Talk:Beyond Freedom and Dignity

message: :Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed these concerns by expanding the fair use rationale per the requirements of WP:NFCC#10c. -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg

message: Removed:
:The book caused an enormous controversy on publication and was the subject of a Congressional investigation in America.Skinner, B.F., About Behaviorism (Hardback edition, ), 1975, text on dustjacket.
I have the book and the dustjacket and the latter is devoid of text other than the title on the outside and there's no mention of its reception on the leaves. It's of course common-sense since 1) the hardcopy was published first and would be prior to any reaction; 2) The notion of a congressional investigation is ... well it boggles the mind that somebody just fabricated this and put it here. Perhaps the same person that created the archive when it was hardly needed. 71.186.177.184 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I don't know for a fact there was no Congressional Investigation, but I will be really surprised if there was. A tangential mention in a committee meeting about something else maybe at most. 71.186.177.184 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really Stupid Lie 

message: Hi,
> 04:33, 5 February 2021‎ Sundayclose talk contribs‎  9,981 bytes −1,691‎  Reverted 3 edits by 202.153.212.80 (talk): Non-notable trivia undo Tags: Undo Twinkle
This section that I added was reverted as "Non-notable trivia".
This significant professor who worked with Skinner spent the quite some time in a highly influential book that has its own WP page (that was recommended by a certain billionaires, a former American president among others)  providing critique of Skinner's work generally and this book specifically.
There's verbatim quotes, page references. They worked together at Harvard at the same time (it's mentioned on his WP page that he influenced her).
What is malformed or "trivial" about this criticism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity&oldid=1004934654
Philosophy Professor Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism states that "in the mid-1970s graduate department at Harvard where I studied and Skinner professed, many students referred to the book as Towards Slavery and Humiliation"[21]. Zubroff goes on to criticize the work: "for Skinner, our attachment to notions such as freedom, will, autonomy, purpose, and agency are defense mechanisms that protect us from the uncomfortable facts of human ignorance", dedicating a chapter section to discussing the background to Skinner's work[22].
---
Out-of-hand reversion is suspicious and frankly a complete joke. I rarely engage with Wikipedia because of this kind of stuff. Every time no matter how solid a contribution its reverted. This was reverted inside 15 minutes. What a joke. Seriously screw you guys.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.212.80 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:WEIGHT. The opinion of a few grad students a few decades ago, especially in the amount of detail as you presented it, places excessive emphasis on the opinions of a few people in the context of the weight of professional opinions about the book. If this had been a group of well-respected scholars who are notable and published in their field of expertise, it might merit inclusion (although trimmed down). But that's not the case. Please get consensus to restore. Thank you. By the way, the level one template I placed on your talk page does not pertain to the content itself; it refers to your reverting without discussion. Read WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-notable trivial" Criticism