Talk:Carol Dweck

message: Nope, I'm not deleting anything, I'm way too old for WP games.  Just noting.  Oh, and the BBC ref is... fluffy. --jae (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  All except one reference are primary. 

message: There seems to be a possible history of COI editing happening on the article, lots of specific and uncited information about her personal life, work, childhood and education. I am adding this note here for future editors to consider. Jooojay (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: These news articles themselves do not reference the original studies critical of Dweck's research. If this is to be a credible criticism, would it not do to actually reference meta-analyses of studies testing growth mindset, as opposed to articles written by buzzfeed authors that do not actually cite any sources?
Other aspects of the criticism section have zero source at all, and then again, notes opinions, not facts, or evidence. 
The field of education and educational psychology is first and foremost driven by evidence based practice, not opinion and hearsay.
I would support a review into the section.
—1.125.105.99 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2018‎ (UTC)
:I see lots of refs now, and perhaps this and more could be added. No benefit in growth mindset theory, study says Shenme (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism headline only has links to news articles, no actual research 

message: In the Criticism section, non-replicability of her researches has been
written using references 22 and 23; and following them is another line
claiming replicability of her researches citing references 24 and 25. I
came here as a reader to know about Carol Dweck; not for the purpose of
editing. But, these two lines claiming totally opposite have confused
me. I guess it will confuse most other readers too. Can somebody who is
more familiar with all these references help explain to the reader more
clearly? 
Together with this, I have another question popping in my mind regarding
these kind of opposite references? Typically, how can wikipedians
usually decide which references to take? Is there any rule-of-thumb to
follow? I hope this answer will help me in editing future wikipedia posts.
Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reader's confusion when totally opposite references are mentioned 

message: One partial sentence has an unhelpful number of tags and refs. The text is: 
That text is followed by:
#citation needed tag
#ref
#failed verification tag
#ref
#ref
#ref
#ref
#ref
#original research?
#excessive citations
(Okay, that last one made me snicker.) I don't feel like trawling through edit history to figure out what happened. But seriously, if it's that contentious and difficult to verify, just drop it from the article. That mess is not serving readers well. Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by simplifying. Her primary research interest being "mindset" should be non-contentious even among detractors. DFlhb (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  combo tag-bomb and ref-bomb 

message: I WP:BLAR'd our article on Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, which was IMO not worth keeping live in mainspace due to being too superficial. Obviously notable so if someone has the time to write something good, go ahead. DFlhb (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLAR'd dedicated article on book