Talk:Eric Anderson (sociologist)

Too self-serving

I have edited this down because it was too-self-serving. The article read like a cv or a job application! Not an objective record of someone's contribution to academic knowledge.

I have also included references to Mark Simpson's work which has been acknowledged as influencing Anderson. It would be good to have more external links to places where Anderson's contribution to knowledge has been noted too.

NotoriousQRG 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi someone removed the section I added referencing the influence of Mark Simpson's theories of metrosexual masculinity on Anderson's work. I think this is important and valid, because it shows how Anderson's work fits into a wider context. It has not appeared out of nowhere!

If anyone objects please could they say why here? Thanks

NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I did this. In the editing of this, people should be aware that NotoriousQRG appears to be obsessed by Mark Simpsons theories. What she is arguing is her own perspective, rather than one advocated by academics, journalists or even Mark Simpson. Evidence of this can be found at this blog site: Mudshake (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Mudshake I have removed the link to that blogpost because it contains personal data about me, which seems unfair. NotoriousQRGNotoriousQRG (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the reference to Eric Anderson's latest book, 'The Monogamy Gap'. It is published with a top tier publishers (Oxford University Press), and has received a great deal of media attention. Deleting it supports the notion that this is motivated by animus and not objective representation of reality. Mudshake (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Mudshake There is a reference to it in the publications section already. The book has not been out very long there is not enough evidence of its importance yet. It is too recent. Are you Eric Anderson? NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by there being enough evidence of its importance. It is clearly a significant component of Anderson's research output, and given it's publicity it (GMTV, Washington Post, Psychology Today etc), it has already had a social impact. Are you arguing that anything 'recent' shouldn't be on wikipedia? I am not Eric Anderson -- The only reason I state that is to make clear I am abiding by wikipedia terms and conditions. Mudshake (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake

How do you know Eric? I have put it back at the end of the career section as it is the last thing Eric (who may or may not be you) published. The bit about the research on men students kissing flows well into the bit about Mark Simpson's theories and Eric's comments to Simpson about that research. NotoriousQRGNotoriousQRG (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You know all about my relationship with mark Simpson as you have posted the blogpost about it. I don't think you need to add the bit about the media attention - as you can see I have said this page is already too 'self-serving' and it is. NotoriousQRGNotoriousQRG (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. I will re-add the bit about it receiving media attention and providing public debate (a vital part of academic work). Why do you assert that I know Eric Anderson? I haven't questioned your relationship with Mark Simpson - perhaps you would like to expand on that relationship? Mudshake (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake

The issue is though that it is your assertion that the page is too self-serving. Please explain why you don't think something about media attention is relevant. Mudshake (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake

because most books get 'media attention' it is called publicity. and I think you are either Eric Anderson, his husband, or Mark Mccormack. NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Anderson (sociologist). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150425232442/http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4156-in-the-game.aspx to http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4156-in-the-game.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511072406/http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Sexuality/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780199777921 to http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Sexuality/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780199777921

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)