Talk:Robert Titzer

Deletion
Anyone here, I beg, Dr. Titzer is notable enough to keep on wikipedia, he has written and published several books on infant learning, infant reading, and child behavior. Veraladeramanera (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

He may be notable enough to remain on wikipedia, but the article needs cleanup. It reads like a dressed-up endorsement, full of loaded words like "fun ... approach" "important theoretical experiments" "fascinating research". I'm no experienced wikipedian, but I'll do what I can. In my opinion the only lines worth leaving are: "Robert Titzer is an infant researcher from the United States." and "Titzer and his family live in San Diego, California." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.170.82 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I found that the majority of this article's content was copied ver batim from a website marketing Titzer's product, so I'm tagging this for neutrality and cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.170.82 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, perhaps you are right about cleanup, but I, unfortunately, do not know what Neutrality is. Veraladeramanera (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have found what Neutrality is. Neutrality is copying content from books or websites. I do not know how to delete, so I would like you to. Veraladeramanera (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the nomination is over, and the result was keep. So there we go. Veraladeramanera (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a Major edit: Adding headlines to the proper sections so it will be easier to find certain information. Veraladeramanera (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NOT A LINGUIST
This guy isn't a linguist and therefore cannot possibly know as much about language acquisition as a linguist does. Maybe he shouldn't be producing these things if he does not have solid knowledge of linguistics. This should be put in the "Criticism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone from a reliable publication specifically said that Robert Titzer's not being a linguist means he should not be producing these videos, then it can be incorporated into the "Criticism" section. Otherwise, including it would be original research. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot on Website
I wonder if the implementation of Wikipedia's policy on BLP's is appropriate in this area. Yesterday in my scholarly blog, I posted a verbatim transcript of a "conversation" with a "live virtual agent", which is easily verifiable by anyone having a similar "conversation" on the yourbabycanread.com website. I attempted to keep the posting as neutral as possible, and only put it under criticisms. While the content of the blog is accurate, I doubt that I will have any newspaper or peer-reviewed journal share the information, because in most contexts it is only slightly newsworthy, and it is not generalizable as a peer-reviewed article generally should be. But in the context of being about Robert Titzer, it is newsworthy, and this Wikipedia article, in my opinion, is not accurate enough, without this accurate criticism included.--Pordaria (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A transcript on a blog is insufficient to verify facts per WP:SPS. When negative, contentious material is added to a biography of a living person, the reference must be a third-party reliable source, such as a newspaper article, magazine article, or book. Your criticism of the bot is original research. If a journalist from a newspaper criticized the website's using a bot in a review, then that criticism can be included. Otherwise, the information must not, per WP:BLP, be included. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NOT A CERTIFIED INFANT EXPERT EITHER
Dr. Robert Titzer calls himself an infant learning expert (which may be true, but can also be a misleading statement). In reality, he holds a graduate degree in human performance.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39953918/ns/today-today_money/t/your-baby-can-read-claims-overblown-experts-say/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.244.122 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the information from the Today article per your request. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)