Talk:Lauren Slater

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added an image, and I'm starting to re-add the criticism with sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: See also

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Mccready, if you format like this: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have to ask you again to stop creating attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for finding that, AA. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additional Source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks.  I knew it didn't look right, but I was too sleepy agapetos_angel 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Womens health issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I'm not getting in the middle.  I think the subject is interesting  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I found it. It's on the Amazon website.  SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Mccready, let's focus our discussions on article content. FloNight talk 12:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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,  similarly without incorporating it, though it probably shouldn't be used as a source regardless. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Mccready, see comments on your talk page regarding your edits to this article. FloNight talk 10:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewrite: prune Introduction, moving pro and con from the lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Crits 

message: 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)
replies: text: That was a good addition, AA. Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Other references

message: 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)
thread_title: Changed to original source

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430163604/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030327/ai_n11382846/ to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030327/ai_n11382846
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127091601/http://www.bloomsbury.com/authors/microsite.asp?id=368§ion=1 to http://www.bloomsbury.com/authors/microsite.asp?id=368§ion=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127121219/http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0408%2Cpress%2C51264%2C10.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0408%2Cpress%2C51264%2C10.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050227212522/http://www.powells.com/review/2004_05_28.html to http://www.powells.com/review/2004_05_28.html
*Added  tag to http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/slater/letters
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060807040444/http://www.laurenslater.com/articles.html to http://www.laurenslater.com/articles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130206153832/http://www.hyperschool.de/Ideenshop/Geschenke/Lesen/Wissensbuch/wissensbuch.htm to http://www.hyperschool.de/Ideenshop/Geschenke/Lesen/Wissensbuch/wissensbuch.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified