Books Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

There is a great review, including criticisms, in The Guardian, unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write it up here.50.0.136.66 (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added in a key passage from it.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most overrated books of our time. Numerous errors, omissions and misunderstood developments make it an annoying buy. Examples: on p.279 he attributes ignoramus to the Romans. This was a Socratic thought. Petrarca, who initiated the Rinascimento (commonly called the Renaissance) is not even mentioned. Francis Bacon´s Novum Organon is completely misunderstood. Ontologix (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Harari objective modern science began around 1500 AD [sic!]. Has Mr Harari never heard of ancient scientists like Pythagoras, an eminent mathematician that calculated logarithmically our modern musical scale around 550 BC? Or Eratosthenes who calculated with his primitive available practical means the circumference of the earth and erred by only 5 per cent around 200 BC, yes BC. (Columbus, much later, erred by 30 per cent.) If that is not objective science, Or remember Eratosthenes' astronomical calculations. I don't know what Mr Harari means by science. Epicure, around 300 BC theoretically combined human imagination and systematical observation of nature. Is Harari's degree from McDonalds University? This book is pop history, not even popular history, reminds me of Dan Brown. Ontologix (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article by John Sexton, a graduate student, a realiable source WP:RELIABLE? --Postconfused (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the previous content from the lead summarizing the reviews ("The reception of the book has been mixed. Whereas the general public's reaction to the book has been positive, scholars with relevant subject matter expertise have been very critical of the book.") and replaced it with a more neutral sentence ("The book was a best-seller but received a mixed reception by those in science-related fields."). I don't think either of these is needed or really that appropriate for the lead, but the previous characterization was not supported by the reception section. That section talks about the sales and and has The Guardian call it a "publishing phenomenon" and a "brainy book", but that's basically it for "general public's reaction". For "relevant subject matter expertise", I'm not sure how that was being defined, but there is currently:

• Royal Society of Biologists
• Anthropologist
• Science journalist
• Evolutionary anthropologist
• Philosopher
• Graduate student

Out of those, the Royal Society of Biologists and the evolutionary anthropologist are positive, and the other four (including by the undefined "graduate student" are negative. That does not support the "very critical" statement. My version could probably be reworded too, but I think it would be better if we had reliable sources discussing its overall reception and showing that it is noteworthy enough to include in the lead rather than just miscellaneous reviews that we have to use WP:SYNTH to determine how to pull them together to create a lead summary. Also pinging Doug Weller. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I note that the selection criteria for the short list of the Royal Society of Biologists is not at all clear. I just spent some time trying to figure out the process and have not been able to find any details. It might represent a relevant scholarly opinion, but might be more a popular opinion driven selection process. The scholarly reception section shows a clear pattern of strong criticism. Even the evolutionary anthropologist review is somewhat mixed. I am going to revert this back to the summary which I believe is long-standing and a more accurate summary of the article. -Pengortm (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A clear pattern of strong criticism? Even though one source "might represent a relevant scholarly opinion" and another is "somewhat mixed"? Also, one of the supposedly "strong criticism" says "Much of Sapiens is extremely interesting, and it is often well expressed", and another says "stimulating but often unsourced assertions". If you think the unsourced summary is more accurate, would you mind finding some sources that support that? Particularly the phrases "scholars with relevant subject matter expertise" and "very critical of the book"? Strong criticism needs to actually be supported and not based on WP:SYNTH or else an article is better left leaving it to readers to go through the reception section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do the work I'd like to do, but I've tagged the article. The lead clearly does not comply with our guideline at WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, is there a particular section of WP:LEAD that would provide more context for your comment? I was not aware that articles on published works that do not include a lead summary of reception/reviews are considered clearly not in compliance with the guidelines. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: did you read WP:LEAD? Of course it doesn't say that specifically. It does say "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think the lead does this. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, thank you for the explanation. I guess I didn't see the sourcing in the reception as sufficient enough to mandate inclusion in the lead yet, but regardless I do agree with the tag you placed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in responding here--been busy. Re-reading the scholarly reception, I still think these represent almost all quite negative reviews. Yes, they also say some positive things, but these are mostly about saying it was fun or well-written (e.g. "stimulating" "interesting")--but on the actual scholarly content which is the important thing here for scholars to evaluate, these reviews are resoundingly negative. The lead needs to summarize this and I will be re-inserting this. I will note that the scholarly critiques that are negative are of the scholarly content--although I think even this is somewhat extraneous and awkward.- Pengortm (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would not be in favour of providing balance for balance sake. Please go ahead Pengortm. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The header seems designed to a dishonest view of the book. Popular opinion has been positive, critical opinion has been mixed, and criticism has been received from the left and the right, whereas the header seems to imply that criticism has only come from the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll return it to the less slanted header it had before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that your changes in this vein have been reverted by multiple editors across multiple pages, leading to you being blocked for edit warring, you know full well there are going to be objections. Since this section has not had any other activity since June, this comment is almost hidden. Start a new section at the bottom of the page explaining your rationale for these changes. Use reliable sources to support these changes and gain consensus. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in Spanish (translated by Joandomènec Ros from English) and found odd that some examples are from Spanish culture. For example, chapter 19 compares a Spanish single mother earning 12,000 euros and an executive earning 250,000 euros and drinking Vega Sicilia Único instead of Rioja (wine). I suppose that these examples were localised by the translator. Can you confirm? --Error (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the central themes of the book is new evidence from population genetics of differences between populations roughly corresponding to races. This article acts as though these genetic differences doesn't exist, which seems to clearly defy the overwhelming scientific evidence and so is engaging in WP:Fringe and WP:Bias. Oea the King (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]