Jump to content

Talk:Neal E. Miller

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

Resources

[edit]

--George100 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happened here, but all of the above links need updating or replacing and they don't lead anywhere useful. (No real need to add a link to a Google search - anyone can do that as they please). If links no longer work in the article itself, you can always add a tag like this: [dead link‍]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link that leads (via the left hand side) to his obituary at APA: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied

[edit]

I'm not a WP vet, so I'm not sure if it matters for a stub, but the first paragraph is copied directly from this site. --Grant M 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it always matters, whatever the size of the article. Its called "copyvio"!! - see WP:COPYVIO etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just wondering . . . why is there a link to a photo "not of Neal E. Miller"? static shakedown 23:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. And no context, so quite useless. Perhaps it's of someone who (partially) shared his name. I've binned it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biofeedback other accomplishments

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be very much about his research and publications and what they contributed to psychology. He also had other major accomplishments that aren't mentioned such as being the president and founder of various organizations. Msennie (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing I noticed and mentioned was that there is almost nothing about his research. Overall, I think we can expand on every part of the article. The summary at the beginning needs more as well, because I know that lots of people just read the summary at the beginning and take information from that. Kg1214 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that Kg1214. There need to be a lot more in the intro on him. But also I feel there should be more of a summary of his works so rather than reading the whole collection of his works. I also noticed that some of his works are missing citation for easy access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandulka (talk • contribs) 04:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article needs the banner that says it's being developed by our class. J.R. Council (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It looks like that's now been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do List

[edit]

I think overall the article needs more organization and it needs to be made more visually appealing to people.

  • Redo the summary at the beginning of the article so there is more information in it.
  • Add more information about his research
  • Research needs to be done about his research and how it contributed to psychology.

Kg1214 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the class working on this, but I've written several entries on past APA presidents (but not this one). What I learned is that modern APA presidents have themes that they work on (like recruiting young psychologists, cultural diversity in psychology, or psychology in the schools). I don't think it worked that way when Miller was the 1961 APA president, but if you're looking for another direction to go, you might see whether he had any impact on issues of the day like civil rights because of his position. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice! Thanks Eric. If I remember correctly, the APA website has bios of all the presidents. J.R. Council (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for this information. This has been helpful in my researching on his term as APA president. I forgot to comment back on this for that but So far it has been helpful. Iandulka (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There should more sections about his research and what he is most famous for. There should also be a section explaining what he was most famous for which is biofeedback and the other areas that he worked in. The life and career section should be separate. I also agree that the article should be more visually appealing and should have more sections. The headers and subheaders should be chosen. Msennie (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can focus on editing and formatting the page so it becomes more appealing. I also feel if possible that we link his page to others that were involved in his work and his career. I plan to research this further while focusing specifically on his career with the APA.

Iandulka (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on the intro and Early Life. Early Life would include his education, right? Or would that be in the career section. Msennie (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are separating the life and career, I can do the career section of the article. I think that yes, education would be included in the Early Life section. I might make some references to different parts of his education in the career part, but I think it would be good to mention all of it in the early life section. Kg1214 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to not separate the early life and career. Unless you guys do want to break it up into separate sections then I can work on it or I can work on it and then we can merge them in a sandbox. Do we have a sandbox or are we just making edits to the page directly? For the introduction I am going to give a summary of why he is important and dates like year he was born, year he died, country he is from, etc. I will also briefly mention some of his contributions, etc. Also I can do the Early Life & Education part (which would be separate from the introduction) I would be a brief paragraph compared to the career section but would show what led him to his career in psychology. Msennie (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Well so far I have been editing right to the wiki page. Do we want to change this and do it on the sandbox first? It doesn't matter to me. Kg1214 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that'd be okay! I think it'd be easier to edit it directly on the page. Msennie (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said below as Long as it a completed thought or rework go ahead just make sure it makes sense with the rest of the text. Iandulka (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment

[edit]
Kennede, you need to indicate what you'll do to improve this article. See above. J.R. Council (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

[edit]

So, I'm not sure what you guys are thinking for the outline.. but so far this is what I had in mind

Summary, Life, Career (within the career section, I think we could have subsections for different parts of his career), and I'm not sure exactly what we want to label the section about how his work has contributed to modern psychology? (Maybe something like "Contributions to Modern Psychology"?), Key texts, References Kg1214 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The current main sections are Life and career, key texts: books and papers, references, and external links. I think the out line should be something like LIfe: Early life, Later life. The next section about his career should include his education and how that led up to his course of his career. There should be subsections about each of the areas he worked in (This is where contributions to modern psychology could go or be called). The key texts section could stay but the books and papers section should be expanded and perhaps called Research Papers. Msennie (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should also talk about major topics he was influential in in addition. I feel that the books and paper section could be a nice division but it maybe unnecessary. I think the outline should follow something like,
  • Intro
  • (table of contents)
  • Early life
  • Career (split depending on necessity)
  • Death and Legacy
  • Contributions to Modern Psychology
  • Collective Works
  • References

any more thoughts? Iandulka (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a good outline and collective works is a better heading than "Key Texts". His career may need more sub sections depending on what we find, like you said. Msennie (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Okay, so after looking at different sources and reading about his career, I think we could do either way with separating the Career section or leaving it as one. I think if we leave it as one, it will be easier to shift into the different parts of his career smoothly. This is what I have noticed so far, but we can see as I get deeper into the articles. Also, I agree with the heading Collective Works. Kg1214 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the career section of the article and I have noticed that what is written is unorganized and kind of runs together. Should I try to add to what is written or kind of start fresh on it? Kg1214 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say start fresh on it but you could use the current career section as a reference and maybe include parts of it in the edit. Msennie (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]



