Talk:David Marks (psychologist)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 4 March 2024, see discussion.
keep, 2008-January-29, see discussion.

POV / Vanity

Most of the edits to this page have been made by user:David marks. While the article does seem to contain some purely factual information, overall it reads more like a resume/curriculum vitae than an encyclopedia entry. Dsreyn 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 6/21/06, User:81.152.202.143 correctly noted that the preceding is no longer true. However, modifying comments posted by other users is not acceptable, so I have restored my previous comment. Dsreyn 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion was invited in February 2006 as follows: "This article about a psychologist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I believe that I am entitled to expand and/or edit a page that is about me. However, except for a piece of disambiguation, the content of this page has now been removed. Interested readers are referred to Who's Who for the subject's biography. This is an annual British publication of very short biographies of about 30,000 notable Britons, published since 1849 by A & C Black. Who's Who chooses who is who and invites biographees to update/edit his/her biography without any hint of an accusation or insinuation of vanity. It is seen as a desirable feature of a reference work to remain topical and up-to-date, vanity notwithstanding user:David marks.

I wonder how a person with interests and knowledge in one field (e.g.music) can judge the notability of a person from another field (e.g.psychology)?

You need to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I refer you to the policy on Vanity, and particularly the guideline on autobiography. I think the autobiography guideline makes it quite clear that you should not be doing this. In short, despite whatever you "believe", you are not entitled to expand or edit a page about yourself; you should leave it for others. It doesn't matter who you are or how important you are - there is no reason why an exception to the policy should be made for you.

Also, your last comment ("I wonder how a person...") was not very constructive. My actions were in line with the policies cited above - no judgement of your notability was involved; also, my interests are not confined to "one field", as clearly indicated on my user page. A comment like yours could be interpreted as a personal attack, which is also a policy violation (repeated personal attacks often result in bans). Before you start sniping at other editors, you should learn the rules. Dsreyn 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly welcome to Wikipedia. As a newcomer to "wiki culture" I can assure you that it was not intended to be a snipe, but a genuine question asked in good faith. My question remains unanswered.

Please follow the rules about good faith as follows:

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. A newcomer's behaviour probably seems appropriate to him or her and a problem usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviours arising from these perspectives are not necessarily malicious. Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either; it means they annoy you. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent."

Please accept my apologies if my statement implied that you are interested only in music. Your stated interests actually are: Music, mainly folk and celtic. I'm particularly interested in the following: Hammered dulcimer Banjo Cape Breton fiddling Baseball Hockey Chess

You seem to be missing the point. I maintain that your statement is at least a marginal personal attack. The appearance you gave is that you are trying to put a greater value on your opinion than mine by saying, essentially, "I know more about this than you do, so you should defer to my superior knowledge." Since you are persisting in asking for an answer to your "question" even after my last reply, I have to assume that I'm interpreting this correctly. As I said previously, no judgement of your notability was involved. I also directed you to the policy on autobiography, which I assume you have now read (if you do not understand the autobiography policy, please ask for clarification). The point was, and is, I can say that you should not write your own entry without making any assessment of your notability. My interests have no bearing on this, and I'm not sure why else you are continuing to press that point, unless it's for the reason I mentioned above. Note that I did not nominate the page for deletion, which would be an appropriate action if I thought you were unworthy of an entry. Dsreyn 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to assume bad faith by assuming "a marginal attack" which is contrary to a fundamental principle. However, you have clarified your case, which I accept as valid within the culture, and to prevent this discussion from going in circles, I thank you for your advice. I suggest that we agree to disagree about the so-called "attack", terminate the discussion, and move on to more worthwhile issues. Life is too short!

By the way, I also have an interest in banjos.

The reason I continued to assume a personal attack is that you persisted even after it was brought to your attention. The intent of the "assume good faith" policy is not to give users a free pass on the "no personal attacks" policy. And frankly, I don't see how your comment could have been made in good faith, as it's hard to imagine it being well received in any forum, not just on Wikipedia. Since you also appear to have missed another point, I wasn't taking exception just to the implication that I have only one field of interest - the more important point was your dismissal of my input as worthless since I'm not a psychologist (that approach isn't very likely to earn you friends around here). In any case, I agree that we've gone about as far as we can with this discussion. Dsreyn 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, but on the other hand, Dr. Marks needs to read up on some of the policies and learn to sign comments on the talk page with four tildas. If someone else puts in the factual information, will that be OK? Bubba73 (talk), 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't be OK, as long as it's NPOV and verifiable. Dsreyn 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to verify most of it (unless we can go straight to the source). Today I got his book The Psychology of the Psychic, and there is little information about him in it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some basic biographical details could be taken from one of David's versions from early April. I don't really see a problem with using information he provided for his date of birth, degrees, and so forth. The "selected bibliography" probably would be also non-controversial (and I assume, relatively easy to verify). However, I think the prior section called "Work" was heavy on POV, and should be omitted (unless there's some independent source of such information). Dsreyn 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds OK to me. An editor wouldn't have to verify those details, but they would be verifiable by an interested person by checking records, contacting institutions, etc. As far as "work", I'd have to look back at on old version to see what it says to give an opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material that has been removed can be made NPOV quite easily, and should be fixed and restored. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Isn't the discussion page a good place to dispute and/or add factual information about oneself? That way, you're not editing the page (i.e. autobiographically), you are simply pointing out incorrect information. For Example: the article states that I graduated from X in the year Y. Actually, I graduated from X in the year Z with a degree in A. ...or is that against wikipolicy or frowned upon as well? Trigam41 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question_book-3.svg‎

