Talk:Charles L. Whitfield

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamwashington3, Akumar1997, AmaraRoderick, Heaney44, Alebreault.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvements
This article is supposed to show the history of Whitman along with how he progressed to become this famous scientist, and it is not. It must go into greater detail about how he became a scientist and his background history. This should be more of a bibliography and less like someone slapped on a couple of random facts. --A nnmohh (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisions
I edited this article by spelling out numbers when needed and fixing a minor spelling error.--Jessicaloyd27 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

psych 101 critic
The information you added was informative. Maybe talk a little more into depth about each book or article. Other than that, good job! --KellyPaige&#61;Baller (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)KellyPaige=Baller

Some Proper Advice
As you have said in your preivous statement, this article should be more about Whitman's history and how he became a reknown scientist. Although you're added sentence about his publications, which was well written I must say, you probably should include more about his background. Not only may it be interesting, it would help the reader understand maybe why Whitman decided to go into this field. --DieHardMcClain (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-Promotion / Not Notable?
This article as written is absolutely horrible. It reads like a self-promotion ("See his newest books below" in the lead? Seriously?), and indeed certain editors seem to have more interest in expanding the lists of books and external links than in actually discussing any of Whitfield's minority views on (for example) the validity of "recovered" memories. He was an important figure during the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s, as well (promoting the completely discredited idea that Satanic ritual abuse was a real and widespread phenomenon). In fact, were it not for the Satanic Panic, he'd be completely non-noteworthy.

My preference would be nominate this article for removal, but barring this course there must be some balance. As it stands one might believe nothing this man has ever written has been disputed in the least, when in fact (on recovered memories at least), his views have been rejected by a sound majority of professionals in that field. Were I in a less charitable mood, I'd call him a shameless woo-peddler. Wilford Nusser (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)