Talk:Mary Roach

Previous AfD was for a different person

Hey, this time Mary Roach is about an encyclopedic-worthy writer, not an American Idol waif, so let's keep this one, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Should it be renamed Mary Roach (author) then, with this as a disambiguation? CrazyC83 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because the Mary Roach of American Idol fame(?) isn't noteworthy enough to warrant an article. Let's keep this the way it is. -Vontafeijos 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Why does Roach's first book (Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers) redirect here? I propose excising the information about that book from this article and putting it on its own page. Does anyone else agree?JianLi 23:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 Done

---

The author blurb for "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" lists Mary Roach as living in Oakland, not San Francisco. Is there any documentation of her living in San Francisco? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.112.87 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New Edits

Hello anyone looking at this,

Just wanted to give anyone a heads up, that I'll be working on the edit of this page. This will be my first wiki project. After seeing her give a lecture in my area recently, I decided to try to freshen up her space here. Also, please note that I will be having an experienced editor advising me all throughout the process.

Thanks,

Misschrisparker (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up again, I just uploaded this new and improved page. Misschrisparker (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone in "Style" section

I don't want to start messing this article around when it's just been DYK'd (and I don't know the subject so don't want to start editing this myself) but I think some attention needs to be paid to the tone, particularly in the section on Style. To me it reads in places like a publisher's blurb; things like "takes the reader with her every step of the way," shouldn't really be in an encyclopaedia article unless they are a quotation. We might think she's great, but it shouldn't be said in what is apparently our voice. It reads more like a personal essay or commentary if we do that, if not actually promotional. Similarly, the bit starting "While some people might not see any connection between the topics" seems to provide a great deal of speculation about what these "some people" might think or see, but who are they? I don't mean to denigrate the editors who've obviously put hard work into this, but I do feel it needs toning down a bit so that it reads more neutrally. Keep the positive nice stuff in the quotes and let them speak for themselves. I hope this helps. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So I get what your saying, just after it went live I made edits to the style section to fix the tone a little. The choice of words comes straight from the sources that are cited in that paragraph. I chose the words as carefully as I could, but they are just slightly paraphrased version of what was said in the interviews that are cited. I'll try to make some adjustments as soon as I can go back and re-watch/listen to the articles. Mary Roach herself, thought it sounded neutral! But I can see how she might not catch the tone since it is about herself. Thanks for the note and polite tone! This is my first wiki page. :) Misschrisparker (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Viruses and bacteria

This is in today's DYK: Roach is told, by microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, that, "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl."

Why? It does not belong in the article at all. She was (reportedly) told this "fact" by someone else: that tells us nothing about her. Also, the "fact" is implausible. Viruses are much smaller, and commoner, that bacteria, so I doubt that more bacteria would be jettisoned. Maproom (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted that half-sentence. Maproom (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it is relevant, Maproom, what is it that you do? Are you a microbiologist or a pathologist, or anything like that? The microbiologist that was interviewed for the article has his own research to support his conclusions. If you have some kind of concrete proof that this is implausible, then that's what you should share, instead of just saying it's doubtful.

The hook for the DYK speaks to the subject material that Roach writes about. This might be my first wiki page but if it was reviewed and accepted for the DYK, I'd trust their judgement. I'm putting the sentence back in.

Misschrisparker (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My degree was in genetics, and involved some work with bacteria and with viruses. I'm sure that the microbiologist had research to support his conclusions; I suspect that what he said was garbled by a journalist. I do not believe the statement as quoted in the article. I suggest that you show it to a qualified doctor, or a trainee doctor, and ask their opinion.

But none of that is really relevant. The passage I deleted from the article asserts that Chuck Gerba said something to Mary Roach. This tells us nothing at all about her, and therefore does not belong in the article.

I would not trust the judgement of those who pick quotations for the DYK. They often show a lack of understanding of the material. Maproom (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the truth of the statement is irrelevant as to whether it should be in the article, since the article is not about viruses or bacteria, but about the author Mary Roach and her works. Since Roach is a science writer who approaches her subject matter with her unique style (one that includes wit and humor), it seems reasonable to include examples of what interests her for that subject matter, what she has written about, and what her style is. It might be reasonable to reword the statement to that end, but I think the content itself is acceptable. Rjmail (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Passerby comment: I've considered that Misschrisparker is Mary Roach. I certainly thought that she was before I clicked on her user page. But either way, I don't believe that we should be spreading inaccurate scientific information on Wikipedia...unless it's pointed out as inaccurate. Roach specializes in popular science, and a lot of what she states isn't backed by any solid research, and sometimes are only her opinions. Unless supported by scientific sources independent of Roach and/or giving those claims WP:DUE WEIGHT, we shouldn't use her claims in any sexual, science or medical articles (see what counts as reliable medical/anatomical sources with regard to WP:MEDRS). Misschrisparker is still a newbie here. And as such, someone should give her a Welcome template so that she can come to better understand how things work here. 108.60.139.130 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)