User talk:LongTimeObserver

Your recent edits to a Talk page
The issue is that consensus among editors here was that the inclusion of those reliably-sourced facts about the subject's publication record were WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP. This is by no means an aspersion or assumption of bad faith, but I suspect that many of those editors have no personal experience with publishing in the world of academic/industrial scientific research, and by extension they do not recognize the notability, significance, and professional impact of multiple EoC's attached to a principal investigator. It seems to me that many of those editors interpret EoCs as something more like minor editorial suggestions than explicit alarms, despite the EoCs being formally published by the journals, reported by independent, secondary, reliable sources, and included in public clearinghouses like PubMed. In the discussion I linked to above I and a small number of other editors failed to change that majority position. Because Wikipedia operates on the model of consensus, what editors like you and me might think, or believe, or even know about the significance of multiple EoC's is irrelevant. And that's fine, because more times than not - make that many more times than not - consensus is the proper foundation for constructing an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)