Talk:Sex at Dawn

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request. Note that there was no need to make a formal request—just list at uncontroversial requests.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dudeinhammock/Sex at Dawn → Sex at Dawn — I've written a brief description of the book but am not an autoconfirmed user and cannot move it to the live area myself. Dudeinhammock (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism?
Can we add more about the criticism this book has received (for example, from evolutionary psychologists)? The fact that this article only shows praise makes me wonder if it should be tagged for NPOV. While I'm reading this currently and I love it, and I'm inclined to agree with its fans, it's definitely not true that this has only received positive reception. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are the citations, 1 & 2, for negative/academic reviews both primary source? Surely this is not allowed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.74.42 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think book reviews are considered primary sources in this context. They are secondary sources, dicussing and making analysis of the primary source, Sex at Dawn. See :WP:PRIMARY.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bias
The introduction claims that Sex at Dawn has been 'panned by the academic community'. In support of this allegation one paper and a counter-book are cited. This is obviously insufficient to represent the entire 'academic community'. Franz de Waal (leading primatologist) has spoken extremely highly of the book (while not agreeing with all its conclusions). The claim in the introduction is biased and false, it should be changed, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.185.129 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of doing so. I am unsure how to reference, here are some of De Waal's comments http://sexatdawn.com/page3/page29/page29.html


 * Well, we can work on the wording if you want, but the fact remains that the only published commentary that I can find in academic publications, or from qualified academics is negative. Frans de Waal is obviously a leading authority on this matter, but I cannot find the source of his positive comments. I'd be glad to include them if you can point them out, but so far I can't find anything other than in publicity materials for S@D. That raises red flags for me, since authors will often say nice things about other books to help out their publishers. It isn't nothing, but to me a throw away comment from de Waal doesn't hold all that much weight. Even the Shackleford quote doesn't really get into depth about the argument of the book. I'll look into this in more depth when I get a moment, but I would say that academic commentary, such as there is, is currently mostly negative, and it isn't biased to say so. I'm very open if you have some sources, but I don't think that wikipedia guidelines allow self-promotional material to be used as a source, except in certain limited circumstances. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, after reviewing the quotes on their website, I think the only people they have quoted their who are truly qualified to give an assessment of the book are Shackleford and de Waal. Most of the rest are fin academics I'm sure, but are mostly psychologists, or sex therapists with no apparent background in anthropology or evolutionary psychology. So, I'll grant that Shackleford appears enthusiastic. But you'll note that all he says is that it is good "the best non-technical summary I have read of the relevant issues" which doesn't really get into the actual argument that they are making. de Waal also says that it is "an exciting book" and that it raises important issues. Neither of them really takes a firm stand with regard to the arguments of the book. So, I think that more context is needed before saying that academic reaction is truly "mixed". Peregrine981 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * After consulting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I have confirmed that we should not be using context-less quotes being used to promote the book for sale. If the quotes can be found in another reliable source, of course we can use them, but I have not found the relevant quotes that have been used here anywhere but in promotional materials. As a result, we cannot use the de Waal or Shackleford quotes until another source is found. As it stands, all academic commentary is (although admitedly only 2 sources) highly negative. Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that academic opinions are "mixed" as things stand. As ever, I remain open to changes based on reliable sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Ellsworth's "Sex at Dusk" review
I have removed the lengthy quotation and discussion of Ryan Ellsworth's review of Sex at Dusk. For one, a lengthy review of a rebuttal is not a "Response" to Sex at Dawn. It would be appropriate to quote and discuss Sex at Dusk, but not through a secondary review.

Furthermore, to include lengthy discussions of two separate pieces by Ellsworth that attack the book — his review of Sex at Dawn and his review of Sex at Dusk — represents undue weight given to Ellsworth's opinion of the book. There is no particular reason why Ellsworth's views should be privileged with two entire paragraphs in this article, while many other reviews were accorded just one or two sentences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have additionally changed the review count - there are only two academic negative reviews of the book cited here. Again, an approving review of a rebuttal is not a negative review of the book, and individually counting Ellsworth's two separate pieces makes it appear as if there are more than two cited academic writers writing negative reviews. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Sex at Dusk is a self-published book, and therefore not really reliable by wikipedia standards. However, Evolutionary Psychology is. So, in fact, by wikipedia standards, the contrary is true. A scholar in the field, reviewing the book is considered a reliable source, but the book itself is not (See WP:SECONDARY). Since the book is itself a direct response to S@D, it is relevant to include it here. I don't think it is giving undue weight to discuss Ellsworth's two reviews, especially since one is essentially a report on what Lynn Saxon says, not him. The fact is that Ellsworth is the only trained expert in the field who has given the book a serious academic treatment in a reliable source. We shouldn't be doing some sort of false equivalence here. If more experts had bothered to review the book, then you might be right. As it stands, Ellsworth (and kind of Barash) are the only real game in town, as far as academic review is concerned. You added a quote from a blogger who himself says "Unfortunately, since I’m not trained as an anthropologist, I can’t be certain that the authors aren’t cherry-picking examples that support their conclusions." Now why should we be using a blogger who admits he doesn't have enough background in the subject to properly evaluate the book's claims attention on this page? Peregrine981 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I don't claim that it's an academic review and it is located in the proper section of the article - the section for popular reviews, not the section for peer-reviewed journal articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be true that Ellsworth is the only trained expert, etc., as you claim. But that is a fact not in evidence. In fact, there isn't even any evidence presented that he is a significant expert in the field. (Being a graduate student does not make one an expert. And I gladly say that as a graduate student who completed an MS with research thesis that is pending peer review for publication.) It is still true that his is only one opinion. That his opinion has been published in a peer-reviewed journal is interesting, but hardly constitutes a final and conclusive statement as to the book's arguments. There does not appear (based on the available three articles by two writers, one who was only a graduate student at the time of writing) to be anything resembling a broad academic consensus. We should not give his opinion undue weight — we already thoroughly present Ellsworth's arguments above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't a broad academic consensus. But, such academic consensus as there is, is basically against the book. Ellsworth, is clearly trained in the subject matter of the book. If you look up the articles credited to him, and he is a graduate student at a respected university. That's nothing to sneeze at. Barash is one of the leading voices in the field. And Sex at Dusk, while not a reliable source as far as WP is concerned, clearly meets their academic approval. Other leading experts (Stephen Pinker) for example, are also on the record as saying the book is "pseudo-science" (though not in a reliable form for WP). So, I don't think it is unfair to say that the academic consensus is pretty much against the book. Now, maybe they all have personal reasons or biases to write negative things about S@D, as Ryan suggests. However, he doesn't really present any concrete evidence of that. At any rate, Ellsworth is indeed only one voice, but he is also the only writer to make a detailed, rigorous analysis in a reliable source. I think that it should be weighted above random science bloggers and other non-expert reviewers. Not to say we should ignore them, but it is ok to give Ellsworth more prominence. I'm unconvinced that simply being a Harvard based science blogger makes your opinion relevant to the article. What is the editorial oversight policy of scienceblogs.com? Peregrine981 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should rely on a secondhand recounting of a self-published book critical of Sex at Dawn, reviewed by someone who has already established himself as harshly critical of Sex at Dawn? That doesn't strike me as the most reliable or neutral of review sources. Can you not see the obvious conflict of interest there? Is there no one else who has reviewed Sex at Dusk? