Talk:Nicholas Humphrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

from VfD:

Vanity. Has several books published, but what professor doesn't? As far as I can tell, he doesn't stand out from tens of thousands of other professors around the world. SWAdair | Talk 09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poor guy. Born in '43, and still got nothing to say about himself. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There probably is quite a lot to say about him. Those are not everyday posts he's holding. However, nothing has been said, so delete if the article is not expanded into a contextualizing and discussion of the figure before the end of VfD. Geogre 15:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme, hyper keep, please do your research before firing off these deletes. I've added a partial bibliography. If Sollog gets an article, this guy should get three. If he put up the original article, he was just being modest. Wyss 22:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This individual appears to be noteworthy. There is no point in the destruction of this article. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. How many of those abovementioned professors have a book that's gone through four printings and been translated into five languages? --Carnildo 00:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah? Supercallifragalistickeep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure on the professor, but delete the journals. Every professor on earth has published in plenty of journals; unless any of them are some sort of breakthrough they don't establish notability and don't serve a purpose. Just looks like vanity. -R. fiend 07:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How many of them have multiple articles published in Nature? Wyss 12:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A very small proportion of professors have that many articles in the most elite journals such as Nature. I can't fathom what purpose it would serve to remove such information about this guy's career. Wouldn't someone interested enough to look up an article on this guy also be interested in his most notable publications? Wolfman 18:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then add to his bio that he's been published in Nature. Or maybe include one or two of his most important writings for journals (if you actually have any idea which they are), but by no means include them all. Since when is it incumbent on us to mention everything anyone has ever had published? Do we do that for all other professors and/or authors?-R. fiend 19:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's already clearly listed as a partial bibliography, apparently of his more important works. In what way will the article be improved by removing information about his research, the very essence of his notability? Wikipedia is not paper. Wolfman 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Apparently" his more substantial works. Has anyone verified that? Yeah, being published in Nature is a substantial achievement in the field of the life sciences. Outside of that it's worth a brief mention, but we don't need the guy's resumé here. Are any of those articles notable in and of themselves? I'm sure someone in the field who wants to know about this guy may want to know everything he ever published, but that person is not going to look in wikipedia for it. They're obviously going to look in the publications and websites associted with his field of science. I don't know where Wyss got this list, but I'm pretty sure he just cut and pasted it without knowing the details of what these articles are. My point is, no other professor has this sort of listing, why should he? Keep the books, mention he's been published in Nature and New Scientist and some others, but unless you can verify that some of these articles he wrote in these journals are particularly important (we don't have articles on every person who's ever been published in Nature) they shouldn't be listed.-R. fiend 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Apart from writing all of the books listed in the article, this fellow has made a Channel 4 series and delivering the Bronowski Lecture on the BBC, he has worked with people such as Dian Fossey and Daniel Dennett. He is one of the leading thinkers on the development of the human mind. I would hope that we could turn this into a good article by the end of vfd - I hope to work on it tomorrow. If it is not improved, it should be sent to Clean up. Capitalistroadster 11:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment on SWAdair's deleteion rationale: First, the vast majority of professors do not have several books published (at least in economics, but I presume other fields are similar). Most at major research universities do have quite a few journal articles published. However, most professors are not at major research universities, and a good number of these have published very little (a handful of articles in minor journals) if anything. Second, if this person were considered an "author" rather than a "professor" then surely publishing several (non-vanity press) books would be considered notable enough for an article. Wolfman 18:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added details of his significant research work, books and television series. Capitalistroadster 11:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep after Capitalistroadsters work (marginal keep even before). Also keep his bibliography, which is clearly significant for a researcher. As to the "professor test" and all that, it is simply too badly defined to be useful, or perhaps only intended to be applicable to American professors. / up+land 11:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is potentially useful material. P Ingerson 12:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published various books on a scientific subject. I do think the current article is getting rather long for a subject like this, though. - Andre Engels 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Brilliant scientist, great broadcaster. He's up there with Susan Greenfield, but I don't support the nominator has heard of her either. We're getting some pretty whacky VfDs lately. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This academic is one of the founding fathers of Evolutionary Psychology. Furthermore, he along with Lawrence Weiskrantz has made notable contributions to certain neuropathologies like blindsight. One of his aforementioned articles on blindsight made the cover of Nature — I think that is notable in itself! Bmpdragon (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Skepticism of the paranormal[edit]

Would it be notable to mention in the article Humphrey's arguments against the paranormal? The book Soul Searching develops a principle that Humphrey calls the "Argument from Unwarranted Design" and applies it to reach a skeptical stance on psychokinesis, extra-sensory perception and other claims of the supernatural.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2x External Links[edit]

Why are there two different sections called "External Links"?--Stefan Hartmann (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)