Talk:Robert Hogan (psychologist)

"Widely credited"?

"Hogan is widely credited[7] with demonstrating how personality factors influence organizational effectiveness in a variety of areas - ranging from organizational climate and leadership to selection and effective team performance."

That citation is to an article on linkedin by one of his mentees praising him for his work, which is certainly not an impartial source and also definitely does not constitute widespread credit to Hogan for "demonstrating how personality factors influence organizational effectiveness" - in fact, that one citation is the only credit speaking to that statement that I am currently able to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.128.86 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hagiography

I wanted to flag this article as a hagiography but there is no such template. Shame. It borders on idolatry.--Murky Falls (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Murky Falls. Yes, it's been on my back burner for some months now. See Special:Contributions/Hogan_Marketing and Special:Contributions/CainTB along with User talk:CainTB for possible reasons why. I have a strong suspicion that CainTB is an employee, close relative or even closer of Hogan himself. All Cain has ever done here (AFAICT) is work on this article and try to create Hogan Assessments Systems, which was draftified and then deleted. COI might be one tag to start with, although I have no proof about CainTB, and maybe {{More citations needed}} or {{BLP primary sources}} or something.

What sources there are are largely from him or his company. There's no discrimination (in the editorial sense) and the "selected bibliography was much worse before I deleted the entire list of his works. There's still no hint as to what makes these "selections" special (and the formatting's still bad).

I'm afraid I just haven't summoned the courage to go in there with a machete and flamethower. Feel free, if you're brave enough. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to Remove Information

Hello. As per my understanding of tonality on Wikipedia articles, i think this part shouldn't be added to the article as it adds no real value. This is a Wikipedia article and not a feature article. But i may be wrong and if i am, I'd like someone to help me understand this. The part in question is, "Hogan found school tedious and was frequently disruptive in the classroom. Outside school, adolescent Hogan read Freud and Darwin.[4]: 2 [better source needed]" I'd really appreciate some help here. --Error404forever (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me; I think you are not wrong. As far as I am concerned, the subject is of questionable notability, despite the various "works" credited to him in the bibliography, although I am in no position to assess their worth. I find the abundance of first-party sources disturbing and I suspect that if we took out everything that came from Hogen, Hogan Assessments, his friends, employees and partners, that we'd be left with a very scrawny article indeed.

The content with the questionable tone comes from eager additions by one primary editor, whose independence I have impugned above. I think they were trying to tell the story of the man (the myth, the legend), largely using the Rob Kaiser interview. But I believe this is the same Kaiser mentioned within the interview (p.5) as co-authoring a couple of papers with Hogan. Also, it seems that interview was written for Hogan as it's hosted at Hogan Assessments' website and has no other affiliation (like a magazine name) mentioned.

IOW: pull out your flamethrower and clean up as you see fit. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Quotes" section is totally inappropriate, and should be removed

This section is WP:INAPPROPRIATE for Wikipedia as it is plainly WP:PROMOTION. As such, it is eligible for Wikipedia:Content removal. Gkroth (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Need more neutral sources

I worked on some copyediting for tone and tried to reduce the amount of promotion-style material. It still needs work, and I noticed the majority of sources cited seem related to Hogan directly or published through sites that allow businesses to publish promotional material with little to no editorial oversight. A notable psychologist should have info published on his work in reliable sources, and this article's POV would improve if those sources were prioritized. Popoki35 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)