Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Slater

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

Problems

[edit]

The article as it stood was deeply problematic, violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and was not well written. Biographies of living persons must be fair and be fully sourced to reputable sources. I've rewritten the intro, and I've made most of the criticism section invisible until (a) we find material about her life and works so that the criticism section is balanced by other material and (b) we find sources for every point of criticism we make, and then the section must be written so that we say only what the sources said without adding our own commentary, as the previous version did. I'll do some work on it as and when I have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image, and I'm starting to re-add the criticism with sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

Antaeus, I've restored the see also section, because it links to the experiments or people she has written about, and although they're linked in the article (although the ones I'm going to add won't be), they're not all linked with their titles. I see no harm in all the experiments being listed together. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I can see the intent of that; what you're suggesting is rather like the way an actor's filmography may re-link the names of the movies even though they've been linked on their first appearance in the article text. May I suggest, though, that it receive some more specific section header than "See also", since the conventions regarding "See also" sections are fairly well-established and this doesn't abide by them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only formal thing I know about "see also" is here. I often include pages that are already linked in the article, because readers don't necessarily read a page from start to finish, but may use it as a reference text, which means they may not see the links inside the text, whereas the "see also" section stands out more. But sure, if you'd rather call it something else, I'd be fine with that too. "List of experiments discussed by Slater" or similar. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, isn't it always the way that you can find the page you're looking for in the WP namespace up until you go to show someone else? Anyways, I can't seem to find it but I know I've read the "See also" sections are for links which are relevant to the article subject but which are not already incorporated in the article itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the pages I need to show someone have either been deleted, or have been edited to say the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]

AA, if you want to add that she won the Bild der Wissenschaft, we need a good source that confirms this i.e. a source that doesn't rely on self-description. The original German source that I deleted and you restored doesn't appear to say she won an award. Can you point out which part of the German you believe says that, because I can't see it, and may be missing it. I've also left a note about this on your talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I gave a better source in the article (which you reverted) [1] What is wrong with this one? agapetos_angel 18:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This says "Four Stories was founded and is run by freelance writer Tracy Slater." This says Tracy and Lauren are sisters. Close relatives are not an unbiased source. WAS 4.250 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that the information is incorrect:
  • Von "Bild der Wissenschaft" zum Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres 2005 gewählt
  • (selected science book of the year 2005)
  • Von der Zeitschrift Bild der Wissenschaft werden jährlich sechs Bücher ausgewählt, die Wissenschaft zur fesselnden Lektüre machen. Der Preis Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres wird in folgenden Kategorien vergeben: Überblick – das informativste Buch, Überraschung – das originellste Buch, Zündstoff - das brisanteste Buch, Unterhaltung – das spannendste Buch, Ästhetik– das schönste Buch, Perspektive - das sachkundigste Buch für junge Leser
  • (Bild der Wissenschaft magazine annually selects six 'book of the year' for: informative, original, explosive, exciting, aesthetics, perspective). Picture shows Slater's book as 2005 winner under 'Zündstoff' (explosive). Von Menschen und Ratten. Die berühmten Experimente der Psychologie aka Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century (in the States)
That wasn't the original source you linked to. Why weren't you able to say which part of the original source you were using? Also, is this an award as such, or just a book of the year? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) No, the other source (first link) stated 'In Deutschland steht das Buch auf der Vorschlagsliste „Wissenschaftsbücher des Jahres 2005“ der Zeitschrift „Bild der Wissenschaft“' Wissenschaftsbücher des Jahres is Science book of the year (2005). I was trying to find you one in English to solve the problem. These other two now provided are also not in English, but show it is valid. This professor calls it an award, as does this source, this source, and [2]. Websites often state they received 'awards' for best website but merely receive a banner or graphic. Best phrasing might be that Bild der Wissenschaft awarded Science Book of the Year (2005) for 'Zündstoff' (explosive). Sound good? agapetos_angel 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In Deutschland steht das Buch auf der Vorschlagsliste „Wissenschaftsbücher des Jahres 2005“ der Zeitschrift 'Bild der Wissenschaft'" doesn't mean she won it. It says the book was shortlisted. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "was named as ..." rather than calling it an award, which is what the first source you linked to does. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you questioned why I wasn't answering the question, while I was getting the information together in the few short minutes between your replies, then you ignore my answers? The library link confirmed the book was gewählt (selected) as book of the year, and the school link lists that book as the winner for 2005 under category 'Zündstoff' (explosive). agapetos_angel 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I asked you three days ago, and you just kept referring me to the same source, which said only that she'd been shortlisted. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided two other sources now that state that science book of the year was won. Please place the correct information back in the article. agapetos_angel 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

