Talk:Scott Haltzman

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

== Unclear English

Untitled[edit]

"Evolutionary biology, along with explanations of the limbic system governing emotions, provide the foundation for Haltzman's argument that much psychological dogma is possibly wrong, buoying married men by suggesting that it might be healthy "to keep your feelings to yourself," or that getting in touch with feelings is not a panacea for a better marriage."

I don't understand this sentence. There are several negatives and too many clauses, it is not clear what relates to what. I cannot deduce unambiguously what the author *is* actually asserting. Would someone who knows the work rewrite this as several sentences please NeilUK (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks citations and seems self-promoting[edit]

I do not have the time currently to delve into all of the many problems with this article. It has a champion in one anonymous editor, who continues to assert its notability. It lacks citations everywhere. It seems utterly self-promotional and appears to dramatically exaggerate the subject's notability. It also contains no critical or objective tone. PAWiki (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]