Talk:Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking

Citation of references

I've begun the article using the format in which citations are written in full in the "refs" section, and only the < ref name = "blahblah" /> is inserted inline. This is because, in an article of this type, a reference is likely to be cited for multiple items of content spread throughout the article, and it's easier to locate the identifier if all full citations are located in one place. I hope everyone continues this practice, for consistency. RCraig09 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And the drawback is, whenever a reference is removed, it must be removed a second time from the reference section. I'm not sure this is ideal. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Selectively moved to wikiquote. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Cain argues how modern Western culture undervalues the traits and capabilities of introverted people, leading to "a colossal waste of talent, energy, and happiness."

I suppose that is one way of looking at the book, but that's only a very small part of it and does the reader a disservice. Cain's argument is 1) a call to arms 2) a redefinition of terms 3) an acknowledgement of the bias in Western culture. So, the lead currently only represents one part of the book. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Aloha! Responding to the three items in your comment:

• Item 1: is almost wp:Original research or WP:Synthesis of Cain's personal motivation for writing the book, more than a description of the content of the book--which is quite analytic and expository.
• Item 2: Cain acknowledges that introversion has had several definitions, but I don't remember her ever claiming the book's definition was of her own making.
• Item 3: is the existing Lead, which not-coincidentally corresponds to the Random House and Amazon description: "... Quiet shows how dramatically we undervalue introverts, and how much we lose in doing so"; the "colossal waste..." phrase is commonly quoted.

It's definitely a book about Western culture. The next layer of specificity would seem to have so many comparably-important details (practically one per chapter) that they would be inappropriate for a Lead. But if you have other highest-level concepts that you think should be included in the Lead, I'd be very interested. RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you and your points. For one, when we informally discuss things on a talk page, we aren't engaging in "original research" or synthesis of any kind. When I say that her book is a "call to arms" that really has nothing to do with OR nor her motivation for writing the book—it's a metaphor intended to describe one aspect of the primary theme. In case you failed to understand what this means, it does not mean "let's add 'the book is a call to arms to the lead section', but rather, "the lead should talk more about what Cain is trying to achieve with her Quiet Revolution." For example, on her website, she describes this call to arms as "how to better negotiate differences" and "how to empower an introverted child" and how to "permanently change how we see introverts and, equally important, how introverts see themselves". So, there's nothing OR about this, it's the primary thrust of her book, and the lead completely fails to account for it. As for the redefinition, that term does not imply that she invented it, but rather that she was taking the term back and redefining it based on a better, more updated definition based on actual evidence. In other words, she's redefining it as a complementary definition, not as pejorative or pathological condition formerly promoted by the establishment. As for the Random House and Amazon blurbs, the lead should most certainly not reflect those two sources, as they are intended to market and sell books, not summarize an encyclopedia article. The book is not about Western culture at all, it is about the bias against introverts in that culture. Huge difference, and one you missed. This bias is the focus of the book, and the author herself juxtaposes it against the "call to arms":

There's a bias against half of the population and they are discounted for a trait that goes to the core of who they are. I also believe that, just as with women in the 1950s, we are poised on the brink of a very dramatic change in the attitude to introversion. ("Quiet (Please)", Management Today, April 1, 2012, p. 44)

I think your approach to this article is vastly different from my own, and therein might lie the problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(Item 1) I understood you weren't being literal about putting "call to arms" into article content. Maybe if you were to draft specific content, we'd come to a resolution faster. (Item 2) I'm fine with including Cain's adopted definition of introversion that is non-perjorative and neutral, though the objective non-perjorative definition was a mechanical intermediate step and not the goal of the book; again, drafting specific content would bring faster resolution. (3) The existing Lead captures your (correct) observation that the book is about cultural bias and not Western culture in general.

