Talk:A Natural History of Rape

Very concerned

The controversial nature of this article demands that proper citations be added. I am going to PROD it for now andyzweb (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Title

The title of this entry should be in italics. The entry is not about the history of Rape, but about something titled "The Natural History of Rape" - in this case, a book. -The Gnome (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article content

Back in September of this year, I removed most of the content of this article, because it was nearly all sourced to the book itself, a primary source. I would have hoped that the problems with sourcing an article about a book like this to the book itself instead of to secondary sources would be obvious: it involves a serious risk of original research, undue weight, and violations of NPOV. I also tried to improve the article by adding material from secondary sources. Unfortunately, Kwenchin reverted me here, giving the reason, "undo blanking." "Undo blanking" would be an appropriate edit summary if my edits had been vandalism. My edits were not vandalism, and Kwenchin's edit summary was inappropriate and insulting. Kwenchin's edit also removed the secondary source material I added (from a textbook by Simon LeVay). Even if restoring material sourced to the book itself were a good idea, which it isn't, simply removing the material I added is unhelpful and destructive. I strongly suggest to Kwenchin that they not repeat such edits, and instead use secondary sources if they want to improve the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Another unfortunate effect of Kwenchin's edit was to restore sub-standard writing to the lead (eg, sentence stating that the book "presents the hypothesis that rape evolved as a, in some situations, genetically advantageous behavioral adaptation.") Kwenchin, please don't restore semi-illiterate drivel to articles in future. Thanks! Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be useful and appropriate to provide a more detailed synopsis of the arguments and facts presented in the book than what we currently have. If not enough secondary sources are available to do a good job of that, then I see nothing wrong with resorting to the book itself as a source. An article with undue weight can be written by selectively using information from secondary sources, and an article with appropriate weight given to various topics can be written using primary sources, so I don't see why we should let these concerns hold us back from doing what I suggest. The primary source is verifiable, so that takes care of the main reason why primary sources are sometimes frowned upon. Leucosticte (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A Natural History of Rape has received widespread attention and comment. There should be more than enough secondary sources available to give a proper account of its argument. The book itself is not an acceptable source, except for the most basic and uncontroversial points about it (its publication in a new edition, etc). Though I don't normally express my views of books when I work on articles about them, I will here. A Natural History of Rape is a work of poor scholarship, and the negative reaction it has received is mostly justified. It's open to debate whether it qualifies as a reliable source, even for most statements about itself. I think basing an article on A Natural History of Rape on A Natural History of Rape would be a bit too much like basing an article about Mein Kampf on Mein Kampf. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Careful — although I think all Wikipedians have an agenda of some sort aside from general interest in improving the encyclopedia, stating one's opinion, rather than citing a bunch of policies, can be construed as removing the plausibility of deniability that one has a COI. Then editors might say, "Oh, he's not editing in good faith," and use that ad hominem attack as an excuse to revert. Ironically, a lot of the editors who resort to such tactics are, in my opinion, the ones acting in bad faith. :)

If there are so many secondary sources out there, why don't you expand the article using them, rather than just removing content from the primary source? An article with a lot of secondary sources is considered to be pretty notable; and don't noteworthy topics deserve an article that provides complete coverage? And in order to be complete, the article will need more info. But I don't see how a book can be an unreliable source for info about what the book says. If a book says x, y, and z, and I edit the article to say, "The book says x, y, and y," I don't see what the problem is. It couldn't get any more verifiable than that. Using a secondary source is actually less reliable, because then one is introducing a middleman who can distort the truth of what the primary source really said. Leucosticte (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very well aware of the dangers of expressing one's personal opinions about the subjects one edits about. I believe that doing so in this particular case is unavoidable, however, and that it would be dishonest of me not to do so. It matters whether A Natural History of Rape counts as a reliable source or not, or to exactly what extent it qualifies as a reliable source. I am skeptical of its merits as a reliable source, and that's not only because it has received very negative reviews but also because I can see for myself that it is poor scholarship and that the negative reviews are at least partially justified. If I don't use secondary sources to improve the article, that is because improving this particular article is not a priority for me - there are other things I'd rather be working on. I do care very much that this article not be turned into a regurgitation of the book it is about. In practice, that would always tend to have the effect of endorsing the book. The problem of secondary sources being misleading is mostly a false one - since our goal is verifiability rather than truth. The dangers of misuing primary source material are far greater. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize you are trying to be honest. I am just pointing out the disadvantages of honesty. :)

I can understand that if a book says, "x, y, and z" one would want the wiki article to say something more than "x, y, z." That would be an unacceptable kind of regurgitation. But it's a bit different for the wiki article to say, "The book says x, y, and z." Then it's an okay kind of regurgitation. And if no one has gotten around to covering the secondary sources, it's an okay kind of regurgitation. It's unbiased and factual, if incomplete due to lack of coverage of criticism. I don't see what makes a secondary source more verifiable than a primary source in this kind of case.

