Template talk:Patriarchy (ethnographies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies) page.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2008 April 13. The result of the discussion was keep.

This list is provided as a template, because it is relevant to at least four articles. It was deliberately compiled from the oldest known ethnographies of various cultures, so is not likely to change much. The bulk of the entries are listed in the revised edition of Steven Goldberg's famous monograph on Patriarchy. There is considerable expansion beyond this, all of which is cited. Internet sources are given where possible. Alastair Haines 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Quote farm

Dear tagger, this is a template, not an article. The whole point of the template is to provide an immense amount of verification in a concise and systematic way. Please explain how you would provide verification of the fact that all known societies have been patriarchal. (Unless of course you object to the data itself, not the presentation, but I am assuming good faith). You may also like to consider being consistant and going to List of quotes from Shakespeare in Brave New World and other such pages and consider tagging them also. Alastair Haines 07:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is used as an entire section in the two articles that use the template. If, as you say, this is to replace the large block to text used in articles it is appropriate it be treated as a section.
Both articles used the exact same table directly above this table. Both tables contained the same list of societies. I simply combined the tables, because to take up less room on the pages. I'm not particularly beholden to the information in the other table, if you are suggesting its outright removal. Neitherday 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also note that List of quotes from Shakespeare in Brave New World is quite different than this list. This list is not be a list of quotations from literature, but is meant to be part of a scientific article in this encyclopedia. Neitherday 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. The universality of Patriarchy is a documented datum. A very large datum. Britannica simply asserts it. In nine months watching the Patriarchy article, every time the list of quotes is removed or hidden, people edit the article as POV and unverified, regardless of what Britannica and the summary comments say. They also include marginal and disproven material, that confuses and complicates the presentation.
Wiki has many list articles, and many lists of quotes. They are not tagged as quote farms, because it is clear from context that they do not pretend to be a prose treatment of a topic.
This template is a list of quotes that verify the claim of universal Patriarchy. Images break up the wall of text. Please feel free to add more specific images to break down the monotony of a lengthy series of quotes, if you are really concerned about the density of quotations.
Please keep the comments in your edit summaries polite. Contributions, even as small as tags are not sacrosanct. Others will not always agree with your opinion. Please try providing a rationale, that way you can potentially win agreement and consensus. Tag removed pending provision of a substantial case. Alastair Haines 04:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a simple run-of-the-mill template, its current use is to function as an entire section in two articles and as such should be treated as a section.
At this point I agree that List of quotes from Shakespeare in Brave New World does too. It should probably be transwikied to wikiquote. But that move is not relevant to this discussion, as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
If a statement is unverified, it is better to back it up with references rather than adding a long quote section. This section would do better to paraphrase and/or summarize the sources that it instead quotes. Whats more, none of the quotes in this section by themselves make the claim that there are no non-patriarchal cultures, each just deals with one individual culture. To make a conclusion from this data that there are no patriarchal society is synthesis.
More images will not change the fact that nearly all the text in this section is quotations, they can only obscure the problem.
I'd like to know what edit summery of mine did you find impolite. I have serious disagreements with this section and bluntly stated them, but at no point have I personally attacked you or questioned whether your edits were made in good faith.
I'd also like to know your objection to combining the two tables. Neitherday 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this template is not concise. It is 27,355 bytes long, which is a significant size compared to the total Patriarchy article (39,910 bytes). It is over double the size of the other article it is used on, Patriarchy (anthropology) (only 12,903 bytes) Neitherday 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again you need to make up your mind whether it is a quote list or a synthesis. If it is a synthesis, then it makes a point, where the problem with quote farms is they make no interpretation, like Shakespeare in Brave New World. Actually I agree the list at patriarchy is synthetic. The synthesis is made by Britannica, Mead, Goldberg, et al. These are quoted in the lead. The problem with synthesis is where a Wiki editor makes a synthesis that is not documented in peer-reviewed sources. That is not a problem here.
The otherstuffexists discussion is about notability. If you think this table is not notable or encyclopedic, you are way off track. Frankly, angry comments in the talk history regarding its content show it addresses significant issues. Goldberg's book, which includes a similar list, is very widely cited, and valued most for his treatment of the anthropological data, rather than for his biological theory, which is so well established now in popularizations of scientific results that people quote other authors -- Steven Pinker and Helena Cronin jump to mind.
There's an obvious problem with WikiQuote. By all means place each quote under each author's name. No-one will ever find them. Most are not known outside anthropology. If you think they are worthy of placing at Wiki quote, go and do it. I wouldn't waste my time. The quotes are also all specific to patriarchy. They are not representative of the writers, or even the books. The whole point is that before patriarchy was politicized in the 70s, or societies were Westernised at various times, in the course of ordinary anthropological observation, patriarchy was reported. The quotes are really only notable in the context of discussion of patriarchy.
The quotes are patriarchy specific. Frankly, they have more claim to space at the article than feminist criticism. Certainly they are logically prior to it. It is precisely the universality of patriarchy that alarmed early feminists and motivated them to seek something better. They were right, it is everywhere, and it affects all sorts of things. The universality of patriarchy doesn't make feminism smaller, it confirms they have something to correct, and that the task is huge.
Finally, all footnote sections are "quote farms", in some articles these are very long. The list is a lot easier to deal with than flowing prose with a huge footnote section. The whole point of the appendix is to allow the information to be presented more digestably than footnotes.
I'm making these comments only for the sake of any future discussion. My comments on what we do right now are below. Alastair Haines 06:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Proposal

