Talk:Vocology

Previous discussions without headers

i just undid the deletion of a link. to delete the link without explanation is not how things are done. there is justification for the link if you read the article being edited. if you have problems with it, we talk about it here. Larynxdude (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

SLP1 just added a 'fact' or citation needed tag at the end of a sentence in the main paragraph. Anyone else understand why? The 'fact' is given in the link to a peer review journal (which has Vocology in the title) and also the next sentence which links to two independent, unrelated institutions which both have Vocology programs. I guess I am perplexed at what the tag is for?Larynxdude (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize Titze apparently added the original entry here, but it looks like enough editing has been done (including a good of what he originally wrote) that I'm not sure I understand why the conflict of interest tag has been added. Please explain. (72.244.57.45 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

This page has been extensively edited by people with a connection to the NCVS. The article still appears to me to be a puff piece, and my research suggests the term `vocology` used by a very limited number of voice scientists or clinicians (try a googlesearch!) A sentence like this "The study of vocology has advanced such that it is a fundamental part of current voice research (including a journal entitled Logopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocology) and training programs" needs a reliable source it. Who has said that "it has advanced"?, who has said that it is a "fundamental part of voice research". We need independent sources (books, newspapers, scholarly journals) who say this, not people who are connected to the field and Titze's centre. --Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate the work you've been doing on the SLP-related entries. And I *don't* want to get into a battle with you. But bottom line is that I don't (and never have) worked for the NCVS or Titze and I am quite familiar with the term, as are people in the (*VERY* small) field of voice SCIENCE. Ask any of the big names -- Jiang, Chan, Story, Berry, Sataloff, Hunter, Ramig, Svec, Smith, Gray, etc, etc. Yes, it's a new term -- I can remember when Log, Phon, & Vocology added Vocology to its title -- but it's catching on more and more. I did a google search on it, and that's why I'm concerned -- there are 16,000 entries! That's a pretty big web presense for a puff piece! Of course, the first stuff will be going to NCVS because Titze came up with the term and he's frankly the big fish in a little research pond. But are you suggesting that the NCVS is connected with all 16,000 entries themselves -- heck, if they are then they are a bigger entity than I'd originally thought!? Westminster Choir College, The Grabscheid Voice Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center, and the Vox Humana Laboratory at St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital (NY) have nothing to do with the NCVS either and they have training programs in it. Neither is the Vocology Laboratory at KU and the other programs/labs that exist. The fact that they exist in and of itself demonstrate the importance of the term. Again, I don't want to get into a fight with you on the subject because I don't know the wiki rules and I really don't have a horse in this race, except for my respect for the field. But over the past few days I've been snooping around and have seen what you've done to the various speech-related entries and the battle you apparently had with the one individual about this before. So the only concern I have is that -- and I mean this with no offense although that's hard to demonstrate on the computer -- although you may understand SLP, you don't seem to really understand speech science. So if you don't know about vocology, it says more about your emphasis area (that you are a clinician, rather than a scientist) than about the field itself. If you want to clean up the entry more, do so. I'm not a writer so I frankly don't know how to do it. But, c'mon, give a break to us speech scientists and, in the words of the famous Hebrew liberator, let our term go! (: (68.164.43.156 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I understand that you are not wanting to cause offense, I would suggest avoiding making comments about other editors' background or knowledge per this WP:APR. What is important is what the arguments are, and to avoid personalizing the issue. As it happens I am still not convinced about the widepread use of the term Vocology. You claim 16000 google hits, but even 100 hits in the pages they are finding are mainly those containing references to the journal.[1]. And googlebooks contains only 75 uses of the word with once again most of them references to the journal. [2] If it is so important a field, where are the books about it? Where are the chapters about it? Where are the independent references to it in books, media, journals? But that's not to say that I don't think there should be an article about it. I think there should. But since there is so little independent, verifiable information about the field and the organization, and since both articles have been heavily edited by NCSV editors who have an admitted conflict of interest, whose edits were not of neutral point of view and who included material without a reliable attribution, we have to be very careful that we are not presenting readers with a biased view of this field/organization without a warning. However, if you really do not have a conflict of interest and you honestly think the articles are fair and unbiased then you can remove the tags yourself. Someone may add them back, but that's the nature of a wiki.--Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SLP1, I am also new to this Wiki thingy but have to agree with the other commenter. While "conflict of interest" may be an issue and possibly should be tagged as such, your bringing up "material without a reliable attribution" while presenting yourself as an expert in the field is somewhat humorous. If one says they are in the field of vocal health and hasn't heard of "vocology", then one isn't specialized in the field of vocal health wether they are a certified as an S.L.P. or not. I will have to dig them up but have read chapters written about vocology. In fact, at the last Voice Foundation's Voice Symposium there was talk of a new book called "Vocology" that should be in print soon. The word "vocology" was used in several instances at the symposium; have you ever been to Voice Symposium even one time? You seem to be quite a contributor at Wiki so keep it up in the editing and the conflict stuff but you should know where your expertise end. 208.53.56.158 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I present myself as an "expert in the field"? Where did I say I worked "in the field of vocal health"? You won't be able to answer these questions, because I have never said either. Your comments on me and what I may or may not know, and where you think my "expertise ends" are extremely inappropriate. Please read no personal attacks and civility if you want to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. As I said above comment on edits, not on people. By all means find the chapters and add sourced information to the article. It will be great when the new book comes out. It will help to prove that the field is truly notable.Slp1 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)