Talk:Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship

This page is intended to provide basic information (overview; synopsis; reviews & responses; debate & criticism) about the book Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship. The book makes a (notable - see sources in main article) theoretical contribution to evolutionary biology of social behavior and the anthropology of kinship, which are popular subject areas (with a wide range of related articles) on wikipedia. I will attempt to add wikilinks to related articles, and categories so that this page becomes useful to those reading in and around these topics.

Lack of impartiality

This article all stands on an obviously false idea. It ignores the fact that most people, any of us, naturally, like any other living being, do care about their offspring and their own individual perpetuation, that they do not cooperate with each other against that purpose, and that only degenerate individuals, a minority, do not. Otherwise, without parents having children, there would be no one in the World. 85.244.2.139 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions have no place on wikipedia and do not justify NPOV tagging

You seem to misunderstand the notion of verifiable and NPOV. This article - a wikipedia article ABOUT A PUBLISHED BOOK - is an accurate, neutral, referenced and verifiable summary of the book's content and the PUBLISHED reviews and responses to the book (including published criticism of the book). Your personal opinion - that all this is "an obviously false idea" is irrelevant. You can't simply tag well-referenced articles on concepts that you personally disagree with, with a NPOV tag in the hope that this will cast doubt on the credibility of the topic therein. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag on this and related articles, and if you continue to re-attach NOPV tags, I will ask for dispute resolution.14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.24.88 (talk)

Here are some wiki guidelines on use of Template:POV tags:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal opinion, it's a fact, and facts are relevant, lies are not, nor are you! Some Cultural Marxist writes a lie that people do not value their relatives and then we have to prove them wrong, and when we affirm it another Cultural Marxist says it's irrelevant what we know because their opinions they want to force on people is the only allowed "truth". You make it look as if people always put proximity above blood, and call an opinion whenever someone who doesn't do that tries to explain exactly that. This is a fringe theory by an obscure "Scientist", with no echo on Wikipedia articles on the manter, and if anyone has to justify anything is precisely the author of this article and why does this even deserve a page at all. It's not even a matter of impartiality but of credibility. An actual Scientist says that humans do care about their own children like in any other species, and you simply bypass it. What do you call that, relevance? It's like claiming everyone is a Communist just because some masochists and idiots are, just because many people are mildly socializing or just because a given group they're inserted in forces them to be it also. Attachment, as in the Attachment Theory, doesn't mean people cease to value their perpetuation just because they became fixated on someone that they're not even related to, nor even means they don't value blood over attachment. There are parents who, despite being forced to relinquish their children, never ceased to value them. 193.126.164.147 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested outside help via Wikipedia:Third_opinion which may aid in resolving this disagreement81.57.24.88 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created dedicated section for alternative perspectives

Since at least one editor wishes to use this wikipedia article that summarizes a particular book, as a venue to discuss wider debates and alternative perspectives that are in the same area as the subjects covered by this book, I have created a dedicated section for this. On a wiki page that summarizes a book, I think it is important to distinguish between published critiques of and responses to the book, and a summary of alternative positions on the topic areas that the book engages with. The latter can usefully signpost further information in other wikipedia articles on such alternative positions.

Hopefully this will ensure that the article is understood to provide a NPOV81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide the third opinion because I don't entirely understand the question. I can see that one of two unregistered editors has drive-by tagged the article. Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The purpose of a tag is to request that an article be improved, and it is always better to improve the article than to drive-by-tag the article to request that someone else improve it. However, I don't know whether the tagger is saying that the article doesn't present a neutral interpretation of the book or that the book isn't neutral. I do see that there is a comment that one of the editors wants to discuss the concepts presented in the book. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe the book neutrally, not to provide discussion of the ideas presented in the book. Since it isn't clear to me whether the tag means that the article isn't neutral about the book or that book isn't neutral, I can't provide the third opinion. Would one of the two editors please ask a question, in one or two sentences, about whether the article should be tagged as a non-neutral presentation of the book? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving the third opinion request up on the noticeboard in case some other editor is actually able to figure out whether the issue is about the article about the book, or about the book itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the two unregistered editors want to engage in further discussion either about the description of the book or about other articles in Wikipedia, it would also be helpful for them to create registered accounts, because their IP addresses are likely to shift. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request made for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)[reply]

Given Robert's advice, I am going to shorten the section "Alternative Perspectives" to simply outline some alternative positions and point to their articles if the reader wants to investigate further.82.236.226.3 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Robert

Thanks to Robert for taking the time to make some suggestions. As I understand it, his central point is - "The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe the book neutrally, not to provide discussion of the ideas presented in the book." In this case, my position is that this wikipedia article does describe the book (and its contents) neutrally, and is therefore not suitable for an NPOV tag. I would encourage anyone to point to areas they believe to be an inaccurate representation of the book.81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2004 edition vs. 2012 edition

Here's something for possible inclusion in this article:

A 2004 edition (available from SSRN); the copyright page of the 2012 edition notes:

This edition is essentially an unabridged version of the originally published doctoral thesis, reformatted with typographic corrections and a new preface.

. Fabrickator (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]