Talk:Hyman Spotnitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

External links[edit]

External links should provide encyclopedic information about the subject of the article, in this case Hyman Spotnitz. See the external links guidelines for more on this. The links to educational institutions which follow his methods do not provide this and are instead merely a directory, which is inappropriate. Please do not replace them. -- SiobhanHansa 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These external links provide encyclopedic information about Hyman Spotniz. I appreciate your dedication Siobhan, but perhaps you can look at these educational sites more carefully again. Modanalyst 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting Siobhan here - they're not really relevant to the subject. See WP:EL for more information. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the modern psychoanalysis discussion site for example? It is not a commercial site or an educational institution and contains hundreds of references to Hyman Spotnitz.Modanalyst 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean this one? It's a blog - or at best a forum - and as such, doesn't meet the requirements laid out at WP:EL. There's also a possible conflict of interest, as material from that site has been copied word-for-word into the Modern psychoanalysis‎ article, violating the copyright of the person who writes the blog. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean [ It is a blog as you say - if you look a at the articles you will see that they are encyclopedic, scholarly and contain reputable citations. I do not see how that violates the requirements laid out at WP:EL. There is no conflict of interest, regarding the modern psychoanalysis‎ article, since permission was given for the use. Additionally, that article is a stub, which had no content and the content was placed there to provide some basis to build the article further. Obviously, that cannot be done in a single day.Modanalyst 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Our guideline against blogs is on the basis of two general problems with them - they are generally self published and as such the information is not subject to reasonable editorial oversight or peer review, and the content is not constant - so quality can vary and unless it is directly and always focused on the subject of the article, readers may well be sent to a page that is not about what they are reading on. This blog contains articles by one author and is published by his professional partnership Central Jersey Consultation Center - that amounts to self publishing - The articles are, once again, more about psychoanalysis than Spotnitz himself. They are sometimes in relation to Spotnitz's theories, but never actually about Spotnitz. So as well as being self published, the link is not actually on topic. -- SiobhanHansa 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about the references to Spotnitz not being articles on Dr. Spotnitz, though they are ALL about Spotnitz's theories. I don't see how that is not of direct relevance to Dr. Spotnitz. Additionnaly, your statement that it "is published by his professional partnership Central Jersey Consultation Center" is incorrect.

If it is necessary that the references to external links be strictly biographical then I will agree with you; however, in that case I will ask you what is your rationale for the external site you left "Lou Ormont's Discussion Site?"Modanalyst 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles for the most part don't simply discuss Spotnitz's work, but rather the field he founded - that's a different thing, it's also not really supposed to be the article's focus. As for the publisher, I got that impression from this page: at his partnership's website. But if he's just publishing it himself without it being officially associated with his practice - that doesn't make it any less self-published. -- SiobhanHansa 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you're making, I'll have to compare the two more carefully. I see where you got the impression; same author both places, though one is associated with the practice and one not. If "self-publication" makes something invalid for inclusion here then it all makes sense and perhaps the additions I made here should be entirely deleted. It does seem like a draconian perspective to me however given the scholarly nature of the articles.Modanalyst 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-published is definitely a big red light when it comes to use as both an external link and, especially, a source. When you say scholarly you are referring, I think, to the style of writing, the use of references etc. But anyone can put their ideas into such a "scholarly" format so the format isn't the critical factor for Wikipedia. We look for external validation that something is what we consider to be reliable. In general you would need a compelling reason to include a self-published link in the external links section (such as the author being a very well-known and well-respected commentator on the subject, as well as the content being appropriate), in articles about living people, only self-published sites by the subject him/her-self are normally appropriate (see our biographies of living people guideline).
On the focus of the article issue - maybe an example would help: We have an article on Einstein, but we don't use it to discuss the field of general relativity, except in in as much as Einstein is notable for it. The focus of the article is about the man and his life, links focus on the man and his life. Discussion about and the development of the theory of general relativity and our current understanding of it are not the focus of the Einstein article and links about that are not appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Very clear explanation, thanks SiobhanModanalyst 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)