[edit]

SlimVirgin deleted the phrase from the lead which said Slater "was criticised for repeating untrue rumours". The evidence for the claim is in the article itself in the comments by Skinner's daughter. Mccready 09:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source it after the sentence, sticking very closely to what the source says, and it also needs to be written properly and not just plonked in. Please read our editing policies, particularly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Also, stop creating attack headers, which you keep on doing elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mccready, if you format like this: [[User:Username|Username]], you won't get a redlink (broken link). The way you formatted links to an article (that doesn't exist), rather than a user. agapetos_angel 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Citation for 'Unpacking Skinner's Box' from NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/books/review/02MILLERT.html?ex=1398830400&en=d507c54b09ee1845&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND[3] agapetos_angel 02:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA, are these your edits? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. 207 shows to be in the States. I confined my participation to talk so that I don't get accused again of edit warring. However, I'm asking again, SV, your revert removed sourced information that I added - The Best American Essays/Most Notable Essays of 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. [1] without reason for the removal. Please replace this information in the article. agapetos_angel 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying they were or weren't your edits, AA? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said no. They are not my edits, and the location is from the States, which should have tipped you off before asking if they were mine. I had nothing to do with them. agapetos_angel 05:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "The Best American Essays/Most Notable Essays"? Is this some kind of amalgam or two separate things? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source reads 'Her work was chosen for The Best American Essays/Most Notable Essays of 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.' I stuck to the information from the source. 'The Best American Essays' is easily found via Google (and/or Amazon); the 'Most Notable Essays' is not as easily found on Google. I have Easter to prepare for, so I'll check back later when I have more time to sort out if there is a difference in the two. agapetos_angel 05:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Amazon, and it's not clear where they've taken it from, so it's not a very good source. I know what the Best American Essays are, and her work was included in the years I specified in the intro, but I've never heard of the Most Notable Essays. Anyway, there's no need to stick every single thing she's ever won in the intro; the most notable ones will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I found a better source than Amazon before I saw the reply, I'll include it here anyway. The Best American Essays are by Houghton Mifflin Books. The description for 2003 states 'Since 1986, the Best American Essays series has gathered the best nonfiction writing of the year and established itself as the best-selling anthology of its kind'. This reference appears to tie the editor of one of those collections as choosing one of the most 'Notable Essays', in quotes, so perhaps it's an additional honour. It doesn't need to be in the intro, I agree. However, if it's mentioned at all, it should be accurate, or moved to a lower part of the article as less notable. To mention only two years, when multiple years were involved, is inaccurate. agapetos_angel 11:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then write to the source and tell them they've got it wrong. But until you find a better source, that's how it should stay. I've repeated the source, which was at the end of the paragraph, after the sentence so that now it's there twice, if that helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Barnes and Noble, only 1994 and 1997 list Slater under Best American Essays. I found no support under any searches regarding 'Most Notable Essays'. Sources: 1994 for (title needed), 1997 for Black Swans. Evidently Amazon was mistaken and cannot be trusted as reliable on this matter. You have my apologies. I did, however, find that Slater was also included in The Best American Science Writing 2002 and The Best Magazine Writing 2002, now included under the bibliography with ISBN. (BTW, here's another source on Slater) agapetos_angel 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Thank you. Regarding the bibliography, aren't these the same book? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2000) Spasm: A Memoir with Lies, Methuen Publishing Ltd
  • (2000) Lying: A Metaphorical Memoir, Random House
No worries. The Best American Science Writing 2002 and The Best Magazine Writing 2002 are two different books (see different ISBN), so even though the contained the same essay, they should both be listed. I'm not sure on the books. They both seem to have the same topic content per the reviews, but: Lying is 240 pages, by Random House (May 30, 2000) ISBN 0375501126; Spasm is 234 pages by Methuen Publishing Ltd (May 11, 2000) ISBN 0413742504. An unreliable source, a review on Amazon, states 'Lauren Slater's _Spasm_ is actually the first printing of _Lying_'. This source also unreliable for the article, states that Spasm is the UK version. I'm more inclined to believe that second claim, especially as Spasm is listed on Amazon-UK, while Lying is listed on Amazon-US. agapetos_angel 01:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better source: 'Note that this book is published in paperback in Britain under the title Spasm: A Memoir With Lies.' agapetos_angel 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to list two publications containing the same essay? The essay is the only thing we care about, because the article's about Lauren Slater, who wrote it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it was printed in two different books. What would be an acceptable compromise? (Sorry, wasn't trying to edit war; just saw you replied here) agapetos_angel 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what that it was printed in more than one place? List one. As for Lying, please list the American publication, because that's the main publisher and where the writer is. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to list US first because of residence of author, but UK also (UK readers of wikipedia would be denied finding the correct title in their country) because it was printed as Spasm first, evidently. Same reasoning for the two book mentions. She is published in both, so both should be mentioned. What if the one we list becomes unavailable, and we neglected to mention the substitiute? agapetos_angel 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't list every title and every publisher in every country. List the main one. Anyway, it's now got the same title in the UK too. AA, life's too short to argue each and every point like this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing; I was striving for accuracy in the article. I think it is important to assist those who would look for the titles in other countries. However, I had the thought that we could make it a ref note, something like 'also available in the UK under title' and for the other, 'also available in 'book title'. That way we list responsibly. For example, Diana Gabaldon's bibliography lists her UK title for Outlander (Crossstitch). agapetos_angel 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it has the same title in the UK now. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See if this looks better. I made the information ref notes, which still provides the service to the reader, but doesn't clutter the article unnecessarily. I've also (moved and) asked for citation for the bird watching, chess, and tennis information (it was placed under criticism originally). Finally, I've fixed two other refs, but agree that section needs to be firmed up and expanded more. agapetos_angel 23:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the other titles as footnotes was a good idea. Thank you. I removed the bird-watching thing, as I'm sure I saw that same sentence added elsewhere recently, so I think it's someone's idea of a joke. I've also tweaked around today a bit for flow. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ About the Author, Amazon

