User talk:MarkSeelig

May 2021

Hello, I'm Mxtt.prior. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Max Lugavere seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Per WP:NOTFORUM, please do not add commentary or original thought to an article. (NB previous talk page warning removed in favour of this more relevant one) Thanks, Mxtt.prior (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Matt,

Mark Seelig here, relating to your removal of my edit for Max Lugavere.

Thank you for your input. I don't know him and have no affiliation.

However: The reasoning of McGill University, claiming that Lugavere's claims are not sustainable because he lacks the credentials is faulty. If someone repairs water faucets for 20 years, they know ... they don't need the piece of paper.

Compare Daniel Amen's 2020 publication "The End of Mental Illness" ... He is revered as one of America's 'best psychiatrists' ... His book is nowhere near as throroughly researched as Lugavere's, the information is older, even though the book is two years younger, plus the only real interest in Amen's book seems to be the repeated business push for his clinics, to an extent that makes the reading disgusting.

In contrast, Lugavare's book is honest, extremely well supported, every claim he makes is backed by solid quotes, plus his writing is much better.

The idea that a so called 'scientific' or 'academic' qualification is the only valid means of acquiring, or elaborating on the themes covered in either of the books is scientistic, i.e. it is an unsubstantiated superstitious belief and ideology, and not science as in experientially consolidated and firmly established theory. That's why I was talking about reductionism.

The superstitious belief in the claims of reductionist science is one of the most destructive forces in academia, and frankly in the world.

And I should mention that I am a PhD clinical psychotherapist and a professor of psychology ... not to tout my own horn, but to convey that I am all too familiar with academia and science.

Thank you for listening and for your work here,

Mark Seelig — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSeelig (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @MarkSeelig: Please accept my sincerest apologies that I missed your comment; I had not correctly added your page to my watchlist. I will briefly reply here, as opposed to on my talk page.

Firstly I know very, very little about the subject matter, and your knowledge in this field clearly far surpasses mine. I thank you for your detailed explanation and views.

The reason that I removed your edit was not because it was an incorrect claim - it may very well be true that the criticism by McGill University is faulty - rather because it is, to my knowledge, not the type of content which is to be included here on Wikipedia. It is important to note that biased or non-objective sources can be used to describe the opinion that a source has argued (in this instance that McGill University has argued that Lugavere could not substantiate his claims) - per WP:OPINION, "Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know who advocates the point of view [and] what their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)". In this instance, I believe the criticism section meets these points, but your counter points fail WP:NOT: "Personal essays". From WP:ED "... it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced content may be challenged and removed ... the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the content is added (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this...)". From WP:NOR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.".

I believe your edit may constitute original research and opinion (eg. "readers should make their own informed decision", "A university is also always a business !" - both phrases appear to be insertion of your own commentary and opinion into the section - albeit in a good faith attempt to maintain balance and neutrality).

If the claims you are making are verifiable, ie. there is a reliable source which argues similar points to those you are making, then you could consider adding this counter point to the criticism section, if it were correctly sourced. For example, if there has been a counter-analysis of the McGill University analysis, which argues that (in your own words) "Lugavare's book is honest, extremely well supported, every claim he makes is backed by solid quotes, plus his writing is much better", then it would be completely correct to add a sentence detailing this and a reliable source demonstrating where the opinion originated.

As I read it, the article currently maintains a neutral point of view; it does not argue that McGill University's research is either correct or incorrect, it simply states that there was an analysis and criticism of Lugavere. The reader should be presented with verifiable, reliable sources, and arguments which those sources have made, not the opinion, analysis or commentary of a Wikipedia editor.

I hope from this you can understand why I removed your edit. Thank you very much for your contributions and discussion here, perhaps one of the most important aspects of improving Wikipedia is dialogue between editors, so I appreciate the time you have already taken to explain your point of view.

(I have now added this page to my watchlist, so if you reply here, I will be notified)

Thanks again, Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Matt, My sincere thanks again for your efforts and work here. I do fully understand your reasoning, and it's all good. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. All the best, Mark