Talk:Mary Roach

Previous AfD was for a different person
Hey, this time Mary Roach is about an encyclopedic-worthy writer, not an American Idol waif, so let's keep this one, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Should it be renamed Mary Roach (author) then, with this as a disambiguation? CrazyC83 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because the Mary Roach of American Idol fame(?) isn't noteworthy enough to warrant an article. Let's keep this the way it is. -Vontafeijos 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Roach's first book (Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers) redirect here? I propose excising the information about that book from this article and putting it on its own page. Does anyone else agree?JianLi 23:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)



The author blurb for "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" lists Mary Roach as living in Oakland, not San Francisco. Is there any documentation of her living in San Francisco? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.112.87 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New Edits
Hello anyone looking at this,

Just wanted to give anyone a heads up, that I'll be working on the edit of this page. This will be my first wiki project. After seeing her give a lecture in my area recently, I decided to try to freshen up her space here. Also, please note that I will be having an experienced editor advising me all throughout the process.

Thanks,

Misschrisparker (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up again, I just uploaded this new and improved page. Misschrisparker (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone in "Style" section
I don't want to start messing this article around when it's just been DYK'd (and I don't know the subject so don't want to start editing this myself) but I think some attention needs to be paid to the tone, particularly in the section on Style. To me it reads in places like a publisher's blurb; things like "takes the reader with her every step of the way," shouldn't really be in an encyclopaedia article unless they are a quotation. We might think she's great, but it shouldn't be said in what is apparently our voice. It reads more like a personal essay or commentary if we do that, if not actually promotional. Similarly, the bit starting "While some people might not see any connection between the topics" seems to provide a great deal of speculation about what these "some people" might think or see, but who are they? I don't mean to denigrate the editors who've obviously put hard work into this, but I do feel it needs toning down a bit so that it reads more neutrally. Keep the positive nice stuff in the quotes and let them speak for themselves. I hope this helps. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So I get what your saying, just after it went live I made edits to the style section to fix the tone a little. The choice of words comes straight from the sources that are cited in that paragraph. I chose the words as carefully as I could, but they are just slightly paraphrased version of what was said in the interviews that are cited. I'll try to make some adjustments as soon as I can go back and re-watch/listen to the articles. Mary Roach herself, thought it sounded neutral! But I can see how she might not catch the tone since it is about herself. Thanks for the note and polite tone! This is my first wiki page. :) Misschrisparker (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice response. I do understand your point - it's just that I think it's important we remember that we don't say "X is great" as if that is in Wikipedia's voice. That was my worry about a couple of those phrases. It's fine if we say "X is perceived as great" and give refs and quotes to support it - that's fine if we are reporting what a WP:RS said. It only becomes a problem when we appear to adopt their language and say it in our own voice. And no, MR herself is probably not, with all due respect to her, a sound reference for the neutrality of this article! But don't get downhearted, this is a very good effort at the start of an editing career, so well done, and don't let the comments get you down - they are all meant to help. :) best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That all makes sense. I'll take another stab at it. I think I'm starting to understand that WP has many distinct rules that make editing so much different from general essay/paper writing. :) The cliched phrase about learning to walk before you can run keeps popping into my head when responding to these comments. I'm going to go back and read ALL of pages on the finer points of editing, tone, and whatnot. Thanks again! Misschrisparker (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why DGG removed the [|entire Style section]. This section had been worked on, and I think adds interesting, colorful information to the article. I propose that the section is restored. Dustinlull (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dustinlull I think that nothing has been removed, but just rearranged a bit? I might be wrong.Sgerbic (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Viruses and bacteria
This is in today's DYK: ''Roach is told, by microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, that, "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl."

Why? It does not belong in the article at all. She was (reportedly) told this "fact" by someone else: that tells us nothing about her. Also, the "fact" is implausible. Viruses are much smaller, and commoner, that bacteria, so I doubt that more bacteria would be jettisoned. Maproom (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have deleted that half-sentence. Maproom (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it is relevant, Maproom, what is it that you do? Are you a microbiologist or a pathologist, or anything like that? The microbiologist that was interviewed for the article has his own research to support his conclusions. If you have some kind of concrete proof that this is implausible, then that's what you should share, instead of just saying it's doubtful.