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And oddly enough, yes, someone else did review Sex at Dusk — David Barash, whose approving review we already cite. That ought to be enough discussion of Sex at Dusk in a Wikipedia article that isn't about Sex at Dusk. Further discussion of Sex at Dusk should go in a stand-alone article about Sex at Dusk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He did it in a respected journal. Obviously it would be better if more people had reviewed both dawn and dusk, but they haven't. Just because Ellsworth had already written a negative review of dawn, doesn't mean that his review of dusk isn't valid for our purposes if it expands our understanding of Sex at Dawn. He goes into rather more detail than Barash. I don't think there is a "conflict of interest" in reviewing a book that has a similarly negative view of the subject that you do. Obviously his pre-declared dislike is something that should be taken into account by outside observers in evaluating the validity of the argument, but he isn't hiding the factual basis of his disagreement with Ryan, or attacking him unfairly. If Ryan wanted to he could rebut Sex at Dusk, and we could include that here. However, if you listen to his podcast you will see that he basically isn't interested in actually arguing for his ideas because he doesn't have the time. (seriously. If you haven't listened to the episode where he responds to his critics, you should. I find it quite revealing about Ryan's academic integrity) Peregrine981 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall, I like the changes you have made to the article. You may be right that there was too much Ellsworth. However, I think there was some useful information in the paragraph that has been cut. It was rather more specific about what exactly the problems were with the argument, rather than just saying that their evidence was lacking, etc... It mentioned specific issues that could be interesting to a reader. Do you have any opinion on that? Is there a way we could re-integrate that kind of info without giving undue attention to Ellsworth? I'm still not convinced that we couldn't put a couple more sentences in, since he has paid by far the most attention to the book/its arguments. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone noticed the link to Ellsworth's own page? Doesn't it seem likly that Ellsworth himself has been editing this to puff his own career? --CRATYLUS22

Changes to lead by Overagainst
Peregrine981and I both seem to agree that the lead is not to POV and I am not seeing why Overagainstthinks it is. I am reverting this back--but do hope we can continue the discussion here. I note that some discussion has already taken place between Overagainstand Peregrine981 on Peregrine981's talk page.Pengortm (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What the lede says about criticism must be based on the following in the main body of the article "In an approving Chronicle of Higher Education review of Sex at Dusk — a rebuttal to Sex at Dawn written and self-published by Lynn Saxon — David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People wrote that Ryan and Jethá "ignore and/or misrepresent reams of anthropology and biology in their eagerness to make a brief for some sort of Rousseau-ian sexual idyll that exists—and/or existed—only in their overheated libidinous imaginations."[1"


 * The lede says "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative" it's misleading to say "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative" without specifying what that amounts to, as there have not been a substantial number of what could be called academics who reviewed the book. (I see two named: Ryan M. Ellsworth and David Barash). There are academic reviews of the apparently self published  'Sex at Dusk' by Lynne Saxon.  The article should name the academic critics and make it clear who is not an academic or scientist. Readers can't make out exactly who Saxon is. She is described as an independent scholar. Even if an academic critic has indulged in speculating about authors' motives, that still falls under the NPOV ruberic. That is why the following has to go: "and the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda." Overagainst (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with specifying the academics in question. Saxon herself cannot be considered a reliable source by wikipedia. I really don't see why speculation about motives/methods are off limits. How does it go against NPOV? If we neutrally present the assertion, which has been made in an academic journal, I don't see the problem. I'm not against re-wording, but I think it is a salient point, as it is prominent in at least 2 of the 3 reliable pieces by academics. Would it be better if we added that Ryan clearly denies the charge? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having the lede end: "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative and argue that humans have a history that involves more monogamy than Sex at Dawn acknowledges, that the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda." as it current does is excessive weight. But it seems you two don't think so. The article would do better to be about the book not charges against the authors, however you word them they are still accusations of being deliberately misleading. And far from having charges and denials and back and forth added, the whole article needs to be pared down, a lot.Overagainst (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is excessive weight shouldn't we focus on adding other information or rounding out the lede/article rather than removing information? There are two articles that explicitly question the validity/honesty of the book itself written by academic experts in the field. Should we ignore that information? Considering that there are only 3 actual academic discussions of the book, that is quite a high percentage of the information available, so to say it is undue weight strikes me as odd. If you want to also include the popular reviews, which have been far more positive, that is fine, but surely the academic articles written by people who actually know the background of the academic literature should carry slightly more weight and be mentioned at least in the lede. These are charges leveled at the book, not just the author. The claim is that the book itself, not just the authors "has been caught with its ideological pants down." This is an integral part of the discussion in the secondary literature, about the book which is EXACTLY what wikipedia should cover. I quote from, WP:ARTICLE " The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say." I know that if I go to an article about a book I would want it to discuss the major strains of criticism of the book, not simply an "in universe" discussion about the book itself on terms that the author would find acceptable. That is precisely what is invaluable about wikipedia, it is a place where you can find a summary of reliable, honest discussion of the subject. If you think that the tone is overly hostile, fine we can work on that, but removing the "charges and denials back and forth", presuming they are given due weight, would impoverish the article IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made my edits and you rejected them, I modified them and they got reverted again. I stand by what I said and I'll leave you to it.Overagainst (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I would hope to incorporate your concerns into the article. I will try to amend the lead to try to make it more balanced without removing the relevant information, as discussed above. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Peregrine981] here. But I think it is a good idea to adjust the wording to include that all scientific commentaries are represented by "(only three so far)". I think given that this is just the lead summary, we don't have to name them yet since they are cited and readers can go down to the section in the article on it to read more. Note that Saxon is not cited as one of the three in the lead. Like Peregrine981, I remain open to changes, but think the current version is better than the previously suggested changes by [[User:Overagainst|Overagainst Pengortm (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejection by Oxford U press in lead
Peregrine981 I agree that whether a publisher is interested in a book is too detailed. However, the reason I thought that was appropriate for the lead is that Oxford wanted to publish it, but then sent it to academic peer reviewers who thought the book was junk (according to Ryan). Since we are trying to state the scholarly reception of the book, this speaks to that issue directly. I am pretty sure the popular, non-academic press Harper does not send their books out for peer review and Ryan made it seem like they didn't. Perhaps I'll figure out a way to condense this and roll it into the last section of the lead. Pengortm (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is entirely appropriate to include as a general point, just maybe not in the lead. I would note though, that at least one (if memory serves) of the reviewers thought the book was great. Also, this is entirely self reported by Ryan, which is semi-dubious by wiki standards. The fact that he says they were critical lends some credibility, but this should probably not be a central part of the article, and we should identify Ryan as the source. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-Bias and Social Responsibility
It's great to see how Wiki standards are so well respected by the editors, and the discussion here between Peregrine981 and Pengortm is a perfect example of striking the right balance. I don't disagree with any of the points they've made. Still, while the integrity of NPOV is and should be the lodestar of any article, it's also important to keep in mind that some people have so much faith in the science of this book that they are re-defining their relationships, or at least their attitudes toward relationships. There are literally thousands of comments on forums,comment boards and the author's Facebook page testifying to this fact. While it's always possible that bad science can lead to viable results, many people rely only on Wikipedia to assess the reliability of books like this. It would be a disservice to them if there were any ambiguity about the purportedly specious science behind it. Gadly Circus (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that this article does a good job of presenting the criticism. But the fact is that there are some respected sources that do appreciate the book, including some "scientific" sources, although they do not seem to explain their support, unlike the detractors. This is why, IMO the criticism should be more clearly explained, as I think it is. As Ryan (who's user account is Dudeinhammock) says, there are many clinical and more applied therapists who do support the book. The fact that they don't necessarily have much expertise in evolutionary psychology/physiology should be noted. Anyway, if you have any specific problems with the current wording, please feel free to suggest changes. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the wording is okay as it is, though I must admit I would lean more towards stressing the dubious side of Ryan's academic integrity, as you yourself mentioned earlier, Peregrine. But my feeling has everything to do with personal taste and less to do with Wiki standards. About the respected sources: If the book presented itself based on Ryan's experiences in clinical and therapeutic practice, the opinions of clinical and applied therapists would hold more weight, IMO. However, it presents itself as an academic work, with hundreds of (evidently misused) references, and was soundly rejected by the only academics who took the time to pay attention to it. It's not unfeasible that some clinicians and therapists, Dan Savage and Peter Sagal are more inclined to support the conclusions rather than the methodology, whereas the academics are all about how the sausage is made. For those reasons, I would prefer to see the most weight given to the academic reaction. Gadly Circus (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed--especially since Ryan is not making a clinical case, but a case about human evolution. Also, I don't see how this could qualify for wikipedia citing--since it is more my own 'original research'--but Dan Savage used to regularly plug and praise the book, but after me and others emailed Savage to let him know about the first critique and soon after the first critique came out, Savage stopped promoting the book and has barely mentioned it on his podcast.Pengortm (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems we're all on the same page then. Can't really disagree with what either of you have said. Peregrine981 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
