Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Jastrow

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

Duck-Rabbit

[edit]

Since the orginal German name was HasenEnte -the name really dhould be Hare-Duck 81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (comments?)[reply]

Columbia Exhibition in Chicago

[edit]

Clark L. Hull mentions in his paper "Joseph Jastrow: 1863-1944" (1944) [1] that Jastrow had collected data on visitors to the Columbia Exhibition in Chicago in 1893 and Jastrow had stored the information in a laboratory storeroom. At the time Hull had written the paper he did not believe the information had been published. Has this changed since Clark wrote his paper in 1944?TrevorCl (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hull, Clark. L (1944). "Joseph Jastrow: 1863-1944." The American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 57, No. 4. pp. 581-585. retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.cat1.lib.trentu.ca:8080/stable/1417259&Search=yes&term=Jastrow&term=L.&term=Joseph&term=Clark&term=Hull%2C&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DHull%252C%2BClark%2BL.%2BJoseph%2BJastrow%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=132&returnArticleService=showArticle

Planned addition to page

[edit]

Greetings,
I am planning on adding text addressing Joseph Jastrow's research over the next few weeks.
I have already made some edits to the page, and will continue to do so over the next few weeks.

gemayelc 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! We, as the community of Joseph Jastrow scholars, cannot wait to see the superb content you add to our beloved academic figure. 131.179.4.203 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is it? For shame! 164.67.136.197 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sourcing needed

[edit]

There are numerous statements in this article about Jastrow and his work, that are cited to Jastrow himself, and that make claims that require third-party (independent from Jastrow) sources. We can't use him as a source for claims describing the quality of his work, or for medical claims. All medical statements (he found x y or z), need to be independently sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, I have a clarification question for you. I am aware of the rules for medical sources, but I am not sure that anything in the article could be used to provide or intuit medical advice. I understand the value of third-party sources for information individuals may apply to themselves, but I am not sure what content on the page falls under this category. Please let me know if there were any in particular you identified! Also, are there any claims that describe the quality of Jastrow's work currently on the page? gemayelc 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I will put up some samples of the kinds of things that need independent (third-party) sources momentarily. @Gemayelc:, you can sign your talk page posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them-- the four tildes automatically add your name and the timedate stamp. Back with a list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gemayelc:, also, all book sources need page numbers. And answers.com is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samples

[edit]

That "he" published an article doesn't tell us that he was first ... we need an independent source (not related to him) to make that conclusion. Otherwise, it's original research (a conclusion that we are drawing, not sources).

This is cited to him. He can't say he debunked claims-- we need someone else to say that. For all we know, he *thinks* he debunked claims, but he didn't really.

  • He approached the occult in a scientific manner.

Same ... he may think and say he did, but we don't take his word for it. We need someone else to make this claim. This can't be cited to him.

  • He found that when a subject was asked to concentrate on an object, their hand moved unconsciously in that direction.[2] The magnitude of the effect varied across individuals, especially in children, where the movement was more random.[3]

These are medical claims cited to him ... need independent sources to confirm those "findings".

  • Jastrow found that people that had lost their eyesight after age six still were able to see in their dreams, and that people that had lost their eyesight before the age of five could not.

Same ... he may believe, and say in his book, that he made those findings, but independent sources may disagree.

  • This same difference in perception and age was true for people with partial vision loss.
  • He noted that hearing, not sensation, was the primary sense of the blind, in both waking and dream.

He may believe he demonstrated those things, but we need an independent source to say that (WP:MEDRS in the cases of biomedical statements). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the clarification! If it's alright with you, I will remove some of the unsited claims. As for what he claimed in his research, some of it is quite unique, and I did not find other research that followed up on his results. If there is no available independent source, is there not value in simply knowing what research he did, and the results he found? How would this be done correctly? Also, are there any formal guidelines on what falls under medical claims? gemayelc 23:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gemayelc: Please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. If you don't, the sign bot has to come through, and that causes edit conflicts.

