Talk:The Dawn of Everything

Article requires some reference to non-establishment discussion of Dawn of Everything - surely?
The Dawn of Everything has inspired deeper analysis and debates, just as the much-missed David Graeber would have wished. These two websites - and hopefully more in the future - need to be included in the wiki page in External Links or Further Reading. They are not from established/Establishment sources so I understand why some editors would wish them to be excluded from a list of book reviews. But they are more thoroughly researched than many book reviews in established journals. They are also balanced in the sense they include both praise and criticism of the book:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan1874 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'What is the Dawn of Everything?' - on the book's ideas and offspring
 * 'What is Politics?' - anthropological reviews of the Dawn of Everything
 * The topic has plenty of reviews from academic and reliable sources, which Wikipedia prefers. As for using these as External links, what about its content provides something that isn't already in existing sources? Since you have also reposted these links multiple times, it would be helpful if you can please confirm that you do not have any personal affiliation with these entities. czar  16:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have no personal affiliation with either of these two websites - though I do like them as they widen the debate around DoE. The 'What is the Dawn of Everything?' site includes links to previous articles by the DoE's authors to put the book in context, plus links to many reviews and other responses not included in this wiki page, plus events held in response to the book. The 'What is Politics?' site has video reviews of the book going almost page by page, praising and critiquing it from an anthropological perspective. If you don't have time to watch them, check out the video transcripts/bibliographies here, here, here and here to see how thorough and well researched it is. Both sites will include even more in the future. Morgan1874 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reception section is very long
Currently the Reception section is very, very long. It was reading a lot like WP:HOWEVER with back and forth POV pushing so I tried to clean it up, but editors are still adding reviews. I don't think there's anything wrong with a long reception section, but surely we don't need every journalist's opinion on the book, especially when it's been said before. There isn't even a summary of the book right now. I think the article would be better if we consolidated or bundled some of the reviews together. Thoughts? tofubird &#124; ✉ 01:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Go for it! I've been planning to do both myself (summarize the contents and recast the Reception) eventually, but alas. czar  02:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I went for it and was blindly reverted by Smallangryplanet with no explanation in the edit, or on the talk page. I've restored the constructive edits I've made. 71.9.31.123 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood the edit -- my bad! Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * recent edits by Morgan1874 are not taking into account the views of users expressed here that the reception section is already bloated and quite repetitive. I've also noted that edits by Morgan1874 consistently cut/omit/minimise positive reviews and amplify negative, which is not balanced. Also note earlier exchange btw Czar and Morgan1874. Some are at least questionable (re. Wiessner, where exactly does the book claim that hunter-gatherer egalitarianism is about "sameness"? - this would need qualification, adding further to length). Morgan1874 suggests they are important anthropological/archaeological commentaries, but omits recent and very positive reviews of the book by leading figures in those fields such as Yannis Hamilakis, Eduardo Neves, and a detailed review in the important journal Current Anthropology (I don't think these should be necessarily be added because as agreed the section is already way too long, and where will it ever end?) Sabapathmuku (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Sabapathmuku,
 * You're right that recently I've omitted positive comments but that was to keep the section unbloated as you and others, quite correctly, want. My recent suggestions have kept the total word count down to just a couple of words above the previous length so bloating is not a reason to cut it, I feel.
 * You're also right that all the quotes I - and others - have included are 'questionable'. Reviews are all about opinions after all! But you may not have not have noticed that in the review itself Polly Wiessner includes the 'DoE' page number, p126, where Graeber and Wengrow say:
 * "we can speak of an egalitarian society if (1) most people in a given society feel they really ought to be the same in some specific way, or ways, that are agreed to be particularly important; and (2) that ideal can be said to be largely achieved in practice." 
 * So I don't think any qualification of her use of the word, "sameness", is required. Wiessner has made an interesting criticism - shared by other hunter-gatherer experts by the way - and surely it should be included if it doesn't add too much to the length of the section (which it doesn't if our recent changes are included.)
 * The other reason the Wiessner sentence should be restored is that it seems odd to include every other reviewer in the 'Cliodynamics' series but not hers. It is a sad reality that the vast majority of DoE reviewers are male. I don't think we should exclude the few female reviewers if we can avoid it.
 * Having said that, I lack the energy to argue about all the sentences that you've cut. Sorry! But the most important sentence that I think should be restored is this:
 * "Anthropologist Polly Wiessner said that hunter-gatherer egalitarianism is about “respect and appreciation of different skills” not “sameness” as the book claims."
 * How about a compromise on that my friend and fellow DoE obsessive? Morgan1874 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The section still needs to be greatly pared down. I recommend the advice in Copyediting reception sections particularly re: combining similar references into a single-sentence summary rather than quoting multiple reviewers verbatim in quick succession. czar  06:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to include a summary of Reception in the lead
Agree with previous talk point that the reception section is over-long, but the proposed summary (based on a single source) seemed to give a misleading impression on two counts. It suggested (1) that favourable reviews came mostly from popular/activist press and critical ones from academics; but the cited reviews show this is not accurate: there were some very strong critics among the popular/activist press (e.g. Knight), and some very positive academic reviews in top-rank journals (e.g. Joyce). The summary also suggested (2) that praise was aimed mainly at the book's broad argument, while criticism focussed on accuracy and detail; again, this doesn’t seem right: reviews in top-tier academic journals sometimes disagree with the book’s broad thesis, but praise its factual rigour and quality of research (e.g. Morris, in American Journal of Archaeology). Introducing yet more commentary on the book's reception seems exactly the last thing this page needs, so suggest this is best removed. Sabapathmuku (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Favorable reviews did, indeed, mostly come from the popular press (NYT, Guardian, Atlantic etc.) and social justice activists (Chomsky, Daley etc.) as the source notes. A few exceptions doesn't contradict this fact; no one claimed that there aren't articles from the popular press or from social justice activists that criticize the book. 2. same logic as above.