Revert war

[edit]

Once again SlimVirgin has reverted a criticism in the lead. This time it is the sentence:

"It was criticised by Skinner's daughter for repeating rumors that she had been abused by her father and had become mentally ill as a result."

Her edit summary, which is unclear said "rv watch the writing". I am reinserting the sentence because it is a legitimate part of the lead. Mccready 08:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that's good writing, when you haven't even explained who Skinner is? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask you again to stop creating attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about Skinner's daughter, so I have to agree that it is not appropriate to place that in the introduction. It would be fine later in the article with appropriate sourcing. agapetos_angel 10:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mccready, read biographies of living persons. The way that content is presented in the article matters. I should be understated with no signs of being a hatchet job or being overly sympathetic. Sticking a sentence in the lead with the words "abused", "rumors", and "mentally ill" smacks of tabloid journalism. SlimVirgin was correct to revert. FloNight talk 11:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the guideline and respectfully disagree. There is nothing there saying negative material should not be included in the lead. As the lead now stands it is one-sided hagiography. As to who skinner is, the list of awards don't mention that either. Is that bad writing? I think not. This is a lead, not the body of the article. It is obvious that the comment comes from the daughter of the book's subject. I therefore don't accept the view that it is bad writing.

Skinner isn't the book's subject. Are you revert warring over a book you haven't read? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if it's appropriate to mention bouquets in the lead, it is appropriate to mention brickbats. The same arguments apply to the comment that the article is not about skinner's daughter. I did't "stick" the sentence in the lead - I copied it from the body of the article. If the argument is that it is ok to be in the body of the article but not in the lead, because it is negative - then your argument is not strong. And of course the quote is relevant. I urge you to consider WP:LEAD, particularly re the claim that something is fine in the article but not in the lead. Mccready 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mccready, it is inappropriate in the lead, as three editors are telling you, particulary in the way you've written it, because the reader won't have a clue who Skinner is. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SV You have failed to address the arguments. Bald assertion will not suffice. Once again you have inserted your edit on the talk page into my edit. Please do not do this. I have reinserted into the article and execpt you to argue a case, not merely assert. As to no one knowing who Skinner is, with due respect, why then have all the accolades following the Skinner mention? Or would you prefer to have the comment there without attribution as coming from his daughter? The list of accoclades in the lead is unbalanced by legitimate criticm. Wikipedia is not a forum for hagiography. Mccready 09:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting it out of the article. WP:LEAD states 'To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."' By extension, and the spirit of the guideline, introduced points should also have clear description and not merely throw the reader into the thick. It is not appropriate to insert a bit of criticism where Skinner's daughter, and the background to the criticism, have not yet been addressed/explained. That is why it is better further into the article, where justice to the subject can be accomplished. I doubt anyone is wanting to whitewash the criticism. We are just pointing out that it is inappropriate in the lead. agapetos_angel 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just reverting, I decided to refractor things a bit. I've moved one general statement of criticism from the article into the lead, and moved one bit of praise from the lead into the article. Can we agree that this gives a more balanced lead (both praise and criticism), while not confusing the reader with out of context criticism better left to the article to explain? agapetos_angel 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Source

[edit]

