Talk:Donald Meltzer

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

Kneejerk tagging[edit]

I am the author of this article and no sooner did it go up than it got 4 tags from one person who on his user page professes an interest in psychology and psychiatry. My comment at the Village Pump is as follows:

I am a new contributor so I'm sure there are things I haven't got the hang of yet. But my first article was kneejerk-tagged with 4 negative tags by one person who clearly had not read it and who left no explanation on the talkpage. When I contacted him he said it was on the basis of the automatic filter that connects the author with references/weblinks. In my case the references (respectable published sources, and a website to an official English charity where I am one of the trustees) are entirely appropriate to the article which is serious and highly specialised. However he did not answer my request to point out specifically what he thought was unverifiable, not neutral, of unclear interest etc. This same objector then 'wikified' the article in a way which made nonsense of it (eg wordlinks were to similar words, but with a different meaning, such as 'supervisor' which in Wikipedia is specifically about factory supervisors, whereas my word refers specifically to academic supervisors, so it is quite mindless to direct a reader to it - and against Wikipedia guidelines on 'when to link'). Obviously all this sort of thing will sort itself out when or if other people take an interest, but it is timeconsuming. My suggestion is, could it be a requirement for a tag that whoever puts it should also put a more specific detailed reason for it on the article talkpage? this would at least make people stop and think how to justify their automatic dislike. Otherwise it invites unreasonable and instinctive reactions, and it is hard to argue against something if there is no argument only a stamp of disapproval. ArtLit 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty to "kneejerk tagging", but that has its uses on Wikipedia. I was only trying to be helpful to general readership. I should have, perhaps, added some comments on this discussion page, and will endeavor to do the same when it might be useful. For example, a detailed, NPOV explanation of the major ideas of the Kleinian school would improve the article, as would links to the places where Meltzer lived and worked. Bearian 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. 71.240.184.236 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article's archived history and seeing how it evolved from a stub to an encyclopedic piece, it seems to me the "kneejerk tagging" did it's job. El charangista 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare earliest and latest versions you'll see they're virtually identical. Confusion in the middle since I didn't understand what authority or meaning the tags had.

About the structure of this article[edit]

Hello, I am the author of this article and would like to explain its style and layout. This article is intended to enable those who have heard of either Donald Meltzer or of post-Kleinian psychoanalytic ideas to find their way to further reading. Though classed as a ‘biography’ it is not about his life (except to a minimal degree) but an outline of his professional career and ideas. Because this is a specialised and little-known (though notable) subject area, and reading about it here may constitute a reader’s first exposure to it, there seems little point in detailed exposition within the article itself. Instead I have tried to provide the kind of links and references that will help fill in the intellectual background. At the same time these are intended to map out the available sources of information for those readers who already know the Kleinian background but who might appreciate an overview for further research. I would expect the Further Reading section to be expanded in an ongoing way by others.

You may intended the article to work this way, but wikipedia users come to articles for many different reasons, not all of which you may have anticipated. Please don't restrict the reading community. You can contribute whatever you want to the article, but it is in the article's best interest to be as accessible and as comprehensible as possible. This is a general encyclopedia. Awadewit | talk 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was aiming for - accessibility - even though the nature of the subject means that it will be incomprehensible to many people, as will any highly specialised subject. (I refer to the ideological aspect of it, not the strictly biographical aspect.)ArtLit 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken up suggestions to link to many of the towns and cities mentioned, because this sort of tourist information is not relevant to the story of the ideas; in fact it would be distracting and unaesthetic in the context of this particular biography. The Wikipedia principle I have tried constantly to adhere to is the one advocated in the tutorial – “Would this link be useful to me?”

Again, while you may not agree with this style, it is wikipedia policy. It is not "tourist information," necessarily. What if a reader does not know where the location is? The link will quickly tell them. You may find it distracting and unaesthetic, but wikipedia and the web in general are built around these kinds of links. Again, we should not assume all readers are of one type. Awadewit | talk 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also born in mind that given Meltzer's life of international teaching, this piece may well be read by non-native English speakers. I have tried to keep the language clear, concise and jargon-free, apart from the separate section entitled Ideas, where technical terms cannot be avoided and are inevitable, as with all new ideas.

