User talk:SlamDiego/Barzilai paradox

This article does not say what the paradox is. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, is there any reliable source actually calling it by this name? The references are very recent and I'm sure Barzilai himself didn't refer to the paradox in this name in his papers. --Zvika (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article while attempting to categorize it. It could use an example and a better explanation of how it fits in to the world. Scarykitty (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Krantz
Zvika—

I understand your point on the Krantz piece. But, on the one hand, he's a heavy hitter in the area of decision theory. On the other hand, the reference section of that article has at least one piece by Barzilai which has certainly not been peer-reviewed (and the other is a work on decision theory that has certainly not been reviewed by decision theorists), while Barzilai himself doesn't have any cred in this area.

My thinking is that the article itself should not be pulled without review, that the references by Barzilai presently need to stay until better references are found or the article is pulled, and that the reference by Krantz not less acceptable than those by Barzilai. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Should the AfD fail, though, this article will need substantial improvement as far as references. --Zvika (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that "not less acceptable" qualifies something as a reliable source. In any case, that seems a bit of an exaggeration.  Whether Barzilai's sources are peer-reviewed or not, they are at least published, or they are conference presentations:  the Krantz piece is just a personal attack listed on his website.  There might be some debate as to whether Barzilai's pieces count, but Krantz's certainly fails WP:RS:  it's sole purpose is to discredit Barzilai, and evinces a personal animus towards him.  As such, I'm removing it.  Also, SlamDiego, you're the one who nominated this page for deletion, one reason being that is it complete BS; wanting unpublished attack pieces to be added to the article does not speak well to the neutrality of your petition.  RJC Talk 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Krantz piece is not just a personal attack. And nothing shows that “Game Theory Foundational Errors” (which was one of only two references in the article when I made my earlier remarks) was a conference presentation either.  Finally, I actively resent the inferences about my motives that you are presenting as a result of your not having attended to what the Krantz paper actually says.  You are completely out-of-line. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I'll take back anything personal that I implied.  The fact stands, however, that this is an unpublished working paper and the sort of personal attack academics routinely make.  Perhaps in some fields, claiming to be embarrassed by someone's logic, accusing them of not having read any of the relevant literature, hoping that their research was a joke played upon readers, and saying that the only contributions the scholar might have made must be extracted from their otherwise incoherent writings would not be considered an attack, but I would hope that decision theory is not one of them.  In any event, it is unpublished, and so fails WP:Reliable sources.  It is inappropriate for it to be listed as a reference in this article.  If some of Barzilai's work has not been published or presented at significant conferences (assuming that conference papers count for something in his field), it too should be removed.  RJC Talk 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has disputed that Krantz has made personal attacks, but Krantz's paper is not just a personal attack. (If we removed all papers in which any personal attacks are made, then this article would be foredoomed regardless of all else, because Barzilai's papers are pervaded by such, and one is hard-put to see how Krantz could refute these attacks without implying personal things about Barzilai.) Now, you and Zvika all agree that, in the long run, this article needs to be backed by “reliable sources” (and only by such). The only question is of what is best in the short run:
 * An article with no references, because there are no “reliable sources”?
 * An article with references that all fail WP:Reliable sources and promote Barzilai's work?
 * An article with the best sources that we can find, even if all of which nonetheless fail WP:Reliable sources?
 * By removing the Krantz paper, and only the Krantz paper, you're de facto choosing option 2, which I think is the very worst option. At the very least, please go through the references and apply WP:Reliable sources consistently. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should wait for the AfD to close before we start removing items that point to the article's significance. I'm not sure the same rule of thumb holds regarding adding items to the article that detract from its significance and worthiness to be an article, however. RJC Talk 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Things can have significance without merit. Krantz's paper arguably points more to the article's significance than do Barzilai's articles.  As I noted above, Krantz is actually a heavy hitter here.  It still really comes down to the three options mentioned above, as described. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unpublished things by heavy hitters are still unpublished. And yes, if the only reliable sources we can find are those that promote Barzilai's position, the article may cite only things that promote his position.  Verifiability states in bold face, "verifiability, not truth."  As to your presentation of three options, I note that #2 is an exaggeration:  some of the sources are published (unlike the Krantz piece), and so a case must be made that they are not reliable sources.  You are currently making that case on the AfD page.  I repeat my recommendation that you not attempt to improve this page while the AfD is still open, especially as you feel that an improvement to the page would be to bring the topic it discusses into disrepute by citing unreliable internet sources. RJC Talk 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * # 2 is not an exaggeration; mere publication does not meet the criteria of WP:Reliable sources. We are not discussing how to choose amongst sources, some of which are “reliable”.  We are talking about what to do in the short-run when all of the sources fail WP:Reliable sources.  You argued that, while the article is under review, some of those failing sources should be tolerated because they indicate signficance; I have noted that the Krantz piece meets your proposed criteria better than do the other failing references.  There is a logical symmetry between the extent to which I “feel that an improvement to the page would be to bring the topic it discusses into disrepute by citing unreliable internet sources” and you feel that the page is best in promoting the topic by citing unreliable sources.  I don't assert that you play Caesar's wife here; and I insist that you stop suggesting that I must yield to those who presume bad faith. (It's not all that much better than your withdrawn implication that I was acting in bad faith.) If we apply any of the general principles that you've stated to the references, then all the unreliable stuff should go immediately, or the Krantz citation should be restored until the references selection has at least one citation that meets WP:Reliable sources (regardless of whether that source is pro or con). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Considering that in all likelihood this article will be deleted in a few days, don't you think you are all wasting your breath? --Zvika (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer to that question hangs on whether an argument here would affect the way that analogous articles were treated. I don't think that the question here is fundamentally unique to this article. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)