A Glimpse of Psychology's Greatest Experiments, Psychological Science Observer, June 2004, Volume 17, Number 6, Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr.. Discusses several issues, including Skinner's oldest daughter, Dr Julie Vargas. agapetos_angel 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that, AA. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't have time to elaborate on any of it in the article, but wanted to note it before I misplaced the link. agapetos_angel 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a full citation to it to Further reading, so if we need to use it as a ref at any point, we can just move it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womens health issues

[edit]

Being a OB/GYN nurse, I know this author as someone that writes about womens health issues. Her books and papers about pregnancy and psych medications made a big splash too. She must have a brilliant agent! FloNight talk 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slew of articles listed on her website (http://www.laurenslater.com/articles.html). Could you expand on the health issues angle a bit, Flo? agapetos_angel 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already started. First I rewrote the introduction making very concise by moving most of it down into the article. I can't decide if I like it better nor not. Going to work on it a bit more. --FloNight talk 19:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Would you also mind taking a look at the revised Biblio? It's very late and my eyes are starting to close. Not sure if I used proper citation on the articles. Will look later if you are too busy now. Night Flo ;) (heh) agapetos_angel 19:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a note here that article titles are placed in double quotation marks, and book titles in italics. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew it didn't look right, but I was too sleepy agapetos_angel 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

The criticism section shouldn't outweigh the praise section in length, but the ref from New England Journal of Medicine (valid and) more notable? It would carry more weight, IMO, than a magazine or newspaper criticism. agapetos_angel 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Mccready's edit; he stalked me here and is only out to cause a problem. Any material from sources should be written up properly and not just slapped onto the page. It's shaping up to be not a bad article, so it'd be good to maintain the standard of writing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting in the middle. I think the subject is interesting [4] and the article is looking good. I was simply wanting to know if that source would be more notable than something we've used in the article (haven't verified validity). agapetos_angel 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was any more or less notable than the other sources we've used. But it would be good to read the context. As it's been quoted, it doesn't seem to make sense: "More disturbing are what appear to be fundamental misunderstandings of the progress that Slater describes." What "progress" I wonder? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It's on the Amazon website. [5] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if AA would indeed become involved. I think we can both see that her latest revert [6] was not, to say the least, of the standard the community expects of an admin. In particular her removal of the section sub headers, which made the section much easier to read, is not good. I will await comments. Mccready 06:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have a set opinion one way or the other regarding the sub-subsections. I'm fine with it either way. agapetos_angel 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks AA, If you're happy about it either way, I'll put it back in. the subsections make it much easier to read. what do you think about the other issue of reverting crits she doesn't like? Mccready 07:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mccready, let's focus our discussions on article content. FloNight talk 12:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, I was, but let me rephrase. Do you agree that the crits I inserted have a role in the crits section? Mccready 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it ok to quote from the book to show how false the Guardian commentary is? The guotes from Skinner's daughter don't sound at all like they refer to the same book that I read (Opening Skinner's Box) she could not have read the book. jfer

