Talk:Katrina Karkazis

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katrina Karkazis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226191601/http://bioethics.stanford.edu/people/resumes/karkazispubs.html to http://bioethics.stanford.edu/people/resumes/karkazispubs.html
 * Added tag to http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/858.full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Publications
and, don't you think it might be condign to come up with an amended list of publications and include that in the article, rather than reverting each other between a comically large list of publications and none whatsoever? jp×g 07:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't care less what happens to the page, as long as it isn't the unnecessary blanking of the IP. Seem  plez  07:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed a few of the publications. Seem  plez  07:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like there were an excessive amount of publications -- every work published by a researcher is typically not appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps it would be best to pick maybe four or five with the highest citation count on Gscholar or some other resource? jp×g 07:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * other Wikipedia articles about researchers typically do not include a list of publications by the researcher in sections such as "peer-reviewed articles" or "edited books" -- this format is common, however in an academic CV. It seems to me that Katrina Karkazis has simply copy-pasted her CV into the article, although of course it may have been some one else. All of her publications are on her webpage, which is prominently linked in the article. There is no need to list all of her specialist publications.

Should a list of the subect's publications be included in the article at all, and if so, how many of them? Two editors, and, are in disagreement about this issue. 85 wants to remove them all, whereas Seemplez has been open to including an amended list with the most relevant (or most highly-cited) publications. The original removal of the list can be seen at Special:Diff/980380715. I originally saw these edits and reversions while patrolling Special:RecentChanges, and made one revert (when WP:3RR was exceeded) but have subsequently observed a lack of consensus (there are points to be made on either side). I haven't got much to say besides the vague and noncommittal suggestion of a reduced bibliography -- both parties have been going at it on Seemplez's user talk page and it doesn't seem like they're going to reach consensus without assistance. jp×g 09:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Me and 127.116 are in agreement about one thing; there were too many works in the bibliography and it was definitely a breach of WP:NOTCV as Jacob rightly pointed out above. But I feel that removing the whole thing is a tad extreme. 127.116 seems to be of the persuasion that it was Katrina Karkazis who put all the works in, and to be honest, that could have happened. Maybe the top 10 from Google Scholar as Jacob suggested? I'm happy to put it in if 127.116 agrees. Seem  plez  09:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added in 5 of the top articles from here apart from "Hyperandrogenism controversy in elite women's sport: an examination and critique of recent evidence", as she is a minor writer in that paper. Is this acceptable? Seem  plez  09:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After leaving this comment, you went immediately back to the article and did another revert, bringing both of you to five each -- I have reported the conflict at WP:AN3. jp×g 10:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I? Could you provide the diff link for the revert? What you have linked at AN3 isn't a revert. Seem  plez  11:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I was invited by Yapperbot. Earlier I had raised a similar question in another article and I was told that "Not sure if there are any guidelines on this via WP:BLP". Now I looked at articles about several Nobel laureates and it seems to me that the section with their "Publications" or "Works" is usually absent. More often, there is only the "Awards and honors" section or something like that. However, there are also few opposite examples. Now the section "Works" should be reduced rather than enlarged, I think. You might also want to find out the community consensus on this issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Invited by Yapperbot. I suggest to keep the works that have been subject of independent coverage in "layman" publications; this means both books and the Out of bounds article in the AJB. I would remove the rest (going by the sources in the article, this means scrapping out the "selected bibliography" section and most of the "peer-reviewed publications".) My (admittedly weak) justification for that cutoff criterion is based on WP:NOR: an exhaustive list of publications is not really useful (that's what Google Scholar is for), so we should only mention those for which we can write stuff, which means stuff for which there are independent sources. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)