Talk:Chris Sherwin/Archive 1

In-use tag
, 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)
 * I've posted it at User:SlimVirgin/draft, minus the tags at the top and the categories. SarahSV (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm about to go offline, so I'm going to add my version to the page. I've incorporated some of the changes you made, but not all (e.g. not RSPCA, which seemed a bit lame). You're welcome to revert, of course, but I've added some secondary sources, so I think it's an improvement. SarahSV (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Atsme. I really dislike editing through an in-use tag, but I have to go offline, and I wanted to comment in the AfD beforehand and refer to the secondary sources I added. I also fixed the date formats (British, so dmy), filled in some of the refs, and rewrote one of the bits someone said was close paraphrasing. Feel free to play around with it. SarahSV (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work, . Thank you for your collaboration. Take a look at the RSPCA bit I added back for the wrap. If you still think it's a bit much, feel free to revert. Atsme 📞📧 15:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so gracious! I hope I didn't mess anything up that you were doing/had planned. Please edit it as you see fit.


 * I wouldn't have added the RSPCA myself, but I won't remove it again. I think I'd rather find a source that discussed that research, then write a couple of sentences about it, and perhaps at that point say it was cited by the RSPCA. But I must go now. Good luck with the rest of it, and sorry again. SarahSV (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
please indicate where and from what source the close paraphrasing is. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Earwig Copyvio tool reveals some similarities to this, this, and this. It probably doesn't rise to a copyright infringement, but I can't be certain. Adam9007 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I used Earwig - the 36.7% comprised titles of his work, names of committees, and a single quote with in-text attribution - no copyvio. I avoid close paraphrasing and I'm very careful not to infringe on the copyrights of others. Atsme 📞📧 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It's not an issue when one is simply reporting those kinds of facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing issue
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)
 * Looking around some more, that is almost certainly what happened. I see other sources (W/Times, ABC) report that the study existed, and quoting Wickens for another point. So the question is whether to trust the science editor of the Telegraph, who was the first reporter. SarahSV (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think that the Telegraph is the correct version. Stephen Wickens is mentioned just before Chris Sherwin, so it would be a fairly easy mistake to make. I also found this, which seems to suggest that both Reuters and CNN mirrored the Telegraph version, and I tend to think they wouldn't both get it wrong (assuming the webpage I linked to is right). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this which further confirms but can't find the original Reuters article. There is also a CNN report that I can't find but it does list it here. Atsme 📞📧 22:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the quote. Would be interesting to find out more about that meeting. SarahSV (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see page 90 - "For Sherwin this indicates that ‘we should either be more cautious when using argument by analogy or remain open minded to the possibility that invertebrates are capable of suffering in a similar way to vertebrates’." (cite: Tiffin, Helen, Do Insects Feel Pain?, Animal Studies Journal, 5(1), 2016, 80-96. Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol5/iss1/6).  He is paraphrased here which cites this paper. Atsme 📞📧 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Another good find, Atsme. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way,, 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)
 * It can't actually go live on DYK until the AfD closes (assuming it closes as keep) but it would nevertheless be a good idea to get the nomination in now rather than waiting, to make it in time for the nomination deadline. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Finding more info online but not sure if we even need anymore, or if any of it would prove helpful so I'm throwing it out to see what sticks:
 * AIW Discussion with Sherwin on panel "Collecting Blood from Rodents";
 * operated by Authority Sciences LLC - evidence based source on dog health;
 * - Sherwin on what cured animals (turkeys) of stereotypical behavior;
 * bringing together leading authorities from around the world;
 * in Science Direct - article - Acknowledgement: We thank Dr Chris Sherwin and Dr Peter Lewis for supplying turkeys and useful discussions, and Dr Andrew Dorey for advice on optics;
 * team awarded a 1,904,537(£) research grant;
 * Dept of Applied Zoology and Veterinary Medicine, University of Kuopioy showing global recognition, cited and included in the Acknowledgement We also thank Dr. Chris M. Sherwin for his willing and valuable help with the English and for his helpful comments on the manuscript;
 * I'm of the mind we have plenty as it is without really needing to add anymore. Atsme 📞📧 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

