Talk:Ruth M. J. Byrne

Résumé?
At present, this article reads like a résumé for the researcher (not that I'm accusing her of being the one to write it). Although this academic has contributed greatly in the area of counterfactual reasoning, I do not believe that this is justification enough for her to have her own article. Others are welcome to respond to this. If I have heard nothing in a weeks time, I will notify the page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppy101 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone is jealous of a woman being a pioneer in the field of a science. Why don’t you leave the page alone? Professor Byrne has pushed the field of counterfactual thinking further when no other scientist would touch it. As soon as she had found something, everyone became interested in the underlining fields of cognition. If Wikipedia is not for people like Professor Byrne, then I don’t know what it is for then. I mean, what should a psychologist do in getting recognition in science? After all there is no Nobel Prize for psychology and every psychologist that has being awarded a Nobel laureate has being presented it based on fields unrelated to psychology or science such as in economics. Professor Byrne and others like her are able to define and describe human thinking and reasoning which in turn lead to better understanding on humans which are things the other sciences forget about. They seem to forget we are all human and we all have higher functions. These functions that Professor Byrne examines can save people’s lives. Incidentally, I don’t think it was Professor Byrne who wrote the Wikipedia page because if she had it would have clearly stated she is still a lecturer on Cognition in the field of psychology within Trinity college Dublin and it would have still clearly said she is developing new studies within cognition. If it makes you any happier, when you find something of significance in science, then you can have your own Wikipedia page but I doubt someone as envious as you will ever do that. So for the moment please leave the page alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"It looks like someone is jealous of a woman being a pioneer in the field of a science." "If it makes you any happier, when you find something of significance in science, then you can have your own Wikipedia page but I doubt someone as envious as you will ever do that." These are really petty and mean-spirited comments. Articles are removed from Wikipedia every day. It has nothing to do with "envy", it has to do with the appropriateness of the articles. The gender of a "pioneer" of a field has nothing to do with the point I made. I'm well aware that Professor Byrne has written a much-lauded book and many well-received articles. My comment on the removal of the page is due to the fact that in it's present form, it is not an appropriate Wikipedia article - it reads like a Linkedin page. My main point is that if the only thing that can be listed on a person's page is their résumé, then they should not have their own Wikipedia page. I gather from your remarks that you have no interest in genuine discussion of issues like this since you resort so quickly to ad hominen attacks. Please be civil in your discussions with other users and don't assume to know anything about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppy101 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will be civil. I am aware that on the day when you published this statement (6th February), that Professor Byrne advertised for a new lab assistant the very next day (7th February). Now this would seem to me to be a little bit too coincidental and therefore I would suspect that you have requested for this article to be removed simply because you may have been her former laboratory assistant or were rejected on becoming her new one. If I am wrong I do apologise but I don’t think I am, so stop beating around the bush. If you are so upset by Professor Byrne’s Wikipedia page resembling a "résumé" as you call it and you are very well aware of her illustrious career, then you should be contributing in making her page look more like a Wikipedia page instead of looking for its deletion. In addition if you don't like people's comments, then you shouldn't make suggestions. Wikipedia is presented in the public domain for people to express their public views which you have done and which I have done. So don't get oversensitive on people expressing their viewpoints otherwise it comes off as if you wish to censure people and when you talk about deletion of information pages it comes off as suppression of knowledge. These are two aspects that communists did, not that I am accusing you of being a communist. But I do hope you are not interested in doing either censuring or suppression because there are plenty of people that will disagree on this action and they will most definatly disagree with you wanting to delete a page of a pioneer in psychological research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)