Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Luria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet repression

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia users,

could you please enlarge this article by a paragraph on the ban imposed by the Soviet government on Mr. Luria's publications in the 1930s as a result of which he had to move to Khar'kov where he began pursuing his medical career?

188.122.228.68 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Vadim Ustinov, Russia.[reply]

nationality?

[edit]

What was listed on his identification card? Wouldn't it have been the nationality of his parents? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union the internal passports identified every bearer by ethnicity (национальность, natsional’nost’), e.g., Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Estonian, Jew, etc. When an individual applied for his passport at age 16, he had to select ethnicity of one of parents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_passport

Perhaps the article should list both -- the Soviet version, and the contemporary one. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation vs major advances

[edit]

I changed the section saying that Luria "created the field of neuropsychology". Neuropsychology is more than the neurological and behavioural effects of brain lesions. His work did lead to major advances and probably contributed to him later developing the Luria-Nebrasksa neuropsychological battery, but he didn't create the field. The information is still unreferenced, so if you have a reference that over-rules me, please insert it. MitchMcM (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

It might be interesting to have something about the reception of Luria in the West. I learnt about him from the books of Oliver Sachs. How about others Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Good Article Reviewers

[edit]

I have recently removed a huge chunk of text copied directly from [1] . There might be more copyright violations, so please be extra careful when checking. Thanks. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complicated than that. The website you found is itself a copypaste of three sections of the wikipedia article about Lev Vygotsky, which has been in place at least a year before the blog appeared in may 2013. So there is no copyright issue. However articles also shouldnt be copied internally (at the very least it is best practice to state when one copies in the edit summary) so it is a good idea for those sections to be substantially rewritten to avoid the direct copying of material from other wikipedia articles. Also this article is about Luria not Vygotsky so it really makes no sense to copy paste three sections of the article about Vygotsky. This article should be based on sources about Luria, and only mention Vygotsky in so far as it is directly relevant for describing Lurias life and work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are both wrong. Material can be copied internally for a number of reasons, but it must be attributed in order to comply with the requirements of the creative commons licence that we use. This is not just "best practice", it is compulsory. If sufficient attribution is not supplied, there is a copyvio. Attribution is normally provided by a link in the edit summary such as "expand article with material copied from Lev Vygotsky". If sufficient attribution is not supplied, the problem can be fixed by supplying belated attribution such as by a link in the edit summary of a dummy edit. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
In this case, sufficient attribution does not appear to have been supplied. James500 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for attribution for internal wiki copying is not generally or consistently enforced, and never has been. I think it would be a bad idea to enforce it rigorously. First of all most editors are unaware of the policy, and most of those who are aware dont follow it, which means that if it were to be strictly enforced that would mean an incredible amount of work that noone would be ever likely to actually do. There is enough work combating the copyright violations that are an actual legal liability for the project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Darylgolden and @Maunus; May I request that the copyvio statements made above to be over-stricken or removed. There was no copyvio and since I am very strict about copyvio those comments ought not to be posted here. Otherwise, the other comments are all welcome and the discussion can continue following the copyvio statement being over-stricken or removed. For my reading on this point about Vygotsky, although the friendship with Vygotsky was important to Luria, this article is nonetheless about Luria himself and the three subsections can be optionally removed while keeping the topic intro paragraph at the top of that short Vygotsky section. If the preference is to remove that section at this point, then that's fine also in agreement with @Doc James. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be preferably to also rewrite the intro paragraph so it doesnt repeat the exact same wordings as in the Vygotsky article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus; Yes, I'm completely willing to rewrite it to the specifications of any reviewer who starts the review. It would be nice to have some concise mention of the major influences on Luria. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering reviewing the article, but I was a little put off by the reliance on a single source. I think it would be a really good idea to scour the literature for more sources before the GA review. Try google scholar and google books to see if you cant find other authors giving biographical sketches and evaluations or analyses of his work. Try to look for book reviews of his books. And maybe some obituaries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These look like good supplements to Homskaya:

  • Cole, M. (2002). Alexander Luria, cultural psychology, and the resolution of the crisis in psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 40(1), 4-16.
  • Tupper, D. E. (1999). Introduction: Alexander Luria's continuing influence on worldwide neuropsychology. Neuropsychology review, 9(1), 1-7.
  • Buckingham, H. W. (2010). Aristotle's functional association psychology. The syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axes in the neurolinguistics of Roman Jakobson and Alexander Luria: an anatomical and functional quagmire. Aphasiology, 24(3), 395-403.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cole, M. (2013). Alexander Romanovich Luria: Cultural psychologist. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2013(2).

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander Luria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk · contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix, I'm delighted to review an article on somebody so important to me, and I really enjoy the chance to learn more about his life. I haven't gone through the article in detail yet, but superficially it doesn't look like many changes will be needed. One thing that occurs to me even after a superficial reading is that it would be nice for the "books" section to include brief subsections on his most important books, particularly The Mind of a Mnemonist and The Man with a Shattered World. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Early education and move to Moscow, there is a quote from Homskaya: "Luria demonstrated that syntagmatic verbal connections appear earlier in ontogenetic development than paradigmatic connections. This was an important discovery for neurolinguistics." No reader is going to understand that. It should either be rewritten to be understandable or else deleted. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At numerous points in the article, direct quotes from Homskaya are used where they really aren't appropriate. Generally a direct quote should only be used if the specific wording in the source is important. That isn't the case for most of these. Some could actually be deleted without losing anything important, but most of the others should be reworded in a form that does not use direct quotation. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Multiculturalism and neurology, first sentence, the word "prescient" is not quite right. Literally it means, "having or showing knowledge of events before they take place". I am going to take the liberty of removing that word, and also another unnecessary word from the same paragraph. Please feel free to revert if you disagree. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This review is not complete, but I am going to place it on hold because Felix has not edited since Jan 3, or responded to requests for communication. If he does not participate, this review can't proceed. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to fail the GA nomination due to lack of response. Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Luria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander Luria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polygraph

[edit]

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=googlescholar&id=GALE%7CA383176152&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=7664bf68

Does anyone know if this is true, that he contributed to the development of the polygraph? If so, worth mentioning.Rubiks2022 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]