Talk:Susan Cain

Viewpoints
Re Spacini's adding the 'Unbalanced viewpoint' template 2012-04-16: I'm fine with additional (fair and responsible) viewpoints being added. FYI: I also don't think that what Spacini calls "lengthy use of citations for appearances and notices" is in fact "excessive," since the citations are probably only the 10-20% most reputable mainstream sources that Google classifies as "news" items (there are hundreds+). It's not 'unbalanced'--it's just a list of the most reputable references. I think that all these references will be valuable for future readers making a serious study of Cain or her work. RCraig09 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but it is poor practice to tag and run. Editors should make use of the talk page whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the tag was justified. I'm making some edits right now in the hopes that I can remove it. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finished and I've removed the tag. Spacini was absolutely correct in tagging this article, as it contained duplicated content from the book article which was promotional in tone.  This is a biographical article. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Aloha, Viriditas. It's true that in the former/full version of this biography the final four paragraphs under the biography's section "Quiet -- and an introvert's 'Year of Speaking Dangerously'" were essentially duplicative of text in the article on the book.  However, the following material is not generally duplicated in the book's article: RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The biography's section on "Motivation for Quiet" related to her personal motivations for writing the book RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first three paragraphs of the biography's section "Quiet and an introvert's 'Year of Speaking Dangerously'" related to the paradox/conflict of this "self-described introvert" with a deep fear of public speaking having to become a "Public Introvert." This paradox/conflict has itself received mention from various commentators. RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concerning the material that is duplicative (which I think is not inherently wrong): RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The concise listing, without embellishment, of her own articles seems especially appropriate for a biography. RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The concise listing, without embellishment, of articles about her, or about her work in a section about that work, also seems appropriate for a biography as well as the book's article. RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think much of the material you removed, should be retained as there is much more about the person than a stub conveys. You can reply to each item separately, above, as I've quadruple-squiggled ~ ~ ~ ~ each paragraph. RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead but please be mindful of quote farming and unnecessary lists of media appearances. I would recommend moving important quotes to wikiquote.  As for the list of works, that was becoming a link farm, so you've got the same problem there.  Is this the first biography you've ever worked on?  If so, I would be happy to guide you through the steps needed to improve it if you aren't already familiar with them. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mahalo, Viriditas. It's about my third "full" BLP, and I'm cognizant of the guidelines/policies assembled in WP:BLP but I've never seen a description of "steps" for writing BLPs. I try to approach biographies as logical and chronological stories and not (a) un-ordered quote farms or (b) pointless link lists.  RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However:
 * (a') for accuracy's sake I often prefer quotes over my own paraphrasing, and RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (b') in this particular biography the numerous articles by & about the subject in a short time period concretely demonstrate the 'whirlwind' notability thrust on her as a self-described introvert (the paradox/conflict mentioned above--hence the section title "Year of Speaking Dangerously").  RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can definitely shorten the article somewhat over the way it was, based on your comments. I hate to impose on your time, but if there's a description of the "steps" you describe, I'd appreciate your posting a link to it. Mahalo! RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't link to my mind...yet. One thing that helps me, is to sort your sources from best to worst, then take the top five or so and force yourself to write an outline using them alone. Also, know when to paraphrase and when to quote. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the net length of the article itself by removing the "most notably" paragraph and the bestseller stats, and a few other sentences. The article is narrowly focused on the individual, including her being an introvert who had to become a "Public Introvert" because of the intense media exposure. RCraig09 (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The long list of media outlets who interviewed or reviewed her work needs to be deleted as it is purely promotional. You won't find such a list in any GA or FA class biography nor in any professional reference work.  What was your reasoning for adding it?  Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As just described: "her being an introvert who had to become a "Public Introvert" because of the intense media exposure." The Forbes and InformationWeek sentences provide an introduction to and basis for the list. I'm not following: what would be 'promoted' by the list? Consider an alternative: removing the list itself but keeping the footnotes, hanging from the end of the phrase "media outlets" which becomes the end of the paragraph. {Can continue talk tomorrow; G'night.} RCraig09 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can make it work with some cleanup edits. Sleep well. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my "Consider an alternative..." from last night, I've retained the footnotes without causing the article text to include a "link farm." I appreciate not cluttering the article text itself, but serious students will benefit from, and possibly need, having the references from the most reliable sources. As a further aesthetically pleasing alternative, I could combine those footnotes into one, big, long footnote. RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)  Or is a "Further reading" section more to your taste, as you added in the book's article? RCraig09 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding a sentence followed by 29 citations tells me you don't understand how we use footnotes. Because the reader isn't going to attempt to click on any or all of those sources, and since such a collection isn't useful as citation link, we will never cite sources in that manner.  Instead, if the sources are useful and can be possibly used in future prose, we might add them, in their full citation form, to a further reading section.  Otherwise, once again, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.  Please tell me you understand this. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with WP:LINKFARM's principle that Wikipedia articles are "not... mere collections of... links." I would not favor an article comprising nothing but links. WP:LINKFARM worries about links "dwarfing" articles; however, adding a string of superscripts to the end of a sentence and going from 25 to 45 footnotes doesn't "dwarf' the present article. And serious students would make use of these references (generally top-shelf reliable publications; archived for the future; not "scattered" throughout Google search results). The "we" that never cites sources in that manner, is overlooking how Wikipedia should serve serious readers. How long a "Further reading" section do you consider appropriate (a) for this biography, and (b) for the book's article? RCraig09 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC) ++Thanks for your time. RCraig09 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of these focus solely on biographical material and not her book? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All refs are appropriate to the book; various refs briefly remark about Cain's own basic introversion, and a subset of them talk about her personal journey. Since this is her first book, it's almost impossible to focus solely on her--that's why I separated my question from last night into two parts (a) and (b). RCraig09 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Book refs already appear in the book article. Please don't keep duplicating content and refs.  Surely, there must be a few refs that focus more on her bio info than her book.  If not, then there isn't anything to add back. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding various refs [that] briefly remark about Cain's own basic introversion, and a subset of them [that] talk about her personal journey—I would not have any objection if you added a small sample of these to a further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll probably optimize the 'Further reading' for the book's article (easier), then start the biography's 'Further reading' (harder). It's a ref-by-ref study. Aloha. RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going overboard with the linking and quoting. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Negotiation Company
The biography should mention that Cain is not simply a former "negotiations consultant" but also founder and principal of The Negotiation Company, which gives training sessions (led by Cain) in techniques of effective self-presentation, including body language and use of voice. See the company website (www.thenegotiationcompany.com); see also http://selfpromotionforintroverts.com/odds-and-ends/1125/.Ararat52 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like that information would be good to add as background material rather than as why Cain is notable. The goal is to find reliable, independent sources to support statements that could actually be added to the article. I plan to look into it in upcoming weeks if others don't add before I do. Thanks for the heads up. RCraig09 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added mention of The Negotiation Company, based on Woodhull Institute reference. Details about The Negotiation Company are not in any reliable independent sources I could find, and details are probably inappropriate for this biographical encyclopedia article anyway. RCraig09 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Style

