Talk:Alan Lipman

Untitled
Typo was: "sinpers", changed correctly to "snipers". Therefore, typo was present, not implausible. Now repaired. Thanks.Incisive23

Probably better off without the quotes, and with a capitalized first and last name--71.247.246.54 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Done--71.247.246.54 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
I'm not sure exactly where US law stands on the issue, but under Wikipedia policy, it is definitely not valid to describe tv screenshots used to identify the subject of a biographical article as "fair use". See Fair use, and the counterexamples in the section below it, particularly the similar counterexample 7, and counterexample 8. JPD (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Message for James Watson
Hi,

I made the edit that you referred to regarding Alan Lipman, the psychologist who studies violence. No, I don't think there is only one psychologist in Washington, DC. I put in the "the" because as someone who studies Criminal Psych (and, no, I do not know Mr. Lipman) and who consequently follows his work, I *meant* to say that he is the criminal psychologist in DC who is known for his specific work on the causes of mass homicides--a rather specific area of expertise, for which he is known. This is like saying that Mary Day is the American dancer in Washington, DC known as an expert on neo-classical ballet, that Ulysses Sofia is the American physicist in Washington, DC known as an expert on interstellar dust, or that "Jelly Roll" Morton was the American jazz pianist in Washington, DC known for his expertise in improvisational stomp jazz (ok, that's because I'm listening to "Shreveport Stomp!".

Obviously, that is not how it came out, and as someone who has contributed to many pages (as NinaVia and NinaViaDeux!) including Mr. Lipman's work and cites I am horrified about this. I don't know him, or any of the other people I posted about (although I would like to meet Usain Bolt!)

Nina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.206.2 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "the" and so forth...
Greetings and Salutations,

One of my favourite aspects of Wikipedia is the detailing that some bring to the editing.

However, it is a true statement that Alan Lipman is the psychologist in WDC known for his expertise on large scale shootings. The fact is that he is one of the principal figures who works against gun violence here in the States. This description would be known to anyone in the States who has had any familiarity with these episodes. As he has been a leading commentator in each of these episodes for at least a decade, and basically has served as a national "voice" on preventing such shootings, the statement that he is the psychologist in DC known for this expertise does appear quite accurate. That the article did not appear to be saying that he is the only psychologist in WDC seems rather clear, yes? Esp. as it then describes that exact expertise in large scale shootings thru the whole of the article. Tho' I am not a fine-parsing grammarian by trade, they did manage to propel my sorry mind thru Cambridge, and this does appear quite reasonably clear, yes?

