This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Atsme, I expanded this yesterday and also rewrote and copy-edited bits of it. I was about to add it to the page, but you have the in-use tag up, so I thought I'd let you know that I have more material. SarahSV (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Adam9007: please indicate where and from what source the close paraphrasing is. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, the first link could be added after the Bristol obit, although there's no additional information in it. Your second link could lead to an RS if we can find the report. Here are the secondary sources in the article so far, by the way, in order of use:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)SarahSV (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
We have a clash of the RS. Roger Highfield reported the following in The Daily Telegraph on 11 May 2000 ( courtesy link):
The meeting at the Zoological Society will be told by Dr Chris Sherwin, of the University of Bristol, that the criterion used to assess the mental state of vertebrates, whether dogs, cats or chimpanzees, often produced similar results among insects.
Dr Sherwin said: "If a chimp pulls its hand away after an electric shock, we say she presumably must have felt an analogous subjective experience to what we call pain. But cockroaches, slugs and snails—which are not protected by legislation—also reacted in the same way, while tests on flies showed they could associate a smell with receiving an electric shock.
"If it is a chimp we say it feels pain, if a fly we don't. Why? Slugs will perform in some of these tests the same way as dogs, chimps and cats. They show far more complex patterns of behaviour than we had thought. And if they do feel pain, isn't that a welfare issue?"
I added part of the quote to the article, but then I noticed that other RS report that someone else (Stephen Wickens) said this, e.g. Copeland 2004, p. 130, and The Register (12 May 2000). So I've made it invisible for now. It's particularly odd because the Register appears to be quoting from the Telegraph. I think what may have happened is that the Register misquoted the Telegraph, and other sources used the Register because it was easier to access at that time. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Atsme, if you want to take this to DYK, it has been expanded fivefold since 21 October, so it meets the criteria. On 21st, it had 184 words "readable prose size", and as of now 973, according to User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I have seen this community, the people that get joy from writing their narrative, compose articles like these after a fellow Wikipedian dies. I can understand some people experience feelings and miss their comrades and that's fine. However, I'd like to remind everyone that we have agreed-upon notability criteria and I'm not the guy to give you a pass. Chris Troutman ( talk) 11:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just did a citation search for C.M. Sherwin - 2526, h-31, i10-54 Atsme 📞 📧 22:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish - the author of it is Ray Iles, his WP article sucks but this article appears legitimate. He is the one who wrote the H-index article and why I believed it had merit. Atsme 📞 📧 03:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, I restored veterinary biologist only because of the repetition of "animal welfare". SarahSV (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
SV, which category is a duplicate of Ethologists? Just wondering if you were looking at Ecologist thinking it was the same. I don't think he was "officially" an ecologist. Atsme 📞 📧 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP ( WP:BDP) applies to this page and states, at WP:BLPCOI:
Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography ...
In this case the disputes were on-wiki, not off, but the principle remains. I was surprised to see people who had been in dispute with Chris arrive to express views and even edit the article. I very much hope that this does not continue. SarahSV (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.of WP:BLPCOI (my view is very mixed), hence why my only edit here was on the basic thing of editor selected works. Aside from that, I didn't want to edit this article very much or see the need to fix anything in other sections since they seemed fine anyways.
It may be a little early to make everything consistent, but I noticed uses of behavior and behaviour and wondered if the article should be tagged for an English variant, like Australian English? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Atsme, I expanded this yesterday and also rewrote and copy-edited bits of it. I was about to add it to the page, but you have the in-use tag up, so I thought I'd let you know that I have more material. SarahSV (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Adam9007: please indicate where and from what source the close paraphrasing is. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, the first link could be added after the Bristol obit, although there's no additional information in it. Your second link could lead to an RS if we can find the report. Here are the secondary sources in the article so far, by the way, in order of use:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)SarahSV (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
We have a clash of the RS. Roger Highfield reported the following in The Daily Telegraph on 11 May 2000 ( courtesy link):
The meeting at the Zoological Society will be told by Dr Chris Sherwin, of the University of Bristol, that the criterion used to assess the mental state of vertebrates, whether dogs, cats or chimpanzees, often produced similar results among insects.
Dr Sherwin said: "If a chimp pulls its hand away after an electric shock, we say she presumably must have felt an analogous subjective experience to what we call pain. But cockroaches, slugs and snails—which are not protected by legislation—also reacted in the same way, while tests on flies showed they could associate a smell with receiving an electric shock.
"If it is a chimp we say it feels pain, if a fly we don't. Why? Slugs will perform in some of these tests the same way as dogs, chimps and cats. They show far more complex patterns of behaviour than we had thought. And if they do feel pain, isn't that a welfare issue?"
I added part of the quote to the article, but then I noticed that other RS report that someone else (Stephen Wickens) said this, e.g. Copeland 2004, p. 130, and The Register (12 May 2000). So I've made it invisible for now. It's particularly odd because the Register appears to be quoting from the Telegraph. I think what may have happened is that the Register misquoted the Telegraph, and other sources used the Register because it was easier to access at that time. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Atsme, if you want to take this to DYK, it has been expanded fivefold since 21 October, so it meets the criteria. On 21st, it had 184 words "readable prose size", and as of now 973, according to User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I have seen this community, the people that get joy from writing their narrative, compose articles like these after a fellow Wikipedian dies. I can understand some people experience feelings and miss their comrades and that's fine. However, I'd like to remind everyone that we have agreed-upon notability criteria and I'm not the guy to give you a pass. Chris Troutman ( talk) 11:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just did a citation search for C.M. Sherwin - 2526, h-31, i10-54 Atsme 📞 📧 22:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish - the author of it is Ray Iles, his WP article sucks but this article appears legitimate. He is the one who wrote the H-index article and why I believed it had merit. Atsme 📞 📧 03:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, I restored veterinary biologist only because of the repetition of "animal welfare". SarahSV (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
SV, which category is a duplicate of Ethologists? Just wondering if you were looking at Ecologist thinking it was the same. I don't think he was "officially" an ecologist. Atsme 📞 📧 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP ( WP:BDP) applies to this page and states, at WP:BLPCOI:
Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography ...
In this case the disputes were on-wiki, not off, but the principle remains. I was surprised to see people who had been in dispute with Chris arrive to express views and even edit the article. I very much hope that this does not continue. SarahSV (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.of WP:BLPCOI (my view is very mixed), hence why my only edit here was on the basic thing of editor selected works. Aside from that, I didn't want to edit this article very much or see the need to fix anything in other sections since they seemed fine anyways.
It may be a little early to make everything consistent, but I noticed uses of behavior and behaviour and wondered if the article should be tagged for an English variant, like Australian English? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)