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 sourcedmust 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 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 within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have read the comments you linked to. They do not support the idea of keeping such articles separate, especially in the instance of someone like Rippon who is not an author who pumped out countless publications. Additionally, you write: "I don't actually see the problem with Wikipedia becoming an alternative resource for students for academics bibliography. When I was a student I didn't always find the resources that were available all that intuitive". See What Wikipedia is not. Students have Google Scholar to find materials – this is not the place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Sxologist (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support (see my comments above). Also @JzG:, @Crossroads: and @Markworthen: what do you think? The fact there is an article dedicated to Gina Rippon's bibliography is very odd. I have re-proposed a merge into this one. Maybe the bibliography should be simply deleted? Sxologist (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support. WP:NOTEVERYTHING covers this, and "Bibliography of Gina Rippon" fails WP:GNG. For requested merges, Sxologist, wait a week after you tagged the articles, then list it at WP:ANRFC. (For some reason, these don't seem to be closed in a timely fashion unless listed there, unlike most other processes.) Crossroads-talk-06:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good. Yes, it's highly relevant that Nature published that follow up to their initial review (an unusual step). The fact is that the initial review by itself makes it seem like Rippon's ideas are the accepted mainstream in neuroscience. They are not; at the very least, these matters are highly debated. I see why they published the follow up. Crossroads-talk-03:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
As I said when reverting the review is explicitly about Elliot's claims in the review (which aren't even in this article) not about the book. They literally do not even review the book in their article. If anything, they should appear on Elliot's page as they are reviewing Elliot's claims not Rippons. They do not debate the sentence of Elliot's contained in the article currently. Affied (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}