Notability (books). How does Sex at Dawn rate an article? I don't see it as having attracted sufficient attention for an article at all. I think the article should be deleted.Overagainst (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC) WP:NACADEMICS, I would also like to know how Christopher Ryan (author) rates an article as the author of a single fringe theory and not well known book.Overagainst (talk)
 * Thanks for raising this issue which I had not really considered for this article until now. I suggest we save the discussion of the Christopher Ryan (author) page for that talk page--although perhaps there is a good argument to merge the two? My impression is that this qualifies under Notability (books), mainly because it is a pretty well known, influential and award winning book. Following the "in a nutshell" on Notability (books) Sex at Dawn seems to qualifies mainly because "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I also note that the book rates quite highly on Amazon:
 * Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,543 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)


 * 1) 2 in Books > Medical Books > Psychology > Sexuality
 * 2) 2 in Books > Health, Fitness & Dieting > Psychology & Counseling > Sexuality
 * 3) 6 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Anthropology > General--Pengortm (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 5 in a nutshell criteria of Notability (books). You quote from the first one only, but seem to think SaD " pretty well known, influential and award winning book". 'Influential' would suggest there are secondary sources where academics endorse or take up the book's arguments, could you provide links to such instances of published secondary sources citing the book. If you think Sex at Dawn meets other criteria apart from the first then please specify which ones. Overagainst (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 5 in a nutshell criteria of Notability (books)--BUT we only need to meet at least one of the criteria to be notable. We might bring in the other criteria later on, but I think it passes on criteria 1 pretty easily. If you look at the sources in the article you will see that there are multiple academics taking up the arguments (mostly to critique them). I also note that to be notable the secondary sources need not be from academics--and as I recall there are these type of sources as well. Also see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sex+at+dawn&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48--Pengortm (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The book clearly meets criteria 1, and that is all it has to do for inclusion. Whether or not people agree with the book is not the issue. A book can be notable for being widely criticized. More generally, there are many, many secondary sources discussing this subject, as a subject in itself, clearly meeting the general wikipedia inclusion guidelines. IMO this is exactly the kind of topic wikipedia is best at covering. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a scientific book so it being taught for the relevant disciplines of anthropology or evolutionary psychology in a university course  would be the evidence that it is 'clearly' important enough for an article. I will tell you frankly that the author not rating a page of his own (as was immediately conceded) makes me think that his book's impact in the field will have to be considerable.Overagainst (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's popular science, and it has been reviewed at least a half dozen to dozen times in major publications. The criteria for inclusion do not include being used in a university course, so not really sure the relevance of that. Neither does the author's notability, except in the case that the author is so notable that even a non-notable book becomes notable. The main point here is that the book has generated considerable interest from reliable, third party sources, which is the basis of verifiability and notability. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (It has been conceded that Ryan does not rate his own article so the following point is moot, but I disagree an author alone can make a book become notable enough for its own article.) If SaD was taught or required reading on an anthropology or psychology course then its notability would be beyond question. It isn't. Overagainst (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be too much of a bureaucrat here, but please refer to the general book notability guidelines and you will see, criteria 5, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Anyway, as we've said above, a book merely needs to meet any one of the general criteria, not multiple criteria, so it really isn't necessary that it be taught in university. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS. Not sure where it has been conceded that the author doesn't merit an article? As far as I can see there has been no discussion has taken place on the the Christopher Ryan talk page.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia
"Sex at Dawn author Ryan bills himself as a "shame exorcist" on his personal website, where he recommends Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us by Jesse Bering. A third of Bering's book is devoted to a sympathetic account of pedophilia as something that people are naturally born with in the same way as they are homosexual, and further suggests possession of child pornography should not be illegal. It seems to me that Ryan's views on pedophillia are quite similar to DeWaal's. For De Waal sex between adult males and  and children is not abuse if it is tender and pleasurable for both. He specifically points to Bonobos as an example of this non abusive sex between adult males and children.(de Waal, F. B. M. (1990). Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among bonobos. In: Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, J. R. Feierman (ed.). Springer, New York, pp. 378-393) He also said the following in 1992 "'Ancestral humans behaved like this," proposes Frans de Waal, an ethologist at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University. "Later, when we developed the family system, the use of sex for this sort of purpose became more limited, mainly occurring within families. A lot of the things we see, like pedophilia and homosexuality, may be leftovers that some now consider unacceptable in our particular society.'". In Sex at Dawn is there anywhere that the authors disagree with DeWaal's views on pedophilia?Overagainst (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) By my way of thinking Ryan seems to be arguing very much along the same lines as deWaal here.Overagainst (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What's your point? Maybe you should try to read the book instead of getting second hand accounts. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the article Ryan says natural human sexuality is like that of Bonobos. It is well known that adult male Bonobos have sex with infant Bonobos. My point is that we should make it clear whether Ryan specifically excludes pedophilia from his thesis or not. If he doesn't then that ought to be made clear in the article.Overagainst (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a stretch to me and kind of like original research that is not allowed on wikipedia--and also sensitive enough about a living person that we need to be particularly careful. I think we need to have more direct information from a reliable source before integrating this into either this page or Ryan's page.--Pengortm (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here Ryan says "I've got some ideas of topics I'd like to tackle head-on. Here are a few, to give you an idea: What does it really mean to be "gay?" Are two men who have sex while in prison a gay couple, even if they don't consider themselves to be? What if same-sex behavior is considered a standard part of life, as in some tribes in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere? Is sex with animals always wrong? If so, why? Can they give consent, just by continuing the interaction? How can it be legal to kill them, skin them, and eat them, but not to fuck them? Are teenaged boys who have sex with adult women victims of sexual abuse? What if they don't think so? What if, in fact, they're clamoring for the opportunity to be "abused" in this way? Are all adult/adolescent sexual encounters inescapably exploitative?" Also Here Ryan says "...assumptions that all minors are traumatized by any sexual contact with someone over the age of consent are not scientifically supported. Perhaps more importantly, by sending the message that such experiences are by definition traumatic, we may sometimes be causing suffering even as we try to stop it." He could be quoted on that.Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a topic for the author's page, not here. If you can find secondary sources discussing the treatment of pedophilia in S@D you can include it here, but I see, and know of none. I have read the book and don't remember it being discussed. At any rate, pedophilia is a very controversial topic, so requires extraordinary care in its treatment on a bio of a living person. It seems to me very hard to draw a firm conclusion of what Ryan believes, except that he believes it needs more study, and people should not be so quick to judgement about it. Context would need to be established, and mediated through reliable secondary sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryan does not have sufficient notability for his own eponymous article. He is the author of SaD and it contains his hypothesis about human sexuality being similar to Bonobos. He doesn't mention Bonobo paedophilia in the book, and we can note that. As he is the author of SaD his later writings on paedophilia can be quoted from his own blog posts for clarification of what his ideas are relation to human padophillia. Here is another quote:"How can it be perfectly legal and respectable to make movies in which kids are dismembered with a chain saw but it's illegal to write a book about having sex with them? Am I missing something or is this a wide-open window into the soul of an utterly irrational society?" Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peregrine981 here. This is not the place for this discussion. Bring these to the Ryan page and we can discuss there (although I also agree with Peregrine981's skeptisism and frankly don't see the makings of a viable contribution here).--Pengortm (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Ryan page might be deleted before the discussion gets very far, he doesn't rate a page in my opinion judging by the deletions of articles on people with far more notability that him, and I when I said so above I got the impression you were amenable to merging the pages. Anyway, I think the material belongs on this page which is where Ryan's hypothesis about human sexuality being like that of Bonobos is given. If Ryan is on record with later criticism of our culture's attitude to certain aspects of human sexualty we can quote him here I think. It is already being done in the article where it says "The authors do not take an explicit position in the book regarding the morality or desirability of monogamy or alternative sexual behavior in modern society, but argue that people should be made aware of our behavioral history so that they can make more informed choices.[6]" Ref six is a 2013 blog post.Overagainst (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the probability of the Ryan page being deleted: you may be right that it doesn't meet notability criteria, but as of now it has existed for some time, and there is no on-going deletion discussion, so not sure why you think it is in such imminent danger of being deleted. Anyway, the topic of this page is the book Sex at Dawn and it should not stray too far into other discussions of the author's various other opinions unless directly relevant to the book itself. As I said, I would not be opposed to a discussion of pedophelia, if you can find a source discussing the topic specifically in relation to the book. But we would most certainly be veering into original research if we were to say, "Ryan discusses Bonobo sexuality in S@D; in this other unrelated blog post he discusses bonobo sexuality in relation to pedophelia. Ryan's opinion on pedophilia is XYZ." The blog quote you mention above is directly related to S@D, so I don't think that it is a comparable situation. If you're so certain that Ryan doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry, I'm not sure why you're so interested in including his opinions on pedophilia. If you want to take this discussion further it should either be moved to the Chris Ryan page, or you're going to have to show how it is directly related to this book with a concrete source. (Throwing in his opinion on pedophilia without a solid basis would certainly seem to be a textbook case of biasing the article against the author, unless you also include discussion on a multitude of other topics which would overload the article). Peregrine981 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already quotes Ryan on things he said in his blog posts but not in the book as mentioned above about reference 6. Ryan said in a blog post that "Shortly after Sex at Dawn came out, I started receiving emails from a guy who wanted to enlist my support in his campaign to change the laws prohibiting sexual relations between adults and children.". If Ryan says something noteable about pedphilia in relation to the theory of human sexuality he presented in Sex at Dawn and we quote that  without  misrepresenting what he said, there would be no problem that I can see.Overagainst (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it encyclopedic that someone emailed Ryan after he published the book? I'm sure lots of people have emailed him about all kinds of topics. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The authors do not take an explicit position in the book regarding the morality or desirability of monogamy or alternative sexual behavior in modern society, but argue that people should be made aware of our behavioral history so that they can make better informed choices.[6]". What he wrote in a blog by way of clarification about his attitude to pedophilia and in the context of the reaction to his book is as encyclopedic as the bolded stement which wrote in his blog about his nonjudgemental attitude to  alternative sexual behavior in general, and which is already quoted in the article.-Overagainst (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is too tangential. He says, right after your quotation, : " I guess he figured that since Cacilda and I had questioned the notion that monogamy came naturally to our species, we'd question just about anything. He was wrong about that. You won't find my signature on any petitions to make pedophilia legal. To the contrary, I'd like to see the current pope and many of his bishops in prison for having covered up and enabled the systematic child abuse by Catholic clergy." To sum that up, pretty much he takes no position on pedophilia in his argument, ie, Sex at Dawn. He elaborates that he has a fairly "traditional" view of pedophilia, except to point out that verbal discussions of the subject should not be treated the same as pictures, and pointing out that there is quite a double standard regarding toleration of violence vs. pedophilia. This has nothing to do with his argument in Sex at Dawn IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, equating pedophilia (a mental matter) that is independent of child sexual abuse with non-human animal sexual behavior and evolution is WP:Fringe. See, for example, this discussion: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17. Overagainst's arguments sound similar to another editor's arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The book has its own article on the strength of it having once been on the NYT bestseller list. (Actually the NYT hardcover nonfiction list).As for "equating pedophilia (a mental matter) that is independent of child sexual abuse with non-human animal sexual behavior and evolution is WP:Fringe2, well: de Waal, F. B. M. (1990). Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among bonobos. In: Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, J. R. Feierman (ed.). Ryan is a big fan of de Wall, who is a certainly a proper academic, not fringe. In academic terms Ryan and his book are certainly fringe. Some people like his conclusions about the what would be natural in humans sexual arrangements, but the book makes evolutionary arguments that are clearly rejected by virtually all evolutionists, so it is fringe.


 * Yes, I ought to look back through the old talk pages to see who has mentioned my points before, that could amount to consensus for them. SaD"The authors do not take an explicit position in the book regarding the morality or desirability of monogamy or alternative sexual behavior in modern society, but argue that people should be made aware of our behavioral history so that they can make better informed choices.[6]".  Ryan equated bonobos with humans, and bonobo pedophillia is well known to the public.  A pedophile took Ryan's thesis of bonobo sexuality  being similar to modern sexuality as an implicit defence of pedophilia.  Ryan has discussed pedophilia. and recommended a book on his personal website ( Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us by Jesse Bering) that says the opposite of "verbal discussions of the subject should not be treated the same as pictures". And the implication of his apparent belief that looking at child porn is no going to make someone a pedophile is indeed quite reasonably interpreted as a belief that pedophiles are 'born that way'. Again, he said at his blog "Are teenaged boys who have sex with adult women victims of sexual abuse? What if they don't think so? What if, in fact, they're clamoring for the opportunity to be "abused" in this way? Are all adult/adolescent sexual encounters inescapably exploitative?"._Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed at the Christopher Ryan page; it has nothing to do with this book, except in a very tangential way. Any discussion of the topic here would be original research or a coat rack. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The ritualized, widespread pedophilia in the Catholic Church appears to be a prime example of this process (as does the Church’s centuries-long attempt to cover up the issue)." Sex at Dawn p280-281. The book discusses pedophila so mentioning it in the article is not personal research. The introduction to SaD says "Denial hasn’t worked. Hundreds of Catholic priests have confessed to thousands of sex crimes against children in the past few decades alone. In 2008, the Catholic Church paid $436 million in compensation for sexual abuse. More than a fifth of the victims were under ten years old. This we know. Dare we even imagine the suffering such crimes have caused in the seventeen centuries since a sexual life was perversely forbidden to priests in the earliest known papal decree: the Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius (c. 385)? What is the moral debt owed to the forgotten victims of this misguided rejection of basic human sexuality". So SaD points up bonobo as natural despite (although SaD doesn't mention it) it being well known that adult bonobos have sex with infants. Overagainst (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What you are arguing here is textbook original research (please read over the policy there). Ryan argues X about Y; X implies Z about Y, therefore we include Z in the article. I'm afraid that's just not how things work around here, however obvious you may think the point is. This is especially true for a controversial topic such as pedophilia. You will have to find some sort of reliable secondary source discussing this topic in order for us to include it, so arguing the merits or logic of the case makes no difference. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peregrine981's interpretation here and continue not to see any makings of a viable contribution from this line of discussion. --Pengortm (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is in the book, there is no problem with OR as long as we don't misrepresent what he says.Overagainst (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you trying to put in the article then? So far, I see nothing but synthesis in your suggestions. Please also keep in mind WP:SECONDARY. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an argument the book's thesis is notable enough to be mentioned in secondary sources. I'm still thinking about how to phrase what I want to add which has altered a lot since I discovered what the book says. At present I am inclining to pointing up that the introduction says cultural repression of sexual expression results in pedophilla. ("ritual" intitutionalised sexual abuse by Catholic priests). So Ryan is arguing that pedophillia would be less common if sexual morality was more like what he supposes the arrangements among ancestral foraging tribes were, but he doesn't mention pedophilia among bonobos. Something along those lines.Overagainst (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, well think about exactly what you want to say, propose it here, and let's examine together. Be careful not to put words in their proverbial mouths and back it up with reliable secondary sources, and there should be no problem, as long as it isn't a really minor point in the book which wouldn't warrant encyclopedic treatment. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead summarizing reception by scholars