By the way, is it false that female rape victims tend to be attractive young women? Most women I know who have been raped say it happened during their teens or twenties. Of course, there could be other causes than attractiveness; women of that age group are also more likely to be dating and therefore at possible risk of date rape. And if they're with or around men who are in an age group that is more prone to commit rape, then that could also be a risk factor. E.g. a college campus would have a lot of young men.

I agree that in many cases the conclusions and scholarship of the book seemed questionable, but I found some of their hypotheses intriguing. Leucosticte (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should be based on secondary sources, with limited and sparing use of primary sources when necessary. I can only reiterate the reasons I have already given for that view: if any part of the book's argument is significant, then a secondary source should have discussed it and we should use that source, instead of interpreting the book for ourselves. If secondary sources have not discussed what the book has said, then it becomes arguable that mentioning what the book says would be WP:UNDUE, and in any case doing so would in practice tend to endorse the book, if we source it to itself. So much for that side of things. As for the rest, I am not going to debate rape with you, and I am not going to debate the book's arguments, either. I've given my general view of it, and that's all I feel a need to do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still am not understanding the logic that leads you to think extensive use of the book as a primary source would tend to endorse the book. If Wikipedia had an article on Mein Kampf that said the book claims there's a Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership; denounces communism; and blames Germany's chief woes on the Weimar parliament, Social Democrats, Marxists, etc. that would not endorse those views. It would merely state the fact that the book expresses them, without expressing a judgement as to their merits. That would suffice until someone came along to add content pertaining to criticism.

Secondary sources are capable of being just as biased and factually incorrect as primary sources. The book had to go through some sort of vetting process prior to being accepted for publication by MIT press, did it not, just as the articles criticizing it did, in order to get published in the journals? And much of the book is sourced to journal articles that had to go through vetting. So one way or another, there is some peer review going on here, prior to the book getting into our hands. Also, are the reviews really all that overwhelmingly bad? What about the praise on the back cover of the book? Leucosticte (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's safe to say that the book endorses its own argument. Books usually do this. That's why basing the article on the book would tend to have the effect of endorsing the book. It's a mistake to think that simply because using the book as a source wouldn't have to involve saying directly that the book's arguments are correct that it wouldn't have the effect of implying that. It would imply that, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The complaint about "bias" in secondary sources is beside the point. We do summarize what reliable secondary sources say about a book, and we try to do it without passing judgment on whether what reliable secondary sources say is correct or not. That's the point of WP:NOTTRUTH. I'm aware that not all reviews of the book were negative, but it did tend to get negative reviews. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret that as implying an endorsement, but maybe that's because I'm a pretty literal-minded person, skilled more at receiving and transmitting denotation than connotation. Also, my experience as a Wikipedian has perhaps made me less inclined to attach significance to the amount of attention certain points of view get in an article. I recognize that if view X is presented in great detail, it could mean that an editor with a lot of knowledge or interest in view X has devoted some time to the article, while those more knowledgeable about and interested in view Y haven't gotten around to contributing to it yet. Such situations will inevitably arise, and I don't think the solution is to remove the content about view X. It is, rather, for the next editor to add view Y to balance it out. And if view X is still over-represented at that point, then some of the content can be split off to another article, so that no information is lost from the encyclopedia. Leucosticte (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you do seem to have access to suitable secondary sources, to judge from one of your edits (which I nevertheless reverted for various reasons...), can I ask why you would feel the need to use the book itself as a primary source, when it's so controversial? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary source is the gold standard, in my view, when covering what the primary source says. As for secondary sources, that involves some subjective judgements. If there are a lot of them, how do I know which are more important, and should be given more weight? There could be 1,000 relatively unimportant criticisms and one important defense of a book. How do I know, from number of Google Scholar hits on each side, which to credit more? A majoritarian view is an appeal to popularity and thus fallacious.

Going to the primary source is like going to the underlying data behind a study's conclusions. It's what you do when you want to verify validity. In this case, it's kind of a question of WP:DEMOLISH versus WP:BUILDER. I am not immediately equipped to write an article based on secondary sources because I haven't read them yet, but I've read the primary source. I can write what I'm immediately equipped to write, or I can get equipped to write something else and then write it. Usually, I just go with what I can immediately do, and leave the rest to others, since that seems the logical division of labor. Might as well take advantage of the efficiency that comes with specialization. Leucosticte (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's simply common sense to not base an article about any book mainly on the book itself. It's absolutely essential not to base articles on extremely controversial books on those books themselves. One can use one's own good judgment in deciding which secondary sources are the most important - those written by the most famous and prestigious authors, those published in the most widely respected journals, etc. Take the trouble to find such sources and use them - basing it all on primary sources just because you happen to have read the primary source in this case is lazy, frankly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is very unbalanced

