than an opinion.

the article would be improved by doing a bit more to summarize the thesis of the book.

This has been done for 'Why Men Rule". PErhaps a basic outline can be provided here.

154.20.156.49 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Louis Cullinan June 29 08

Dear Louis,

You say:

"The wiki entry does not provide any detail on Goldberg's reasoning",

"the article would be improved by doing a bit more to summarize the thesis of the book", and

"Perhaps a basic outline can be provided here."

I completely agree, and am in the process of doing exactly what you request!

I imagine you will also be pleased to know that I shall be asking Goldberg to review the article once I've drafted it. :)

Alastair Haines (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article needs to be completely rewritten. Statements like The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are strikingly clear. They provide convincing, irrefutable as well as obvious support for the causal chain from biology to male dominance. Goldberg's observations and straightforward interpretations of our natural world has been proven out by science repeatedly in recent years. are POV, unsourced, and blatantly unencyclopedic. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced, POV and blatantly unencyclopedic phrases you correctly identify were added by an anonymous IP address here. One clever way of undermining an opinion one doesn't like is to parody it. All you needed to do was revert one edit. I'll be watching this page closely in future, it wasn't even on my watch list until I recently dropped by. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of rewriting the whole article. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My spelling is hopeless, and I thank JCD for picking up my embarassing (sp?) "primative" rather than "primitive". What a monkey I am. It is certainly good to know that what I'm taking time to write is being scrutinised so carefully. It is a great encouragement to continue. I thank JCD on behalf of all of us for this.

JCD has, however, made four other edits I'm not convinced are as helpful.

1. In the sentence following "Goldberg's theory proposes", JCD added the redundant "In Goldberg's theory ...".
2. After one writer is quoted in favour of Goldberg, and before three arguments are quoted against, JCD added a "lopsided" tag. I'm unclear if he wants two more writers in favour of Goldberg, writers in favour of Goldberg not to be represented, or writers in favour of Goldberg to say different things to what they say. Only the first is possible, of course, though I think Hakim's treatment is the perfect secondary source for Wiki to work with, being expert, recent, neutral and comparing, as she does, two other theories.
3. JCD altered text describing Goldberg's "discussion" of attributes considered by a consensus of scholarship to be areas where women typically outperform men to read that Goldberg "argues" for this. Goldberg makes no case, offers no reasons, simply claims scholastic consensus regarding these things, and notes his agreement. This is discussion, not argument. Unless JCD can source his reading of Goldberg (or demonstrate from Goldberg's text that I've misread it) he can doubt my word all he likes, but his doubt will turn to agreement if he only reads sources for himself.
4. Similarly, JCD exchanged "argues" for my original "notes" as regards anthropological consensus regarding the universality of patriarchy. Again, Goldberg offers no arguments, no reasons, no logic, he merely cites experts from that discipline, their opinions, their language usage, their definitions and comments that he accepts their findings. In other words, he "notes" the opinions of others, he makes no "argument" for any new opinion of his own. Naturally, I've amended the text here, on the same basis as above.

I've asked JCD to self-revert or clarify the first two minor points. Personally, I'd rather not state Goldberg's position more strongly nor add supporters for it, which are what JCDs edits call for. But I'm open to him insisting on that.

Regarding the other two edits, since they are simply unsourced and contrary to fact, as can be verified from the source text discussed in the article, I've had to restore the original text. I'm open to other ways of wording these sentences, so long as they don't introduce errors, like the 3. and 4. above.

This book has caused much ink to be shed over the years, it's unsurprising that the facts it mentions and the opinions it expresses will trouble some decent minded and educated people; however, as time has shown, Goldberg was essentially only articulating what has always been and continues to be scientific consensus.

The most ascerbic parts of Goldberg's writing are reserved for those of his own academic discipline (sociology) who, in his opinion, point-blank refuse to accept the relevance of the findings of other disciplines, cutting themselves off from collaborative inter-disciplinary research. I'll be documenting some of that with trepidation. Personally, I'm astounded Goldberg was so direct in criticism of his colleagues, despite the fact that I think he makes a good case. But I'm constrained to report what he writes, whether I approve or not.