User:Steeletrap and I are having a disagreement where we could use the input of other editors. The sentence in question in the lead summarizes the reception of the book by scholars in the field:
 * "Scholars with expertise in human evolution have been very critical of the book. Their comments on the book have been negative and argue that humans have a history that involves more monogamy than Sex at Dawn acknowledges, that the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda.  "

Steeletrap and I discussed this a bit on my talk page. Please look at the discussion more there. I think this is a clear and accurate summary of the section in the article and that the questioning of the sources Steeletrap has should be done in the section below (not the lead) if there is a problem. Can others please weigh in on this?--Pengortm (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Steeletrap's suggested wording is clearly unsatisfactory. Reformulation is possible certainly, but removing discussion of the academic rejection of the book from the lede is a clear breach of NPOV policy. I second User talk:Pengortm's arguments on their talk page regarding the academic commentary on S@D. The overwhelming preponderance of commentary from academic circles, such as it is, is negative. I don't think we should get into an academic pissing contest about which universities' academics "make the grade". Surely a grad student from a real university, writing in a real peer reviewed journal counts for more than a bunch of journalists who have absolutely no formal training in the field. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you fellas know what an 'academic consensus' is? It cannot be formed by one (or two) people. The specific allegations of misrepresentation are made by one person: a grad student from a third-tier university. The lede implies that this is the even-handed conclusion of a host of academics. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC) And I have never said the grad student could not be cited. However, the single grad student is less notable in his field (anthropology) than the supporters of Ryan are in their (non-academic/journalistic) fields. It's undue to give the grad student so much weight. Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the only two academics with training in the field to present their arguments in writing are overtly critical of the book. They also both allege that other experts in the field simply don't consider the material to be worth bothering with. Both cite a third, self-published book as being scientifically superior, although wikipedia cannot use this book as a source in itself because it is self-published, it is notable that both academics consider it superior to the published book. Additionally, Ryan himself admits that 2 of 3 academic reviewers of his book gave it a negative review. So, at a minimum 5 of 6 academic treatments of the book were negative, and we can reasonably conclude that many more would be negative, but they don't consider the material worth bothering about. That is more than one or two negative reviews; as it stands the preponderance of academic opinion is negative. We could consider rephrasing, but we need to clearly explain that academic opinion is clearly against the conclusions of the book. Barash can fairly be characterised as a prominent expert in the field, even if Ellsworth is "just" a grad student, and if anything he is more scathing than Ellsworth, saying "By contrast, Ryan and Jethá blithely proceed to ignore and/or misrepresent reams of anthropology and biology in their eagerness to make a brief for some sort of Rousseau-ian sexual idyll that exists—and/or existed—only in their overheated libidinous imaginations" and "Nearly all biologists, including yours truly, haven’t bothered to waste their time on such tripe, although a case can be made that we have a professional responsibility to respond when the public is being so egregiously misled." The fact that "more notable" journalists have commented on the book, does not make their word more important than even a junior academic who has the training and background to evaluate the findings of the book. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is up with your hatred of this book? I agree that its tone is sophomoric and it doesn't do as good a job as it should presenting counter-arguments. But its thesis is hardly fringe; it is a minority position that many eminent anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers have held over the years. The question, basically, is whether avoiding the pains of jealousy and risk of STDs is worth enduring monogamy. It is an empirical question; we really don't know yet whether practicing monogamy or non-monogamy is more conducive to maintaining one's relationship with one's partner. There is certainly reason to be skeptical of Ryan's thesis (and his "Saybrook University" education gives one reason to be skeptical of him as a thinker). But the points he raises in Dawn are generally reasonable thought-provoking. Your attempt to denigrate these ideas, and imply that they have been thoroughly vetted and rejected by academia, is disingenuous and tendentious. Indeed, I have to wonder whether there is something personal rather than academic motivating your animus.
 * Reading over the article, I found two academics who wrote favorable reviews of the book. One is a grad student Harvard; the other has a master's in evolutionary anthropology from the University of British Columbia. In order to diminish and deemphasize the views of these scholars, they were shoved into the 'reception from popular media' (rather than 'reception from academics') section. Steeletrap (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that didn't take long. May I remind you of the importance of assuming good faith? Let's not get off track by assuming or guessing each others' motives, as it will serve no purpose but to distract from improving the article. I don't "hate" the book. It was quite an interesting read. But I think that it is important that wikipedia articles fairly and accurately depict the state of critical response to books. I am not "denigrating" his ideas, simply trying to make sure that this article reflects the arguments raised by his peers, and trying to create a false balance does not serve that purpose. If you find articles that are by other bonafide experts in the field lauding the findings of the book, then by all means let's include them. The immunology student from Harvard would hardly qualify as any more of an expert than the journalists, but the UBC evolutionary psych student certainly would. I had not seen that was his qualification. So we can cite his paper as the first truly supportive work by a qualified academic (though it was not published in a peer reviewed journal). But, your contention that I was somehow trying to cover this up is ridiculous. We quoted from his article, praising the book. He was writing in a popular science magazine, so was categorized with popular media; this was an error on further review. However, I note that you have now put McArdle's piece into the "academic reaction" section. Can I now accuse you of trying to over-state her qualifications in aid of an ulterior agenda? No, it was clearly a mistake in a collaborative project. I'm happy to take any good quality articles written by similar academics into account. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since Steeletrap is willing to leap to conclusions about people's intentions, I guess it's fair to wonder how much Chris Ryan is paying him to doctor his book's Wiki page. Because those edits, they sure seem to have specific intentions. Gadly Circus (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson paragraph
I note that we are now including more space to the brief and not very meaty blog post by Johnson than to two longer peer reviewed publications by Ellsworth and to the post by Barash (Barash being more qualified than either). There is a further irony in that Johnson says the arguments are similar to Barash, but Barash doesn't think much of S@D. is This does not seem particularly balanced. I don't have time to correct this right now, but I'll try to later if nobody else does. We could expand both Barash and Ellsworth paragraphs. For brevities sake, I think it will be better to slice down and summarize Johnson more.--Pengortm (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to qualify that Johnson is also a graduate student, so if we are going to qualify Ellsworth as one, we should probably do the same for Johnson. User Steeletrap reverted and suggests that this is incorrect because Johnson has an advanced degree and Ellsworth does not. A minute of digging revealed that Ellsworth, like Johnson has a masters degree and is currently working towards his PhD (http://missouri.academia.edu/RyanEllsworth/CurriculumVitae). I'm not sure the best terminology for each of these scholars with some expertise in the field, but it is clearly unbalanced right now. I also note that while Ellsworth has several peer reviewed publications which help establish his credibility and is working towards a PhD in a relevant field, Johnson's publications do not appear to be relevant(http://www.history.ubc.ca/people/eric-michael-johnson) and is working towards a PhD in history.--Pengortm (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that 'publications' with only one page number are most likely abstracts to conferences which are not considered to be peer reviewed work in the field.--Pengortm (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Other potential sources to add in to the reactions by relevant experts section