Somebody has complained on my talkpage that the article ‘may be’ controversial. Well – all new ideas are controversial – in fact, so are most old ones. Nobody expects anything else. But the article itself is straightforward and factual. To the reader who is interested in following up the ideas to find out more about them, I have tried to suggest how to go about it. To the reader who isn’t – well, that’s fine too. ArtLit 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Prose:

  • He became known for making clinical headway with difficult childhood conditions such as autism, and also for his theoretical innovations and developments. - What kind of innovations and developments? Can you be a bit more specific or give an example or two?
These are summarised in the Ideas subsection. I shall make this clearer. The idea of having a separate section for Ideas/Innovations came from the Wikipedia article on Freud.
I am sorry, I should have been clearer. Usually when wikipedians quote a single sentence, they are usually referring to that single sentence. I meant that that sentence in the lead should contain an example or two. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He practised in St. Louis as a psychiatrist, before moving to England in 1954 to have analysis with Melanie Klein. - Is "to have analysis" the right phrase here? It sounded odd to me when I read it. I would also briefly describe Klein for the less informed reader - not everyone clicks.
It is the usual phrase, in the UK at any rate. I shall put in a brief description of Klein - I had assumed the link to Klein, together with the other references to her, would be sufficient.
If it is UK language, that is fine. I generally assume that readers do not click (sometimes they would have to click a lot!). Anything you think is vital for the article for context should be included. Also, it is good idea to sometimes read through the article you are linking to. If it is not very good, you may be be forced to do additional explanation. I myself had to do this with sensibility whenever I referred to it because the article is so had and I haven't had time to write a new one yet. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He joined the Kleinian group, became a teaching analyst at the British Society and took on British citizenship. - Does one "take on" citizenship? That seems like an odd construction.
The more usual phrase is "was granted" though it is not an expression I personally like. The fact is, at that period, the US would not allow dual nationality, so if somebody accepted British citizenship they had to renounce their American citizenship. Perhaps I should put a footnote about it.
I was less concerned about why and more concerned about readers understanding what he did. Clarity is extremely important. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early 1980s disagreements about the mode of training led him to withdraw from the Society. - What disagreements?
In my earlier version of the article I mentioned at this point Meltzer's advocacy of an "atelier" system of selection and training (this was the disagreement). Then the controversiality tag led me to put it further inside the article, as part of a section on Meltzer as teacher, which I thought would give it a context. I can either put the mention back in here, or refer to that section.
I agree with you that this article does not deserve "controversial" tag, by the way. But I am not sure how rearranging it makes it less or more controversial. I would definitely put the mention back in. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He supervised psychoanalytically oriented professionals in atelier-style groups throughout - "atelier-style" needs to be linked to wiktionary or explained - it is likely that many readers will not know that word.
I'll put in a quote from Meltzer on that. Also a footnote directing to the bibliography in the Meltzer as teacher section which provides details of the atelier system in operation.
  • Since his death in 2004 his reputation has increasingly regained ground also in his adoptive country. - remind the reader what his adoptive country is; also, why did this happen?
Oh dear - do you think the reader can have forgotten already! As to the question "why" - I don't think that can be answered uncontroversially. My personal view is that it is simply the fact of death that makes it happen: if the person is notable then there can be a rush for discipleship. Certainly it changes the social context.
I'm afraid so, yes. Also, if you think of the reader clicking on other articles in the meantime (the ideal reader, in some ways), they will definitely have forgotten. As to the "why" - is there a "standard" answer in the history? Wikipedia doesn't accept original research - it strives to present the mainstream, scholarly opinion on topics. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald Meltzer was a prolific writer and his books and many papers are translated into French, Italian, Spanish, German and some into Portuguese and Japanese. - This sentence is just sitting there all by itself. Find a better place for it.
When I first wrote the article it was all one unit and this was simply the last sentence. Then I split it up into sections for Wikipedia, and placed this sentence here to lead on to the Main Publications section. Probably it would be better back in the main article.

Content:

  • Are there any free or fair use images of him that you can include in the article? Biographies are generally illustrated with a picture of the person, if possible.
Yes I have one ready. But couldn't deal with learning how to upload images till the article itself was sorted out.
It is really quite simple. I myself know next to nothing about computers or computer programming but have easily picked up the wiki markup language. You basically learn from seeing others use it. You can always ask me if you have questions and if I don't know, I will try to find someone who does. (By the way, if the image needs to be altered in any way, I believe there is a graphics department somewhere here that will do that for you.) Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand any more on his early life? Do we know anything about his childhood or teenage years? I know that you said you were not interested in this, but to be a comprehensive biography, it must include such information, if it is available.
I could expand a bit but at this early stage (of posthumous reputation) there may not be published information.
  • I would add some historical context on the psychoanalytic movement for the uninformed reader.
  • Describe the "Society" he joined in more detail.
There are internal links to both Psychoanalysis and the British Psychoanalytical Society, though the overall coverage of British Object Relations psychoanalysis in Wikipedia is patchy. Are these considered not reliable because of the fact that they are Wikipedia entries?
Again, I would say that you cannot rely on the reader to click - the article itself must be a coherent whole and part of that coherence is context and describing things the reader might be unfamiliar with (see A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Anna Laetitia Barbauld, for examples of how this is done - in this articles I tried to balance clickability with brief descriptions necessary to understanding figures, places and texts.) Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result of the regular travels and teaching of Meltzer and Martha Harris (his third wife) - What happened to his other two wives? Missing information.
Could be put in, if necessary - again, I wanted to focus on the work-aspect which wasn't noticeably relevant in the first two marriages. It is Meltzer's work and teaching that makes him a notable figure, not his personal family life. I feel this is a difference between biographies of people long-dead, and people recently dead. When it comes to historical figures the public wants to know as much as possible about them. But with recent figures (unless they were public figures in their time) notability still needs to be established, and readers need to be clear why it applies to this person. Is this a policy issue in the Biography area of Wikipedia?
Like I said, you can add whatever you want to the article, but a quality biography in wikipedia is considered to be as comprehensive as possible. There are two processes that editors often take their articles through as part of a review and ranking process - GAC and FAC. At GAC, one person will review your article and decide if it meets the standards of a "good article." At FAC, a group of reviewers will review it and then the FAC director will decide if there is a consensus on whether to promote it to FA (FAs, or "featured articles," are supposed to be the best articles wikipedia has). At any of these steps, a (good) reviewer would ask the questions I am asking about comprehensiveness. There is a large chart of what the different rankings (stub, start, B, GA, A, FA) mean at WikiProject Biography. I hope all of this helps. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would place the third paragraph in the middle of the biography somehow - integrate more - so that you are explaining what he did while he was alive.
  • The "Ideas" section should be written in prose and explained in much more depth (lists in the middle of articles are generally discouraged). Also, no one likes to see this in the middle of an article - perhaps turn it into a note: "For applications and comments on these theories see below, Further reading, Meltzer as teacher and External links . For expanded glossaries see Some Meltzerian Concepts and Glossary of Terms (in Spanish)."
I can certainly expand on this. I was trying to be as brief as possible - assuming the Ideas would be of interest only to those readers who already knew some background. I realised the Ideas would come up in the Contents so the reader with a more scientific interest in the subject would be drawn to this from the beginning.
Never assume, right? Brevity is not generally a virtue on wikipedia. Most of its good articles are much longer than the average encyclopedia article. I view this as a positive development, because the level of detail it allows is refreshing. The science articles here, for example, are amazing. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you talk about "Meltzer as a Teacher" within the biography and then leave the list of publications for a later section? It is odd the way the sections are set up now - the reader thinks the article proper is over, but it isn't.
This may be better, especially since the main article has become rather thin from trying to be uncontroversial. Though I would like to keep the list of books connected with his teaching work separate from the general bibliography about his work.
I agree about separating the teaching works. You can make it a subsection or something. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny issues:

  • Your headings need to conform to wikipedia guidelines regarding capitalization - Only the first word can be capitalized (Unless it is the title of a book, etc.)
  • The link in the third paragraph doesn't work. Also, all web links should be placed in footnotes as inline citations.
  • You cannot refer to other wikipedia articles as sources - they are not considered reliable (yet).
It does seem contradictory that Wikipedia encourages internal links, yet disavows their reliability. What is the difference between linking to French Wikipedia (more for confirmation of notability, really, than as a source) and linking within English Wikipedia?
Because one is being used as a source to confirm the information of the article (a citation version) and one is only directing readers to additional, not necessarily crucial information (the wikilink). I see that as a very large distinction. By the way, it looked to me like you were linking as a source, but if not, that is fine; then, I would say "For more information on [subject], please see..." Awadewit | talk 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize your reference style in both the notes and the bibliographies.
  • See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT on how to construct footnotes wikipedia-style.
  • You might take a quick look at the manual of style for layout requirements; for example, the "See also" section should be above the "Notes" (see Wikipedia:Guide to layout). Awadewit | talk 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and help.ArtLit 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Donald Meltzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Meltzer&oldid=1215315162"