Talk:The Rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Balance[edit]

Possible NPOV issues here. The whole entry seems contemptuous of the authors and the book's premise. Now, it's possible that both actually DESERVE the contempt, but it shouldn't show this blatantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.90.55 (talk) 06:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I can't really agree. There is no POV in the first paragraph, the second one simply describes reaction to the book, then there are examples and then a fact-with-a-citation which sheds light on the reliability of the authors (that it is a funny/ironic fact does not make it inaccurate or irrelevant). I don't see anything POV in this article. If you write accurately about someone who thoroughly deserves criticism, your article will look POV to someone who is not aware that criticism is deserved. Man with two legs 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Contempt of the book as sexist and anti-feminist drivel is not POV, it's society.
It might do to include a mention of a positive criticism of the book if one can be found from a reliable source. Man with two legs 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, is anyone else highly offended by the pic caption??? REALLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.13.205 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not me. I can see no case for being offended by it. It is slightly amusing, but none the less accurate for that from what I have heard. Man with two legs 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I am; Also its impossible to prove its true.JohnGaltJr (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted this image from the article, since there doesn't seem to be anything else around it that supports that it's relevant to this article in any way. Stack (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is missing some of the rules. Rule 01 is missing from the list and the introduction mentions there are 34 rules altogether, but the list only goes up to 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV alert[edit]

via OTRS, at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_1#The_RulesZedla (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrigan quote[edit]

I can't seem to verify the purported quote by Maureen Corrigan (other wikis and one tangential reference in [1]). It doesn't show up on NPR's website but I'm not certain they archive transcripts of Fresh Air. I've removed the quote and have inserted an admission by their part about their qualifications (Jet ref, Today show) which would seem to hold more weight than a purportedly sarcastic comment by reviewer Corrigan. – Zedla (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations & Positive Criticism Necessary[edit]

The comments "Some women in these cultures might even consider following these rules tantamount to prostitution" need some kind of citation, especially a reference to which cultures are being referred to. Also, there has to be some kind of positive response better represented. After all, the book had a great deal of success for a good amount of time, so someone agreed with the ideas.Cactusjump (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More Sequels[edit]

There were other sequels to the "Rules" series that are not referred to, namely "Rules for Online Dating" and some kind of Rules Journal that is supposed to accompany the first title. Cactusjump (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember a very similar book in 1988, which I spotted az inspiration for `The Rules` when it was new - `The Rules` is a sequel! Any one know this book? RWBro Froggo Zijgeb 20:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggo Zijgeb (talkcontribs)

The actual rules[edit]

In May 2009, an editor removed this section citing spam. How can it be spam when it is the premises of the book. I have recovered them and put the section here so that it might be reworked by an interested editor at a later date.

The Rules

I think that if this book and its mantras have become the standard by which women in the western world now approach relationships, then its is worth including and discussing. It's basic premise is to assume that there must be a minimum "standard" to any man/woman relationship - thus creating an unnatural model by which all interactions must be measured.

Rules back in now, with links removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.81.33 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also introducing social modifiers/pressures into personal behaviours based largely on reward through gift culture. That in itself could be a huge review and discussion.

For instance, if a gift is made (and both parties are privy to The Rules) with the intention that the act will result in a predetermined outcome/reward, then surely that has undermined the entire the good will, good faith, honesty, innocence or love (et al) that is associated with such a giving act. The gift has lost its power as an act of open of generosity and has actual become an act of validity or requirement.

This is just one of the many philosophical and moral arguments that can be directed at this book and its authors. Therefore I think the rules should be included in this article. But take the rules how you want, not everyone will agree.

You said an editor's action seemed mysterious regarding "spam." I edited a magazine and my experience with "editors" here bears no resemblance to other experience with editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.35.39 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Relationship to seduction community[edit]

The article presently states 'Psychology lecturer and therapist Dr Meg John Barker claims that the emergence of seduction communities happened "almost as a direct response to this hard-to-get femininity"' She claims it, but offers no basis for the claim. This is the excerpt on page 77

Almost as a direct response to this version of hard-to-get femininity was the emergence, in the years leading up to the new millennium, of "seduction communities" for heterosexual men.

Can we make it clear that she had no factual or referential basis for the claim? I'd be interested if she did (and there are of course precedents to the *Game*)... but she didn't offer any evidence. -Reagle (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Gleick was invoked but never defined (see the help page).