Talk:The Son Also Rises (book)

See also books[edit]

The See also section includes two highly controversial books which have been widely torn apart and dismissed by academics. I have not read this book, but the scholarly reception section suggests that this is not the case for this book. It seems that this book is different enough that it should probably not be categorized with these. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We can and do make information on the academic reception of all of these books available to our readers. It is for our readers to make up their own minds as to whether those books are worth reading. Even if they are judged to be not worth reading, that does not mean they are not worth writing about, in e.g. a summary of writing about the field based on reviews.--greenrd (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we talked past each other here. I am not contesting whether critiques of any of the three books in question should be included on wikipedia. Instead, it is not clear to my why this book is grouped in with the Bell Curve and A Troublesome Inheritance. I am removing those references until a clearer reason is given for retaining these. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]