Talk:Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus

message: Another relationship book author pointed in his book, John Gray had divorced many times. Is it true?
: No. once. QuentinUK (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How is the author's personal life?

message: Cut from intro:
:bestselling relationship guide written by John Gray and first published in May 1992.  It has been translated into at least 40 different languages and sold more than 15 million copies worldwide.
Sounds like a publisher's blurb. Get to the point. Uncle Ed 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: Cut from "criticism" section:
:Gray does not provide references to the research to back up his claims and they may be based on his personal experiences and opinions rather than formal scientific trials. 
I'm unaware of claims that Gray makes that go beyond common knowledge. He says women tend to wear dresses and carry "bags within bags" (like a change purse inside a pocketbook), while men tend to just carry a wallet in a trouser pocket. Nearly all his observations are like this.
If there is a criticism that Gray relies too much on everyday observation, let's quote such a critic. (Should be easy to find one by googling.)
Also, does Gray claim that men and women are inherently different or just that Americans and Canadians often conform to stereotypes? Or even do critics charge him with claiming that men are more different than they really are? It would help if we quoted a critic.
I heard that some feminists scholars almost got a Harvard president fired for daring to suggest that researchers look into whether men and women have mental differences (such as aptitude for math) and what might cause such differences (heredity, upbringing, social pressure). I wonder if Gray's critics are asserting that there are no differences because they oppose the very idea of members of either sex treating the opposite sex differently. This will probably be harder to google. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, everything you did was fine. I'm glad you "cleaned up my spilled ink" and the extra references were just what the article needed! --Uncle Ed 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims that Gray makes

message: The Magic of Woman website is dedicated to teaching men how to be more loving, understanding and appreciative of women. It is based upon the information contained in the book "What Every Man Should Know About Women" by Les Morgenstern. 
"What Every Man Should Know About Women" is the first transcultural book that teaches men from anywhere in the world everything they need to know about women that is both logical and predictable. This knowledge allows any man from any culture to understand, love and appreciate any woman from any culture regardless of her age, race, religion, political persuasion, geographical location or levels of income, education or sophistication.
----
I think the two paragraphs above, which I noticed were cut from the article, could go into an article about Les Morgenstern or What Every Man Should Know About Women. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magic deleted

message: The bulk of this article was, at one time, based on a single web site with opposing POV.
Here are some descriptions from people who read the book but saw it as useful:
*Whether we like it or not, men and women are different not so much in ability, as in approach. A man has a different attitude to problems – he is all for solving them with some quick action. A woman may take time to just consider the whole thing – she may not even want the whole thing to be solved before it is due! Such differences have a definite impact on communication. 
*John Gray’s work has made famous by now the concept of ‘the cave’ for men and ‘the wave’ for women. Although this part of his work is the one most under attack by feminists for gender equality, many of whom accuse him of creating fresh stereotypes around men and women, which is also very significant. When men go into their cave, they are actually going through a phase of their relationship with a woman, when they want to be left alone. Any woman who has wondered why a boyfriend is not e mailing/calling/messaging/meeting her will know what it feels like to be shut out of the cave. Women and ‘the wave’ is a concept even more resented – it means that women go through periodic phases when they are unable to keep up their spirits without help and assistance from understanding men. At such times, ‘the wave’ crashes, and it needs to be given love and reassurance to rise up again with its usual confidence. In fact, I find, John Gray does portray women to be the strong, resilient creatures. It is only his recommendations of how women should make sure they get their way – underlining a certain manipulative streak, which might have troubled feminists. [ibid]
It might help if we:
#Describe or summarize what Gray is saying (recommending)
#Summarize critical responses, such as "great advice, it sure helps" or "typical patriarchal, anti-feminist propaganda; author should be castrated and then shot"
The form, if not the exact content suggested here. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Description, rather than opposition

message: What's with the link to a private webpage in the middle of the last paragraph? It is not in context whatsoever and does not relate to the article, nor has it been written in the proper link section... 85.179.26.130 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: I was inspired by John Gray's two-planet classification system to expand it into a four-planet system.  I have devised a proposal for a new transportation system (LeviCar), and I am concerned about all its implications.  I determined that interest in this invention can be classified into four categories for four different kinds of people — Mars (gee-whiz technogeeks), Venus (those concerned with society, family, and lifestyle), Mercury (economics), and Earth (eco-greenies). Two of these categories are borrowed from John Gray, but the meanings have been changed.  Also, I recognize that most people, myself included, are really a blend of two or more of these "planets".  Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've invented Astrology
QuentinUK (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Expanded ''Planetary'' Classification System 

message: The link of Gray's new book sends you to a commercial website. If this is not in accordance with wikipedia's rules, wich I assume it is not, it should be removed as soon as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.81.208 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial link? 

message: The current article contains two sections devoted to criticism.  This seems like it violates WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I'd like to collaborate on reducing these sections.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not prevent addition of critical views. Just the opposite - it requires that we include all significant points of view with weight according to prominence. It's usually better to add material than delete it. Perhaps any perceived problem could be solved by adding more non-critical material?   Will Beback  talk   21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always in favor of following policies that's why I brought up WP:UNDUE. I see you have combined the two sections, that's good. I'm going to check the sources and make sure they are properly represented and that all points of view are being represented in a balanced way per NPOV. Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: WP is based on reliable sources that are summarized in a neutral fashion. If you are aware of some reliable sources that contain criticisms of this "silly book" than please provide them and we can incorporate the content into the article. thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: *In 1996, The Rebuttal from Uranus offered the first published critique of Gray's work and questioned the author's credentials, research methodology, and reliance on gender stereotypes.  The site's server went dark in 2009, but the essays have since been republished in the form of a blog.
**The Rebuttal from Uranus http://susanhamson.wordpress.com/ [Earlier version in the Internet Archive:  ]
I'm afraid we probably can't use this material. The website is self-published, so it violates WP:SPS. Further, there's no independent source for the claim that it was the first published critique. If we had some reliable secondary sources which refer to this website as being significant then we might be able to mention it.   Will Beback  talk   22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On further research I see that the site has been described in reliable secondary sources. We could cite one of those, and even repeat their quotations from the site.   Will Beback  talk   22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I wish we could use this source, if only for the delicious irony of the title's implications: i.e., that Gray just pulled all these ideas out of his ass. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rebuttal from Uranus

message: What are the issues with the article that need clean up? Please specify the issues and help achieve them so that the tag can be removed.Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk •  20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has responded, I've removed the tag. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up tag

message: What is the title in french? Thy.--SvenAERTS (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to find translations / editions into other languages? 

message: Hi Folks,
I have read 5 chapters of this book by Mr Gray, I was reading another book which was with holding my interest certainly I bought this book and started reading, I think besides the criticism of right and wrong this book offers a guide to behave wisely by men and women when required.
Sam  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.105.162.80 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapters  

message: Venus is named after greek goddess Aphrodite, while Mars after Ares. And both are dating each other. Should it be included?
Utkar22 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Whom are the Planets named on

message: The fact of the matter is this: If the book itself is notable enough to be in the Wikipedia, its contents are notable enough to be here. I observe that a user removed the summary that was here; I have restored it.
WP:PROFRINGE says that it's wrong to promote a fringe theory.  Summarizing the contents of a very notable bestseller is not promoting a fringe theory; it's describing a book which was a mainstream (read: Not fringe) cultural phenomenon in the 1990s.
We do not delete content on the Wikipedia just because we do not like it.
That in mind, I have restored the summary of the book's contents. 
Samboy (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This book should be summarized here