Proposed rewrite: prune Introduction, moving pro and con from the lead

[edit]

I've rewritten the introduction to make it more concise, started a section for Education and career. A concise introduction solves the problem of the introduction being too pro or con. If we make these changes, we need to integrate the pro and con content to the rest of the article. Some should go in the Eduction and career section, some in the Opening the Box section. I'm going to put the introduction changes on talk instead of the article for comment and more rewrite. FloNight talk 08:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Slater (born March 21, 1963) is a contemporary American writer and psychologist. Slater primarily writes about psychiatric and women's health topics. Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century (2004), a description of psychology experiments "narrated as stories," [1] has drawn scholarly and popular critique as "one of the first major books to bridge the gap between academic and popular psychology." [2]

I prefer the current intro. She's clearly contemporary because she's alive; criticism, not critique; it has drawn praise too as the intro says; the book description is best placed elsewhere as AA did; it's standard to mention important awards/honors/positions in the intro; the doyenne of psychiatry is a good quote; your proposed intro is too short; AA inserted a summary of the criticism into the current one, which it also needs. All in all, the current intro is a good one, in my view. It's the rest of the article that needs building up, especially non-Skinner's Box material. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New idea. Let's hold off on tweaking the wording of introduction until the new material is added. Then we can decide which life accomplishments should be in the introduction. : ) FloNight talk 10:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits, Flo. The page was becoming too loaded with Skinner's Box. I'll try to add something about Lying when I have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted Mccready's edits. He followed me here after I disagreed with him elsewhere. He's deleting material without explanation (e.g. that David Corfield, one of the critics, is a philosopher of mathematics; that most of the criticism has come from the psychiatric and clinical psychology community; and that they dispute some quotations she used; is adding pointless headers that create sections that are too short; keeps adding a quote from the Amazon website without incorporating it into the text; and also keeps adding quote from a schools' website, [7] similarly without incorporating it, though it probably shouldn't be used as a source regardless. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mccready, your edits make the material more difficult to understand and less accurate. Do you want a detailed list of every problem with your changes? If needed I will be happy to provide it. --FloNight talk 09:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Websterschools criticism: Who wrote it? What authority do they have on the subject (i.e., was it a child writing a review)? I think it should be excluded until it can be verified per WP:BLP. agapetos_angel 09:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mccready, see comments on your talk page regarding your edits to this article. FloNight talk 10:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Slater, Lauren. Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, Norton 2004, ISBN 0393050955
  2. ^ Lee, Felicia R. "Book's Critique of Psychology Ignites a Torrent of Criticism", The New York Times, April 12, 2004

Crits

[edit]

