Talk:The Rape of the A*P*E*

Untitled
I object to the deletions of this article.

I have actually READ this book...which does in fact make my revue of it here a primary reference.The only OTHER references I could imagine using are revues from other people who have (presumably) read this book which would make them secondary references which I do not see as an improvement. As this is a wiki presumably if other people who have read this book disagree with my assessment of it they will edit the article and add thier 2 cents.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.168.65 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also read the book and consider it notable enough to have its own article. However, more than being a wiki, this is wikipedia - it's a wiki version of an encyclopedia. There are a lot of loose, mystifying, spoken and unspoken standards. But there are standards. My understanding (and experience) is that writing a book review from scratch could be called original research (not generally allowed herein) or "unsourced." The whole point really is to write an objective article about the book (in this case) referencing authoritative third party sources (e.g., New York Times Book Reviews, a published sociology paper, etc.).


 * Try not to get offended by the attempt to delete this article; it's not the book, or notability of the book, that is being objected to. When I've written an article (e.g., see Edward Steptoe) that was criticized, I took it as an oppourtunity to beef it up.


 * My suggestion is that you, indeed, go looking for book reviews and articles that discuss this book (there are actually quite a few since this, when published, raised lots of hackles and was/is VERY notable). Create a section "External Links" so others can use them - it's a way to help others flesh out the article. Then, use that information yourself to reference your article.


 * Again, don't be offended by the attempt to delete - it's not a personal attack. See it as an opportunity to create a better article. And, if it does get deleted, that doesn't mean you can't work on a better article offline, and re-post it when you can better understand the standards (loose standards) in wikipedia. Check out other articles on books (many of them aren't very good, but you can still get an idea as to what "floats" and what doesn't). E.g., see Riddley Walker (I'd give that one a B-), Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (I give this one an A-), or Little, Big (an A-).


 * Don't let the nay sayers scare you off. If you want to write and want to contribute here, the possibilities are literally boundless. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Content of the book
This article is wrong, the book's theory is that his generation was shackled by the American Puritan Ethic and genuinely wanted to go the way of the baby boomers, and he was wholeheartedly for it. It is a progressive book, in fact for the time it had a whole several pages that simply stated the F word repeatedly to show it's no threat. It was a counter argument to 'the moral decline of america'. I'm changing the editorial section of this page to reflect it. --98.148.24.28 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion here at boingboing that discusses this article and it's misreading of the book. I've never read it, so I can't comment on the content, but it does seem to be a parody of puritanical attitudes about sex.  freshacconci  talk talk  18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite decidedly - the topic sentence of the book is "The sexual revolution is over. We lost".  Not formally, of course, but certainly it's subject matter is sex, and how we interact with it, and it was by no means conservative for 1973.  That's likely why Playboy Press published it, though I would purely love to know why they've left it out of print in these PoD and eBook days. --Baylink (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality in the U.S.
— Assignment last updated by RCMNoyes (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)