I think that we should also agree on his major influential topics so that we are all kind of writing on the same page. So far I have found: Biofeedback, he is known as the founding father of behavioral medicine and health psychology (http://nealmiller.org/?p=188), and there is other information on that page and if it isn't a very reliable source, it would be good for giving a direction on his other contributions. Msennie (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the few edits I have made have been directly to the wiki page. It doesn't matter to me how we do it though. Do we want to change this and do them to the sandbox instead? Kg1214 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should just edit the article so long as you finish each edit completely such as finishing your thought and how it relates. If you are reworking a paragraph and do'n want to finish it then please then use sandbox and make a not on the here about it. Iandulka (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Okay, I was looking at the "Controversy" section and I'm not sure if you guys really want this section in there? I feel like it just clutters up the page and doesn't really make sense. I mean if we wanted that to be included, maybe we could put it in a different part of the article? Kg1214 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that section really needs to be in there either and if we really want to include it then we could add it into another section like you said. Msennie (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable and supported by a reliable source. That's why I added it. And at the moment it contains the only direct quote from Neal himself in this article. Many psychologists, who have worked with laboratory animals, perhaps throughout their entire career, never comment in such a clear and candid way. The section need not be named "Controversy" if that's deemed to be too strong. But I think, if the article is expanded, as it should be, it's prominence will diminish. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. can I urge editors to indent successive comments in a discussion thread by using leading colon(s), like I have here. It just makes conversations much easier to follow. Thanks![reply]
I am going through currently and adding the colons so it will be a tad cleaner and more collective but further on what I've been doing so far I have a decent amount on Miller in the APA but am writing it off here so I can actually focus on the text before making it wiki text. But I changed the Key works page to the collective works and I am going to update that later today. Iandulka (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. As regards article structure, I'd suggest that editors look at the articles for more well-known psychologists that have received more attention. The structure of all biographical articles is pretty standardised. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Check this obit: http://www.apa.org/monitor/may02/rc.aspx. Also, check a series called history of psychology in autobiography. It's in the library. J.R. Council (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One reference I think would be good for this page is Taub, E. (2010). What Psychology as a Science Owes Neal Miller: The Example of His Biofeedback Research. Biofeedback, 38(3), 108-117. doi:10.5298/1081-5937-38.3.108


Kg1214 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something I would like to do for sure would be the summary at the beginning. I don't know how you guys want to divide up the rest of the work we need to do. What are you guys thinking? Kg1214 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THese would be some other useful references.

Cohen, D. (1977). Psychologists on psychology. New York: Taplinger.

Mook, D. (2004). Classic experiments in psychology. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Msennie (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Msennie (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Evans, Richard I. (1976). The making of psychology. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Spielberger, Charles D. (1992) American Psychological Association Citation for Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 847. Iandulka (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran the SafeAssign I did not find any concerns and everything was cited properly. Msennie (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I found this to be a very informative source. http://nealmiller.org/?p=188 Kg1214 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on article

[edit]

Feedback for Assignment 9

[edit]

General comment: you have discussed a lot of good ideas and information on the Talk page. It is time to start adding this material to the main article. See the brochure, Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology, 2nd page, Organizing your article/An article on a psychologist. 1. Intro

The following statement is not true:

His most famous work was on Biofeedback which came from the application of learning theory[clarification needed] to Psychoanalysis. See my note on the Talk page.

Poor grammar and syntax:

He grew up in the Pacific Northwest with his father, Irving Miller, work at Western Washington University as Chair or the department of Education and Psychology. Who was chair, Neal Miller or his father? – make it clear with proper wording of sentence.

“However, during World War II, Miller served as an Officer in the Army Air Corps' Research”
Research what??

2. Section on Career

Biofeedback – more complete description of his research on this topic. Maybe not voluntary control, but how much of his research on biofeedback held up?
Work with Dollard – discuss book Personality and Psychotherapy. It is a classic. Add reference citation.

Discuss work with Mowrer separately. Briefly describe the shuttlebox apparatus. Add link to Wikipedia article on Mowrer. Do not refer to people by their first names. Replace “Neal, John and Hobert” with last names.

3. Major works

Add the rest of his books to the list of books. Add year of publication in parentheses, and any co-authors to books. Put titles in italics, not quotes. Remove reference information from list and add citation to reference list. Example:
  • Personality and Psychotherapy (1950), with John Dollard
Add a couple of additional major papers to list.J.R. Council (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neal_E._Miller&oldid=1194937205"