The hook for the DYK speaks to the subject material that Roach writes about. This might be my first wiki page but if it was reviewed and accepted for the DYK, I'd trust their judgement. I'm putting the sentence back in. Misschrisparker (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My degree was in genetics, and involved some work with bacteria and with viruses. I'm sure that the microbiologist had research to support his conclusions; I suspect that what he said was garbled by a journalist. I do not believe the statement as quoted in the article. I suggest that you show it to a qualified doctor, or a trainee doctor, and ask their opinion.
 * But none of that is really relevant. The passage I deleted from the article asserts that Chuck Gerba said something to Mary Roach. This tells us nothing at all about her, and therefore does not belong in the article.
 * I would not trust the judgement of those who pick quotations for the DYK. They often show a lack of understanding of the material. Maproom (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the truth of the statement is irrelevant as to whether it should be in the article, since the article is not about viruses or bacteria, but about the author Mary Roach and her works. Since Roach is a science writer who approaches her subject matter with her unique style (one that includes wit and humor), it seems reasonable to include examples of what interests her for that subject matter, what she has written about, and what her style is. It might be reasonable to reword the statement to that end, but I think the content itself is acceptable. Rjmail (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Passerby comment: I've considered that Misschrisparker is Mary Roach. I certainly thought that she was before I clicked on her user page. But either way, I don't believe that we should be spreading inaccurate scientific information on Wikipedia...unless it's pointed out as inaccurate. Roach specializes in popular science, and a lot of what she states isn't backed by any solid research, and sometimes are only her opinions. Unless supported by scientific sources independent of Roach and/or giving those claims WP:DUE WEIGHT, we shouldn't use her claims in any sexual, science or medical articles (see what counts as reliable medical/anatomical sources with regard to WP:MEDRS). Misschrisparker is still a newbie here. And as such, someone should give her a Welcome template so that she can come to better understand how things work here. 108.60.139.130 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the DYK is finished. Misschrisparker is new and used a quote from Roach that is not backed by science.  Okay, why would you think that editors fact check their science before using them in WP?  That is what WP is about, we are telling the story of these people we write about, if Roach said that, then she said that.  Done.  Now as to the science being wrong, I don't like leaving bad science laying around WP, not good I agree.  So how can the quote be changed so that it is still something that Roach wrote, but that the science isn't correct?  That would be a better use of our time.  I would say remove it all together but it was a DYK and not a good idea to remove it, but maybe it should.  The rest of the article looks amazing from my non-science eyes.  Sgerbic (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would I think that editors fact check their science before using them in Wikipedia? Well, because that is what Wikipedia editors often do for Wikipedia science and/or and medical articles. It's often about weighing just how reliable a scientific and/or medical source is, as well as weighing that against conflicting sources. Granted, this isn't a science or medical article, so I can understand scientific and/or medical assertions not being examined before being added. 108.60.139.130 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the thing to do is keep any quotes from her book as is, since the article is overall about her and her works, and then add a criticism section to discuss any issues with the verity of her content. Rjmail (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are some very good and helpful ideas above and I am sure the article will continue to develop well in the light of all this input. In passing, I would just like to say, though, that if Misschrisparker is really Mary Roach then I am really the Mayor of Maastricht. Best wishes to all 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * At present, the article reads "Roach is told, by microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, that, "..." ". As I have said above, this tells us nothing about Roach, and therefore does not belong in the article. What is significant is that she found what she was told interesting. If the sentence is to be retained, it should be changed to say so. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the basic idea left in the article, particularly since it was part of her DYK hook. How about reworking it to say something like - In 1995, Roach's article "How to Win at Germ Warfare" was a National Magazine Award Finalist. In the article, Roach conducts and interview with microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona who describes a scientific study where bacteria and virus particles become aerosolized upon flushing a toilet: "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl." Allecher (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice one Allecher. Another: In 1995, Roach's article "How to Win at Germ Warfare" was a National Magazine Award Finalist. After interviewing microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, Roach reported "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl." Rjmail (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Allecher and Rjmail, both good suggestions! I used Allecher's because in the full article Roach makes a specific note on Gerba's use of the world "aerosolized." Misschrisparker (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

in the process of an expansion or major restructuring
I'm wondering why there is so much copy editing being done on this page? I think that changes as major as these need to be discussed on the Talk page by other editors. I understand Assume Good Faith and Be Bold, but everytime I look there are more deletions. Enough Already. Removing pictures, sections and so on is really more of a matter of opinion than policy. Personally I liked the astronaut picture of Mary Roach floating around. I'm wondering if other editors share my opinion of this matter?Sgerbic (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There have been some major changes to this page with entire sections disappearing that I think should have been preceded with Talk page discussion. I also liked the pic of Mary Roach floating around. I don't believe the pic served merely as "PR."Dustinlull (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How did I overlook this discussion? I agree that the "copyediting" has been too heavy-handed. In fact one editor seems to have added mistakes in the name of copy editing - even misspelling the subject's last name! I don't mind tightening up a few sentences here and there but it looks like it would be best to revert to a time before this flurry of changes and proceed more cautiously. 23:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC) [Oops, I forgot to sign my comment] Allecher (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article appears to have lost some biographical value in the name of cleaning up perceived PR information. I certainly appreciate remaining vigilant against commercial (or noncommercial) astroturfing, but in this case I think most pieces that were removed ought to be evaluated for their informative value, or potential for improvement to the article's encyclopedic tone. When one spends enough time acting as a hammer, a lot of things begin to look like nails. Nmillerche (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2012

Think it is obvious, I'm going to revert this page to the time before someone started ripping it apart. I apologize to anyone who made an edit since then that was well meaning. Please fix whatever you changed. I might point out that this article was good enough to be featured as a Did You Know? on the front page of Wikipedia when it was re-written. I don't think copy-editing into oblivion is a good idea. If major changes need to be made, can you please discuss here on talk page, so the other editors that are concerned with the quality of Wikipedia can weigh in? Thank you Sgerbic (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Horse Picture
Is the horse picture relevant? --91.10.58.209 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose not. I used it because at the time, there weren't many options. I kept it because I thought it was a good example of her personality, but if it seems random, it can come down. Misschrisparker (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of keeping the pic. It adds some of her personality to the page. Dustinlull (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Me, too, per priors --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this photo, the current info-box one, and others were contributed by her husband. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting April 2013
Given the amount of copy editing that has been performed to improve this page in the past week, I see several instances where potential tone issues have been addressed. Therefore I am removing the tag, but if any specific issues remain which need to be addressed, please leave a note here so that other editors can improve on the article more effectively on specific concerns. Thanks to all who've helped thus far. Nmillerche (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Promotional images
This article had too many images, many of which were promotional in nature, or did not provide pertinent information to the reader. I have removed these images, and would warn future editors not to add any images of a similar type. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a photo gallery". The link to Commons provides a place to go for people who want to see more pictures of Roach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, since some of the images seem to have been added by the subject's husband, I would point him to our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)