I trust that once this report on what Goldberg wrote is available, people will be able to criticise and/or appreciate Goldberg for what he actually said, rather than what people guess he might have said. Of course, reading his book would be the ideal, but alas, who has the time for such things? :( Alastair Haines (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Hence male dominance (patriarchy) might be inevitable. needs to be attributed to someone because it is very POV. Otherwise it is attributed to Wikipedia and that violates WP:NPOV.

Hakim, a diehard supporter of Goldberg, is given five quotes in the introduction. No critic of Goldberg is mentioned by name or quoted. That is unbalanced on its face.

The claim that there are areas in which women are unquestionably superior to men needs to be clarified. Does Goldberg mean biological functions (e.g. women are better at giving birth than men)? In that case, no problem. Does he mean sociological functions (e.g. women are better K-12 teachers than men)? In that case, there is definitely not consensus.

The claim that all anthropologists in the UK and the US as of 1973 believe that there were never any matriarchies in history is an astounding one and it needs astounding proof. A more reasonable claim would be that most anthropologists believe... or that the consensus among anthropologists is... JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is attributed, like many sentences, by default in the context of this article, to Goldberg. The article title is The Inevitability of Patriarchy. Who claims inevitability—Goldberg, as is clearly stated. Wikipedia cannot say he is right, nor can it say he is wrong.

Cite a source that describes Hakim as you accuse. Forgive me if I doubt you are so familiar with Hakim or the literature to make such a suggestion (I am vastly ignorant of the thousands of scholars relevant to the debate myself, so I don't mean this disparagingly). You're welcome to add your comment to the article if you can source it. It would be a vital contribution.

"Anthropologists have written at length about the areas in which women are unquestionably superior to men." (IP:20-21) Goldberg discusses these mainly in generalities and in the abstract. He is not interested in being as specific as "better K-12 teachers" etc. My guess is that he would say those particular detailed questions are beyond the scope of his expertise. What he does discuss includes "creator and keeper of society's emotional resources", "power" (of a kind Goldberg is vague about) in "dyadic and familial relationships"

"Claim" (as I mention in my earlier post below) is a better word that "argue". Nonetheless, it is simply an undisputed fact. It astounds you, but not those familiar with the literature. These things were very much debated in the 19th century, then anthropologists proved the 19th century theorists to have been wrong. Part of the problem here is that you either need to trust academic review processes, or read the whole of Goldberg's book (or this article when I finish it). It will make sense to you when you see it all.

On that note I'll get back to writing up those 19th century theorists.

However, what is really extraordinary is that without a single, pre-1973 anthropologist to back you, you are willing to assert a commitment to believing one exists.

On the broader issue of there being no matriarchies, I needed Goldberg's addendum to convince me the anthropologists were correct. I have a ton of sympathy for your scepticism. The only difference between us is that I've read lots of books that have laid out the facts. I think the subject is fascinating. I'm sure others like us are interested in it too. I do appreciate your keen critical consideration of what I'm writing, but please give me some space and some trust. I consider myself a volunteer serving people like yourself who want reliable information.

As I said, I'll get back to writing up a "flat" description of the book. It's not easy in some places because Goldberg is not entirely user-friendly to read (a comment made in a fair bit of secondary literature, especially by his friends actually).

Thanks for using the talk page. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, written simultaneously with above)

One thing I like about JCD's edits is that they are quite specific. He only challenges the things he doesn't like, he doesn't try to delete a whole article or malign another editor in the process of making his point. I'm listing the things I don't like below. Essentially they come down to JCD insisting on changing text, simply on the basis that he hasn't read the books yet, so he doesn't believe they say what they do say. That's a basis for going to a library, not for altering sourced and cited Wiki articles.

In reply to JCD's specific edits, here are some specific comments of my own.

JCD has insisted his edits, despite making no reference to the actual text of the book, nor to any other source; and without making any other engagement on the talk page.

Textual emendments unsupported by sources can be removed at any time (so I can remove JCD's if I wish). Insisting on making edits without meaningful engagement on the talk page, which exists to deal with things like this, is edit warring (so I could report JCD if I chose to do so). Additionally, since I'm trying to write this article atm, I'm available and willing to talk, boldness is not required, talk should be the first step. But instead, the flow of what I'm doing is being impeded (mildly atm), but it is still a form of obstruction if it doesn't change.