A question to a relevant administrator : Why is the question book image and statement from May 2007 still showing? The article has been updated and contains independent references and sources across a variety of verifiable publications. An administrator needs to review this and remove the question book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expressionofinterest (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 48 × 48 pixels, file size: 20 KB)

An administrator has added a text document with a red question mark and the statement "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations." To this reader this appears to be untrue as there are many in-text citations in APA style which is acknowledged as an acceptable citation style in the discipline of psychology. Is there some misunderstanding about what constitutes acceptable in-text citations? Sorry about the unsigned edit above - I forgot. Expressionofinterest —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:CITE#HOW says, "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." I didn't notice the APA style references. --Geniac (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article still contains the incorrect assertion at the top as follows: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2013)" The Wikipedia definition of inline references includes Parenthetical referencing also known as Harvard referencing where full or partial, in-text citations are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the paragraph, as opposed to the footnote style. The article contains precise parenthetical referencing in APA style throughout. The red question mark and associated incorrect statement should be removed as suggested by [[User:Expressionofinterest|Expressionofinterest] FIVE years ago. An administrator needs to take this action. Guevera2013 —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Citations and Original Content

I noticed there is a tag on this page for unclear inline citations. When I started to format the citations, I realized that much of the content on the page reads as original content, not as secondary sources. I am in the process of researching this page to rewrite it more in line with Wiki policies for using secondary source material. My intent is to maintain the information contained in the body of the page as much as possible, but that will depend on what secondary sources I can find to back up the statements: newspaper articles, journals, books and book reviews, etc. Please let me know if you have any reliable secondary sources that should be considered for inclusion on the page. Best regards. SojoQ (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those pages that at first looks okay, then when you get into it you realize that it needs a lot of work. SojoQ I'm going to watch over your shoulder if its okay with you?Sgerbic (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic That's totally fine with me. I generally research a page, write up some notes, then make a big overhaul in one day. But, given the talk history on this page, I'm thinking a better approach is to work the rewrites in sections to make the changes more obvious. My hope, like I said before, is to keep a lot of the content if I can, just maybe reword it, if necessary. I'd like to start by adding two sections: one for Select Books and one for Select Articles Dr. Marks has written. I will also look into the current reference list and rework the citations to fit recommended formatting. Until we can see what needs to be done to support the content of the page (in terms of secondary sources), I will hold off on any major changes to the content. Sound like a good way to proceed? SojoQ (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.Sgerbic (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the two sections and reformatted the references on the page. The next step is to go through and work on inline citations and secondary sources for the content. The page also needs an infobox and images, if any can be found with the appropriate permissions. SojoQ (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update. I've folded some of the external links and additional reading sources into the text, so they now appear in the reference section. I still have more to do. The page looks different, but I haven't removed any substantial content at this point. Some of the links are broken, so, hopefully, I can find supportive references. There are existing pages for The Psychology of the Psychic and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire and, I believe some of the information included about those topics on the Dr. Marks page could be moved to the corresponding pages. I haven't checked, yet, for the other works. I'm starting to go section-by-section and will continue to make updates to the page. Best Regards, SojoQ (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SojoQ you have done amazing work on this page. I see no reason to continue having the tag on this page, I'll remove it now.Sgerbic (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Marks (psychologist). 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) 13:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Inconsistencies of Marks, 2010 with all the other evidence out there

While I understand that Wikipedia's goal is to remain in a Neutral Point of View, I think it's important to at the very least mention the inconsistencies with Marks' hypothesis about the Flynn Effect. Firstly, we know across time, Measurement Invariance (MI) of IQ has failed meaning that equivalent IQ scores 40 years apart have very different causes and origins and second, we also know that MI holds across race meaning that a white person's IQ is a measure of the same thing as a black person's IQ. Sources on these claims: Good Analysis and includes many studies even though it is a Reddit article. However, I do not under any circumstances request that this be included in the article due to Reddit's lack of credibility. Include the sources themselves.

Time: Wicherts et al 2004 Beaujan et al 2006

Race: Valencia & Suzuki 2002, Chapter 5 Lubke et al 2003

This evidence runs extraordinarily contradictory to Marks' hypothesis so much so that it can be taken as an outright invalidation if one is to interpret these properly. However, I will request that one's interpretation of these findings is left to the curious reader should the following proposed edit be eventually added into the Wikipedia article:

"However, these findings are contradicted by evidence showing violations of Measurement Invariance across time but not on race Wicherts et al 2004; Beaujan et al 2006; Valencia & Suzuki 2002, Chapter 5; Lubke et al 2003). This would mean that the Flynn Effect is independent of the between racial variance in IQ and therefore would mean that Marks' hypothesis can only explain the race gaps at most assuming that literacy differences are not themselves caused by IQ, which was not established by Marks."

It should be fitting to add onto the bottom of this paragraph as well: "The alleged association between race and intelligence and also the Flynn effect both have a similar explanation: literacy differences across race and across time are, Marks believes, the cause of both. Racial IQ differences are converging as the literacy skills within two populations become more equal. Thus racial differences have an environmental cause, just like the Flynn effect. Essentially, both the Flynn effect and racial differences in measured IQ are artefacts of literacy differences. As the literacy of Western populations declines, as appears to be the case currently, then Marks' literacy theory of IQ scores predicts that average IQ test scores is expected to decline, and the Flynn effect will go into reverse, which is exactly what recent studies have found."

Another change, but a far more minor one, is to cite the Marks, 2010 paper as well as Kaufman's analysis: Marks, 2010.

I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns about these edits you may have. NikolaiSKarkaroff (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions, but as you've been blocked for your dog-whistle-politics edits, I suppose it's unlikely that you'll be available to answer them. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]