Talk:Elaine Showalter

Untitled
Does this article really need to be so long? Most other academics have a paragraph or two. This article is longer than Charlotte Bronte's article! Can it not be pruned a little? 86.129.40.6 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that longer is better and contains more information. Wikipedia is not limited by article length. I would say if Charlotte Bronte's article is smaller than it needs work. This encyclopedia should have as much information as it can. It is good for people who want to know about this woman, and that is the point in the first place. I would like more information on what she said to anger the CFS community though. A quote would be nice. SadanYagci 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we really don't want to reduce information where it actually exists. Further develop the Charlotte Bronte article, if it is out of proportion. --Literaturegirl (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

XMRV References
These quotes fail WP:MEDRS and WP:OR. I have reverted to the original content. -- TerryE (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I -- reader, August, 2010 -- that the Showalter bio is self-aggrandizing and written by someone way too close to the subject. Books on Feminist Theory (in the US) were published in the 70s. The comment about her being a founder is off the mark and inaccurate. She may have participated in its practice to some extent, but she's no Monique Wittig; some of her books seem more opportunistic than thoughtfully academic.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.23.102 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 August 2010


 * Of course the XMRV references are relevant. They clearly undermine her thesis that CFS is an expression of hysteria. And of course Science and the PNAS are reliable sources!? And citing these sources does not amount to original research; citing these sources is necessary to describing the ways Showalter's thesis is at odds with other literatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.107.8 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 September 2010


 * If a citation for the claim that Showalter has received hate mail can not be produced, the reference to it should be eliminated as its inflammatory and vilifies an entire class of patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.107.8 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 September 2010


 * Look, I personally do not agree with what Showalter has written and do not like to edit this article, but describing the way Showalter's thesis is at odds with other literature must come from a unified source or it is WP:SYN, "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence referencing the XMRV study from the article. The study has now been debunked and is thought to be the result of contamination, as is well described in the Pathophysiology section of the CFS article. The Science article that was used as a reference for this sentence is now tagged with an editorial expression of concern. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6038/35.1.full Given the level of incredulity surrounding the study, attempting to use it as proof that Showalter's views are incorrect is misleading. Discussion of the relative merits of competing theories of the causes of CFS is better left to the articles about CFS, where these issues can be explored in the necessary detail. 203.143.164.154 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

suggest adding item re: her work in promoting non academic careers
(see this source) https://www-chronicle-com.mutex.gmu.edu/article/whos-afraid-of-elaine-showalter-now 72.83.221.243 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)