Talk:Lisa Feldman Barrett

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

why?

I don't understand why you deleted the most significant part of the wikipedia page for Lisa Feldman Barrett: her theory of emotion. Now the page doesn't say anything of substance anymore: it's just a listing of job titles.

The theory just earned her two scientific awards: the Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP, http://www.sesp.org/awards.htm) and a Cattell Award sponsored by the American Psychological Society (APS, http://www.cattell.duke.edu/). These are major psychological research organizations. -- Djbwiki

Please understand that what i was primarily trying to do is protect the article against deletion---articles talking mainly about the work tend to get deleted, rightly or wrongly.

The article is about her; it is not a place to expound her theory in any detail--please look at pages for other academics. What should be added to the pages is a list of publications and awards, including visiting appointments, etc. If there are any book reviews or the like, they help as well.

Those awards are just the right thing, put them in.

However, it would be appropriate to add a one or two sentence description of the research, presented as describing her research, not talking about the topic. I would have done so, but I did not feel able to do an adequate job of shortening it.DGG 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we are dealing with a notability issue here. Not that the subject isn't notable enough to have her own article, but shouldn't someone other than the subject or the subject's husband be creating this article. At Wiki, we a re taught to wait until someone else creates an article about you ~ don't create your own article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Evidence

I would like to present objective evidence that Dr. Feldman Barrett is notable. I have a conflict of interest as I'm her husband.

Dr. Feldman Barrett has approximately 70 peer-reviewed academic publications on emotion and related topics, and has been cited many times. What is the best way to include this information?
She won a 2006 Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. I've added this to her article as it's a verifiable fact on the SESP web site.
She also just won a 2007-2008 James McKeen Cattell Fund Fellowship last week, which is cosponsored by the Association for Psychological Science. (The 2007-2008 winners should be listed shortly.) What is the appropriate way to include this information?
She's a past recipient of a five-year K02 Independent Scientist Award from the National Institutes of Health.
She has held about $3.5 million in federal funding from various well-known sources. I wouldn't list this in her article, but I present it as evidence of "notability."

Djbwiki 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as evidence of notability. Can you produce anything written about her by a third-party source i.e. not her writing about herself, not the university she works at writing about its own departments, not an award-giving body writing about its own awards? We need evidence of genuine third-party interest in her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the award, combined with being a full professor, is a very good start, but good point about the award. WP:PROF has a good list of what we're looking for. From the list above by Djbwiki, I think the Career Trajectory Award is good but possibly insufficient. From my own research for this article so far, I think that her work in modeling emotion may be accepted enough to suffice. --Ronz 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do non-notable, or borderline notable, figures no favors by allowing an article to persist, because it will always be questioned, or nominated for PROD or AfD, and the person will be associated with a vanity text, all of which is cached by Google. What we need to show is, as the guidelines says, that the subject is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. So far, no independent sources have been produced. We need to find unconnected people who have written about her or her work, and if there are none, this article really ought to be deleted. It can be done discretely via PROD, or with lots of discussion via AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for surveys or reviews of models of emotion written independently of Barrett and have come up empty. I'll add the prod back. --Ronz 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative the author (User:Djbwiki) could speedy the article or move it to a user subpage himself. AvB ÷ talk 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept citations of her research in other scholarly papers? I've added some under "Secondary sources" below. Djbwiki 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand SlimVirgin's point about not considering material written by the author, but I am curious why peer review is not being taken into account. Any person with enough energy can publish 70+ papers, but to publish 70+ peer reviewed papers in top-tier (APA, APS) psychology journals is another matter. Each of these papers was read by qualified (and anonymous) researchers in the field, as assigned by the journal editors, to determine whether it should be published. This process takes months or years for each paper. Can you explain why passing that "high bar" seventy times is not strong evidence of notability? Djbwiki 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best test of notability is when someone entirely unconnected to the person decides they're notable enough to create an article on. That's why we have a rule about vanity articles, and it's the reason it's best to stick to it, so that discussions about a subject's notability don't take place on the talk page with people who are directly involved with the subject, or with the subject themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 9 tests of notability on WP:PROF, and none of them are about who creates the article. I understand the vanity rule, but I also have linked to over 500 third-party, scholarly citations of Lisa Feldman Barrett's work below (see Google Scholar discussion and my correction of the "131" number). That appears to satisfy criterion 4, "collective body of work is significant and well-known." Nobody has directly commented on this. Djbwiki 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't adding the books listed at http://www2.bc.edu/~barretli/publications.shtml establish notability? AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are standard grants and citation numbers for a working scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.6 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Here is a textbook on emotion that discusses Lisa Feldman Barrett:

Psychology of Emotions: Interpersonal, Experiential and Cognitive Approaches

If you view the index (using the "Search inside this book" link), you will see these entries:

Barrett, L.F. 5, 33-4, 41, 53, 57-8, 312
Feldman Barrett, L. 53-61, 76, 157, 162, 280, 282, 287, 289-90

This book is in the library at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which implies that it is scholarly.

Djbwiki 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar shows she has been cited hundreds of times in scholarly papers: Search for Lisa Feldman Barrett and look at the Citations numbers on each entry.

You'd need to put inverted commas around the name to get the right number of returns, which is 131. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you get 131 "hits" (shown at the top of the page as, "Results 1-10 of about 131 for 'lisa feldman barrett'"), but I hope you realize that isn't the citation count, which is much higher. The "131" just counts her authored papers, talks, etc., that Google knows of. The citation count is found elsewhere on the page. In the first hit ("Core affect..."), look at the final line, which says "Cited by 145." That means 145 research papers have cited that single "Core affect..." paper. Now go to the next hit ("Independence and bipolarity...") which says "Cited by 138." So far, that's 145 + 138 = 283 scientific citations of her work. Now keep going through the rest of the 131 hits, adding up the citations for each one, and you'll come up with 600-700 citations of her work, by hundreds of different researchers. Now, some of those citations will be in her own papers (citing herself), but if you click those "Cited by..." links and take a look, you'll see the vast majority are citations by other authors. Make sense? Wouldn't 600+ third-party research citations, plus being awarded Fellow status at APA, APS, and SPSP (below), imply notability? Djbwiki 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Fellow of the following scholarly organizations in psychology. This is an honor and you have to be nominated.

Association for Psychological Science (APS) (as "Feldman Barrett, Lisa")
American Psychological Association (APA) - could not find her fellowship listed online, but she has a plaque.
Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) - could not find fellowship information online, but she has a plaque.

She is on the editorial board of the following top-tier journals in psychology. Scholars on these boards are nominated.

Emotion (Associate Editor)
Psychological Review (Consulting Editor)
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (Consulting Editor)
She is also on the editorial board of Psychological Science and Perspectives in Psychological Science, but their web pages are not up to date.
She is also editor-in-chief of a new journal from SAGE Publications called Emotion Review, but the information is not online yet.

Djbwiki 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston college

I have a friend who works in the lab about stem research. If you email me information about Lisa Feldman Barrett I will contact my friend about her and see if she knows or has any information about her work. --Crohnie 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles

Barrett has various contributions to journals as recorded in JSTOR. Shall we include these titles as well? Here are a few: The Structure of Current Affect: Controversies and Emerging Consensus/ Are Emotions Natural Kinds?/ The Structure of Emotion: Evidence from Neuroimaging Studies/ Being Emotional during Decision Making: Good or Bad? An Empirical Investigation/ The Role of Affective Experience in Work Motivation/ Constructing Emotion: The Experience of Fear as a Conceptual Act

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Feldman Barrett. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI and AUTO tagged

This is not a question of notability but one of NPOV. Readers of the article should be aware that it was created by the spouse of the subject, who is also a major editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the spouse, and the NPOV and COI tags seem overkill in this case. It's true that I created the article... 13 years ago! Since them, however, 80% of the edits have been made by other authors (per https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py).

All of my subsequent edits (as djbwiki and maiden_taiwan) have been updates of objective, factual, independently verifiable information (books published, awards won, citations, links, etc.) and grammar/reformatting, with a single exception 9 years ago (378958684 which edited prose). --Djbwiki (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are not meant to be used to simply identify that there has been past COI-editing. If there are POV problems, or reason for a detailed review for such problems, please indicate so with some rationale. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]