Talk:Alexander Luria

Creation vs major advances

I changed the section saying that Luria "created the field of neuropsychology". Neuropsychology is more than the neurological and behavioural effects of brain lesions. His work did lead to major advances and probably contributed to him later developing the Luria-Nebrasksa neuropsychological battery, but he didn't create the field. The information is still unreferenced, so if you have a reference that over-rules me, please insert it. MitchMcM (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception

It might be interesting to have something about the reception of Luria in the West. I learnt about him from the books of Oliver Sachs. How about others Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to Good Article Reviewers

I have recently removed a huge chunk of text copied directly from [1] . There might be more copyright violations, so please be extra careful when checking. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. The website you found is itself a copypaste of three sections of the wikipedia article about Lev Vygotsky, which has been in place at least a year before the blog appeared in may 2013. So there is no copyright issue. However articles also shouldnt be copied internally (at the very least it is best practice to state when one copies in the edit summary) so it is a good idea for those sections to be substantially rewritten to avoid the direct copying of material from other wikipedia articles. Also this article is about Luria not Vygotsky so it really makes no sense to copy paste three sections of the article about Vygotsky. This article should be based on sources about Luria, and only mention Vygotsky in so far as it is directly relevant for describing Lurias life and work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are both wrong. Material can be copied internally for a number of reasons, but it must be attributed in order to comply with the requirements of the creative commons licence that we use. This is not just "best practice", it is compulsory. If sufficient attribution is not supplied, there is a copyvio. Attribution is normally provided by a link in the edit summary such as "expand article with material copied from Lev Vygotsky". If sufficient attribution is not supplied, the problem can be fixed by supplying belated attribution such as by a link in the edit summary of a dummy edit. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

In this case, sufficient attribution does not appear to have been supplied. James500 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The requirement for attribution for internal wiki copying is not generally or consistently enforced, and never has been. I think it would be a bad idea to enforce it rigorously. First of all most editors are unaware of the policy, and most of those who are aware dont follow it, which means that if it were to be strictly enforced that would mean an incredible amount of work that noone would be ever likely to actually do. There is enough work combating the copyright violations that are an actual legal liability for the project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Darylgolden and @Maunus; May I request that the copyvio statements made above to be over-stricken or removed. There was no copyvio and since I am very strict about copyvio those comments ought not to be posted here. Otherwise, the other comments are all welcome and the discussion can continue following the copyvio statement being over-stricken or removed. For my reading on this point about Vygotsky, although the friendship with Vygotsky was important to Luria, this article is nonetheless about Luria himself and the three subsections can be optionally removed while keeping the topic intro paragraph at the top of that short Vygotsky section. If the preference is to remove that section at this point, then that's fine also in agreement with @Doc James. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)