 * Citations. I've begun the article using the format in which citations are written in full in the "refs" section, and only the   is inserted inline . It's easier to locate the full citation if all full citations are located in a single list.  I hope everyone continues this "cleaner text" practice, for consistency. RCraig09 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "See also" section. The see also unnecessarily repeats the link in the lead. Try to reserve the see also section for links that need to be added, not already existing links.  Navigational templates are used to connect related topics and categories can be used to provide further pointers. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks. Don't interrupt quotes with wikilinks unless necessary. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting vs. paraphrasing. You've said you prefer to quote rather than paraphrase, but original paraphrasing forms the backbone of our articles while quoting is used judiciously and often sparingly, depending on the context. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Conferences

 * Cain has been among the featured speakers at various leadership, management, training and education conferences, including The Art of Leadership (Toronto[34] and Calgary[35]), Innotown (Alesund, Norway),[36] The World Domination Summit (Portland, Oregon),[37] Inbound (Boston),[38] The Catalyst Conference (Atlanta),[39] Women on Wall Street (New York),[40] Society of Actuaries (Washington, D.C.),[41] Learning 2012 (Orlando),[42] and Ciudad de las Ideas (City of Ideas) (Puebla, Mexico).[43]

I don't think that list of information is important to this biography, and can be best summed up as "Cain has been among the featured speakers at various leadership, management, training and education conferences." Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The present list is a fraction of her speaking engagements. But I plan to make that paragraph more concise, within a few days. RCraig09 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Necessary Criticism
Surely I can't be the only person who finds this somewhat bogus. Introversion as a 'thing' made real by a TED talk? Is there deep research or her reframed secondary research? Is it not absurd that she claims to be an introvert and yet has made a career out of being out in front of the public?

I don't find this very credible, and I have been looking.

jmanooch 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Introversion has been an accepted concept for almost a century (see Carl Jung); it was not made "real" by a TED talk -- nor is such a claim even made. There is much primary research, and there are abundant secondary references, especially recently. It is paradoxical, not "absurd," that an introverted author has become a public speaker; the author herself has written many times how introverts can become comfortable doing things they were once uncomfortable doing, for "core personal goals." Your issues, if you still think they are based in fact and want to bring them up, are better placed with reference to the article on Extraversion and introversion. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification missing?
Is the book "Dark Illumination" (https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Illumination-Poetry-Angels-Madness/dp/1450038050) another work by this Susan Cain? According to the back provided in the same page, it seems the author is a different Susan Cain:
 * Susan Cain is a housewife from Southern Arizona. She loves to swim, cook, and listen to music. She suffers from schizophrenia and learns through the good and the bad that life is an experience to be enjoyed to its fullest.

Can we mention that (i.e. "Dark Illumination" is not Susan's work) in the Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoadamo (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, that's a completely different Susan Cain, and that book should not be mentioned in this article. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, understood. Thanks for your quick reply! Nicoadamo (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)