Talk:Power posing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Power posing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Psychology Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Dispute
User:RealityCheckNJ the changes you are making don't comply with WP:LEAD -- the lead just summarizes the body and the first sentence in particular needs to succintly summarize the whole article. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
recent edits
User:Socialpsychfollower, your edits:
- here at 21:27, 15 November 2017
- here ending 00:28, 16 November 2017
- here ending 08:04, 16 November 2017
Are not OK. Content in Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, ideally secondary and independent ones. This one relies perhaps too much on sources by Carney but in this case her stance on this work and the way she has worked with the rest of the scientific community is a key part of the story, and citing what she has actually said is useful and probably important to avoid going astray.
In any case please come use the talk page, and discuss specific changes that you would like to see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you did there;) -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Socialpsychfollower would you please explain why you keep removing the content about Cuddy, as you did here? Your edit note said
Removed material not relevant to scientific page
but this is in the "public attention" section, and this is definitely public attention. Please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)- @Jytdog:, I'm sorry but I have to agree with SPF that I am finding your edits too aggressive and verging on ownership behaviour. The quote "showed that the findings were the product of p hacking" is a very strong statement-it needs to be cited to an explicit quote. Similarly, your deletion of the Gronau 2017 paper was done completely without explanation–if you think this source is not a valid one to cite, you owe the person who posted it an explanation why. I also think that in general, we need to be focused on actually quoting what papers say rather than making strong, broad statements: the statement "refuted findings in Carney et al." is very broad and could do with some clarification. Blythwood (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I think things are totally work-outable, and once everybody is here talking to one another that will be very, very possible. Please feel free to propose any specific change. The article needs a lot of work and careful discussion. I am not happy with how it stands either. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:, I'm sorry but I have to agree with SPF that I am finding your edits too aggressive and verging on ownership behaviour. The quote "showed that the findings were the product of p hacking" is a very strong statement-it needs to be cited to an explicit quote. Similarly, your deletion of the Gronau 2017 paper was done completely without explanation–if you think this source is not a valid one to cite, you owe the person who posted it an explanation why. I also think that in general, we need to be focused on actually quoting what papers say rather than making strong, broad statements: the statement "refuted findings in Carney et al." is very broad and could do with some clarification. Blythwood (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 17 November 2017
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Thank you for the administrator for taking control of this page. Would the administrator please consider including the content of some of my recent edits. 1st. - include Dana Carneys more recent statements on power posing that acknowledges evidence of an effect on feelings of power. (Academic paper) 2. Consider including some of my edits that report on the successful power posing replications, not just the non replications. 3. Consider allowing the definition of power pose to include the replicated psychological effects hypothesized in the seminal paper.(Carney 2010)
I hope these edits will be allowed and further restore my faith in wikipedia as a force for good. Socialpsychfollower (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- You found the talk page! Great.
- This proposal is going to be declined however, because:
- a) you don't offer a specific edit (no admin is going to burrow through the history looking for whatever you are proposing)
- b) there is no evidence of consensus for it.
- What this time is for, is for the editors who were having a dispute, to work it out, here, obtain consensus, and then ask for it to be implemented.
- That is how things work here. We have to talk to each other.
- I suggest you open a new section, and propose some specific change to the article for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Socialpsychfollower: I looked at your most recent edits, and you appear to be trying to cite a blog post, not an academic paper. Blog posts are not reliable sources. As Jytdog said above, you will be better served to make a specific recommendation for a change (change X to Y) and indicate the reliable source that clearly supports your assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- one edit cited blog post that was already cited in other sections of the page (as you can see from the history). Other edits are cited from academic sources. This is becoming a bit of a joke.