Talk:Charles L. Whitfield: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:58, 9 April 2016

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Improvements

This article is supposed to show the history of Whitman along with how he progressed to become this famous scientist, and it is not. It must go into greater detail about how he became a scientist and his background history. This should be more of a bibliography and less like someone slapped on a couple of random facts. --A nnmohh (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

I edited this article by spelling out numbers when needed and fixing a minor spelling error.--Jessicaloyd27 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

psych 101 critic

The information you added was informative. Maybe talk a little more into depth about each book or article. Other than that, good job! --KellyPaige=Baller (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)KellyPaige=Baller[reply]

Some Proper Advice

As you have said in your preivous statement, this article should be more about Whitman's history and how he became a reknown scientist. Although you're added sentence about his publications, which was well written I must say, you probably should include more about his background. Not only may it be interesting, it would help the reader understand maybe why Whitman decided to go into this field. --DieHardMcClain (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Promotion / Not Notable?

This article as written is absolutely horrible. It reads like a self-promotion ("See his newest books below" in the lead? Seriously?), and indeed certain editors seem to have more interest in expanding the lists of books and external links than in actually discussing any of Whitfield's minority views on (for example) the validity of "recovered" memories. He was an important figure during the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s, as well (promoting the completely discredited idea that Satanic ritual abuse was a real and widespread phenomenon). In fact, were it not for the Satanic Panic, he'd be completely non-noteworthy.

My preference would be nominate this article for removal, but barring this course there must be some balance. As it stands one might believe nothing this man has ever written has been disputed in the least, when in fact (on recovered memories at least), his views have been rejected by a sound majority of professionals in that field. Wilford Nusser (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 == Some Proper Advice ==
 As you have said in your preivous statement, this article should be more about Whitman's history and how he became a reknown scientist. Although you're added sentence about his publications, which was well written I must say, you probably should include more about his background. Not only may it be interesting, it would help the reader understand maybe why Whitman decided to go into this field. --[[User:DieHardMcClain|DieHardMcClain]] ([[User talk:DieHardMcClain|talk]]) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
+== Self-Promotion / Not Notable? ==
+This article as written is absolutely horrible. It reads like a self-promotion ("See his newest books below" in the lead? Seriously?), and indeed certain editors seem to have more interest in expanding the lists of books and external links than in actually discussing any of Whitfield's minority views on (for example) the validity of "recovered" memories. He was an important figure during the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s, as well (promoting the completely discredited idea that Satanic ritual abuse was a real and widespread phenomenon). In fact, were it not for the Satanic Panic, he'd be completely non-noteworthy.
+My preference would be nominate this article for removal, but barring this course there must be some balance. As it stands one might believe nothing this man has ever written has been disputed in the least, when in fact (on recovered memories at least), his views have been rejected by a sound majority of professionals in that field. [[User:Wilford Nusser|Wilford Nusser]] ([[User talk:Wilford Nusser|talk]]) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)