Talk:Rex Jung

Puffery
User:GrayFell claims to reduce puffery in this edit. However, there was no puffery. What he actually removed was 1) 2 good primary sources describing the influence of Jung's work (Google Scholar and ResearchGate), 2) a very well supported sentence (5 references given!) noting that the P-FIT model is considering a leading neuroscience model for intelligence. There were other minor but less important changes, which I also dispute. I see no justification for these changes and will revert unless GrayFell can produce some convincing arguments here. Deleet (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is trivia. We are not a platform for promotion or advertising. I have explained this, and your inability to understand this is not my problem. Therefor your "dispute" seems to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying that he has been interviewed "due" to such and such is WP:OR. The number of times he has been cited is a primary fact which would requires secondary context, not a routine listing added because you felt like it. "Variety", "Leading", etc. are all peacock words in this context, and provide fuzzy filler more fitting of a fan-page or public relations blurb than an encyclopedia article. "Best known for" is a cliche which is also puffery and editorializing. If you cannot summarize using neutral language, do not edit biographies of living people. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 5 reliable sources noting this theory is considering a leading theory, or some such similar phrasing. Jung and Haier are the original proponents of it. I am restoring these claims again per usual practice. I can't understand your aversion to mentioning these facts. Please refrain from deleting well-sourced material with reference to seemingly unrelated policies. Please discuss your preferred version here on the talk page before editing the article again for these two claims. Deleet (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you cannot understand why this is WP:SYNTH, that's your problem, innit mate? If reliable, independent sources cite Jung as the originator of a leading theory, we would use those sources to provide that context with attribution. We do not present these kinds of vague, subjective claims in Wikipedia's voice in a BLP. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Interview mentions
User:GrayFell removes a mention of a BBC interview in this edit, justifying it with "Merely having been interviewed is not sufficient, and this needs something better than a lazy copy-paste from his resume anyway.". This is not a Wikipedia policy, so I have added again. Please refrain from removing valid material without basis in policy. Deleet (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of non-neutral trivia, especially not based entirely on personal whim and primary sources. This is a core part of Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also added the BBC interview again. See above talk discussion. I see reference to any Wikipedia policy for this change. Deleet (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge handbook
User:GrayFell removes a mention of Jung's role in editing a Cambridge handbook. Strangely, he justifies this with "Find a reliable, independent source for this book's significance.". Mentioning an edited book by a top tier university publisher hardly is something that requires an independent source. I have added it again. Please stop removing valid content without reference actual Wikipedia policy. Deleet (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Hardly something that requires and independent sources" is not how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Major work by highly regarded publishers such as Cambridge University Press is itself significant, and not something that needs a third party source. Any BLP should mention their major works, and this obviously qualifies. In contrast, mentioning every single journal article he has published would not be noteworthy. Again, please stop removing well-sourced content without reference to relevant Wikipedia policy. Deleet (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your description of something as "major" is subjective, especially since you cannot be bothered to find a reliable, independent source. The book has been added as an entry in a bibliography. Without context provided by a reliable, independent source, this is the most that could be justified. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Third party sources note
I have removed this note as there was seemingly no reason to have it. I looked at the current source list. There are 19 cited sources. Of these 4 are subject's own self-published, which is fine because they are used for simple facts (WP:BLPSELFPUB). There are 3 more self-authored, but these are just used for examples of work he has published, again, nothing remarkable. The article has plenty of independent sources, so I see no need for this tag. Deleet (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)