j'accuse
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)
 * Nobody is asking for a pass, Chris. The man's work was significant in his academic field. You might want to do a quickie refresh of WP:ACADEMIC. He wasn't a fly by night, ho-hum academic - his research was highly significant and is cited by other academics and researchers. He studied animal behavior for decades, his research helped turkey farmers, and he contributed greatly to the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. I think he easily meets #4 & #7 but only one is needed. Atsme 📞📧 20:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I see insufficient WP:BEFORE done on this AfD, but that's for the discussion there.  Montanabw (talk) 22:30, 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)
 * Found this interesting article about H-index which states: The top 25% of Professors had a H-index of 30 or greater. There is discipline variation... and it provides a list. Atsme 📞📧 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical about that source, because it comes from a ResearchGate Q&A page, which can often be unreliable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This entire circle-jerk is proof that once the fans get involved in writing their narrative, there's no thought to the logic of it. Apparently, we don't need independent sources, anymore. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, Chris, please don't hold back. Do tell us what you really think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

- 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)
 * It's no big deal to me one way or the other, because I'm not a fan of those kinds of metrics and it's becoming very clear that the AfD is going to be "keep", but the circle jerker has a point in respect to WP:RS/SPS. A published peer-reviewed paper by him would be far better to use, if you actually want to cite it on the page. Our page on ResearchGate does a pretty good job of explaining why scientists regard it with caution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Description
Hi Atsme, I restored veterinary biologist only because of the repetition of "animal welfare". SarahSV (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Veterinary biologist was his BS, but his PhD+ was in Veterinary Science and Animal welfare science which is far more advanced than biologist. He worked in the Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science at Bristol. I think the lead should mention his highest degrees - perhaps English veterinary scientist? Atsme 📞📧 18:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've changed the lead to say "veterinary scientist", and added that he specialized in applied ethology. I've also added his involvement in the two ethics committees. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you, SV. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you on this biography. Atsme 📞📧 03:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for saying that,, and it has likewise been a pleasure for me to work with you. I'm so glad that you created the article and defended it. I've added the European Council Working Party on Birds article you found, and I'm currently looking around for other sources on it. SarahSV (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

, 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)
 * , sorry, my mistake! I hadn't realized that I'd added "English ecologists". :) Will fix it now. SarahSV (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP
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)


 * Please refrain from interjecting the subject's editor disputes into discussion here. We really should avoid that on this page at least as it is a BLP (and I sincerely hope the editor's behavior never becomes a sourced content-based discussion here). Since you've brought it up though, the number of sanctions the editor had in dispute areas (though unfortunate) somewhat invalidates a COI claim for those dealing with those problems unless interactions between two editors were so bad that an interaction ban towards the BLP was seriously considered or needed. Outside those sanctioned areas, I edited rather collegially with the editor. Given my mixed history with the subject as an editor, I fall more under 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.


 * I do have to say thanks for reminding me about BLPCOI as opposed to just WP:COI. Regardless of which, that COI concept also applies to editors who have been extremely supportive of DrChrissy as a Wikipedia editor in major sanctioned disputes, considered on-Wiki friends, etc. That can apply to quite a few editors that were here before my edits, but in other forums I've been trying to have people be mindful of being too close (the idea of BLPCOI I quoted above) rather than enforce no edits by COI editors to keep potential tensions low. All editors here need to take care of this to varying degrees. That's as much as I'm going to discuss COI on this page since it's not really focusing on content, so I'm closing this as it's likely to not include further content based discussion. If we need to discuss limiting editors' ability to edit here, that will be done at COIN, but I've been more keen on keeping things calm at this page rather than escalating the situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

English
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)
 * I'm guilty - I would not object to it being British-Australian English (they're the same, aren't they?)., rather than tag it, let's just make the changes - I'm sure we have an editor active in one of the projects who is from AU or the UK? Calling all proper English speaking bloats (is that the right word?), HELP with spelling. Atsme 📞📧 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was likely unclear but I meant tagging the talk page of course, not the article (which is often done non-controversially to let editors know that the language was standardized, I agree that it shouldn't be done until consistency was improved). — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that he spent his adult career at Bristol, I think English-English is fine, and I just put the template at the top of this talkpage. We can certainly copyedit as appropriate as we go along. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I think you meant "blokes". { Best, Gandy  Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rug burns from rotflmao - yes,, that's the word I couldn't recall. I was feeling a bit bloated when I posted that comment - it was the best I could do. Atsme 📞📧 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)