Myself, I often find myself torn between Hugo's "Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life" and Bertrand Russell's "I do not pretend to start with precise questions. I do not think you can start with anything precise. You have to achieve such precision as you can, as one may hope, as you go along." Here, the fact and the statement that Lipman is the psychologist in WDC known for his expertise on large scale shootings seem rather equivalent--the "the" as neutral as the rest of the article's facts and citations. It seems certainly ambitious but perhaps a bit of "the" conclusory to place a warning that would, however unintentionally, insinuate otherwise. All kindnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.40.29 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Article
No idea what you are talking about. I do not know this person or anything that occurred in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4502:AE40:45A7:7554:2F3B:1A1 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversal of non-neutral rewrite
I have reverted that addition once more. Of course there is nothing wrong with mentioning Mr. Lipman's views and statements - in a concise and neutral manner. But the recent additions were a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:NPOV in general. Most of the article's content should be independent information about him, not an excessive listing of every single interview. The in-text analysis of those interviews and quotes also violates WP:OR, unless those conclusions are clearly verified by an independent source. GermanJoe (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Lipman
Hi there. What on Earth? The article provides a very small, selected of cites of his work. This is revealed by the most cursory search. I chose these based upon national epsiodes, such as Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine and those others that had the most significance in the U.S. Most of his interviews, writings are not included. There are at least 300 interviews listed for him, the vast majority of which are not included here. Only the ones that bear on national episodes or significant work. Article has been edited per WPPEACOCK, as suggested, and any such adjjectives removed. Each of the works is cited to an independent source, as asked for, such as CNN, the Washington Post, etc. Appreciation for your thoughtful work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.217.6 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't describe a collection of 20 quotes as "very small" selection. Even for a commentator, that amount of quote farming is undue WP:WEIGHT for Lipman's own views and statements - see also WP:QUOTE, especially WP:QUOTEFARM, for information on encyclopedic usage of quotations. Those views are important, but most of them should be mentioned in concise summary style with a few quotes for context. They should only get detailed coverage in the article, if other independent secondary sources found them significant and have reported about them in-depth. Then these independent reports about Lipman can be used to describe his commentaries. The suggested addition needs to be trimmed down to its most significant points, and completely rephrased in summary prose with only a few central quotes for relevant encyclopedic context. Anyway, let's see what other editors think but the original version should be restored for now. GermanJoe (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Joe--As stated above, the citations (not quotes, but cites) were selected from hundreds for their relevance to national issues. The statement refers to citations. As far as quotes go, on review, I'm in partial agreement. Quotes such as those from Radford, CNN, NPR, etc. are clearly from independent, in-depth secondary sources. However, I do agree that the quotes should be more concise, and will attempt to pare them down to their nub to better reflect Lipman's work in this areas. Thanks for your help here.


 * The entire (original) intro, and the statements within the article "He lectures both nationally and internationally on the subjects of violence, crime, terrorism, and their causes, after-effects, and prevention" and "Lipman has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, NBC Evening News, CBS, ABC News, Court TV, and the BBC" are sufficient enough to convey the point being made by the endless examples trying to be shown with these latest rounds of edits. In addition to WP:WEIGHT and WP:QUOTEFARM, anything much more beyond that is WP:RESUME and shows vanity/conflict of interest.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Bar. You seem to be suggesting that I am him. I am not, and have nothing to do with him. My niece was in Sandy Hook, CT. Enough said. As far as the content, I tend to agree with Joe above that the quotes can be pared down. The cites are chosen for their national relevance, and are about 20 out of three hundred as far as that goes, so hardly "every" as you suggested, rather, "almost every not". His positions on gun violence and terrorism, which have been put firther nationally for 15 years, are important and shopuld be described, as they are, as they cannot be understood by the generalized term "violence". The cites are chosen to show exactly these positions in significant national events. OTOH, Joe is right that the quotes could be more concise, and some of the quotes probably shortened to a nub of a sentence or so, I agree. I'll take a whack at that suggestion of paring down the quotes, and will be back at 'ya. Appreciate the work, and thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.217.6 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have never suggested or implied that you (whoever "you" are) are Alan Lipman himself. Edits more recent, and of the past, suggest that there may (but absolutely not definite) be individual(s) who want to promote the article subject. Further, why are "his positions ... important" and "shopuld (sic) be described?" The events themselves he commented on as a commentator/talking head were important, but unless this commentary itself was the subject of a third party's discussion (i.e. excludes transcripts and basic media coverage) it isn't notable. Please keep this in mind. Other than being on TV for an opinion or being a "commentator" what is the significance of what is trying to be added to the article? To a few of us it appears to be puffery and self-promotion. For example: In a previous version the following was used: 'Lipman has been quote as stating that: "Employees most likely to turn violent are those with long-standing and unresolved grievances, conflicts with co-workers, antisocial personality disorder or another psychological illness."' This is a republication of a quote/interview/etc. he gave to a DC publication. Why are quotes like this being posted in this Wikipedia article? Is this particular stance/position groundbreaking for its time? Why is this important other than it was used by a publication to have an authority figure give some legitimacy to a news article? A lot of smart and important people say smart and important things, but for Wikipedia you won't see their quotes listed up and down their article without explanation of those quotes'/positions' significance to the article subject.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 05:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)