This is the point I at which I generally tend to attempt to find a compromise. Something that may not be perfect, but that all parties can live with. The quote problem would be much less of an issue if this didn't take up so much space in the articles it is used in. This template is collapsible, but if it were collapsed by default it would provide the same benefit of evidence to the article without being an overwhelming part of the article flow. Is that workable? Neitherday 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LoL, great minds think alike. Actually, I suggested precisely this compromise on a previous occasion. Indeed, I'm happy to return to it. The reason I took the default collapse out of the table is because someone had put citation requests in the summary table. There had also been a lot of weasling etc.
  • When the article has the list visible, some people complain, but they are cosmetic complaints.
  • When the list is hidden, such complaints cease, but lots of claims of bias and lack of verification occur.
Unfortunately, some people don't actually open the list if it defaults to hidden. Then they have legitimate concerns regarding lack of citation and likely bias. It's not as though the nightly news reminds us of universal patriarchy regularly, occassionally it even suggests the opposite. Personally, I think those concerns are serious, and I don't like to be rude and say "Open the table, you dweeb!" Why were we hiding it from them in the first place? If someone doesn't like the wall of quotes, hit "hide" for goodness sake.
For me there are two issues. 1. Who's going to take responsibility for handling complaints (which keep going in circles)? It's all well and good having an opinion and getting a change at the page, but will the opinion be backed by helping maintain the page. 2. Can we really choose between readers who don't bother to open a hidden table and those who don't bother to close it? If we do, frankly it's the second group I'm less patient with. If you don't like it, hide it. Why hide it for everyone?
The bottom line here is, go ahead and return the default collapsed. I disagree, and I bet I'll have maintenance issues, but go ahead. Observe for yourself what happens. I just find it easier to tell the weaslers they haven't examined the evidence, than I do to try to tie down presentation issues to anything objective. So go ahead and hide the info, but I find that strange when our core business is providing info ... documented info at that. Alastair Haines 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Vanatinai

I've removed Vanatinai from the list. Please see my comment on the article "Patriarchy (anthropology)" Ntheriault 06:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Restored Vanatinai with additional citations. Please don't removed sourced text. See reply at other page. Alastair Haines 11:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

then please don't misrepresent your sources. i will remove the reference to vanatinai as long as the sources are not used in accordance with their own arguments, viz., misrepresented. that is original research and, thus, ineligible for wikipedia. it is, furthermore, part of a broader bias in the articles toward an anti-feminist ideology. see my comment on the patriarchy article. Ntheriault 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault


  1. The quotes are all word for word, with no internal ellipsis.
  2. The quote is now supported by several other quotes from the same work that all say the same thing.
  3. The author reports the society to be politically egalitarian, i.e. no official government.
  4. The author reports sorcerors to be the most influential people.
  5. The author reports they are mostly male.
  6. In fact, the author repeats this in other of her works. (1 cited at Talk:Patriarchy)
  7. The author also reports in the same other work that warriors (when they existed) were exclusively male. (also at Talk)
  8. The quotes are reports of direct observations.
  9. The author never argues that the observations were exceptional or unrepresentative.
  10. There is no misrepresentation.
  11. The quote has now been supplemented by an independent report from more than 100 years earlier.
  12. Published observations of professionals quoted word for word are not OR.

The argument from the author's observation to a criticism of feminism is your own interpretation. You don't even offer a quote from the article to establish the point, because none can be provided. Hence it is your interpretation of the quote and of the article that is OR, so inadmissible as grounds to remove verifiable information from Wikipedia.

However, please raise your concerns regarding the Patriarchy article on the talk page of that article, and restrict discussion here to your objection to quoting ML. Alastair Haines 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Despite warnings on talk pages and in edit notes, you are continuing to remove sourced material based on your own opinion, despite argued and sourced comments against your opinion.

You have not quoted text in support of your analysis, nor pursuaded a consensus of your assessment.

Please play by the Wiki convention that asks editors to be patient and to refrain from removing sourced information they believe to be inappropriate until they have won a consensus of other editors to that move.

Don't give up trying to make the case, but please stop anticipating its resolution by removing direct quotes from this template.

