Talk:John Forrester (historian)

Article in progress, refs added in due course, do not tag for deletion!
This article is under construction do not tag for deletion.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some advice: Putting a note like this on an article's talk page is not likely to be very effective. You can handle this in two different ways. 1/ Put the template at the top of the article, this usually gives you some time to get an article up to par. 2/ However, even that template may not keep you out of trouble. The best way to handle these things is to start a new article in your user space in a "sandbox" (to create one, click the following redlink and then click "create article" User:LarkinToad2010/Sandbox) and then move the article into article space once it is advanced enough not to be immediately challenged any more by new page patrollers. Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Important
Stop adding a plethora of brackets to obvious terms or dead links. Stop removing 'Professor', that's what he is. Do not remove the link to Lipton, this links to important information about a former colleague (that is if you know who he is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read some of the links to WP policies and guidelines that are in the welcome template that I posted on your talk page. There is nothing wrong with a wikilink to academic journal or a redlink to Psychoanalysis and History. It is a major international journal and sooner or later someone will create that article and the link will turn blue. This is standard practice. The title "Professor" should be removed according to the WP style guide, see WP:CREDENTIAL. I removed the remark about Lipton, as it is not interesting in this article to learn that he passed away. Given that you feel this is very important, I'' leave it in, not a big deal. However, I will restore the other edits as explained above. --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Groans in frustration) He's a Professor and it's his title, not just a generic brackets thing! As a formal title it should be upper case and until there's a link, the red looks horrid and makes the article look unprofessional.  And yes, the Lipton link is very relevant 'cos that's how JF got the job.  This fiddling is extremely irritating but I conclude this site isn't worth the stress as nobody is reading it.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I am frustrating and irritating you, I assure you that really is not my intention (nor, I am certain, of Noq or other editors). However, if not me, somebody else will do these edits, sooner or later. WP can (and will) be edited by anybody, so people will inevitably edit articles that you started. If you would try to let this not irritate you, you'll find that it can be quite rewarding to work here. I understand your frustration about the redlinks. I don't really think it makes an article look unprofessional, but it does give it an "unfinished" look. My solution in the past has simply been to create those articles... That adds valuable content and makes the redlinks turn to bluelinks. It's easier than waiting till the article is created and then go around searching for occurrences of the article title and wikilinking them one by one. It would also be a pity if you left, because you obviously have contributions to make. The articles that you have started that I have seen all look like they are here to stay and they would not have been here if it had not been for you. As I have said, try to familiarize yourself with WP customs, guides, and policies, that will make it easier for you to edit, will significantly lower the likelihood that someone else will revert or even modify your edits, and will ultimately lower your stress level! :-) --Crusio (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, somebody already created that article, so the redlink problem is solved! --Crusio (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

article name
I don't think that the lengthy disambiguator now used in the article title (historian of philosophy and science) is really necessary and it is also an unlikely search term. I propose moving the article to "John Forrester (historian)", which is more in line with WP naming conventions. The article John Forrester should be moved to John Forrester (politician) and John Forrester (disambiguation) should be moved to that title. If nobody disagrees, I'll perform those operations tomorrow. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You simply haven't a clue about the correct conventions and this proves.  Professor is not a "generic" title and is part of his name and should be upper case, it is a formal title bestowed by Cambridge.  Your vandalism to this and other entries is unacceptabel and your patronsing manner is infuriating so I take this as troll activity, not constructive editing.  You will not remove historian, etc. from the title as there are other John Forresters (also Professors) but it is clearly a waste of typing time trying to reason with you.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For things like the Baron-Cohen article, we have an expression here: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. With many people editing, articles are not always according to policy and guidelines (which I have cited to you: WP:CREDENTIAL, did you have a look at it?) so the existence of other articles that have a certain content does not prove anything. It is the guidelines and policies, like WP:MOS and WP:CREDENTIAL that should guide editing. Are there any other historians named John Forrester?? In addition, would you please refrain from personal attacks? If you are unhappy about my editing, you are free to file a complaint at the Wikipedia administrators noticeboard. --Crusio (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From previous experience, all these 'polite' citings of this and that link are a front to covert trolling. Would you at least have the manners to respect that Professor is an official title and not a generic term and stop keep reverting this edit if you are as polite as you claim to be.  If you can't take this truth in good faith go to the University web page where is states he is a 'Professor', not professor.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

John Forrester
As HPS is a hybrid field that covers history, philosophy and contemporary developments in science and medicine, I don't feel the title JF (historian) is right. For one thing, he is qualified in natural sciences and HPS and also has expertise in philosophy, pscychology and psychiatry. That is why my original title JF (hist of philosophy and science) is more appropriate. I will wait to see if other users have an opinion, preferably with some knowledge of the field and HPS at Cambridge (possibly one of the most broadly based of all disciplines as it takes in history, philosophy, medicine, psychology, natural sciences, art, literature, sociology, etc. If some other John Forresters get entries, John Forrester (Cambridge) might be more appropriate.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)