I am perfectly happy to collaborate with people willing to quote from Inevitability or related literature to make their points. I am also perfectly happy to discuss style, phrasing wording and so on. In fact, I dearly long for such contributions. However, people editing the article in ways that simply seem to suggest their own discomfort with what is abundantly documented in the literature, is POV and OR, as well as not too crash hot on simple decency towards a fellow contributor.

JCD is currently claiming he knows better than sources. He thinks he knows better than Hakim, for example. He also believes he knows better than Goldberg. Not to mention Britannica, Mead, Eller and most of the second and third waves of the feminist movement. But, worse than that, he thinks he knows what Goldberg said, when he hasn't even read the book, let alone consulted it after I challenged him above.

Here are the specific changes

• AH: Golderg somewhat underestimated the biological arguments that would later be advanced to explain male dominance preference
• JCD: Golderg somewhat underestimated the biological arguments that would later be advanced to explain what Goldberg views is male dominance preference

Van den Burghe 'et. al.' are not at all interested in Goldberg's view of what is male dominance preference. They are interested in explaining male dominance, not whatever version of it Goldberg may believe in. The sentence doesn't make sense, and what sense it does have is false, and make Goldberg out to be way more important than he is.

• AH:He spends most of this section discussing "areas in which women are unquestionably superior to men."<ref name=IP22>''Inevitability'' (1997): 22.</ref>
• JCD:He spends most of this section arguing "areas in which women are unquestionably superior to men."<ref name=IP22>''Inevitability'' (1997): 22.</ref>

Apart from the grammatical infelicity of this, it is very widely believed that women (on average) show greater natural aptitude than men (on average) in certain specific areas discussed in the literature, and this is rather ancient news. Goldberg merely presents some of the more salient areas pertinent to his thesis. Expressing agreement with the published views of others may be part of an argument, but it is not an argument in itself.

• AH:He also notes that all anthropologists, from both the UK and the US, as of 1973, agreed that there has never been a matriarchate;<ref name=IP26 />
• JCD:He also argues that all anthropologists, from both the UK and the US, as of 1973, agreed that there has never been a matriarchate;

This section discusses technical usage of terminology, as the word matriarchate suggests (it has fallen out of fashion since 1973), it makes no argument. If JCD really wanted to insist, the right word to use would be "claims", not "argues". However, since I have read numerous sources on the topic including many critical of Goldberg, and these do not challenge this claim (many even note it themselves in passing), I cannot write the word "claims" because there is no dispute about it among those who know the literature better than I do. If there is a dispute that JCD knows about, he can settle this for us by telling us the UK or US anthropologist prior to 1973 who asserts the existence of a matriarchate. If he doesn't know, then he should hold his peace until he can prove the experts wrong by showing them where to look. I'll be genuinely thrilled if can do this, and will email Goldberg directly and post his reply here.

Goldberg researched for years and found nothing, others have scrutinised his work (for 35 years!) and found nothing to show he missed anything.

Reliable source (Goldberg, award a PhD for his published research, and after 35 years of intense scholastic scrutiny): "all agree that there has never been a matriarchate."

JCD considers this statement to be an "argument".

Is anyone else watching? Please help. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• • 1)I suggest sticking to coverage of the book apart from primary sources by scholars. Where are the media reviews and book reviews written upon reception of the book? Good sources describing support and opposition to the assertions of the book will go a long way in establishing what is notable and should be included in the article.
  • 2)This article has a lot of plot summary including a chapter by chapter accounts of the text. I find this information interesting, but it is not encyclopedic per Wikipedia guidelines. Again, using the media coverage and scholarly books discussing this book would be a better way to go about building the article. I tired to do some clean up and clarification and I welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions. If I messed anything up please correct it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I've misunderstood you, you seem to make the interesting suggestion that non-expert and non-reviewed journalism should be used to evaluate a technical scholastic work that was accepted as a doctoral thesis, and has been discussed in peer-reviewed journals, and specialist monographs for 35 years.

You also appear to be applying the sensible fiction policy to a work of non-fiction. The book has no "plot", it has an argument. Reporting on the book means primarily reporting its argument, and any arguments offered in support or against it, by those qualified to judge such things.

Perhaps you could help clarify my misunderstanding of what I must have misunderstood from your comments above. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1)Wikipedia is not cliff notes. If there is a policy that supports extensive chapter by chapter book summaries, I am unaware of it.

