Talk:Weigh house

Issues
This page on the weigh house has serious issues. The state of research is at least 30 years old, if at all. Important literature and proofs are missing, the selection of objects is arbitrary etc.. What is shown elaborately as the Amsterdam Waag is not the Weigh house of Amsterdam which was located on the Dam square and demolished in 1808. What is shown is a city gate that was used temporarily for weighing and can contribute only very little to the weigh house. This building has anyway an extended own page in the English language Wikipedia and also doesn't need singular and special attention on this page. I can tell this because I wrote a monograph on the weigh house as a building type, which was my phd-project at the University of Amsterdam. You can download a PDF from a link on my Wikipedia authors site for free. Feeling the deficits of this article here I rewrote it entirely. But the user P199 undid my work and accused me of self promoting and now doesn't reply to me. You can compare the two versions, the one from July 20 and 21 and undo the undoing of P199. After all to me it looks like this page is trolled and somebody doesn't want to be it improved from whatever reason.--Karl Kiem (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, and would love to see a "History" section. I don't monitor your talkpage, so didn't reply there.  Although I'm not questioning your qualifications, it really seems like self-promotional if you link your work 3 times in the article (as reference, further reading, and external link). Moreover, per WP:SELFPUBLISH, using your own publication as reference is not acceptable. I would recommend improving the article using other secondary or tertiary sources (such as in the Literature section of your PDF on pages 311 to 325). Thanks. --  P 1 9 9   ✉ 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi P199: Thanks for the answer and the link. When I started with Wikipedia I had a very strict and very well experienced Wikipedia mentor. He agreed that I can write on wikipedia about issues of my own publications and recommended to me to use my real name as author so that people can see that I am the expert. This also applies to the link to Wikipedia rules you sent me: "Self published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by a reliable subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable independent publications." So I am a university professor in architectural history, my German language weigh house book is published by a prestigious Berlin publisher specialised in art and architecture (2009) and the English translation is published by the Siegen university press (2016). So I stick perfectly to the Wikipedia rules if I publish there something on the Weigh house. Concerning proofs: I don't know if you can imagine this, but before I did my research on the Weigh house the origin, the development and the distribution of the weigh house was more or less a blank white page. And with my approach also the individual buildings that were previously mostly treated only by local historians almost always could be seen in a new way. And since then some people plagiarized me but nothing considerable is published any more (see last paragraph of the English edition). So it is only honest if the proofs very often end up in my publications. Or the other way around: too many proofs to other literature just to make to look the text more independent would be cheating. With most of my other publications it doesn't go that far but my weigh house research is extremely original. So how we are gonna proceed? What would you think if I try to add some more literature from previous authors as far as possible, where it is possible? And we stay in contact until the article complies to the current state of research. But unfortunately it will probably take some time as I can work for Wikipedia usually only between one research project and the other. And meanwhile I am just in the middle of one again. However thanks for your critique that made me think about myself and my work and its relation to the world outside. Karl Kiem (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As there is no doubt that my contribution to this page was legitimate and appropriate and here no more objections come up it is legitimate to replace the current outdated and messy content of this page by the new version. As it is anyway smart from Wikipedia not to exclude experts from contributing. Or force them to contribute only anonymously. Furthermore the misleading chapter of the city gate in Amsterdam has to be deleted. And the disambiguation "Waag" has to be deleted too because it is not different but only a Dutch language term. And the Dutch know to translate this term. Otherwise: where is the Chinese, Hungarian etc. translation in the disambiguation? Furthermore I promise to reconsider the literature and clean up and restructure the objects in a few days.Karl Kiem (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)