The section on "theory" consists of two short paragraphs, while the "reception" section, which is almost entirely critical, is about three times as long. Furthermore, very little attention is given to the authors' response to criticisms beyond saying that they regard them as straw men and that they have responded to them in this paper. This seems very unbalanced to me. I understand that one of the contributing editors does not like the book and does not wish to "endorse" its contents, but an encyclopedic article should attempt to be a bit more neutral and reasonable. Specifically, the "theory" section needs to be expanded so that readers can get a better sense of what the book's arguments actually consist of, and more elaboration should be given to the authors' responses to criticism. The authors have responded to nearly every single criticism presented in this article, yet their responses receive very little attention. As the article stands, it seems more like a polemic condemning the book than a neutral overview. --Smcg8374 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. 24.21.151.167 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You could attempt to lengthen the theory part? It appears in this case that the book inspired such a strong reception that most of what is included is warranted. That said, a good way to improve it would be to add content into the theory section Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Spinout articles for Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer

Banglange (talk · contribs), explain why you think that Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer need their own Wikipedia articles, and how your creation of these WP:Spinout articles is not unnecessary WP:Content forking? I see absolutely no need for these two people to have separate Wikipedia articles. Going by WP:Spinout and WP:Content forking, I feel that they should continue to redirect to the A Natural History of Rape article and have any relevant, non-redundant/non-trivial content about them merged there. Even having the content merged into a Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer article would be better than having these two separate articles. I highly doubt that you are a WP:Newbie (in fact, I'm certain that you've edited Wikipedia under a different registered account), and I think that you likely are aware of the aforementioned guidelines.

FreeKnowledgeCreator, who redirected the Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer names to A Natural History of Rape article, what are your thoughts on having the separate articles? KateWishing, any thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the articles had been created. I considered nominating at least the Palmer article for deletion, but then decided that I didn't care about the article's existence one way or the other. I suppose there would be a case for deleting it or returning it to a redirect; I suspect that Palmer is less likely to be notable than is Thornhill. It's definitely not good that much of the content of those articles seems to repeat the content of this one. I dislike the idea of having a single article about both Palmer and Thornhill, since their names have not been linked together in a way that would justify it; it's not as though they were Leopold and Loeb or Sacco and Vanzetti. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Randy Thornhill is probably notable, but I couldn't find enough biographical information to write more than a small stub. Since his article is currently all about this book, it should be merged here for now (along with Palmer, who is definitely not notable). KateWishing (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have returned the Palmer article to a redirect, per the discussion above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) I can't say I have any great motivation. It seemed only that meet PROF (over and above the new book, especially for Thornhill). I have no investment. (2) I am not a newbie, and I do not think I said anything to suggest I was. I edited WP for a few months a few years ago. I ran into Dreger's book, was curious to see what WP had to say regarding the various controversies, so just added what seemed missing.Banglange (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is much better, KateWishing. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Natural History of Rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810224938/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep011027.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep011027.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Natural History of Rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160511091445/http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DSW14.pdf to http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DSW14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Publication history section

Since someone removed the publication history section here, calling it unnecessary, I might point out that editors who grade the quality of articles find the inclusion of such information relevant. The article The Evolution of Human Sexuality was downgraded from a B to a C because of the absence of a publication history section, and upgraded back to a B only after the section was added. If necessary, I can provide a link to my discussion with LordofMoonSpawn, who performed the edits in question. What seems "unnecessary" to some editors may not seem that way to more experienced editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