http://www.thedirtynormal.com/blog/2013/01/22/still-trying-to-read-sex-at-dawn-without-actually-killing-myself/ from an apparently credible scholar. However, I think it is a series of blog posts with lots buried in the comments section. Will take some time to sort through to fairly integrate in (if we decide it is worthwhile and reliable wiki source at all). Also, glancing at the Amazon reviews of the book I notice that at least one established evolutionary scholar, Herbert Gintis wrote a review. So probably some more sources to mine in there if we want as well. Again, it is going to take me time to get this--but I look forward to continuing to improve this article together.--Pengortm (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Emily Nagoski, blogging at the dirtynormal seems, to me, to be a fairly good authority on the subject. Although it is her own blog she has a number of publications, and at least a couple of articles in seemingly respectable journals. So, I think it is reasonable within wiki guidelines to cite her, though with some caution, and not as huge authority. Herbert Gintis certainly seems to be a reliable authority on the topic, but I would have strong reservations about citing an Amazon.com review. Not sure that there is precedent on wiki about whether we can cite established authorities' amazon accounts. I would tend to doubt it, although in a way it seems a shame to have to ignore his work just because it is on Amazon. Open to discussion on that topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Blackbackedgull (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Would it be possible to include anything from the following? : Prof. Alan Dixson, author of what Ryan himself describes (in Sex at Dawn, p. 45) as “the most comprehensive survey of primate sexuality: Primate Sexuality, and who is referenced a number of times in Sex at Dawn, strongly criticised the book’s arguments here: Sex wars: A Wellington professor takes issue with the arguments about monogamy in Sex at Dawn. http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/science/sex-wars/

Also Dixson wrote a five star review of Sex at Dusk on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1FXHBMPAB1DWV/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2IDSVARUWTQG9: “This book (Sex at Dusk) makes a very useful and much-needed contribution to the popular literature on the evolution of human sexuality. ”Sex at Dawn" is subjected to severe, but justified criticism here, and the many short-comings and scientific inaccuracies of Ryan and Jetha's book are opened up to scrutiny. How Ryan and Jetha managed to reach the conclusion that human beings spring from a bonobo like, highly promiscuous mating system, involving multiple partner sex and sperm competition, has always baffled me. For this is the direct reverse of everything I have concluded after a good many years of careful research. Lynn Saxon does a first class job of showing just how wrong Ryan and Jetha's ideas are, and how they have misrepresented the scientific literature in this field.” (The main profile name is that of his wife, Amanda, but the review is by the professor.)

Re. Sarah Hrdy, referenced a number of times in Sex at Dawn and named in the quote from Johnson’s review in the article, inferring that she had already made the same argument. Perhaps it should be noted that in the Ryan Tangentially Speaking podcast of July 21st 2014 Ryan states (from 00:33:10) that shortly after Sex at Dawn came out Hrdy invited him and Jetha to dinner at her home. There was a copy of his book on the kitchen table which he quickly looked through. He saw “all these notes and, you know, ‘X’s and “wrong””. Laughing he says that he is sure some of it must have been positive or she would not have invited them over. It is strange that, as invited dinner guests, the only thing he can relate about her opinion of his book is the negative notes he saw when he flicked through her copy of it.

These are two examples of serious academics who clearly (Dixson) or apparently (Hrdy) are highly critical of Sex at Dawn but also must have their own reasons for not engaging more publicly in the arguments around this book.Blackbackedgull (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would be very interesting to see the full Dixson article in order to see the details of what he says. Clearly he is a prominent voice in the field, quoted by Ryan himself, and I think we can already clearly add his name to those who are critical of the book. Would anyone have access to the full text of the article? or to a relavant archive or database? I don't think we could accept the amazon review of Sex at Dusk as being relevant, especially under his wife's name. Not sure that the Hrdy anecdote is conclusive. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC) BTW, another prominent academic/journalist, but one who knows about the topic, is Steven Pinker. However, I cannot find a more detailed discussion of his views than this tweet, which cannot be used under normal wiki verifiability rules. He and Ryan have a fairly fundamental disagreement about the nature of hunter gatherers, but I can only find reliable sources of Ryan attacking Pinker, and no rebuttal from the other side (except this tweet). Peregrine981 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) PS. On review of the rules regarding self published sources, including on twitter, there may be latitude to use that Pinker tweet. But it would depend on whether or not we consider Pinker to be a "established expert on the subject matter." The policy says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" See, WP:SELFPUBLISH. Considering that he is an award winning professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and has written extensively on evolutionary psychology and the history of human behaviour, that is a reasonable contention isn't it? Thoughts? Peregrine981 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That does seem reasonable to me. Under the same justification, Gintis's Amazon review seems legitimate. I have trouble seeing much of a distinction between an Amazon review and a self-published blog post myself.--Pengortm (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to interlibrary loan the Sex Wars article. I'll keep you posted if I get it.--Pengortm (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only objection I would raise is that the Amazon account isn't really "verified" in any way. How do we know it's really him, and not just somebody using the name? Not saying it isn't him, but there should be some way of verifying. Right now I think we could reasonably question this inclusion under criteria 4 "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" concerning the self-published material. I see that he links to it from his official website: http://people.umass.edu/gintis/ Do we take that to be reasonable verfication? Should we run it by some notice board somewhere? Peregrine981 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably should have waited to add this until after we finished discussion here. Sorry about that and feel free to remove if you think best for now. I would say that the link from his academic webpage helps to solidify that this is authentic beyond a reasonable doubt.--Pengortm (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think that the direct link from his personal page makes it pretty clear. Of course, it could theoretically be an imposter, but I think barring evidence to that effect it is reasonable to believe it is his. We have managed to find a number of good sources of academics discussing the book itself. The question arises how best to organise these, and what points to bring out without overloading the page, and possibly giving undue weight to self-published academic reviews. But it's probably easiest simply to work at it as we have, slowly trying to improve. I think it would be important to flesh out the point that a couple of the reviews have highlighted, that S@D is to some extent arguing against a straw man - that "the standard narrative" is not in fact a scientific theory at all, rather a cultural concept not reflected in the literature. However, I think we should also be mindful that Ellsworth's reviews should probably be given the most space, as they are to a large extent "the gold standard" here, in that they were actually published in a real journal and must have had editorial oversight from people who know the topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I completley agree. Thanks for your careful and fair work on this. --Pengortm (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of re-starting the conversation, let's pick up on the objections of User:Steeletrap. I'm not clear on whether you accept the amazon review as a reliable source or not? See above for earlier discussion. Assuming that you do now accept it, I would have no problem with inserting some of Gintis' other comments about the book; please feel free. At this point I think we need to be careful not to just make this a collection of negative or positive comments, but rather get a bit into what exactly the problems are, and what the strong points are. Nagoski also has good things to say, but I think these have indeed been reflected. I think it is crucial to include their criticism that the "standard narrative" doesn't actually exist. We also have not included anything from Dixson yet, despite him being an eminent authority in the field. The NZ interview is most certainly a RS. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

visit https://filetea.me/t1sxqLQtCF5QBq8zkHAXxR4cw for the previously mentioned article that cites Dixson on SaD. I don't have time to do a serious job of adding it right now.--Pengortm (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but link doesn't seem to work? I've tried a few different browsers... Peregrine981 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Tried uploading to two other places but they were both blocked by wiki as being on its blacklist. I don't have time to research to figure out how to properly share this right now. Will try to figure it out later--or if you know, please let me know. --Pengortm (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric Michael Johnson