2)Peer reviewed journals would be an excellent source. I don't see much discussion of the book's reception from sources of that type. If it was reviewed by the mainstream press that would also be appropriate to include. Is this a scholarly book that didn't make any impact outside of academia? If so that should be made clear.

3) This is an article about this book. So the follow-up book shouldn't be more than mentioned. You seem to be advocating for a particular argument and position instead of writing a neutral article about the book, it's reception, and impact. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

1. That there is no policy for something is clearly no policy against something. If you are not interested in what this book has to say, that's perfectly OK, but I don't understand why you are involved at the article if that's the case.
2. Regarding scholarly reviews, I encourage you to read the current article, and add to what is already there. Inevitability is widely cited, normally as an authority on its subject so you should find such contribution easy.
3. I totally agree, the follow-up book has only two sentences and needs no more here. It has its own article.

As for addressing me and my motives, rather than the text, that's fine. Your suspicions are unfounded, as a close reading of the text of the article can demonstrate for you. It merely describes what I see in front of me, with quotes to prove it. There is no endorsement and no weasling, except what is provided by reliable secondary sources.

Please don't make writing up an unpopular (in some circles) but important book more difficult than it is. Wiki is not censored, certainly when it comes to classic reliable sources in their fields. This article makes it easy for editors to get "up to speed" quickly regardin a source they probably wouldn't want to buy for themselves. I don't leave this book lying on my coffee table. ;)

Could you please try to be a bit collegiate and not address me as though I'm a National Action skinhead looking for recruits at a local church garden party.

I note you have a barnstar of good humour. That could quite possibly be the best contribution by far to articles addressing subjects that some people get tense about. My job is to write up sources without fear or favour. I would really appreciate questions rather than assertions. One of the really cool things about questions is that they can never be wrong. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This article sounds like a plot summary.

I think it needes a complete rewrite, according to WP:NOT#PLOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The excellent policy regarding articles on books of fiction would indeed mean the current re-write was heading in the wrong direction, were this a work of fiction. As it is an academic work, however, and itself reviews other non-fiction literature and interacts throughout with published alternative views, following its argument in a way that is transparently verifiable is important for reliability and NPOV. Thanks for commenting. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldberg's opinion

To whom it may concern.

Any woman who feels that her sense of meaning is satisfied in areas not usually considered feminine need not justify this to anyone. She can never hope to live in a society that does not attach feminine expectations to women, but if she has the courage she will overcome the attitudinal discrimination that she will, undeniably, face. ... No one is denying the value of the woman who devotes her life to a career rather than to children; there is no need for her to misrepresent physiology, anthropology, and psychology in order to rationalize an unnecessary defence.

— Steven Goldberg, Inevitability (1977): 191.

It strikes me that while this article remains unwritten, people will keep jumping to conclusions about what Goldberg believes and dismiss his common-sense arguments out of fear he is pushing some anti-social agenda. Were he anti-social, he would deserve to be exposed, and the article should not be censored. As it is, however, he's almost boringly normal. LOL, don't judge a book by its cover, though I must admit other writers who say the same things find less confronting ways to say them. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Read me file for this page

The competing hypotheses—deflecting potential ideological debates at this page

A question that has been of great interest in western society for the last 40 years or so, and really for a long time prior to that too, is "why do men always seem to get the best jobs?"

Several answers have been proposed.

1. Because men are better than women. (Sounds shocking, but many have seriously believed this. There is, however, proof that it is false. This view is the "male supremicist" view.)
2. Because men hate women. (Therefore they keep them down, not always deliberately, but just following bad examples from the past. This view is called "misogyny". It is popular among many non-biological sociologists and many older style feminists.)
3. Because many men want to be at the top, and many women don't care about getting there. (This was Goldberg's thesis in Inevitability.)
4. Because tribes with heirarchies overwhelmed with men reproduced better at some point in the past. (One of various evolutionary hypotheses.)
5. Because God made it that way. (Believe it or not, the Bible says it will happen in Genesis 3 and commands it 1 Timothy 2.)

