This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Immortale (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 15 February 2008 (→The Daniel Mackler essay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:18, 15 February 2008 by Immortale (talk | contribs) (→The Daniel Mackler essay)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
The Daniel Mackler essay
I just wanted to say that Dadreval did the right thing when he removed the mackler essay. I honestly dont think mackler understand millers thinking at all and I think we should let the essay _stay_ removed. By[REDACTED] guidelines inaccurate material should _not_ be included. If mackler has _some_ valid points maybe he should write a new essay... I would appreciate other editors thoughts on this. Addicted2Sanity 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't read Daniel Mackler's essay in full, but having read other material on his website, including comments elsewhere on Alice Miller (whose work I've also read), I'd say he makes some valid and original points. Even if one could argue that he misunderstands Miller, would that be reason enough to remove the link? To me it seems more fair to link to at least one critical review of Alice Miller -- especially insofar as Mackler offers an original perspective -- unless you can establish that Mackler's essay is really "inaccurate". Therefore, I propose to restore the link (http://iraresoul.com/alicemiller.html). --216.9.16.183 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mackler is one of the handful individuals in the whole world who has fully grasped Miller’s legacy. Although I dislike some parts his essay (specifically, the speculation about sexual fantasies that Miller might have felt toward her
Mongolicchild), I see no valid reason to remove it. Keep in mind that in his forum Mackler has written a rebuttal of a hostile book review of Miller’s latest book (in English). In fact, if you see Mackler’s posts in that forum you’ll see that his grasp of Miller’s thought is superb.
- Mackler is one of the handful individuals in the whole world who has fully grasped Miller’s legacy. Although I dislike some parts his essay (specifically, the speculation about sexual fantasies that Miller might have felt toward her
- I would go so far as to suggest that Miller is a kind of mentor in absentia of Mackler. It’s quite common that freethinkers assimilate what they consider the valid part of their mentors and, when they reach maturity, reject what they consider the weak parts. I believe this is the case of Mackler. Miller publishes letters of her many sycophants in her website. But she doesn’t allow critical voices to be heard —even though such voices have Miller in the highest regard!
- Furthermore, according to WP policy NPOV, it is perfectly ok to balance an otherwise uncritical article of Miller with some critical content. Yes: I agree with 216.9.16.183 that the link to the essay should be reinserted in the externals section. (If the essay is published in the future in an ISBN book, it may even be discussed in the main article.)
- Finally, I encourage 216.9.16.183 to register in WP and argue his/her case more fully than I can do. Registration is free; very easy and you will automatically see in your watchlist which appears after registration if this article, or another favorite article in your list, has been edited recently by other editors.
- Welcome, 216.9.16.183, and I hope we’ll hear from you soon.
- The core of Alice Miller's writings is that she chooses the side of the children, and only their side. I suggest we put back the link to Daniel Mackler's critical essay because he addresses elements of Alice Miller where she doesn't choose the side of the child. Nowhere in Daniel's essay, he abandons the side of the child. If anyone thinks he has, please mention it here. Just stating that he's inaccurate without pointing out what and where he's wrong, isn't the[REDACTED] thing.
- Immortale (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I'll restore the link. —Cesar Tort 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've removed the link again. It doesn't appear appropriate for inclusion, based on both WP:EL and per WP:SPS (part of WP:V). It's a self-published essay by a writer who is not a recognized authority and is not published elsewhere by third parties. I checked on Google Books and Google Scholar and his name gets no hits, so he's not been published or mentioned there. Even a regular Google search doesn't offer anything significant that I could find.
- I have nothing against Daniel Mackler, but it's not up to us to decide what he wrote is right or reasonable, we need to follow the policies. If I missed something that shows it does meet WP:RS, please provide that info. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- What Jack says makes sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Mackler may very well have som good points but if you want to link to them from the[REDACTED] he's going to have to write a _new_ essay containing only the valid ones.
Cesar Tort, as you very well know, both Alice Miller and Barbara Rogers are furious because of the inclusion of Macklers essay. We shouldn't, of course, allow them to control the page but we should at least take their feedback seriously. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said above, I don't like Mackler's speculations about the purported sexual fantasies of Miller toward her daughter. However, if he manages to publish his essay in a book or a journal, we cannot impede that another editor includes it per WP policy. —Cesar Tort 09:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- To my knowledge _any_ inaccurate material can be excluded from articles, regardless of how they were published. But should that ever happen we can ask someone higher up in the hiearchy to settle it for us. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mackler's Essay was published by Annosidus Independent Press February 11. Of course clicking on the ISBN or Google it doesn't give it the necessary info yet. But contact The Swedish Royal Library if you want a confirmation of its existence instead of deleting it because it doesn't show up on Google. There are other channels to get your necessary info. And what's the deal between Google and Misplaced Pages anyway? Google is a commercial company, which only indexed a part of the internet. Maybe some people should start Googlepedia instead. Immortale (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
fyog
Why do people keep removing the link to "For your own good"? There's nothing wrong with it. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe because it should not be within the main text per WP style policies, but at the end of the article, as it is today located. —Cesar Tort 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't know WP had a policy like that. I wanted to have it there so people would find it. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Section added
This is a response to the above posts about Dan Mackler's essay:
Mackler has already a book contract with Routledge in London, and he is publishing a book —peer-reviewed— with a psychiatrist. In fact, they are co-editors/co-authors. The book is on the therapetic treatment with the severely mentally ill and it should be coming out in the Fall.
Furthermore, a whole book by Mackler on Miller has just been released three days ago.
Therefore, since NPOV requires that all sourced views be represented, I've included a "criticism" section which mentions this book. This time there's no reason to revert.
201.103.127.241 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Phantom entries courtesy of the Wikiproject template
In looking at the different parts for the page, I've been able to determine where the problem originates. Apparently the Template knows to look for a Comment page. If it finds one, it will transclude it into the talk page for the article. Easiest solution may be to rename the comment page.--Coro (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes: I suspected that. Since you created that page, could you please nominate it for deletion? Moving it would only complicate the redirect "courtesy" even further :) Cesar Tort 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- This may come as a surprise, but the history of that page indicates that you were its original creator, and made most of the edits. All I did was find it.:)--Coro (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've already added a {db-owner} template there. —Cesar Tort 22:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)