Why do people keep removing his credentials as a primatologist? The other grad student who is cited in the article is identified solely as a grad student; but this is because he has no other credentials. Johnson, on the other hand, does (he has a master's in primatology from a first-rate Canadian university, UBC). Steeletrap (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I already brought this to the talk page in the above section where I clearly explained the reasoning. Your revision of this change along with other changes which have been discussed on the talk page is quite frankly rather irritating and counterproductive. Please read carefully over the talk page and edit summaries before assuming we don't have good reasons behind our edits.--Pengortm (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd urge you to review WP:TE.--Pengortm (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard in regards to your tendentious editing on this and other subjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_on_Sex_at_Dawn Steeletrap (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that if you follow the discussions here on the talk page, it is obvious that Pengortm and the other primary editors have followed both the letter and spirit of NPOV. However, one has only to look at every single content edit by Steeletrap and see that --in every instance-- he/she has had a clear agenda to whitewash the negative scholarly reception to this book. His/her disruptive editing, in my opinion, is what is truly tendentious. Further, his/her posting to the noticeboard seems to me to be a clear personal attack and I would suggest that Steeletrap be banned from further editing of this article. Gadly Circus (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gadly Circus - I'm not certain of the protocol on these things--but my guess is it would be best to take your comments to the noticeboard now that this is up there. Thanks. --Pengortm (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That was actually my intention. It is obviously more pertinent there. But for some reason I'm not allowed to post on the noticeboard. It tells me I have to be signed in, even though I already am. This is the only place where I can hope that an admin will consider what I've said above. Thanks, though. Gadly Circus (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious if User:Steeletrap has been reading the talk page at all? We clearly addressed the grad student issue, but you never replied. Same with using amazon as a source. You'll see that we had a discussion about it a few days ago with no apparent interest on your part. But then you have removed from the article information based on this source. I would appreciate in future if you would be a bit more pro-active in your engagement on these issues so that we can come to a consensus rather than wasting our time doing tit for tat edits after the discussion has taken place. On top of that, you then have the gall to accuse others of "tendentious" editing after completely ignoring the discussion? I'm perfectly willing to entertain a discussion of restructuring the whole section (see above), but you never even replied to the comment, which makes it hard for me to believe that you simply want to improve the article rather than pushing a POV. I welcome your inputs to move forward in a collaborative spirit, building on each others' edits, but we can't do that if you won't even engage in discussion about the sources and approach we take. Thanks for your consideration, Peregrine981 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed. I really wish I could pipe in on the notice board and lend my support. Not sure why I'm not permitted. And, not sure what the rules/protocol for this are, but please feel free --anybody-- to post my comments above to the noticeboard in quotes and citing me, if that's allowed. Gadly Circus (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have noted your comments for the record there. I think that you must have to have a certain number of edits, or have been a member for a certain amount of time to comment on the noticeboards. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you, have to be WP:AUTOCONFIRM, to post, so perhaps that is the issue.--Pengortm (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gintis paragraph
Some explanation has been asked for by Steeletrap about a reversion of an edit on Gintis. My reading is that these positive aspects highlighted by Steeletrap's edit were a highly selective reading of the review without proper contextualization and since other editors were also looking at this and seemed to agree with me and Steeletrap was not engaging on the talk page and persistently making edits without keeping previous discussion in mind, I decided a simple reversion was the best course of action. The Gintis review, while somewhat complementary in terms of the writing style perhaps (and also maybe somewhat sarcastic), is rather scathing in terms of the scholarly content--which is what this section on scholarly reception should be focusing on in my opinion. All of this is provisional of course and other editors might read this differently. --Pengortm (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Awards
I've removed the sentence about awards from the lead. There's nothing in the body of the article to justify this statement. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant information if found in the academic reaction section: "The book received the 2011 Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. It also won the 2011 SSTAR Consumer Book Award (Society for Sex Therapy and Research). " Peregrine981 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Odd, I thought I'd done a search, maybe I searched for "awards" in error. In any case, that doesn't justify "It has won several book awards, including from clinical researchers and sexologists." Two isn't several, and although I now understand what "clinical researchers and sexologists" that's not a helpful way to put it. If it's going to be in the lead it can't say "several". And I don't find many useful hits for the "Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award". Not every award is worth mentioning. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are probably right. I think it had been put into the lead in the interests of "balance" because it was an example of "experts in the field" who had positive opinions of the book. But it's worth noting that the selection process is rather opaque, and the reasoning is not explained, and indeed I'm not sure how credible either organisation is. (not saying that they're quacks, but I'm simply not sure what their credibility is). It may be better to simply refer to the book having won awards without specifying too much, and some formulation that it has been received positively by some experts. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The eligibility criteria for the SSTAR Consumer Book Award set the bar fairly low:
 * "1. Content of the book must be related to human sexuality and/or sexual problems.
 * 2. The book must be in English and must have been published in the last three calendar years. [...]"
 * http://www.sstarnet.org/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Consumer%20Book%20Award%20details(6).pdf


 * The Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award at least put a more serious face on it.
 * http://www.sexscience.org/honors/the_ira_and_harriet_reiss_theory_award/ Gadly Circus (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But to be fair, eligibility for nomination is not the same thing as the actual selection process. Still, I have little idea of how notable they are. --Pengortm (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the usual wiki treatment is of more obscure trade association or less high profile professional association awards, but I guess they are notable, whatever their criteria may be. I think it is a bit of a slippery slope to be getting into judging the quality of the criteria these associations use. They should be mentioned, but not overly hyped I would suggest. One issue, is maybe the audible.com "best science and technology book of 2010". Do we really put any weight on a book seller's award for a book? I mean if Wal-Mart awards a product the "product X" of the year award, wouldn't we reasonably treat that with a fair amount of suspicion? Audible is likely just trying to drive sales. So, the question is, do awards given by self-interested companies count as a notable award? Peregrine981 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of us think that awards with no articles about them are dubious. There are a lot of book and film awards that shouldn't be in articles (although some of them are). If an award is mentioned in independent reliable sources that helps speak to its significance. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, none of the other books that won those two awards have their own Wiki article, which makes me wonder why this book should merit one. Dudeinhammock is a familiar moniker used by Chris Ryan around the internet, and a Dudeinhammock started this article. Is that even allowed? Can authors really use Wikipedia to promote their own books? (Although, clearly things have spun a bit out of his control.) Gadly Circus (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ORGAWARDS looks relevant to this discussion.--Pengortm (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information about Dudeinhammock. That editor's edits do make it look like it is an author promoting the book. I note that Dudeinhammock added the information about awards the book received and that sex researchers have given the book a positive reception.--Pengortm (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well spotted finding that awards section, wish I'd known about that long ago. Even with all my edits and years I'm still learning! Now we aren't supposed to WP:OUTING editors, but there does seem to be a COI issue here. But the book seems notable. So, I'm removing the sentence about awards. If we find better sources discussing them then maybe we can add that. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is certainly notable, I think there's no doubt about that considering the multiple secondary sources covering it in depth. Ryan did start this article, but he was transparent about it, see this edit . I don't really see any problem with his involvement thus far, even if it isn't really "encouraged" by wikipedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the user identified him/herself in that edit and the authors are public figures, I'm not sure if this is outing or not. If it is outing we should probably delete the mentions of it here and request that it be expunged. Not sure though. I think it is useful to know and will give this editors edits extra scrutiny because of the obvious potential for bias. Regardless, I completely agree that this is notable at this point. --Pengortm (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for spotting his edit where he identified himself. As you say, it does mean that there is potential for bias in his edits and as an inexperienced editor the potential for innocently violating guidelines or policies. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it may be worth keeping the "Ira and Harriet Reiss Award" in. It is awarded by an apparently reputable organisation that does have a wiki page, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality which publishes an academic journal. Ira Reiss has a wiki page, which mentions the award, and a number of reputable organisations have won the award (for example Kinsey Institute ), and it is mentioned in a number of reputable scholars' CVs and university funding pages. Of course, this doesn't strictly speaking mean that it has met the conditions laid out in the policy for awards for organisations, but it strikes me as a reasonable exception, and that exclusion of this award is unnecessarily strict. We can at least mention it. But willing to listen to counter-arguments.Peregrine981 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. --Pengortm (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst is a sockpuppet - watch out for other puppets
