Talk:Gina Rippon

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.

Women scientists

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies

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 articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Neuroscience

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge Bibliography

There is a clear consensus to merge Gina Rippon bibliography into Gina Rippon. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposing a merge in from Gina Rippon bibliography, as its an unnecessary content split. The long list of journal articles also isn't necessary; that's what the 'authority' control link at the bottom can provide (via the ORCID link). A good model of how this can be done on one page is, for example, Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield. Klbrain (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per the edit history of Gina Rippon's bibliography, the AfD of Stanley Aronowitz's bibliography and the closing administrator's comments as to whether there is a precedent and WP:WikiProject Bibliographies#Author bibliographies. There is actually a strong argument for Baroness Greenfield to have her own bibliography. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rippon's body of work is not very long, a split is not helpful in this case.★Trekker (talk) 02:08, 1 July 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]

Support I see no reason for it to be a separate article. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there are other bibliography articles created by user The Vintage Feminist. I found Sabina Alkire bibliography, Margaret Gallagher bibliography, Liz Kelly bibliography, Barbara Bergmann bibliography, Melissa Farley bibliography and Michael McCarthy professional credits. I’m guessing I can submit them all at once to WP:ANRFC in a weeks time. I’ll tag the others. Sxologist (talk) 02:40, 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.

Restored Rhonda Voskuhl and Sabra Klein bit

This was removed. I restored it. I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]