Please make your case for deletion of the quotes at this page. Alastair Haines 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to include Lepowsky's work to show that Vanatinai is not matriarchal, go ahead. But you cannot say that her work shows it to be patriarchal. Any definition of patriarchy requires a culturally mediated institutionalization of male dominance. Nothing of the sort exists on Vanatinai since both genders have access to the means of prestige---magic and exchange goods. I don't need to quote from the book because her argument on that point is in the title of the book. All you're doing is extracting quotes and decontextualizing them, which I won't even dignify with a reply in kind. It is so disingenuous that you should be ashamed of yourself. And, please, don't warn me about reporting me to the Wiki-people. Who do you think you are? You are not an authority on gender or anthropology or any of these matters and you, therefore, have no right to be deciding whether Lepowsky or others make their case or not. And, for record, she and the others who have documented egalitarian societies are not an ideological minority as you claim elsewhere. In fact, they are anthropologists of the highest regard. Every other sentence from you is a lie, including your claim that the articles don't argue for the universality of patriarchy. That is so obviously untrue that it made me laugh to read it. Your unwillingness to admit that fact simply proves that I have been right all along in suspecting an underlying ideological agenda here. But my laugh quickly stopped because what you are doing is simply shameful. It is a disservice to those who use Wikipedia, and if anyone deserves to be reported it is you. Unless the paragraph that introduces the table and the list is changed, and Vanatinai is not portrayed as a patriarchy next to the Lepowsky quotes, then that is original research. It is, furthermore, a misrepresentation. If you want to include her as a source in your table/list (but why would anyway if she is such an ideologue as you claim, unless of course you yourself are an ideologically biased hypocrite?), you are the one going against the rules of Wikipedia, not I. To keep the Lepowsky quotes, you must change the introduction of the table/list to admit for egalitarian societies, and you must change the cells for Vanatinai. Otherwise, keep your missionary quote (you can always trust religious zealots when it comes to the domination of women), but leave Lepowsky out of it. Ntheriault 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
I've never claimed Lepowsky claims Vanatinai to be patriarchal, in fact I know it is quite the opposite. Others, however, do claim it be patriarchal, on the basis of her observations, and knowing it is contrary to her analysis. That sounds fair enough to me, if it is shameful, well, the feminists who claim a matriarchal Vanatinai are just as shameful. I don't think that, I just think they are wrong. But that is by the by. What matters is people have published three opinions regarding Vanatinai, and that those views include Lepowsky's observations (one of the opinions, is, of course, hers).
Lepowsky is one among very many professional scholars, all of whom make mistakes. I am not particularly interested in status, and don't decide who or what to believe on the basis of other people's perceived status. I make decisions based on the logic of people's arguments, and the logic of those who criticise or praise them.
Your personal attacks, which are highly insulting and discriminatory, make me disappointed, not angry or ashamed. I'm sad because you really seemed to appreciate a lot of important issues, and to respond a little to new information.
By the way, if you want to do some more research about other ethnographers in the list, you will discover that several (men as well as women) have explicitly published feminist views and condemnations of patriarchy. This simply strengthens the objectivity of the list and table. It is not a list of "anthropologists in favour of patriarchy", just as the article is not "why patriarchy is your friend". The article is a logical presentation of the key facts and sources related to patriarchy as a phenomenon, with the addition of a one-sided treatment of moralizing on the subject, where only feminism has been allowed to speak. Despite your accusations, I have not cited even one word of the hundreds of Christian sources I know that provide moral arguments in favour of patriarchy. Cheers. Alastair Haines 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's a list of "I think patriarchy is universal, and I'm going to (mis)use whatever sources I can to support that." Look at how you introduce your table: "In nearly every case it is clear from what the women and men who studied them report, that the societies were patriarchal not matriarchal, even before changes brought by contact with western culture. What some of the societies do typify, however, is matrilinearity or matrilocality, not matriarchy, because of clear features of male dominance. This is the evidence that verifies the statements made by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Margaret Mead, Cynthia Eller and Steven Goldberg elsewhere in this article, and has been mainly located using their bibliographies." Lepowsky's work directly contradicts, rather than verifies, those statements. Furthermore, before I removed it, the table listed Vanatinai as a patriarchy and cited her as the source. So, yes, you have subltly claimed that Lepowsky's work argues that Vanatinai is patriarchal. If there are reputable sources out there who have contradicted her work as you claim, then use their work to make your claim. They would of course have to be reputable, not some blogger. But you can't impose your analysis on her work. For the 50th time, that is not what Wikipedia is for. The only way to fix this is either to remove citations to Lepowsky from your table/list or to change the argument that the list is making. No, besides expressing my opinion that your abuse of Wikipedia is shameful, there was nothing personal or discriminatory in my previous post. And, yes, you are using a Christian ideological source. What do you think a colonial account from the 1850s is?! Go ahead and use it, but don't pretend it's something it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntheriault (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)