Looks like Overagainst, who had an active role on this page, is a Sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pass_a_Method. I suppose we should watch out for other editors who have a similar odd agenda to push--Pengortm (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should. Fortunately, I don't think they ever actually edited the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've managed to establish I'm me, but apparently I'm not very unique; my standpoint isn't that odd. The article should be concise. It isn't. Talk pages are where ideas are discussed and there should be no problem with thoroughgoing debate, if the other editors have no ownership issues.Overagainst (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the article more concise, please be bold and edit it down. I for one have not particular attachment to the wording as it stands, and would welcome some editorial help. I view the current article as "in process." We should indeed try to make it more concise, but we should also not over-simplify the argument of critics, both pro and con. We owe it to readers to present an accurate summary of the third party commentary on the book as it stands. That is why it is a difficult process, and we could use all the help we can get. We may not all agree on a first edit, but please feel free to move the process forward. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought your sections above were calling for suggestions for more of this stuff. The onus is on the person who adds content to edit it, and as you have been on the page for a while, it will be your stuff mainly. Once you have stopped, someone might take the trouble to edit what is there down to a manageable read. Conversely, no one is going to spent time on a precis of convoluted text if the editor who added it is still hanging around warning of "editors who have a similar odd agenda to push-"._Overagainst (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should be clearer: I think that the section could use revision. If significant sources remain, they should probably be added. In the meantime, we should try to improve the flow of the section, and make it more concise if possible without compromising valuable information. I will do so when I get a chance, but will be travelling for the next couple of weeks, so hard to say if I will get the time. The section is perfectly acceptable as it stands, so there is no "onus" on the editor who added the content. No one "owns" the article, so all are free to edit, no need to wait for anyone. See WP:OWN. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article could use condensing, but you keep adding more and more back and forth making it, to me at least, rather confusing, 'Watch out for sockpuppets with odd agendas' sounds like someone with ownership issues to me. And the edits of you and another editor do seem to be along those lines. If you revert you can say where the consensus can be found. Don't vaguely claim in edit summary there is talk consensus for existing text by saying 'see talk discussion of this issue'. In my opinion there is very little consensus about the text of the current article on Talk or anywhere else judging by the number of editors who are trying try to change it, but getting reverted by you and another editor. The onus is indeed on you if you revert on the basis of a claim for consensus. You have obviously learned nothing from being taken to a noticeboard. Overagainst (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have specific suggestions about what to change I'm all ears. Or you could be bold and make the changes yourself and we can then discuss. I don't think we should shorten just for the sake of shortening unless there is something truly superfluous. If something seems redundant to you let's discuss. The article is not over-long by wiki standards. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is absurdly long for an encyclopedic article on this subject. More and more convoluted with every addition, and almost everything written on this minor popular book is apparently going to be added by you and Pengortm. Now it's Dixson who is suddenly relevant. Suggestions are invited but completely ignored, you just keep adding waffly prose to no purpose. My specific suggestion is that you two take a rest from this article which is in need of an editor who can keep a sense of of proportion about what is notable, and how to present it.Overagainst (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, this page is currently 22Kb. Check WP:LENGTH and that is well below any kind of advised page limit. For example "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.[1] At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see A rule of thumb below [...] (< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division.)" As I said, if you have any specific suggestions I'm all ears, but all I'm hearing is a lot vague, unsupported complaints. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is too long not because of the number of KB, but because it is unencyclopedic waffle, especially in the section dealing with reviews, it seems every single critical or positive review has being mentioned, so it goes back and forth waffling on and on. It needs to be condensed.Overagainst (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Dudeinhammock be banned from editing this article?
(This is not outing, because Dudeinhammock has already identified himself as Christopher Ryan.) Ryan's edits to this article are clearly biased and don't contribute to any objective content. The most recent example is his attempt to create the impression that he, a first-time author, deigned to consider Oxford University Press rather than vice versa. He has recently removed the podcast in which he stated how much he wanted them as his publisher but they declined. Gadly Circus (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I would be against a ban unless the user becomes disruptive. They may have some useful input to make to the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that articles ought not to be edited by anyone that involved.Overagainst (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New sources
New sources commenting on the book which I don't have time to add right now. Seems the scholarly consensus is turning even more negative over time.
 * Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy, By David P. Barash
 * http://stevemoxon.co.uk/pair-bonding-.php
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22394/full
 * -Pengortm (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed changes
Pengortm reverted several of my recent edits. Pengortm, while I respect your right to do this, I do disagree with your reversions, and I will explain why. In regard to this change, I simply do not agree that it is important that someone used the specific term "bullshit" to describe an argument. The encyclopedia-relevant point is that he rejected it. In regard to this change, I believe that while it is certainly important to note a reviewer's general professional background, it isn't necessary or useful to mention specific academic titles. In regard to this edit, I strongly disagree that it is appropriate to mention a social media post on a platform such as Twitter. Pinker may well be a relevant expert, but in that case, we should find a respectable source where he published his criticisms of the book. Finally, in regard to this change, it is irrelevant what other books a reviewer of Sex at Dawn may have written. Per WP:PROPORTION, it is excessive detail about a minor point with little real relevance to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent edits and bringing this to the talk page. Despite my quibbles on a few of them, I think they have improved the article and of course are all careful, good faith work. I will try to seperate out the edits we disagree on here.
 * this - I see your point, but still think this version better captures the flavor of the rejection of the book. I think strong language conveys a tone and meaning that lower temperature language does not and that these selected quotes convey this more stronger rejection effectively.
 * this - Whether someone is a faculty member or not (e.g. versus a graduate student) and at what university is a marker (albeit imperfect) of their degree of acceptance and credibility within the scientific community. Nonetheless, perhaps we could agree on just calling him a "biologist"?
 * On the twitter source point, please see above discussion by Peregrine981. I think they make the point well and removing this should address Peregrine981's justification for keeping it.
 * this - I think this helps to establish the credibility and relevant expertise of the person making the critique.
 * Again, despite my quibbles, thanks for your collegial engagement and improvements to this article. -Pengortm (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If Alan Dixson could be described simply as a biologist, that would be an improvement. If someone is identified as a biologist, the reader can be expected to judge that they are more than simply a graduate student. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Megan McArdle
The Megan McArdle quote in reception doesn't seem relevant. In the blog she admits she's only halfway through, and her criticism reflects her lack of knowledge. For example, her blog says that the book "leans heavily" on bonobos to make the argument, "so far."

However, while bonobos are used early on in the book to frame the debate (are humans more like chimpanzees or bonobos), later on in the book, the author points out the problems with this framework — that humans are unique enough that you really can't explain our behavior through reference to other apes. Is there a more informed critic we could substitute? Rotwang Daedalus (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)