I'm very open to a longer, more comprehensive Lead that you might concretely propose. Main Concern: I was just afraid of engaging in something similar to wp:synthesis--though Leads tend to involve a Wiki-editor's individual judgment of what's important enough to include. RCraig09 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: In the interest of keeping the Lead based as much as possible on sources and not on a Wiki-editor's personal interpretation of what's important about the book, I suggest you look at the paragraph headings I've bold-faced in the article. They are the topics that emerged during my research, and are probably good initial ideas for including in the Lead. If you have the book, you could also consider the Table of Contents. RCraig09 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your intent, but the bold headings must go. That's simply not how we write articles about books. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy/guideline page that mentions the issue? The bolded paragraph headings help the reader, in the same manner as different levels of section and subsection titles. RCraig09 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't use bolded paragraphs. Have you looked at our good and featured book articles? Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, the article actually says:

Asked what inspired her to write the book, Cain explained that she "was fueled by the same mix of passion and indignation that I imagine inspired Betty Friedan to publish The Feminine Mystique in 1963. Introverts are to extroverts what women were to men at that time--second-class citizens with gigantic amounts of untapped talent. Our schools, workplaces, and religious institutions are designed for extroverts, and many introverts believe that there is something wrong with them and that they should try to 'pass' as extroverts. The bias against introversion leads to a colossal waste of talent, energy, and happiness."

Betty Friedan's book, The Feminine Mystique is described as a "call to arms for women" by virtually every major critical source. Calling Cain's book a "call to arms for introverts" on the talk page is hardly deserving of your OR allegation, and to be quite honest, I'm offended given the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I never imagined that writing "'Item 1: is almost wp:Original research" was an 'allegation' at all, much less one that would offend anyone. Sorry if it did. I wasn't trying to stop you from explaining on the Talk page, but, at that time, to voice my concern that Cain's personal motivation is distinct from "a description of the content of the book" that I thought should be in the Lead. RCraig09 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Factually, to say that Cain "was fueled by" the same things she "imagined" inspired Friedan to write a book that some called a call to arms, does not imply Cain's book is itself a call to arms. I read Quiet, plus every word of every reference I cited in the Quiet and "Cain" articles, and do not remember the term "call to arms" (though the fluffy title of the TEDtalk blog entry is "An introverted call to action") and I think the term "call to arms" is much too strong a term--even poetically--for a book as analytic and expository as Quiet. RCraig09 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• These are good reasons to focus on specific proposed article content, as I suggested, rather than sidetrack on what's proper or offensive in a Talk page. I would genuinely like to see which specific sentence(s) you think should be added to the article itself. RCraig09 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that "call to arms" is a metaphor and was not intended as a literal request for addition? Further, the metaphor is completely accurate given the subject. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I understood quite early that you intended it as a metaphor. However, as I said, it's a metaphor I haven't seen applied to Quiet. And as I said, I think the metaphor is too strong. In any event, since the term is not up for addition to the article, I think we can move on to improving article content. RCraig09 (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead fails to represent the "call to arms" for introverts, which you've already proved exists. Please forget about the metaphor and focus on her "call to action" and the main points I raised above missing from the lead. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead also needs to be expanded to discuss and answer the Five Ws. Currently, the lead doesn't discuss the why covered in the historical roots section. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm interpreting your comments as being along the lines of an edit request. So: I plan to expand the Lead within a few days along lines I think are mutually agreeable. RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to "interpret" anything. The lead does not summarize the article nor tell the reader anything comprehensive about the book. The lead should stand alone as an overview of the article. As I've said elsewhere, saying that the book was "featured by numerous major media outlets" is unnecessary and redundant. We wouldn't write an article about it if it wasn't. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

...leading to "a colossal waste of talent, energy, and happiness."

More on point, it leads to bad decision making and poor leaders according to the author. This criticism of the "culture of personality" needs to appear in the lead as it is one of the primary points of the book. Extraverted leadership depends on unidirectional commands and encourages passive employees and "yes men" who are prone to group thinking and whose ability to think on their feet is no better than chance. Meanwhile, introverted leadership depends on listening to different opinions and making the best decision based on different inputs while encouraging employees to act on their own without leadership using critical thinking and experience to guide their actions. Extraverted leadership has no use for critical thinking, as it gets in the way of selling a product that nobody needs. The author also makes a good point that the Harvard Business School model is no longer relevant and tends to ignore good ideas in favor of monetizing bad ideas by emphasizing presentation over substance. The tallest, loudest person in the room isn't always right, but extraverts would have us believe otherwise. It's all about who appears dominant, rather than who has the best idea that can improve society and increase happiness. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote farming

