Talk:Lisa Feldman Barrett

why?
I don't understand why you deleted the most significant part of the wikipedia page for Lisa Feldman Barrett: her theory of emotion. Now the page doesn't say anything of substance anymore: it's just a listing of job titles.

The theory just earned her two scientific awards: the Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP, http://www.sesp.org/awards.htm) and a Cattell Award sponsored by the American Psychological Society (APS, http://www.cattell.duke.edu/). These are major psychological research organizations. -- Djbwiki


 * Please understand that what i was primarily trying to do is protect the article against deletion---articles talking mainly about the work tend to get deleted, rightly or wrongly.
 * The article is about her; it is not a place to expound her theory in any detail--please look at pages for other academics. What should be added to the pages is a list of publications and awards, including visiting appointments, etc. If there are any book reviews or the like, they help as well.

Those awards are just the right thing, put them in.
 * However, it would be appropriate to add a one or two sentence description of the research, presented as describing her research, not talking about the topic. I would have done so, but I did not feel able to do an adequate job of  shortening it.DGG 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we are dealing with a notability issue here. Not that the subject isn't notable enough to have her own article, but shouldn't someone other than the subject or the subject's husband be creating this article. At Wiki, we a re taught to wait until someone else creates an article about you ~ don't create your own article. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability Evidence
I would like to present objective evidence that Dr. Feldman Barrett is notable. I have a conflict of interest as I'm her husband.


 * Dr. Feldman Barrett has approximately 70 peer-reviewed academic publications on emotion and related topics, and has been cited many times. What is the best way to include this information?
 * She won a 2006 Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. I've added this to her article as it's a verifiable fact on the SESP web site.
 * She also just won a 2007-2008 James McKeen Cattell Fund Fellowship last week, which is cosponsored by the Association for Psychological Science. (The 2007-2008 winners should be listed shortly.) What is the appropriate way to include this information?
 * She's a past recipient of a five-year K02 Independent Scientist Award from the National Institutes of Health.
 * She has held about $3.5 million in federal funding from various well-known sources. I wouldn't list this in her article, but I present it as evidence of "notability."

Djbwiki 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as evidence of notability. Can you produce anything written about her by a third-party source i.e. not her writing about herself, not the university she works at writing about its own departments, not an award-giving body writing about its own awards? We need evidence of genuine third-party interest in her. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the award, combined with being a full professor, is a very good start, but good point about the award. WP:PROF has a good list of what we're looking for.  From the list above by Djbwiki, I think the Career Trajectory Award is good but possibly insufficient.  From my own research for this article so far, I think that her work in modeling emotion may be accepted enough to suffice.  --Ronz 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We do non-notable, or borderline notable, figures no favors by allowing an article to persist, because it will always be questioned, or nominated for PROD or AfD, and the person will be associated with a vanity text, all of which is cached by Google. What we need to show is, as the guidelines says, that the subject is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. So far, no independent sources have been produced. We need to find unconnected people who have written about her or her work, and if there are none, this article really ought to be deleted. It can be done discretely via PROD, or with lots of discussion via AfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for surveys or reviews of models of emotion written independently of Barrett and have come up empty. I'll add the prod back.  --Ronz 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As an alternative the author (User:Djbwiki) could speedy the article or move it to a user subpage himself. AvB &divide; talk  20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you accept citations of her research in other scholarly papers? I've added some under "Secondary sources" below. Djbwiki 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I understand SlimVirgin's point about not considering material written by the author, but I am curious why peer review is not being taken into account. Any person with enough energy can publish 70+ papers, but to publish 70+ peer reviewed papers in top-tier (APA, APS) psychology journals is another matter. Each of these papers was read by qualified (and anonymous) researchers in the field, as assigned by the journal editors, to determine whether it should be published. This process takes months or years for each paper. Can you explain why passing that "high bar" seventy times is not strong evidence of notability? Djbwiki 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The best test of notability is when someone entirely unconnected to the person decides they're notable enough to create an article on. That's why we have a rule about vanity articles, and it's the reason it's best to stick to it, so that discussions about a subject's notability don't take place on the talk page with people who are directly involved with the subject, or with the subject themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 9 tests of notability on WP:PROF, and none of them are about who creates the article. I understand the vanity rule, but I also have linked to over 500 third-party, scholarly citations of Lisa Feldman Barrett's work below (see Google Scholar discussion and my correction of the "131" number). That appears to satisfy criterion 4, "collective body of work is significant and well-known."  Nobody has directly commented on this.  Djbwiki 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't adding the books listed at http://www2.bc.edu/~barretli/publications.shtml establish notability? AvB &divide; talk  11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These are standard grants and citation numbers for a working scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.6 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Boston college
I have a friend who works in the lab about stem research. If you email me information about Lisa Feldman Barrett I will contact my friend about her and see if she knows or has any information about her work. --Crohnie 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Journal articles
Barrett has various contributions to journals as recorded in JSTOR. Shall we include these titles as well? Here are a few: The Structure of Current Affect: Controversies and Emerging Consensus/ Are Emotions Natural Kinds?/ The Structure of Emotion: Evidence from Neuroimaging Studies/ Being Emotional during Decision Making: Good or Bad? An Empirical Investigation/ The Role of Affective Experience in Work Motivation/ Constructing Emotion: The Experience of Fear as a Conceptual Act

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Feldman Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FRONTIERS_jafos_2008program%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002231437/http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients07.aspx to http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients07.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

COI and AUTO tagged
This is not a question of notability but one of NPOV. Readers of the article should be aware that it was created by the spouse of the subject, who is also a major editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the spouse, and the NPOV and COI tags seem overkill in this case. It's true that I created the article... 13 years ago! Since them, however, 80% of the edits have been made by other authors (per https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py).
 * All of my subsequent edits (as djbwiki and maiden_taiwan) have been updates of objective, factual, independently verifiable information (books published, awards won, citations, links, etc.) and grammar/reformatting, with a single exception 9 years ago (378958684 which edited prose). --Djbwiki (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The tags are not meant to be used to simply identify that there has been past COI-editing. If there are POV problems, or reason for a detailed review for such problems, please indicate so with some rationale. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)