It's wonderful to bump into people on WP who want to work together. Thanks Flo (re your message on my talkpage). Re the crits section, I can't agree with SlimVirgin's contention that the section is too long or shouldn't be longer than other sections. I'm reminded of my Ancient History teacher in High School who at the time of von Daniken's publication was outraged at the lies and misinformation (not that Slater would do that...). He said that to correct it would take a lot more time and effort and space than the original lies. He was right - unfortunately the publication took good archeologists away from work they would have been better employed doing - a bit like creation science these days and the disgusting misinformation of people like Behe (Darwin dealt with his particular lie quite well in 1859!!). Back to the point (to paraphrase Alan in Treasure Island), I've checked WP:RS and see no reason for not including the Webster Schools link. So I've reformatted and I hope AA is happy too. BTW, AA, I thought it was WP ettiquette to improve before remove.Mccready 09:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the edits again because the section headers are unnecessary and break up the text (the section isn't long enough to require all these headers); you're including two long quotes without incorporating them into the text (even though one of them is already quoted elsewhere); and one of the long quotes is from a school's website, which isn't a reliable source, and we don't know who wrote the article. As you've been reverted by three editors, with a fourth objecting on this page, and have been warned by one admin, I hope you'll give up trying to insert it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing your edits SV. There are lots of sites linked in WP where the author is unknown; so I am afraid you are not on strong grounds there. I find the headers useful in making the article more readable and another editor here has said they don't mind having them - so your grounds aren't strong there either. Incorporating long quotes into the text is unnecessary - long quotes should be separate from the text so that the reader can see at a glance that they are quotes - I've learned to use blockquote thanks to the hints of editors on this page :-) I'm not sure which quote you refer to as being repeated. If it's the one from Buzen, I've redited. Please point out to me if this is not it, and my apologies if I've made a mistake. Can I assume by your silence on my earlier arguments that you accept them and that your latest post which didn't address them was to present your new arguments? Mccready 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't know what your older arguments are; (2) we don't use unknown sources on WP; if other articles are getting that wrong, that doesn't mean we have to get it wrong here too; (3) the extra headers break up the text too much; (4) you argued elsewhere that stand-alone quotes should go on Wikiquote, so put them there; (5) this page is being edited mainly by three people: AA, Flo, and myself. AA and I have both reverted your edits, and Flo says above that she does not support them; you've also been reverted by an admin who saw you were reverting against consensus, and you've been warned by at least one other admin, and possibly two. As there is no support for your changes, I've reverted them. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mccready, I'm sorry if you thought I was violating ettiquette. There are problems with the version you posted (and re-reverted), including a subheader and corresponding text in midst of a paragraph. Citing your sources is imperative, regardless of the neglect of others to do so. It's not enough to say that you found something somewhere; it has to be properly attributed to the author before it is included. Regarding crits v accolades, see this section of BLP where it outlines that '[critics] views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material' (emphasis added). Your version crosses far over the line of overwhelming. If you must include bits from various critics, then incorporate them in a paragraph or two, rather than including the entire quote. It's not up to other editors to fix what you want to add. It is up to you to make it conform to Wiki-standards before adding it, or risk it being reverted by other editors who want it to conform to those standards. The best way to approach a BLP article is to consider how it would affect the living, breathing subject. Would you confront the subject in person to make the criticism? We have to be careful about editing from the safety of our homes or workplaces, ensuring that we do not become comfortable with criticism behind anonymity. agapetos_angel 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other references

[edit]

I've also added Farhad Manjoo's literary review ref because it balances one of Skinner's daughter's crits with the observo that the book describes the box in like manner. agapetos_angel 02:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good addition, AA. Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I also 'cleaned up' Village Voice ref to the actual article (rather than NYT ref to the article). BTW, regarding our earlier discussion about 'Most Notable Essay' and 'Best American Essays', I found more information. Evidently, each volume of BAE lists 'Most Notable Essays' of the previous year. The back flap of OSB has the same information about most notable essay for other years I mentioned. However, while I can find mention of other authors, I still can't get a confirm for which Slater essays were mentioned as most notable in which years, so I'll continue to leave it out unless I find concrete sourcing. agapetos_angel 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find much on this. According to another source, the lists of 'most notable' are 200 essays from the previous year. Not really very notable. agapetos_angel 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's health articles

[edit]

(Let's not lose these)

  • “The Pregnancy Blues“ Child Magazine April 2005 [1] article
  • "The Complete Guide to Mental Health for Women", Psychology Today, Sept/Oct 2003 [2] abstract

References

  1. ^ Lauren Slater Child Magazine “The Pregnancy Blues“ April 2005
  2. ^ <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_5_36/ai_n6015168 Lauren Slater Psychology Today "The Complete Guide to Mental Health for Women" Sept/Oct 2003]

Changed to original source

[edit]

Changed to original source. "Opening Skinner's Box': Adventures of the White Coat People", The New York Times, Peter Singer. Print publication March 28, 2004. Accessed URL 05/09/2005.

This is a good review and can be referenced in article if needed. Let's discuss how and what else we want to do to expand the article. FloNight talk 16:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauren Slater. 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) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lauren Slater. 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) 04:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauren Slater. 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) 08:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Slater&oldid=1257936318"