Talk:The Blank Slate

message: The book reviews used in writing the "Reception" section with a few exceptions are taken from the selection of quotes on Stephen Pinker's web page. That is inappropriate. Many reviews of this book have appeared in the academic literature; there are also reviews by academics in the popular press. Here is a preliminary partial list of book reviews that I found, which indicates a mixed reception, from positive to scathing.
*  Schlinger (Behavior and Social Issues)
*  Ludvig (Behavior)
*  Schlinger (Skeptic)
*  Richards (NYT)
*  John Dupré (American Scientist)
*  Hocutt (Consciousness and Emotion)
*  Stenmark (Zygon)
*  Fernyhough (Scotsman on Sunday)
*  Weidman (Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences) 
*  Rauschecker (Nature Medicine)
*  Pikotti (Metapsychology)
Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for those, although I don't see two out of six as being "many" or "with few exceptions".  More baffled by your templating that the quotes were "previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group" - any evidence for that?  A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Also added some critical views. A very large number of views could be added from both sides regarding a notable book but a sampling is enough.Miradre (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: * Miradre copy-pasted more than two quotes form Pinker's page bt, where she could locate the original review, she substituted that. The advocacy or lobbying group refers to the web page of Stephen Pinker containing a list of accolades from which Miradre has copy-pasted the comments. Pinker's page was written to advertise and sell the book, with selective quotes. When a book review is five or more pages in length, it is inappropriate to summarise it be pickng out one sentence. Miradre's copy-pasted material did precisely that. Sourcing "reception" to a web page of Pinker was unhelpful and silly. Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Miradre's attempts to summarise long review articles has been hopelessly inadequate as was the categorisation of critics. Mathsci (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the reasoning but doubt that it makes sense to call Pinker's personal web page "an advocacy or lobbying group".  By the way, probably best to comment on content, not on the contributor here.  A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is advocacy for the book (it's like the back cover of the Penguin book, which is for publicity purposes). This is a minor problem with the "cherry picking" template. The cherry picking is the main problem. It is Miradre's edits that are hopelessly inadequate, in case there was any doubt. How can long review be summarised in one sentence or one cherry picked quote? Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: That is incorrect. The book certainly does not discuss "at length" that debate except some brief mentions as examples of controversies. Neither have I any edits taken up the topic. It is like arguing that I could not cite an encyclopedia in, say, an architecture article because the encyclopedia may somewhere else have an article on race.Miradre (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's discussed on at least three pages (I have full access to the book at the moment). In the review by Hocutt there is some emphasis on this particular subject. Whether it's an example or not is irrelevant.  This article is covered by the topic ban, because the book mentions that subject. If in doubt, now that you have been told, please stop editing this article or using the book for adding material to other articles. Your analogy is incorrect: it looks like evasive wikilawyering.  This is an article about the book, about its contents and about reviews of its contents. This book is evidently not comparable in any way to not an encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect, there is just some brief sentences and a paragraph where Pinker states that he thinks as a personal opinion that there are no genetic differences. Again, it is like arguing that I could not cite an encyclopedia in, say, an architecture article because the encyclopedia may somewhere else have an article on race.Miradre (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I can reproduce long passages of text about the topic if you like. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jensen is mentioned very briefly only twice in connection with other controversies. His arguments is not described. The other authors you mention above are only mentioned briefly and usually in regards to other issues regarding evolutionary psychology (they have done research on a number of very different topics). Pinker dismisses, as his personal opinion, genetic differences in one paragraph. You will find much on the R and I in an encyclopedia or an introductory psychology textbook. I have not added any material regarding the issue to any Wikipedia article. It is like arguing that I could not cite an encyclopedia in, say, an architecture article because it may somewhere else have an article on race.Miradre (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Race is discussed in a significant portion of this book, in the precise context of race and intelligence and the history of the race and  intelligence controversy. It was ill-advised to edit this article or to edit other articles to create links here, Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reviews 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:StevePinker.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I've just revised the article quality to C-class per the WikiProject Psychology quality scale. Well done to everyone that's worked on this!
To improve the article further, I suggest you start with WikiProject Books' preferred article structure. From reading the article, I think the current reception section already partially covers the suggested analysis section. The references on some of the reviews need to be improved to meet WP:RS - the main problem is that some cite the author's website (or similar), which doesn't meet the requirement for independent. Even though the website is referring to an independent review, we can't be certain that they haven't cut out important context, edited the statement, or even fabricated it, so it needs to directly reference the independent source. 
Ping me here or on my talk page if you have any questions, or you could ask for help on the WikiProject Books talk page or the WikiProject Psychology talk page(depending on whether your question relates to how to write about books or about how to write about psychology).--Xurizuri (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving article quality