Although editorial opinion is irrelevant. As just one of hopefully several workers on this article, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I believe 3, 4 and 5 are all correct and that 1 and 2 are false. I would be surprised to find someone show up who also believes 5. I'm willing to take some personal attacks directed at me regarding 5, although I doubt this will happen, since this article will say nothing about it 'cause Goldberg doesn't. But what I will not accept is implications that Goldberg (or I) subscribe to 1, since Goldberg's text denies it repeatedly (as can be seen by several quotes in this article).

This article is about theory number 3, and that only. If someone can point to any place at Wiki where theory 3 is already documented, we can work on merging information. If we are going to cover alternative theories (and I think we shouldn't, we should stick to criticisms of theory 3, not to trying to articulate all alternatives as well), NPOV will require we cover views 1 and 5 as well as view 2. View 4 is not really that different to view 3 but we would probably be best off covering it at the article on Goldberg's second book, since it hadn't been invented in 1973, but was a real player by 1993. Kate Millet had already offered theory 2 prior to Goldberg publishing, like Goldberg, she published prior to receiving a PhD, and like him too, her PhD was awarded on the basis of her theoretical answer to the question above. The Bible, of course, was published long before either of them, but no one got any PhDs for that work. ;)

Please, friends, can we work at dealing with this article as documenting a theory, and not a political statement. Inevitability specifies clearly and repeatedly it has nothing to offer with regard to morality or practical application. There are other articles that cover such things, and this editor anyway avoids those like the plague. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Since tags are designed to attract the attention of someone who is familiar enough with the topic to address it, it would be a little odd for them to be appropriate while someone with the source in front of him is actively editing. There are other helpful guidelines regarding this at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. For example:

"Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed."

Of course, it's always possible to think there is a problem when there is no problem, just as the reverse can be true. We saw examples of that above, where two people are familiar with guidelines regarding articles of fiction, that a little reflection shows are inappropriate for non-fiction.

As per the guidelines, could Midnight please provide specifics of text alleged to be unsourced undermining or promoting of the argument of Inevitability, which is the topic of this article. Then we can start working towards coming to a common mind (i.e. consensus), which is achieved by discussing opinions, rather than bypassing that step. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I count several comments on this page from several different editors related to the issues I tagged. There seems to be only one editor who refuses to address them and who reverts the efforts of others to correct them. Please don't remove the tags until the problems are corrected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a single specific challenge. There are no outstanding unaddressed questions. As anyone can see, all objections raised so far have been addressed thoroughly. Are you still insisting this is a work of fiction with a plot? Surely not. Please kept offering any criticisms that come to mind, but please don't deny they've been addressed when they have.

Please consider that you look to an outsider like someone wilfully obstructing editing rather than trying to help. I want help, please talk nicely. At the moment you look awfully like someone willing to offer criticism but not to receive it. I'm sure that's not true. Just be specific, I'm very keen to talk, seriously.

Why, in particular, are you interested in this book? That'd be a helpful thing to share. Perhaps I could answer some of your personal questions about it. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made suggestions. So did user:JCDenton2052. So did user: Fangfufu. So three of us reached similar conclusions of bias and undue weight. As far as suggestions I am happy to repeat

• 1)I suggest sticking to coverage of the book apart from primary sources. Where are the media reviews and book reviews written upon reception of the book? Good sources describing support and opposition to the assertions of the book will go a long way in establishing what is notable and should be included in the article.
• 2)This article has a lot of summary including a chapter by chapter accounts of the text. I find this information interesting, but it is not encyclopedic per Wikipedia guidelines. Again, using the media coverage and scholarly books discussing this book would be a better way to go about building the article. I tried to do some clean up, but was reverted. If I had messed anything up I would have preferred corrections and modifications

Wikipedia is not cliff notes.

• 3) Peer reviewed journals would be an excellent source. I don't see much discussion of the book's reception from sources of that type. If it was reviewed by the mainstream press that would also be appropriate to include. Is this a scholarly book that didn't make any impact outside of academia? If so that should be made clear.
• 4) This is an article about this book. So the follow-up book shouldn't be more than mentioned. As the introduction is a summary of the article's content, the substantial part given over to the newer book is unwarranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting JCD and fangfu. JCD made several very specific comments, but never responded to the counter-criticism, which is not surprising because his objections were addressed (by showing them to be invalid). Likewise fangfu appealed to a policy relating to fiction—an invalid criticism. As I asked above, are you seriously suggesting Inevitability is a work of fiction. Of course, not. So you can't appeal to other editors as supporting your own, different, vague, general and invalid criticisms.

