Talk:Brent Mishler

References split
- I'm not sure that explicitly splitting the reference list into "primary" and "secondary" is a good idea. This is of concern for those who develop the article, but it really isn't something the average reader will care about, and for those the split bibliography will probably be confusing. At least I have never seen this done in an article before (but then I don't see that many BLPs). I did remove the explanatory note inside the bibliography, at any rate. Why do you think it is necessary to use this structure in this particular article? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Because of tags placed in the article by other editors. But I doubt very much that the split will worry any ordinary readers one little bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Not written by Mishler or his cronies!
I wrote the following passage to provide basic facts about Mishler. It is neutral, verifiable, and independently cited, so I'm frankly bemused to have people cutting it out as being in favour of the guy:


 * "He is the author of nearly two hundred scientific papers. The most often cited is a 1993 paper on the phylogenetics of seed plants, cited over 2500 times; a 2008 paper on the Physcomitrella genome and the conquest of land by plants received over 1800 citations; and a 2005 paper on the perils of DNA barcoding, over 1000 citations. His 1982 book on species concepts has been cited over 600 times. "

There are many possible criticisms of this article, but documenting an academic's research by numbers from an independent source is certainly not puffery of any sort. I might add that these are enormous numbers: very few scientific papers ever get more than a dozen mentions. We should put back something very similar to this material, exactly as an antidote to one-sided reporting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks again for starting this conversation and for the quality of your edits! As discussed I don't have any big opinion here - just saw a potential edit war and wanted to make sure you and @Graywalls had the opportunity to share perspectives and reach a consensus. I also had the feeling this sentence didn't add much about the person but was more here to display medals (which maybe is fine if this scientist really had a bigger than average impact?). Looking at scientists from the same category there's usually no mention of how many citations they have. Maybe just keeping the total papers and then topics without citations counter would add the same value and would sound less promotional. But if you think it's adding more value with the citations count and the editor who reverted it doesn't give more context probably fine to re-add your version in a couple of days :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the warm words. Well, if the consensus is to avoid speaking of impact, then we can do that. The impact of Mishler's major writings is exceptionally large - he's a controversial author for his forthright views - and the figures seem to me to state in a small space exactly how notable he is. If we can find another way of explaining this, that'll be fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any external news articles or awards highlighting his notability? Would be a great way to support this. Re citations as impact I don't know if there's already a consensus on Wikipedia, I rarely see that in articles (but doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere). Even outside I know it can be a debatable metric (but again, gross sales of music and movies probably are debatable metrics and are still used for most artists). AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They may not be perfect, but they're external and as fair as anything is likely to be. The 'Reception' section already contains several external views of Mishler from people who, ah, don't necessarily agree with him. In other words, they think he's an important opinion in the field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok :) Well as the editor who initially reverted your changes is not engaging I'd say it's probably safe for you to put the changes back. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss! AlanTheScientist (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Search results do not pass WP:RS criteria and making the decision to write something into prose from it is undue. AlanTheScientist is spot on. Primary sources like their own website are ok for basic factual information such as sourcing their date of birth of where they're living. However, building contents in prose from someone's own website, resume, publication would not pass neutral point of view. Graywalls (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)