 * Also, note that the stuff I added come from top-tier sources (see WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:SOURCETYPES). Editors might agree with these assessments or disagree with them, but regardless, this is what the RS tell us and ultimately that's what we should use in the article. Lastly, In this edit, you said: authors' citation is required to show it is the authors' perspective, not just opinion. This is untrue. Excluding the fact that their anarchist perspective is WP:OBV and that the source isn't an opinion as it's an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion (see WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions"), primary sources aren't required at all for the statement that the authors' position is anarchist. Faggan & Durrani (2021) is reliable and more than enough. There are more sources corroborating their position, but I don't think that we should citebomb the article for such an obvious statement. Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for replying, but what you write is not correct. there is no book review by Chomsky (perhaps you've confused cover blurbs with reviews?), and it is simply not true that most of the favourable reviews come from popular press or activists, rather than academic journals. the citation you used to support this argument and also two of the (negative) reviews you added to Reception are all from a single journal (Cliodynamics) with Impact score: 0.17 and h-index: 7 which is not top-tier and compares poorly with genuinely top-tier academic journals that published very favourable reviews of The Dawn (e.g. American Anthropologist, Impact: 1.66, h-index: 92; American Antiquity, Impact:2.63 h-index: 82; Anthropology Today, Impact:1.39, h-index 28; Antiquity, impact:1.71, h-index: 80). all these are cited under Reception. I could go on, but hopefully that's enough to explain why it seemed appropriate to remove your proposed summary paragraph. also, it is not obvious that the authors are "writing from an anarchist position" - only one of the authors is an anarchist activist and there is no statement in the book to this effect that I can find (feel free to provide one); you are relying on a reviewer's opinion for this point, which is not straightforward or universally held, and therefore shouldn't be presented as such in the lead. Sabapathmuku (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reception isn't as simple as 'popular press vs. academia' and that the paragraph added by Antiok 1pie wasn't a good summary at all. There should be a summary of the reception section in the lead, but that'd be easier to write if the reception section was trimmed down to a reasonable length – it's completely out of control at the moment. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * agree, and have had a go at this. Sabapathmuku (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're right and I'll concede on the 'summary of reception part'. However, on the author's viewpoints there seem to be many RS supporting this statement. See:, , , . The last source notes that We must read the book knowing that they bring a perspective [...] The anarchist perspective and also states that Wengrow holds his political commitments more privately, although in the acknowledgments he is clear that their styles of writing and thought converged over the years of conversation that led to the book. Even the Amazon page for the book features a review calling it "a lively, and often very funny, anarchist project". I hope these are enough for inclusion. Antiok 1pie (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for taking those points on board about the summary. concerning the lead – the issue is surely not about the authors' personal convictions, but whether they jointly and explicitly wrote this book from an anarchist theoretical/philosophical perspective. reviewers often project their own preconceptions onto an author's work, and have taken different views in this case (Suemnicht for instance reads the book from a Marxist perspective). If I could find just a single source in the authors’ own words (or even just one of the authors) to the effect “we approached our subject from an anarchist perspective” (or similar), then I would have no problem with your suggestion. but so far I can't, so it remains a matter of conjecture and in my opinion should not be included in the lead. Sabapathmuku (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A statement from the authors themselves would be impossible to find, as Graeber passed away before the book's release and Wengrow isn't vocal about his political leanings. For a compromise, I suggest adding in the "Summary" section a sentence which states: Several reviewers pointed out that the book is written from an anarchist perspective.[1][2][3] or something like that. Would that be okay? Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks - but can't agree that this would be impossible or even difficult: if it was the authors' intention they could have made that clear (or at least given some indication) in the book itself, and Graeber spoke widely about this project in interviews and public talks before his passing. for that reason I don't think your suggestion works for the lead or the Summary sections, but I DO think it would make a nice (short) addition to Reception section, where it fits best in the section on reception by the political left - in light of this discussion, I would also suggest a more neutral wording: "Several reviewers suggested [rather than pointed out] that the book is written from an anarchist perspective". Hope you feel that's fair, and thanks. Sabapathmuku (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fair enough. I'll add it there. I also think that the article would benefit by dividing the Positive-Mixed-Negative reviews into subsections, but it will probably be a gruelling task. I might do it myself when I have the time. Antiok 1pie (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * nice edit to the lead. I think the Reception part now works well, moving from popular press to academic to political left as per the lead. it's still pretty long by comparison with similar book pages but does illustrate a range of opinion. Sabapathmuku (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did this come from?
See Also Sabapathmuku (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Quinn, The Story of B and New tribalism

Reception section is one-sided
Everyone of the very few criticisms mentioned in the section is immediately followed by either a counter critic or by a variation of "but the author also highly praised the book".

Otherwise, the whole section is a giant compilation of repetitive positive blurb that adds nothing to informing about the limitations as well as the strengths of the book. Very uselless for the user, indeed. 89.114.200.213 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)