You are only repeating points already addressed. Repeating yourself in this way is a little rude, I heard you the first time, read my answers please. How do I know you are listening if I can't see any responses? Insisting on your own opinion without engaging with the criticisms above is not discussion. Try again please. :)

Perhaps we need a fresh start. You could help prove your neutrality by explaining the things you think are good about Goldberg and about the article. At the moment all I'm hearing is a refusal to discuss or attempt consensus, and attempts to silence one articulation of what is, broadly speaking, essentially merely scientific consensus, simply because you dislike it for some reason. Perhaps another way forward here would be for you to state here in talk, without sources, what you think is most outrageous about Goldberg's thesis.

You don't have to try to find Wiki-laws to silence things. Just challenge specific ideas directly, I'm very happy to point you to sources that will help you form a more substantial opinion. Please either state your specific objections to Goldberg, or reply to the criticisms of your opinions above. The burden of the next step falls on you in either case. I genuinely look forward to hearing straight-forward, friendly, open questions. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you provide an answer to the problems in an article doesn't mean the problems cease to exist. This article needs to be based on independent sourcing just like every other article on Wikipedia. This article needs to dicuss the critical reception and impact of the subject. This article needs to be an encyclopedic description of the notable aspects of the book, not a chapter by chapter cliff notes summary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Friend, just because you think there are problems doesn't mean there are any. We need to think it through together.

This book was long listed in the Guiness Book of Records as being published "to acclaim".

Have another look at the article, is there any evidence that I'm aware of criticisms positive as well as negative?

Which do you think readers need to hear first, the arguments for an against another argument, or the original argument?

A summary of the argument of the book is encyclopedic treatment of many non-fiction works.

Once you know what it argues, then you can understand just which parts of it others support or challenge.

I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a policy on writing non-fiction articles. I might write that this weekend. Then you can explain where I break that policy OK? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, four or so editors have determined there are problems. So perhaps you need to take a more critical look at the guidelines for article writing and content inclusion. They are fairly standard from project to project. If you have a citation for the Guiness Book please add it. Encyclopedia's contain notable information on topics, not chapter by chapter summaries. I'm not being rude by repeating myself, I'm trying to make it clear despite being confronted with irrelevant, though interesting, arguments that don't dispute this basic fact. Please don't write any policy pages, there are too many as it is. Happy Holidays! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, four editors have expressed that they don't understand why the article is the way it is and, they have been pointed in the directions to help them understand. The point you keep missing is that a reliable, accurate, neutral presentation of Goldberg's argument will aim to present it as closely as possible to the way he presented and stated it himself. Can't get more verifiable and neutral than that. Perhaps you need to read WP:Writing for the enemy or other such guidelines.

I do appreciate your humour regarding policy pages, and I agree, the best way to help others write articles on non-fiction books is to set an example. You might like to look at Popper and After for an example of work I've done on another non-fiction book.

I could be wrong to think your criticisms flow from not knowing me, or from distaste for the subject matter. It could be that you genuinely are interested in issues related to writing up non-fiction. Though you'll forgive me, I hope, thinking that's an unlikely reason for you to have ended up at this page. Most people are here because of the subject.

Please feel free to keep chatting, but really, the best time to talk, and certainly to allege any non-neutrality will be once the article is finished. That's a long way away, and will involve asking people I trust to review the article. At the moment I'm thinking the best way to handle objections will be to get this article through to Featured status. That'll take a lot of pressure off me in maintaining it.

You enjoy your holidays too. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant to mention that I saw your peacemaking on another third opinion matter (that's how I came to this article) and I thought you did a good job. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. I thought that might have been why you were here! I posted the request for someone to help take the pressure off JCD and I nutting it out. It's not the first time I've asked for help, only to find I then need explain things to yet another person who tries valiantly to get up to speed with the issues.

I think you've done a sterling job of trying to get involved with the article itself (that's outstanding and way above the call of duty), and certainly of trying to expand and develop JCD's criticism. However, JCD has read quite a lot on the subject and his criticisms were very specific, his style of criticism is genuine quality. I respect him a great deal. We've met one another before.

