Talk:Steven Goldberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents

[edit] "Quote farm" tag

Fair comment. However, note Wiki policy on controversial material related to biography of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately. I will actively watch that on this page. I have changed quote formats, and added encyclopedic text, as suggested by the tag. I will now remove the tag, leaving this note on the talk page.

It should also be noted here that Goldberg is a controversial man, as such it is going to be hard expand this article beyond explicitly sourced material. I'll try to pad out the quotes more, but I think it's always going to be safest to stick closely to the biography of living persons policy.

Alastair Haines 09:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

The line: "This will have been no surprize to Goldberg, but it provides stunning evidence for the likelihood of his theories."

By whose estimation, with what research, and how can that be argued in a Wiki biography? Origanal resarch, wild assumptions? any? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.144.13.213 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your input <anonymous>. You need to read the sentence that precedes this one. That makes it clear "what research". It is not "argued" as you assert. It is a sourced (and now cited) fact. Goldberg hypothesized biological explanation of male dominance behaviour (sourced and cited). Brain Sex popularizes many biological articles that do precisely this (sourced and cited). Published research, by definition, is not "original research". Peer reviewed research is not "wild assumptions". What is this doing in a Wiki biography? It is doing what encyclopedias do – provide sourced, cited, peer-reviewed information, without prejudice (neutral).

Please register as a Wiki editor and share accountability to administration for your own neutrality. I will take your comment as made in good faith, however, and modify the word "stunning", which, although descriptive of the response of many to the facts, is indeed unnecessary. Instead I will put, "it provides even more of exactly the kind of evidence of biological influence on male dominance behaviour that Goldberg's hypothesis predicted." That merely describes the sourced and cited facts already presented. Alastair Haines 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced quotation and vandalism

I've again removed a lengthy quotation which was recently reintroduced to this article. As I stated in my original edit, the quotation is unreferenced. In which periodical did said review appear? I take great exception to the edit line, which refers to my contribution as vandalism - a very serious charge. Assuming good faith, I encourage the user in question to review Wikipedia's definition and policy concerning vandalism. Victoriagirl 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On both occasions you have removed the reference along with the review. Goldberg's review is a glowing piece designed for the back cover blurb. Anyway, I have found an on-line citation, where it is cited by the editor-in-chief, who was saving time or supporting her own review by repeating it. The book itself IS the reference. Please check the reference before removing a cited source again. That's Wiki policy, and a matter of assuming good faith. Cheers. Alastair Haines 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In my own defense, the manner in which the reference was provided in no way conformed to Wikipedia's policy concerning citations. I assumed, in good faith, that the first line of the section referred to the title under review (which, indeed, it did). That said, I'm not at all convinced that a blurb "designed" for the back cover of a book published by a vanity press is noteworthy. Assuming the subject has a background as a reviewer, I would encourage that other examples be provided. Failing this, I suggest that that the 'Goldberg as Reviewer' section be deleted. Victoriagirl 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I called it vandalism Victoria. What the books say is deeply angering to people and when I quote them, people remove text anyway. It irritates me. You are not like that, you have been totally responsible, where I lacked self-restraint. I'm sincere in my apology. I will change the sub-heading to Goldberg reviews (deliberately ambiguous). If you wish, change it to A Goldberg review, Goldberg reviews Chynoweth or simply revert my change to the sub-head as it stands.
The intention of the sub-head is not to make the claim that Goldberg is a notable reviewer, constantly sought for comment on a range of matters. However, if you read his books, you will see he interacts very closely with many writers across a range of issues in his field. Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences would give you a good feel for the breadth of what he says, and how controversial all of it is -- careful, cited, interactive, logical, but unpopular. Indeed he has been sought for comment on both issues and on specific authors.
I like Goldberg, because he's a socialist. A man with social convictions, mediated by reason and civility. I admire him because he's got more courage to say directly what he thinks than the right-wing who like the ideas, but struggle to articulate them on the basis of logic rather than rhetoric.
He's a better man than me, he'd never have put the word vandalism into a revert. Sorry once more, Victoria. Alastair Haines 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I did some research on the publisher, Phillips International own Eagle Publishing, who own the Conservative Book Service. It's obvious if you visit all their web-sites too. The head office address in Washington, DC is a bit of a give-away too. Cheers. Alastair Haines 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I considered the book review section to be POV, especially as many of the quotes were from the cover of the book, and so I removed it. 204.52.215.107 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm easy

Hi Victoria,

I'm relaxed about you removing Patriarchy (anthropology) and Patriarchy in feminism if you feel they are redundant. However, Patriarchy is the parent article. Patriarchy (disambiguation) would certainly be redundant, but the others are not technically redundant, as the disambiguation shows.

If there were links to Paris in Summer, Paris in Fall, Paris in Winter and to Paris. It wouldn't seem to be natural to remove the Paris link and leave the others. See also articles will often cover similar territory or have similar names. As I see it, they allow readers to refine their search to an even more specific area, or point them to broader context. Both are useful to me as a reader anyway.

As I said, I'm relaxed about your editorial judgement to "tidy up" the See also section. I'm happy to support a change, just not one that removes the main article, and the only article I know that has a whole section on Goldberg. ;) Alastair Haines 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm at all stubborn on this... at least I hope I don't appear so. Really, I removed the patriarchy hyperlink under 'See also' only because the hyperlink had appeared in the body of the article. As both Patriarchy (anthropology) and Patriarchy in feminism hadn't appeared at all in the article, I left them alone. Anyway, that was my thinking. I note that WP:MOSLINKS is pretty relaxed on this issue... and so am I. A matter of personal preference, I suppose. Victoriagirl 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I am so dumb, and you are so right. I will remove the redundant Patriarchy link as you so correctly and unobtrusively had already done. Thanks for your patience and not roasting me for my stupidity. Cheers Victoria. Alastair Haines 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheels within wheels: recent reversion and reinstatement

An editor removed the cite info for a Goldberg biography along with a link to an online copy.

Removing the cite for a published bio in a Wiki bio entry seems rather like shooting yourself in the foot.

There's more to the issue, but I'll let the other editor explain that. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)