Talk:Manliness (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manliness (book) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] disambiguation?

Searching "Manliness" in wikipedia automatically takes the browser to the article "Masculinity." Can we create a disambiguation page so that the book by Harvey Mansfield can be more easily located? As of now, it's almost impossible to find.--Tom Joudrey 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Before going offline for the night/week etc., I added a cross-ref in "See also" to this book in the article on "Masculinity", which someone some time ago redirected "Manliness" to; I think that it does need a disambiguation page too, but this is a quick stop-gap in the meantime, I think. --NYScholar 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created a disambig page for Manliness. Biscuittin 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm tidying this up. Since people typing Manliness want either discussion of Masculinity or discussion of this book, it's silly to force a redirect.
I'll work via the edit histories so they are not lost. The disambiguation page will be Manliness (disambiguation).
Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The book Manliness deserves a more in depth article

I have found the book Manliness to have great depth. The wikipedia article does not adequately describe the depth of the book and relies too much on reviews by authors who are too affected by Feminism. Addamstaft 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. So expand the article. Since you've read the book, you should be qualified.--147.9.203.236 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

God knows I'm opening myself up for this one, but I question the notability of this book. It is described as "an influential" academic work written in 2006. Needless to say, being written in 2006 makes it difficult for it to even be influential, much less to be known to be influential and to be cited as such. Do we have any commentators, anywhere, describing this as "influential"? (The personal opinions of Addamstaft and other wikipedia editors do not, alas, count, unless they have been published in third-party sources.) Four reviews is suggestive of notability (see WP:BOOK) but hardly dispositive. So, I raise the issue here and suggest the no-doubt staunch defenders of this book's notability adduce some more evidence for its notability, and at least for its description as "influential". (I would have no problems with this book being cited in articles like masculinity, however.) --lquilter 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are well within your rights to expect an appropriate reference to prove the book is influential, but it easily passes the notability test with > 15,000 G-hits. This book is quite controversial in academia. MoodyGroove 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
That's an indicator of notability, not notability itself. Ghits is an indicator of web chatter, not academic notability; do we have cites (academic literature) to support that it is "controversial in academia"? It just seems to me like recentist hype. --lquilter 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the notability criteria for books. To me, this book easily passes muster, both because it was widely covered by major newspapers, the critical response from feminists, and the notability of the author. If you disagree, feel free to nominate it for deletion. MoodyGroove 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I posted it here to see if more cites could be adduced for it than just three book reviews. I do indeed feel free to nominate it, but in general I like to post on the talk page first to see if someone knows something I don't. It doesn't appear to be the case here. --lquilter 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you're unable to adduce more cites, it's because you didn't bother looking at the G-hits. The book was covered by the The Harvard University Gazette, The Harvard Crimson, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, and many others. MoodyGroove 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Good. Perhaps some of those will make it in the article. (I didn't say I was unable to adduce cites; I said I wanted to see if more could be done. Meaning, would its supporters care to produce more, because currently the cites are rather limited, especially for the word "influential". But I took that word out, so I'm fine.) --lquilter 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to be a supporter of a book to adduce cites for it. Best, MoodyGroove 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Two paragraphs of theory?

There are two paragraphs in the "reception" section that, while discussing masculinity and feminist theory, don't actually have anything to do with the reception of the book. I am tempted to remove them completely, but instead will create a "similar thinkers" section and dump the text in there. If anyone else wants to tangle with it, feel free. --Nik (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your gut reaction was correct. This isn't an article on masculinity or feminist theory. I deleted the section. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Next time, I'll be more brave. Thanks. --Nik (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Just a comment. I'm not going to check the edit history to see who wrote this article, however, I want to note it was uncyclopedic in style by being biased in expression. Encyclopedias do not assume reader and editor share the same opinions, nor express independent opions of the sources they cite. Contributions like that take more time to edit back to neutrality than it would take to do the research itself.

I can just barely assume good faith, but it feels awfully like someone was using Wiki as a blog or soapbox. I'll get back to finishing this off some time when I have more patience. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)