I asked for a 3rd opinion, only because he was insisting on certain changes, which really makes it hard to get a draft article up and running. The biggest problem the article had was that there was no article! Even if I write a lot of trash it's a step forward. There's plenty of time for nice relaxed and friendly discussion about this article, and it will need time, because there's something wrong with people if they don't care about the subject Goldberg is addressing. In a sense, no one is neutral, but that shouldn't stop us being able to talk about scientific questions and "who said what" and when kind of things without dragging motives and other stuff into the debate.

Anyway, I'm 250% on the side of any editor willing to put time into helping other editors with disputes. Just knowing what 3O is and signing up to help says a million nice things about you. Please feel free to stay at the page to "keep me in line" if you feel that's needed. But why ever you choose to stay, I'll be thrilled you do because (a) your heart is very clearly in the right place and (b) you're heaps smart as your edits and comments have shown, even if I've disagreed with some of them.

Very definitely, you have a great holiday, you've just put me at rest to realise you're here because ... I asked for it! LOL :D Alastair Haines (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I posted my request pretty neutrally didn't I? You thought it was written by JCD? ;) I take neutrality very seriously. Heaps best to you again. Stick around please, and keep 30-ing! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:42, 17 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)

Thank you for the compliments.

Yes, the first priority for an article on a non fiction work is comprehensively and accurately presenting the argument of the book--even if the argument is invalid! (See Mein Kampf for an example of a notable mixture of incoherence and invalidity.)

(Documenting criticism is the second priority: criticism cannot be evalutated itself unless the subject of the criticism has been sufficiently elaborated.)

And yes, the important thing is that we cite the work we are writing about: for copyright, neutrality and verification. In the Mein Kampf article, citing the work makes it clear that Adolf Hitler not Wiki is responsible for the opinions, and allows readers to see we are not putting words in his mouth. (See Epic of Gilgamesh for an example of a fiction primary source cited creatively tablet by tablet.)

The only source for what a text says de dicto is the source itself.

It is true that level of detail is an important issue. If a book or argument is long, we need logical organization and ideally some navigation tools, perhaps break things into several articles. See Bible for an extreme example of a book covered over dozens of articles.

It's too early to submit this article as an FAC, but that is the plan. It will be rather a coup for Wiki if we get there, it will show just how neutral and reliable Wiki can, in fact, be. Mainpaging it is another matter: not required if you ask me. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly too long restatement of the book; I agree with Hrafn. Comparing this book with the Bible is just a bit much. Far more important and notable works can and have been summarized much more briefly. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the supercilious response. I would note that while Mein Kampf is considerably longer than this book, the synopsis at Mein Kampf is considerably shorter. I would suggest that you read WP:PSTS. Primary sources (which would include a book, when it is the topic of an article) should be used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources." This means that you have got your priorities exactly wrong. The objective is not primarily to document the content of books (be they non-fiction of fiction) in ad nauseam detail (yes, I likewise did Latin in high school, and can likewise pull out Latin tags when called upon), but primarily to document their wider impact (i.e. WP:Notability) -- their influence, the criticism they engendered, etc, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're giving away all our secrets. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The content of your posts is "we don't think Goldberg's book is worth knowing about".

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to impose it on others.

If you have read the book, please provide a summary that Goldberg would feel was adequate.

If you have not, then how can you possibly know what is needed?

This completely misrepresents my comments. I would request a retraction of this dishonesty. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Since the bulk of your comments were non sequiturs I politely ignored them. Just as you making them ignores the fact that they've been answered at your talk page already. Quid pro quo, yes? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that "The content of your posts is 'we don't think Goldberg's book is worth knowing about'" is neither to have (i) "politely ignored them", nor (ii) even remotely accurate. I would again request a retraction of this dishonesty. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith removal of template

In response to the ludicrous claim in this edit that "William Morrow and Company are third party that published Goldberg's text, we are not relying on word of mouth or manuscripts here ... remove inappropriate tag" -- I would point out that "William Morrow and Company" are Goldberg's own publisher, and to claim that the book that is the subject of this article is a third party source is completely and utterly without merit.(Oh, was I shouting? Let me say that again.)COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WITHOUT MERIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your post has no content other than emotion.

I recommend you withdraw it.

Feel free to eliminate this one at the same time. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The only "emotion" is frustration at your lack of honesty (both here and in Steven Goldberg and the articles on his other books). To claim that the book that is the topic of an article is a third party source is so ludicrous that it beggars imagination. Lacking a metaphoric equivalent of a mob with pitchforks and torches, using <big>, bold & caps is about all I can do to express my outrage. If I could burn you in effigy, I would. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually enjoy both your colourful language and energetic passion so much I can't help liking you. You are also obviously a rather smart chap. On the current issues you happen to be wrong. Sleep on it for a bit.

You don't even know me. I'm probably worse than you think, but you simply cannot know that. At least get over that bit.

I'll help you out with one thing. Do you know what Goldberg's first published work was? Who were his first publishers? How many he worked with or consulted before Inevitability was published?

Even if Morrow was Goldberg's first publisher and Inevitability his second book accepted by them, it still wouldn't make them any less a third party. But was that even the case? Have you checked? Does your argument above make sense?

Oh! And where might you find this information?

Delete this thread (including my posts). It makes you look a tad ... err ... enthusiastic. I like that, but I can't work with that. Savvy?

It's the Glorious First of June here. Sleepy-byes for me. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy non sequitor. Now please address the issue of how a book cannot help but be a primary source on the topic of the book itself. That is the topic of this thread, and I see no reason to remove it until that issue is addressed. If you don't want it addressed with "<big>, bold & caps", then I suggest that you cease to make such outrageous claims. Such claims inevitably lead to outrage, after all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You've failed to substantiate any objection to the text, and failed to interact with attempts to take your comments seriously.

In the absence of either, your unilateral declaration of personal emotion, embodied in a tag, will be reverted in due course. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"You've failed to substantiate any objection to the text" ≠ "a book cannot help but be a primary source on the topic of the book itself" {{primarysources}} is bltantantly justified. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Overview of criticism section

This section does not adequately or realistically deal with sociological criticism of Goldberg. It makes it sound like modern sociology is totally in line with Goldberg's thinking, which is certainly not the case. See Patriarchy#Sociology and its sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add sociological criticism in the appropriate section. Society 10, for example, is already noted. Perhaps you could write up the material from that journal? If there's anything worth adding to the summary of criticism that will become apparent then, won't it?

As for whether modern Sociology agrees with Goldberg or not, a very large number of sociologists do. The biological branches of sociology do. Some ideological branches prossibly never would, but they disagree with a lot of biological findings, outside sociology, despite it not being their area of expertise.

Things can't be criticised until they are actually spoken. It's great you want to jump ahead to criticism, but I presume you must have read Inevitability by now. It would help for you to write up what Goldberg actually said, before writing up what his critics actually said. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Men Rule: The relationship between biological differences and social behavioural structures

One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.

In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position. In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed.

This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home. The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)

The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.

The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement.

The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time.

Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure.

A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working.

Graham Little www.grlphilosophy.co.nz December 31, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the contents of the article, not for discussing the philosophical ideas addressed in the book. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems a difficult standard, when the article is about the contents of the book. This discussion reinforces Goldberg's biological argument by emphasising male biological predisposition to actions consistent with achieving and maintaining social power positions. I lean toward the debate position of Karl Popper, who stated that before attacking the ideas of an opponent one is best advised to make them as strong as they can be made, then attack them. In making Goldberg's argument stronger, I do not think I moved beyond the core theory, but what emerged I found difficult to counter, despite emotional reaction and disposition inclined to dismiss it, such irrational leanings are not argument, merely preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the article should be about what it can be verified that third parties say about the contents of the book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to differ. I think a site such as this has a priority obligation to inform... hence Popper's principle is valid. I certainly think objectivity is necesssary, but I think this contribution achieves that.

Let's not. WP:PSTS clearly states as policy that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Admittedly secondary and third-party sources aren't quite the same thing -- but do heavily overlap (and we also have WP:V, also policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") All sorts of things "inform", encyclopaedias are a very specific subset of informing. Do you have a secondary source linking this book to Popper? If not then this is all WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cicero Quote

For some reason there's a serious mistake in the translation of the Cicero quote in "Overview". Right now it reads: Numquam naturam mos vinceret; est enim ea semper invicta Nature will never conquer; For it is always invincible — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, c. 45 BC.

"Numquam naturam mos vinceret" should be translated "Custom will never conquer nature...". I've made that change. Cxhh (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)