Talk:Julia Shaw (psychologist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Promotional article[edit]

This article is an obvious example of self-promotion and cross-wiki spam. It is already tagged for lacking notability on the French Wikipedia, where it is noted that the article was created on several different Wikipedia editions at the same time last autumn. The subject is clearly not notable as an academic, with hundred or so citations (mostly from co-authored works) and a very junior position at a university. --Tataral (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a promotional article nor has it anything to do with version that exists in the French wikipedia. The person is probably less notable as research academic but as tv pundit and book author is featured in some documentaries on the false memories, which was the reason for the creation of this article. Instead of speculating or making claims, you could have simply asked the article's author. --Kmhkmh (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be added that one of the criteria for academic pages is "the person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." With one criteria for a creative being "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The book in question written by the article's author is considered an international best seller, to which subsequent coverage via media is attributed to the book's success. More so the author clearly is an expert in the field due to their vast contributions to various publications.Pwsnow (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question of notability has already been settled in the recent AfD by an admin decision. However the article itself probably could still see some improvement in terms of content and sourcing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to tidy up the page - please let me know if this is sufficient.Jesswade88 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the research section into an academic career section. One publication does not warrant a section. Deleted the extensive criticism on the 2015 study. This entry is not the place for an academic discussion based on primary sources. I am confused about the affiliation though. 'Julia Shaw (born 1987) is a German-Canadian psychologist and popular science writer in the Department of Psychology at University College London (UCL).' This sounds like a substantial appointment, but 1) There seems to be no Department of Psychology within UCL, and 2) her name is not listed in the list of what I suspect is meant with this Department of Psychology: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/people/academic-staff Stringfellows (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to think she works there.[1] I'm pretty sure hers is a research post. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or an honorary appointment [2]. In which case presenting this as her main appointment would be undue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringfellows (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We should call her an honorary staff member in the lead. Well done. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess honorary member and research associate are not in conflict and is an unpaid(?) research associate with the department. By the way the UCL also has nother unrelated Julia Shaw: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/staff/shaw --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This got mingled by edits who wanted to push the label popular science writer into the lead. While there is probably nothing wrong with describing her as a popular science writer it messed up the oroginal lead which stated that she was a research associate at the UCL. The latter description originated iirc from some of the sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The source seem to have been her LinkedIn profile: "I currently hold a position as Research Associate at UCL, in the Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology."--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed her UCL affiliation from the lead. It is 'only' an honorary position, and mentioning it in the academic career section should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.227.251 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I would suggest deletion due to a lack of notability compared to the majority of tenured academics in high-research universities--many or most of whom do not have wiki pages. Some of this lack of notability is discussed above. But here, I wanted to keep it simple and propose deletion. Such a wiki page could actually hurt an academic's reputation if it is not warranted at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (still) agree that this article should be deleted. She is an academic novice who is no different from any PhD student in terms of her academic merits, despite her active self promotion on websites etc. She's not a real academic in the way all other subjects of this type of biographies on Wikipedia are. The article is an embarrasment to Wikipedia and undermines the credibility of both WP:ACADEMIC and of all biographies on academics with actual merits. --Tataral (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year and a half since I made the suggestion of deletion, and in that time Shaw has continued to establish notability in publishing a book and in very notable media appearances (e.g., interview with Steven Fry, appearance on BBC I believe, that kind of thing), so I retract my suggestion for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources[edit]


Keep it then. Zezen (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article 2[edit]

Of course this article was promotional.Additionally, Shaw is not a scientific writer, as one can easyly find out. Read the translation of a review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the most important German newspapers (translated bei Google translate)

http://www.notredameberlinseminar.org/uploads/2/5/7/5/25758186/warum_der_eine_sturzt_und_der_andere_nicht_faz__porombka_.pdf

If you've just received an invitation to a party and are wondering how you can attract the attention of a lady or a gentleman or a whole group of people there, then the new book by Julia Shaw is just the right thing for you. Religion is taboo as a subject, politics is delicate, but the question: “Do you know how your brain differs from Adolf Hitler's?” Or the hint “In London, by the way, there is a sex club with cult status” should interest the bystanders to back up. Julia Shaw also helps with the second step of the conversation, because her book about evil is written in the style of a party talk. It deals casually and flaky with topics that somehow fascinate everyone: murder and manslaughter and perversion. The author has also added notes so that you can refer not only to her book, but also to “Psychological Science” or the “Journal of Applied Social Psychology”. Her goal, writes the author, is to start "conversations about evil". But your book is not a religious or philosophical book. Indeed - unfortunately! No one can blame her for not having dealt with the subject more comprehensively. But it would certainly have done the book good if it had not only scattered Nietzsche quotes over the individual chapters, but also dealt with what philosophers and theologians had and have to say about the phenomenon of evil. However, the sentences of the great philosopher at least offer the appearance of structure in a work that otherwise looks as if the author has entered everything that came to her mind about the broad field of evil into the search engine and evaluated the result relatively incoherently. Thus, without conceptual differentiation, there are studies on aggression and sadism in close neighborhood groups on research on pedophilia, National Socialism, rape and mass murder. Somehow everything is bad. However, one shouldn't label anyone as completely evil and thus dehumanize them, warns the author. This is actually an important and further reference. People aren't just psychopaths or thieves or pedophiles. Even murderers are human first and foremost. Whether her book "throws the familiar categories of good and bad overboard," as the publisher promises, remains to be seen. The publisher seems to have doubts itself. Because the cover does not adorn a thematically appropriate motif, but a photo of the author. It looks anything but bad, on the contrary, it looks extremely attractive. Julia Shaw informs that attractive people generally appear more trustworthy. Julia Shaw may be her best selling point in person. In any case, you don't learn anything really new about evil in her book. But those who like their style and need suggestions for small talk will get their money's worth.

ANGELA RINN

Mr. bobby (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look up the term "popular science writer" and sample a larger variety of books in that genre.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Shaw_(psychologist)&oldid=1206061093"