Talk:Gina Rippon

Merge Bibliography
Proposing a merge in from Gina Rippon bibliography, as its an unnecessary content split. The long list of journal articles also isn't necessary; that's what the 'authority' control link at the bottom can provide (via the ORCID link). A good model of how this can be done on one page is, for example, Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield. Klbrain (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per the edit history of Gina Rippon's bibliography, the AfD of Stanley Aronowitz's bibliography and the closing administrator's comments as to whether there is a precedent and WP:WikiProject Bibliographies. There is actually a strong argument for Baroness Greenfield to have her own bibliography. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the comments you linked to. They do not support the idea of keeping such articles separate, especially in the instance of someone like Rippon who is not an author who pumped out countless publications. Additionally, you write: "I don't actually see the problem with Wikipedia becoming an alternative resource for students for academics bibliography. When I was a student I didn't always find the resources that were available all that intuitive". See What Wikipedia is not. Students have Google Scholar to find materials – this is not the place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Sxologist (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support (see my comments above). Also, and  what do you think? The fact there is an article dedicated to Gina Rippon's bibliography is very odd. I have re-proposed a merge into this one. Maybe the bibliography should be simply deleted? Sxologist (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Rippon's body of work is not very long, a split is not helpful in this case.★Trekker (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:NOTEVERYTHING covers this, and "Bibliography of Gina Rippon" fails WP:GNG. For requested merges, Sxologist, wait a week after you tagged the articles, then list it at WP:ANRFC. (For some reason, these don't seem to be closed in a timely fashion unless listed there, unlike most other processes.) Crossroads -talk- 06:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I see no reason for it to be a separate article. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Also note there are other bibliography articles created by user The Vintage Feminist. I found Sabina Alkire bibliography, Margaret Gallagher bibliography, Liz Kelly bibliography, Barbara Bergmann bibliography, Melissa Farley bibliography and Michael McCarthy professional credits. I’m guessing I can submit them all at once to WP:ANRFC in a weeks time. I’ll tag the others. Sxologist (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored Rhonda Voskuhl and Sabra Klein bit
This was removed. I restored it. I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Yes, it's highly relevant that Nature published that follow up to their initial review (an unusual step). The fact is that the initial review by itself makes it seem like Rippon's ideas are the accepted mainstream in neuroscience. They are not; at the very least, these matters are highly debated. I see why they published the follow up. Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said when reverting the review is explicitly about Elliot's claims in the review (which aren't even in this article) not about the book. They literally do not even review the book in their article. If anything, they should appear on Elliot's page as they are reviewing Elliot's claims not Rippons. They do not debate the sentence of Elliot's contained in the article currently. Affied (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)