Talk:Steven Goldberg

message: Fair comment. However, note Wiki policy on controversial material related to biography of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately. I will actively watch that on this page. I have changed quote formats, and added encyclopedic text, as suggested by the tag. I will now remove the tag, leaving this note on the talk page.
It should also be noted here that Goldberg is a controversial man, as such it is going to be hard expand this article beyond explicitly sourced material. I'll try to pad out the quotes more, but I think it's always going to be safest to stick closely to the biography of living persons policy. Alastair Haines 09:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing ≠ quoting. I'm restoring the tag. I would further note that the article currently contain no material on the 'controversy' (or criticism of Goldberg's ideas). This would appear to be a major WP:NPOV problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I would further point out that making the lead almost mostly a eulogising set of quotations from Hakim aggrevates these NPOV problems considerably. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, a string of quotes were rewritten to be more prosaic. Now you restore the tag!? Forgive me for finding it hard to take this seriously. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that the majority of the lead isn't pro-Goldberg quotes from a single individual (whose article you just happened to write)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Quote farm" tag

message: Hi Victoria,
I'm relaxed about you removing Patriarchy (anthropology) and Patriarchy in feminism if you feel they are redundant. However, Patriarchy is the parent article. Patriarchy (disambiguation) would certainly be redundant, but the others are not technically redundant, as the disambiguation shows.
If there were links to Paris in Summer, Paris in Fall, Paris in Winter and to Paris. It wouldn't seem to be natural to remove the Paris link and leave the others. See also articles will often cover similar territory or have similar names. As I see it, they allow readers to refine their search to an even more specific area, or point them to broader context. Both are useful to me as a reader anyway.
As I said, I'm relaxed about your editorial judgement to "tidy up" the See also section. I'm happy to support a change, just not one that removes the main article, and the only article I know that has a whole section on Goldberg. ;) Alastair Haines 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm at all stubborn on this... at least I hope I don't appear so. Really, I removed the patriarchy hyperlink under 'See also' only because the hyperlink had appeared in the body of the article. As both Patriarchy (anthropology) and Patriarchy in feminism hadn't appeared at all in the article, I left them alone. Anyway, that was my thinking. I note that WP:MOSLINKS is pretty relaxed on this issue... and so am I. A matter of personal preference, I suppose. Victoriagirl 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so dumb, and you are so right. I will remove the redundant Patriarchy link as you so correctly and unobtrusively had already done. Thanks for your patience and not roasting me for my stupidity. Cheers Victoria. Alastair Haines 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm easy

message: An editor removed the cite info for a Goldberg biography along with a link to an online copy.
Removing the cite for a published bio in a Wiki bio entry seems rather like shooting yourself in the foot.
There's more to the issue, but I'll let the other editor explain that. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wheels within wheels: recent reversion and reinstatement

message: This section contains no biographical information about Goldberg (where he was born, grew up, went to university, is he married, does he have children, etc, etc) -- just a bunch of random non-biographical comments (physical description, passion for cultural anthropology, etc). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting opinion on what constitutes biography. Know anyone else who holds it? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: wikt:biography. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No biographical information in the 'biography' section 

message: The article provides neither "biographical background" nor "criticisms". Further, I would note that self-referential statements about "This article" aren't particularly encyclopaedic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong on all three points. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An unsubstantiated assertion, and thus worthless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article provides some biographical background regarding Steven Goldberg, links to some of his work, and other references to criticisms both positive and negative." 

message: #Support: merging the articles would seem appropriate at this stage. If and when "enough citations and reviews" from reliable third party sources can be found, a separate article can always be recreated from these sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # oppose: Google scholar suggests that there are enough citations and reviews of When Wish Replaces Thought in reliable sources to produce an article. Additionally, a question of order: this is effectively an AfD proposal. Were an AfD proposal to be upheld, a redirect would make sense. Should we refer this question to AfD? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I would like to propose merging Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences into this article. Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 2 

message: #Support: The book isn't notable enough for it's own article and the article doesn't contain any information from secondary sources, merely some quotes from the dust jacket. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: This section is sourced to an online bookstore listing. The Goldberg "review" appears to be no more than a 'publisher's blurb'. I would also note that an identical copy of this page can be found on another online bookstore here. Not WP:RS & not notewirthy -- so I'm removing, unless/until it can be demonstrated that this so-called review was published independently of the book it is glorifying. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Goldberg as reviewer' 

message: I have edited the lead to add a brief summary of Goldberg's theory (which is otherwise unexplained). I have also removed the extensive quotes from the lead. Presenting a detailed defense of Goldberg's theory in the lead section is not appropriate. The lead section is for summarizing information from the article body. I have also removed the "lead rewrite" tag. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The article says he chaired the department until his retirement but doesn't provide a date for his departure from his academic position.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Goldberg retired in 2008.AnaSoc (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did he retire? 

message: The lead section here is very messy. ★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section