In this case, whether the claims are medical (MEDRS) isn't really the bigger problem. Verifiability is a global policy for all content on Wikipedia, and WP:RS is a global guideline for all content. All of the statements above are of the type that require third-party, independent sourcing. We can't take Jastrow's own word that he did or found or was so-and-so, other than things like when he was born (he's the authority on that :) The correct way to do this is to go dig up independent sources in a library-- if he really did all of that, someone will have written about it! Otherwise, yes, those kinds of statements need to be deleted. You have several books on him-- perhaps they verify those statements? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I thought I had been - is that not why there's a name and time next to my writing? Either way, I will do so from now on. As for independent citations, I will see what I can find over the next week and edit the page appropriately. gemayelc 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're doing with your sig, but it should result in a link back to your user page and talk page, and it's not, so you're entering something other than four tildes :) But we can test that over on your own talk page, so as not to clutter the article talk page. I'll keep this page watchlisted in case you need help later! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution needed

[edit]

That is correctly sourced, but it is an opinion that should also be attributed by adding something like, "According to author-so-and-so, writing in Book X, Jastrow was a leading figure ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Independent Citation

[edit]

@SandyGeorgia: I have a question about incorporating independent citations. In the Dreams of the Blind subsection, I found an article that replicates the results of Jastrow [4]. However, the article makes no mention of Jastrow, and does not include him as a reference. Given that their results match up, how would I incorporate it into the article? I was thinking of including a line at the end of the subsection saying "Later research verified Jastrow's findings.[5]" Would this be acceptable? gemayelc (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gemayelc:, I'm glad the sig is sorted! I'm just starting through this, and might not finish before I'm off for the day. Just for now, I wanted to point out WP:FN (citations go right after the punctuation, with no space between). And, you're using the hardest possible citation style, so it's very time consuming. You don't have to provide page numbers on journal articles (Only books), so using harvard referencing is adding more wok than necessary ! Which is making my work slow going :) You are also adding Springer and Jstor links which are unnecessary and unbearably long ... you can just link to a DOI or PMID.

On your question of "later research verified ... " unless the source mentions Jastrow, that would be original research. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the poor reference work, I will go off of your corrections going forwards. As for the specific reference, the paper is a survey of more recent research on the dreams of the blind. So while it does not reference Joseph Jastrow, it assesses the research of many other academics, which match the results found by Jastrow. Would that not be a valid third-party source? gemayelc (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jastrow 1900, p. 7-18, 26-33.
  2. ^ Jastrow 1900, p. 312-313.
  3. ^ Jastrow 1900, p. 332-333.
  4. ^ Hurovitz, Craig S.; Dunn, Sarah; Domhoff, G. William; Fiss, Harry (1999). "The Dreams of Blind Men and Women: A Replication and Extension of Previous Findings" (PDF). Dreaming. 9 (2–3): 183–184. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  5. ^ Hurovitz, Craig S.; Dunn, Sarah; Domhoff, G. William; Fiss, Harry (1999). "The Dreams of Blind Men and Women: A Replication and Extension of Previous Findings" (PDF). Dreaming. 9 (2–3): 183–184. Retrieved 13 December 2014.

Citation style

[edit]

Gemayelc, before you starting working on the article (see this version), it had a pretty simple citation style. I'm not sure why you decided to change the citation style (see WP:CITEVAR), but what you are using now is one of the hardest to implement, and may be making your work more difficult than necessary. I just went through and tried to fix all the big red harv ref errors, but I see also that you are citing page numbers for journal articles (you only need to cite page numbers for books). If you want me to restore the original, easier citation style, I can do that ... whatever you decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, I originally changed the reference style to make it easier to cite different pages of the same book. Thank you for fixing all the linking errors, I didn't realize they were causing an issue until I saw them working correctly! I have no issue using the style of reference that is currently on the page, so unless you'd rather have the original citations we can keep what you've done! gemayelc (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

[edit]

@Gemayelc: please see WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss). We are at the discuss stage, yet you re-added this text. What is the relevance of him giving lectures? What notable scientist did/does not? Please discuss your edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry, I am not too familiar with SOP on Wikipedia. The significance is not that he gave lectures, but that he gave public lectures. His success in these pursuits seems out of the ordinary, as it is explicitly mentioned by the source included (as well as another). Let me know if that clarifies it or not, or if you still have an issue with its inclusion. gemayelc 22:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemayelc (talk • contribs)

Expanding article

[edit]

Joseph Jastrow criticized a lot of pseudoscientific claims such as mesmerism [1], spiritualism, theosophy etc. The article should be expanded more with his criticisms. 37.9.61.18 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Jastrow. 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) 03:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Jastrow&oldid=1194999517"