Talk:The First Sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This page could use a re-write. I've tried to make some minor changes, but the presentation is pretty poor as it is. Repeatedly, we hear that Gould Davis "shows" some controversial claim rather than "argues" for it. This presents an apparent POV problem which is not alleviated by the very short presentation of criticisms.
The critics claim (in part) that Gould Davis's theory of a matriarchy is unsupported by archealogical evidence. Doesn't this deserve more than a sentence? Also, the criticisms section mention that men aren't really "mutants". Did Gould Davis claim that men are mutants? If so, shouldn't this rather surprising and significant claim appear in the discussion of her text?
Finally, the writing is a bit breathless at places. Could we please break up long sentences like the final one (regarding Eller's rebuttal) to short, digestible sentences?
Sorry I won't volunteer to make these changes myself, but I'm not familiar with the material. Phiwum 09:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I recently reverted some very POV arguments from this page. I am therefore asking that other people review this page for other POV problems that I may have missed. Thank you. Shimaspawn 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- This article is becoming steadily worse, I'm afraid. The original problems with presentation have not been improved. Nor have any criticisms been properly introduced. Instead, a recent anonymous editor has added uncited claims that Davis's evidence is "dubious" or non-existent. That's not the way to create an NPOV article!
- If someone knows of existing literature critical of this thesis and wants to take the time to add references, that would be helpful. As well, anyone with the time and inclination to fix the existing text would be appreciated. Phiwum 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent reverts
Recently I reverted unverifiable criticisms found in this article. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to include criticisms but they must not be a product of original research. Consequently, such criticisms require a citation that verifies that so-and-so made this criticism. Else, the result violates both OR and POV policies.
Jokerst44 has recently undone my reverts without any argument that the criticisms do not violate this policy.
I hope that this clarifies why I found the criticisms I removed unacceptable for a WP article. Once again, by all means we should include references to criticisms made by others (at least notable criticisms or by notable others). But WP cannot include original criticisms and still fulfill the role that it has. Phiwum 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article a joke?
The article should make clear that her claims are utterly ridiculous, not just small mistakes. Misodoctakleidist 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the article should clearly state the published criticisms of her theory. Wikipedia reports evaluations. We do not evaluate claims ourselves. (That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, only that we must carefully adhere to NPOV.) Phiwum 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant is that the article doesn't quite convey the strength of scientific disagreement. It contains a false sense of balance that makes the claims of the book appear more mainstream than they really are.
- By all means, add citations to published criticism. I agree that the article could use more, but I don't know the subject well and don't personally care to research it. Phiwum 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant is that the article doesn't quite convey the strength of scientific disagreement. It contains a false sense of balance that makes the claims of the book appear more mainstream than they really are.
[edit] A Funny Note
- I just notice that Max Dashu was referred to as a "he." This is exactly what I thought initially, and when I looked up further information, I found out that said "Max" was female (obviously a feminist). I've made the necessary corrections, but it was worth a laugh at the irony. If anyone could tag this article with some "help" notices, that would be great, because it is in need of a rewrite, and while I strongly support bashing of misandry disguised as feminism, I realize that a factual and unbiased message is the most important thing. Most of the criticisms are great, by the way; maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia can format and edit them.Robinson0120 11:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this article could use some help. I wish I remembered how to attract attention to it. Phiwum 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping into an existing conversation, but it seems to me that this article is an excellent example of the larger problems of actually implementing a "neutral" (as opposed to "nonexistent") POV, and resolving those issues here would be valuable to improving the article.
First of all, it's hard to find any reference book that does not have some POV, and usually it isn't neutral: compare the 11th edition Britannica to the current one, for example, starting by simply counting the number of lines given in each to subjects in the sciences, arts, literature and so on. This clearly shows POV right at the start. To refute this example by simply asserting that science is more important today than it was 100 years ago itself demonstrates a POV. (The point could be expanded and more examples given but I'm sure it's so obvious as not to need belaboring.)
Second, the range of entries on this very page--from a suggestion that seemingly argues that the author of the questioned article's bias is too evident, to one that seems to suggest that s/he doesn't refute Gould Davis with sufficient strength--indicate two other real-world problems with "neutrality": definition and quantification. It's rather like the FCC's old "Fairness Doctrine"--what should be the standard of "Fairness"? How many minutes of what kind of speech offsets 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh? And who will watch the watchers? "Neutrality" is a slippery bit of Jello to nail to a tree.
And last, exactly what purpose is served by neutrality? The great strength of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is its democracy, and I am afraid that democracy flourishes better in Hyde Park than (for example) the groves of Academe where peer review ensures that only ideas accepted by the gatekeepers of the mainstream ever get discussed. User Phiwum makes what I think is the best point of all in his/her last post--"I wish I remembered how to attract attention to [this article]." While I fully understand that Wikipedia's gatekeeper's have committed themselves to NPOV and that since it's their ball we all have to play by their rules, I also feel that if we users get so caught up in our own underwear trying to massage each article until it's sufficiently neutral we could accomplish by self-censorship what no dictator could do: suck the blood out of Wikipedia so no one pays attention to it. By all means, follow the rules and ensure that Gould Davis's ideas and their detractors are exposed and edit out prejudicial terms in order to eliminate inferential deceit. That's decent writing, not NPOV, and anyone--even one not versed in a particular subject but with a love of language--can do it here or elsewhere in Wikipedia. If a resulting article equally upsets both its subject's supporters and detractors it probably is NPOV. As long as the great community monitors its members to maintain standards of integrity and civility, the goal of universal knowledge will be met better than through PC policing.
I throw this out to the people who have written these posts because you seem to be an informed and alert group of thinkers and writers, not to pick a fight but engage in a conversation specifically relevant to this article. If anyone wants to continue it in broader terms, I'd be delighted. Sincerely, Clay2