This is still a problem and is probably a copyright violation as well. Please start paraphrasing. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on this within a few days. Cain is a "quote-centric" and "quote-conscious" author, though, so retaining the more pithy quotes is appropriate. RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do because the use of quotations and paragraph headers here isn't standard and won't work for GA/FA status. The goal is to improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Article is out of proportion to the significance of the book/author

This article is written such that it sounds more like an extended advertisement for the book than the usual Wikipedia article about a current book. The account of the author and her "research" is so expansive that it blows the significance of the book all out of proportion. The intended inference would be that this author is the equivalent of Emerson or Rousseau, when in fact this book, at this time, is merely a best-selling self-help book. Its "research" has not been supported by extensive citation in refereed journals, merely buzz in the popular press. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advertising service. Jim Abraham (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The length ("expansive"ness) of an article has nothing to do with its equivalence to other articles, and there is no "intended inference" that the author is equivalent to Emerson--Wikipedia articles are based on notability. The article includes, mainly, an objective exposition of the book's content, with shorter and balanced sections on its Influence and Reception. Also, Quiet merely reported the research of others, so it would never be expected that Quiet would be cited in scientific journals. (Incidentally, for purely stylistic reasons I plan to shorten the "Best of..." list to a shorter paragraph, since it ended up longer than I originally expected.) I hope this clears things up. RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I still say that is is more an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. The book is somewhat better researched than others in the genre, but this is a self-help book, in tone, style, and importance. There is as yet no evidence that this work will last or even bear scrutiny, let alone the attention that its every idea is given in this article. To wit: you have included an Influence and Reception section. There is no "reception" of this work yet. That is an historical concept. If you feel that this book merits this kind of attention, I think you need to broaden your literary and historical horizons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcabraham (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article expanded as more and more references made it onto "Google News" alerts, and I used only ~10-15% of those I read; it's understandable that there would be more references arising on the Internet for a book published in 2012 than for On the Origin of Species. But lengths of articles don't imply levels of literary value or scientific correctness, though some people may project that perception. The various sub-sections under "Content and concepts" tried to explain, not to pronounce as being true; each sub-section was kept compact and concise to the best of my ability. Reasonable minds may differ as to how much detail to include, but, again, I was following the references as they came out. Other issues: As I've seen the term used within Wikipedia (distinguished from literary or academic circles), "Reception" refers simply to reviews and critiques, of which there are many. Further, I think the book is 50% research, 35% manifesto, 15% advice or self-help, which this article's content reflects. Finally, I don't perceive you were trying to insult, but to implicitly judge another editor (or his "literary or historical horizons") could be considered a breach Wikipedia's policy of WP:civility, and it's advised to talk about the articles and ideas rather than about the editors themselves. RCraig09 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You, sir, have written neither biography nor history but hagiography in your treatment of this book. The goal of those comments was to induce you to take a more reasoned view of the material and to reflect on whether the tone of this article is comparable to the tone of Wiki articles on other contemporary self-help manuals. It is certainly not a violation of the spirit or the letter of "Wiki law" to advise you, that, in the eyes of a disinterested reader, the article which you have written is unacceptable for Wikipedia. If you think that's "judging" you, you don't understand criticism. Finally, your response to that is to threaten me with a breach of Wikipedia policy? I think that is far more uncivil than claiming that you appear to be too close to your source material. Sir Huddleston Fuddleston (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You had already succeeded in making me review this article and its tone, though I reaffirm my explanations of 4 Feb and 11 April 2013, above. Further, I've just deleted material from the article. As comments about me personally are not proper, I will not reply to them. Be assured, no threat was made or implied. RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the article interesting, and not out of proportion to the book's significance, as it did receive a lot of commentary and scholarly treatment. FYI, I made some minor copy edits as I read through the article. Thank you. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)