I recently reverted an edit by Lawrencekhoo at Ayn Rand. Shortly afterwards this editor, who has shown no previous interest whatever in the article on A Natural History of Rape, followed me here and began reverting my edits. If this editor were genuinely concerned to "Trim overweight", which could be done in many ways, it seems odd that he would choose to do this simply by reverting my most recent edit to the article. I agree that the article's content could in some cases be summarized more simply or succinctly and I would welcome any sensible suggestions on how to do that. Unfortunately, Lawrencekhoo's behavior is suggestive of an attempt to provoke me rather than a reasoned way of improving the article. As I noted to him, "stalk me, harass me, and make revenge edits against me, and it will be clear to others what you are doing." Since the editor stated "that is not a policy based reason", I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia has a strict policy against harassment, which among other things states the following, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Lawrencekhoo, if you make edits that appear to be motivated by a desire to harass me, you shouldn't be very surprised if they get reverted. Beyond that, if you continue to pursue a path that suggests you intend to harass me, you can expect me to make an issue of that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: In my view, this summary/synthesis doesn't succeed in satisfactorily summarising the information contained the sections on the reactions to the book. It's better that we highlight the controversy and encourage readers to actually look at the summaries of the reviews in the main body of the article. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view you are wrong. You accuse me of writing "synthesis", an apparent reference to WP:SYNTH. If you believe that the lead contains synthesis, then try supporting your claim with evidence and logical arguments. I am not moved by unsupported statements. You are free to believe that the lead "doesn't succeed in satisfactorily summarising the information contained the sections on the reactions to the book", but a statement of that kind, backed up by no evidence and no arguments, does not move me. If you wish to provide actual arguments to support your views then of course I will listen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The content you removed included the following, "It received many negative reviews and was denounced by feminists." Would you like to explain why you removed mention of the fact that the book received negative reviews? I have EBSCO access, I am familiar with the academic and scholarly response to A Natural History of Rape, and I assure you that it has been primarily negative and critical, with far fewer positive responses to and comments on the book. If a book receives such a largely negative reaction, then of course an article about it will emphasize negative reactions. Not doing so does a fundamental disservice to readers and amounts to deliberately hiding the negative scholarly response to the book. That is completely unacceptable. The negative responses to the book from feminists, in particular, are an important element of the book's reception and again it does a serious disservice to readers not to mention them in the lead. The negative reaction from feminists is far more important information than much of what you left in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You clearly have strong views about this book, but I sincerely believe that the article can be improved by amending/removing that summary, and I'm sure we can work out a compromise. My first edit was intended to be a quick fix, and I intended to return and re-write the lead. I have no objections to mentioning that the majority of the reviews were negative, or that it wasn't well received among feminists. I'll get back to you with an alternative when I have a bit more time. I also have access to most indexed journals through my institution and alumni access. By the way, I wasn't referring to the WP:SYNTH policy, per WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH is not just any synthesis, apologies for the confusion. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts/a second look never mind. The lead is basically fine and it's not worth getting entangled in a content dispute over something so minor. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is far from perfect and needs to be improved and I would welcome sensible suggestions from you or anyone else on how to do that. The fact that the lead is imperfect should not surprise anyone. A Natural History of Rape received a very large number of reviews, discussions, and critical commentaries, which makes summarizing them a difficult task. The sheer bulk of the material makes it very hard to properly organize and present for readers. Removing massive chunks of the lead, including obviously relevant and important material, is not, however, the way to improve it. If you have no objections to mentioning that the majority of the reviews were negative and that feminists denounced the book, then why remove that information to begin with? Edits need to be thought through more carefully. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Reception section too long?

I realise this was an intensely controversial book, and received a wide range of coverage, both positive and negative. However, does anyone else feel that the length of the 'reception' section of this article currently is rather excessive? Reception sections should give a summary of reactions and responses, but this one seems intended to include just about every single review of the book. Would anyone be prepared to do the work to summarise it? Robofish (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with that comment. I am largely responsible for the "Reception" section. I actually agree with you that it is too long. What it requires is careful editing to reduce its length without removing significant or substantive content. There are various ways that it could be distilled down and concentrated. However, I think that there would be better ways of doing that than by arbitrarily removing some reviews; we should aim to note all reviews that were published in reliable sources. Since so many of the people who gave the book negative reviews repeated essentially the same points, the best way to reduce the reception section in length would be to note the points most often made by negative reviewers, then go on to give details about specific points made by individual negative reviewers, in cases where they made their own distinctive arguments or remarks. If that were done carefully, it would reduce the length of the reception section by a significant amount without losing content of real significance. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine, the article's notability seems to come from its reception, so it's only natural that the reception section is that big. Regarding claims (from 2014) that having a criticism section bigger than a content section consitutes a biased point of view, I disagree. We should not strive to balance positive and negative views, but to accurately reflect the notable mentions from secondary sources, both growing the main sections or shrinking the criticism sections out of a concern of neutrality would be harmful. First because it reduces neutrality to a unidimensional measure. Second because it would create a false balance by introducing an artificial counterweight not present in the source corpus. Thirdly because Wikipedia tends to cover secondary and not primary sources, as such it's common, if not mandatory, for reception to be featured. Technically I think the redaction was very well handled, exemplary of neutrality standards. Personally, I support the main thesis, and I don't find it unreasonable that there's people who believe otherwise, are vocal about it, and would react with anger, it's a political topic. Some robust critiques pick off the weak points, like the policy prescription, but surprisingly most of the critiques attack points that I would have considered pretty basic, it's truly an accolade for the neutrality of the article that after such a long criticism section the book stands stronger. Good job. --TZubiri (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is currently 7,500 words in length, mostly detailing the negative reception the book received, with nearly all of it having been written by one contributor. For context, the article for the Bible is 9,500 words. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)